By Rev. Jim Rigby
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-06/21rigby.cfm
Whereas American theology was born out of a hope for democracy, much of it is wedded to a picture of Christ as a benevolent dictator. Should we be surprised that a hierarchical cosmology would produce hierarchical churches and nations? Should we be surprised that religious nations that picture Christ as a loving dictator have produced conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders?
What else could they produce? As the tree is, so shall be the fruit. The word "Lord" was not in the original Bible. It is an English word from feudal times. Whereas the Greek word "kurios" had a range of meanings, from a title of respect, to a title of leadership, to a name for the sacred, the English translation "Lord" refers specifically to a male European land baron. Many people have softened that interpretation in their own minds, but in times of great stress, such nuance falls away and many Christians seek a white male king. He may be called "Pope", he may be called "the decider President," he may be called "televangelist," but the title only masks what he is, a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator.
Neither Calvin nor Luther spoke English, but they helped the Popes lay the groundwork for the view of God as a cosmic dictator. From Popes, Luther and Calvin we have some of the ugliest slurs ever recorded against women, intellectuals, and those who refused the church's message. How did Christians hold slaves, oppress women and slaughter nonbelievers? Perhaps they could not see Christ in non-male, non-European, and non-Christian people because they were limited by their theology. Their "Christ" was merely a glorification of the most powerful member of their own culture.
To picture God in terms of power is also one of the great bait and switch gimmicks of all time. People within the power hierarchy proclaim that God is the ultimate authority, and then appoint themselves as God's interpreters and enforcers. They are God's humble bullies. It has been one of the most successful con games of all time.
The real Jesus was born illegitimately. He called himself "the human one." Just like Buddha, his authority came from truth, not power. He taught whoever has love has God. He said those who work for the common good are his church.
The real Jesus was an anarchist. He spent his life refusing to claim power over anyone. He said that God is understood in terms of love not power. We add nothing to the majesty of "the human one" by adding a throne or a crown. If he did not want to rule over others in life, why should he want it in death? That is why Jesus is called "lamb of God," he spoke not as the king of the universe, but from its heart.
If you want to know why Americans are so frightened and why we are attacking anything that would challenge our dominance over others, read the Bible. Like Cain we have murdered members of our human family. Even when we silence our victims, the ground beneath our feet cries out against us.
Today's church lifts its arms to praise Christ wearing liturgical garments woven in sweatshops. So called "Christian America" is still a nation built on the work of slaves. We do not see them because they toil invisibly in other countries. Today's church doles out bits of charity from booty stolen from God's powerless people the world over. Anyone who claims to believe in a just God, or even in justice itself, has to know at some level that the prayers for liberation coming from third world countries will be heard and answered. At some level, people of faith have to know that unless America repents of the sin of empire we are a doomed nation.
Whatever prophetic voices survive in the church must take a message to the mainstream denominations. "We are guilty of our leaders' crimes. Just because we are silent and passive does not mean that we are innocent. If we have any status in the power hierarchy, we are partially responsible for its misdeeds."
I realize that most of the church consists of wonderful and compassionate people, but that does not matter if we turn over our power to those less charitable. The moderate mainstream church is helpless against fundamentalism because it is built on a nuanced version of the same cracked foundation of a theology of power.
Whether or not we can change America in time to avoid a political and ecological apocalypse, it is never too late to do the right thing. All of us can begin to plant seeds of a better future for our children's children. For Christians today, that means suffering the consequences of refusing to bow to the dictator Christ of this culture.
The Rev. Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX, and a longtime activist in movements concerned with gender, racial, and economic justice. This summer he is finishing a book on principles for a New Reformation. Rigby can be reached at jrigby0000@aol.com.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
One Of The Best Commencement Speeches Ever Cut Short...
...by the very forces of official censorship alluded to in the speech
Article Here...
Actual Speech
Four years ago, we gathered here for an education. Today marks a milestone in that pursuit, a culmination of four years of learning, growth and shared memories. At such times, it is appropriate to reflect on years past, to examine what we have done and what we have learned. Today I am charged with that difficult task, and I would like to thank the school for the opportunity to stand before my peers and reflect on our time together.
Education can be defined a number of different ways. For me, it is the product of human curiosity. Intellectual thought, as far as I can tell, is nothing but the asking and answering of questions. In my reflection, however, and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life’s most important questions are ignored here. What is the right way to live? What is the ideal society? What principles should guide my behavior? What is success, what is failure? Is there a creator, and if so, should we look to it for guidance? These are often dismissed as questions of religion, but religion is not something opposed to rationality, it simply seeks to answer such questions through faith. The separation of church and state is, of course, important, but it should never be a reason for intellectual submission or suppression of any kind. Ethics — it is what defines us — as individuals, as a society — and yet it is never discussed, never explained, never justified. Rousseau, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, nearly every major writer I’ve encountered devotes time to the subject. And it’s not as if these questions are without practical concern, that they are less immediately relevant than science for instance. Our laws, our institutions and all our actions are a reflection of our ethics. Our own society owes itself to the writers of the enlightenment, but we never probe their work — we fail to espouse the movement’s central principle, doubt — doubt everything. We study what is, never why, never what should be. For that reason, the education we have received here is not only incomplete, it is entirely hollow.
What’s more, this same lack of focus can be found in many of the subjects we do study. We approach history as though it were a story, endlessly cataloging every major character or event. But the details of that story are insignificant — what is significant is the progression of ideas. A study of history should get some sense of how the society he sees around him developed from those built thousands of years ago, what ideas changed and what changed them. When humanist scholars looked into ancient Rome during the Renaissance, they searched for moral examples, for ideas. They didn’t mull on every single daily event. They were inspired, and they transformed society. History is not an end in itself; it should act as a tool for greater thought.
But it’s not only history. I’ve taken a literature class nearly every year of my life, but never has a question so basic as “What is good writing?” come up. Literary technique, what should be the focus of the class, is never discussed. How does an author develop plot? How can an author control mood or tone in his writing? What is the advantage of one author’s methods over another’s? Such matters are never discussed. We read for the sake of reading, to talk about our interpretations in class as though we were in a book club. But no attention is paid to why we read the books we do, what makes them so special. And this pattern, grade for the sake of a grade, work for the sake of work, can be found everywhere. Ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of intellectual thought is lost. I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble, and certainly not to draw attention to myself. I have accomplished nothing and I am nothing. I know that. Rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls. Today, you should focus on your child or loved one. This is meant to be a day of celebration, and if I’ve taken away from that, I’m sorry. But I know how highly this community values learning, and I urge you all to re-evaluate what it means to be educated. I care deeply about everyone here, and it is only our fulfillment I desire. I will leave now so that the ceremony can go on. Again, my deepest apologies, God help me.
Article Here...
Actual Speech
Four years ago, we gathered here for an education. Today marks a milestone in that pursuit, a culmination of four years of learning, growth and shared memories. At such times, it is appropriate to reflect on years past, to examine what we have done and what we have learned. Today I am charged with that difficult task, and I would like to thank the school for the opportunity to stand before my peers and reflect on our time together.
Education can be defined a number of different ways. For me, it is the product of human curiosity. Intellectual thought, as far as I can tell, is nothing but the asking and answering of questions. In my reflection, however, and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life’s most important questions are ignored here. What is the right way to live? What is the ideal society? What principles should guide my behavior? What is success, what is failure? Is there a creator, and if so, should we look to it for guidance? These are often dismissed as questions of religion, but religion is not something opposed to rationality, it simply seeks to answer such questions through faith. The separation of church and state is, of course, important, but it should never be a reason for intellectual submission or suppression of any kind. Ethics — it is what defines us — as individuals, as a society — and yet it is never discussed, never explained, never justified. Rousseau, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, nearly every major writer I’ve encountered devotes time to the subject. And it’s not as if these questions are without practical concern, that they are less immediately relevant than science for instance. Our laws, our institutions and all our actions are a reflection of our ethics. Our own society owes itself to the writers of the enlightenment, but we never probe their work — we fail to espouse the movement’s central principle, doubt — doubt everything. We study what is, never why, never what should be. For that reason, the education we have received here is not only incomplete, it is entirely hollow.
What’s more, this same lack of focus can be found in many of the subjects we do study. We approach history as though it were a story, endlessly cataloging every major character or event. But the details of that story are insignificant — what is significant is the progression of ideas. A study of history should get some sense of how the society he sees around him developed from those built thousands of years ago, what ideas changed and what changed them. When humanist scholars looked into ancient Rome during the Renaissance, they searched for moral examples, for ideas. They didn’t mull on every single daily event. They were inspired, and they transformed society. History is not an end in itself; it should act as a tool for greater thought.
But it’s not only history. I’ve taken a literature class nearly every year of my life, but never has a question so basic as “What is good writing?” come up. Literary technique, what should be the focus of the class, is never discussed. How does an author develop plot? How can an author control mood or tone in his writing? What is the advantage of one author’s methods over another’s? Such matters are never discussed. We read for the sake of reading, to talk about our interpretations in class as though we were in a book club. But no attention is paid to why we read the books we do, what makes them so special. And this pattern, grade for the sake of a grade, work for the sake of work, can be found everywhere. Ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of intellectual thought is lost. I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble, and certainly not to draw attention to myself. I have accomplished nothing and I am nothing. I know that. Rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls. Today, you should focus on your child or loved one. This is meant to be a day of celebration, and if I’ve taken away from that, I’m sorry. But I know how highly this community values learning, and I urge you all to re-evaluate what it means to be educated. I care deeply about everyone here, and it is only our fulfillment I desire. I will leave now so that the ceremony can go on. Again, my deepest apologies, God help me.
Tax dollars to fund study on restricting public data
Updated 7/5/2006 11:27 PM ET
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.
Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously available information, such as site plans of power plants, beyond the reach of public inquiries.
Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will use that research to produce a national "model statute" that state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the bad guys."
"There's the public's right to know, but how much?" said Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army's Special Forces.
"There's a strong feeling that the law needs to balance that with the need to protect the well-being of the nation. ... There's too much stuff that's easy to get that shouldn't be," he said.
The federal Freedom of Information Act, which became law 40 years ago this week, has long been a source of tension between the government and the public and news media.
Critics say the research plan overstates the need for secrecy and is likely to give state and federal governments too much discretion to withhold material. "Restricting information (for) security and efficiency and comfort level, that's the good story," says Paul McMasters, a specialist in public information law at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. "The bad story is that it can also be a great instrument of control. ... To automatically believe that the less known the better is really not rational."
Congress added the grant to this year's Defense Department budget. It is being administered through the Air Force Research Laboratory, Addicott said. The laboratory in Rome, N.Y., specializes in information technology, according to its website.
The Freedom of Information Act was signed July 4, 1966. All 50 states and the federal government have "sunshine laws" that allow reporters and citizens access to many government meetings and to government records through freedom-of-information requests.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:Signed documents by President Johnson (.pdf files)
In the past four years, Congress, the District of Columbia and 41 of the 50 states have moved to close some meetings and restrict records for fear of making information available to terrorists, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va.
Under a 2002 law, for instance, information submitted to the federal government by private industry that concerns "critical infrastructure programs" is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests or use in lawsuits.
Since 2004, Virginia has withheld terrorism response plans, as well as engineering and architectural drawings of government buildings that are deemed to be possible terrorist targets. Since 2004, Ohio has required formal requests and fees to access formerly open birth and death records.
Addicott says the various state plans should "take a more uniform approach" so that neighboring states and the federal government are "on the same page."
In 2003, he said, a simulated cyberattack on San Antonio's water and government information systems showed that computer security data that was protected under federal law could have been accessed by terrorists under Texas legislation.
Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says the research program is in keeping with a recent federal trend to use "homeland security" as an excuse to restrict unrelated material.
"Decisions (on requests for public information) are being handled in progressively less friendly ways," she said.
Addicott said he knows of no cases in this country in which public records or a public meeting were used for a terrorist act. In 2002, a hacker in Australia breached the data control system of a water treatment plant and caused 260,000 gallons of sewage to be discharged.
"We're leaning forward in the saddle (and) thinking about this before it happens," he said.
Article Here...
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.
Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously available information, such as site plans of power plants, beyond the reach of public inquiries.
Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will use that research to produce a national "model statute" that state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the bad guys."
"There's the public's right to know, but how much?" said Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army's Special Forces.
"There's a strong feeling that the law needs to balance that with the need to protect the well-being of the nation. ... There's too much stuff that's easy to get that shouldn't be," he said.
The federal Freedom of Information Act, which became law 40 years ago this week, has long been a source of tension between the government and the public and news media.
Critics say the research plan overstates the need for secrecy and is likely to give state and federal governments too much discretion to withhold material. "Restricting information (for) security and efficiency and comfort level, that's the good story," says Paul McMasters, a specialist in public information law at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. "The bad story is that it can also be a great instrument of control. ... To automatically believe that the less known the better is really not rational."
Congress added the grant to this year's Defense Department budget. It is being administered through the Air Force Research Laboratory, Addicott said. The laboratory in Rome, N.Y., specializes in information technology, according to its website.
The Freedom of Information Act was signed July 4, 1966. All 50 states and the federal government have "sunshine laws" that allow reporters and citizens access to many government meetings and to government records through freedom-of-information requests.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:Signed documents by President Johnson (.pdf files)
In the past four years, Congress, the District of Columbia and 41 of the 50 states have moved to close some meetings and restrict records for fear of making information available to terrorists, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va.
Under a 2002 law, for instance, information submitted to the federal government by private industry that concerns "critical infrastructure programs" is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests or use in lawsuits.
Since 2004, Virginia has withheld terrorism response plans, as well as engineering and architectural drawings of government buildings that are deemed to be possible terrorist targets. Since 2004, Ohio has required formal requests and fees to access formerly open birth and death records.
Addicott says the various state plans should "take a more uniform approach" so that neighboring states and the federal government are "on the same page."
In 2003, he said, a simulated cyberattack on San Antonio's water and government information systems showed that computer security data that was protected under federal law could have been accessed by terrorists under Texas legislation.
Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says the research program is in keeping with a recent federal trend to use "homeland security" as an excuse to restrict unrelated material.
"Decisions (on requests for public information) are being handled in progressively less friendly ways," she said.
Addicott said he knows of no cases in this country in which public records or a public meeting were used for a terrorist act. In 2002, a hacker in Australia breached the data control system of a water treatment plant and caused 260,000 gallons of sewage to be discharged.
"We're leaning forward in the saddle (and) thinking about this before it happens," he said.
Article Here...
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Veteran Arrested At V.A. Hospital For Wearing A Peace T-Shirt.
MIKE FERNER, COUNTERPUNCH
Yesterday afternoon, drinking a cup of coffee while sitting in the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center on Chicago's south side, a Veterans Administration cop walked up to me and said, "OK, you've had your 15 minutes, it's time to go."
"Huh?", I asked intelligently, not quite sure what he was talking about.
"You can't be in here protesting," Officer Adkins said, pointing to my Veterans For Peace shirt.
"Well, I'm not protesting, I'm having a cup of coffee," I returned, thinking that logic would convince Adkins to go back to his earlier duties of guarding against serious terrorists.
Flipping his badge open, he said, "No, not with that shirt. You're protesting and you have to go."
Beginning to get his drift, I said firmly, "Not before I finish my coffee."
He insisted that I leave, but still not quite believing my ears, I tried one more approach to reason.
"Hey, listen. I'm a veteran. This is a V.A. facility. I'm sitting here not talking to anybody, having a cup of coffee. I'm not protesting and you can't kick me out."
"You'll either go or we'll arrest you," Adkins threatened.
"Well, you'll just have to arrest me," I said, wondering what strange land I was now living in.
You know the rest. Handcuffed, led away to the facility's security office past people with surprised looks on their faces, read my rights, searched, and written up. . .
http://www.counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html
Yesterday afternoon, drinking a cup of coffee while sitting in the Jesse Brown V.A. Medical Center on Chicago's south side, a Veterans Administration cop walked up to me and said, "OK, you've had your 15 minutes, it's time to go."
"Huh?", I asked intelligently, not quite sure what he was talking about.
"You can't be in here protesting," Officer Adkins said, pointing to my Veterans For Peace shirt.
"Well, I'm not protesting, I'm having a cup of coffee," I returned, thinking that logic would convince Adkins to go back to his earlier duties of guarding against serious terrorists.
Flipping his badge open, he said, "No, not with that shirt. You're protesting and you have to go."
Beginning to get his drift, I said firmly, "Not before I finish my coffee."
He insisted that I leave, but still not quite believing my ears, I tried one more approach to reason.
"Hey, listen. I'm a veteran. This is a V.A. facility. I'm sitting here not talking to anybody, having a cup of coffee. I'm not protesting and you can't kick me out."
"You'll either go or we'll arrest you," Adkins threatened.
"Well, you'll just have to arrest me," I said, wondering what strange land I was now living in.
You know the rest. Handcuffed, led away to the facility's security office past people with surprised looks on their faces, read my rights, searched, and written up. . .
http://www.counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Monday, July 03, 2006
Jamie's Crying (satire for 70's rock aficionados)
LOS ANGELES—According to local authorities, Jamie, 17, is crying, reportedly over a post-coital rejection by rock star David Lee Roth. "Although Jamie would feel better if she wrote David a letter, she is crying," said former Van Halen manager Eddie Arnesen. Though sources say Jamie has been in love before, and that she knows what love is for, in this case it was a mere one-night stand, and love should be more than that. Arnesen added that despite the fact that when Roth and Jamie parted, the long-haired, vinyl-clad rocker said, "Gimme a call some time," Jamie knows what that will get her.
THE HEAD OF WHOLE FOODS ISN'T WHAT YOU THINK
CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER - Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies. . . They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct thing to do. They probably believe that the President and CEO of Whole Foods is a liberal like themselves. . .
John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies. Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero. He's a devotee of Ayn Rand. He's opposed to national health insurance. He's a union buster. And he has recently endorsed a book published by the libertarian Cato Institute whose author concludes that no corporation should ever be prosecuted for crimes – no matter the corporation, no matter the crime
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/wholefoods062806.htm
John Mackey is instead a libertarian with right-wing tendencies. Mackey says that Milton Friedman is his hero. He's a devotee of Ayn Rand. He's opposed to national health insurance. He's a union buster. And he has recently endorsed a book published by the libertarian Cato Institute whose author concludes that no corporation should ever be prosecuted for crimes – no matter the corporation, no matter the crime
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/wholefoods062806.htm
HOW THE TELECOMS PLAN TO KILL THE INTERNET
MICHAEL WEISMAN, SEATTLE TIMES - Living in the Silicon Forest, we've come to take certain things for granted. Our tech startups and venture-capital firms have learned to assume that Internet and telecom networks will be a platform for innovation open to anyone who can pay the freight for success. Workers have come to rely on fast and plentiful Internet access open to any type of device or application. Major retailers like Amazon, REI, Powell's Books and PC Connections have come to rely on the Internet as a route into the living rooms of customers all over the world.
Under Stevens' bill, all that will change. The telecoms will be able to split Internet access into premium lanes, segregating access to customers based on the content, origin and purpose of the data or bits. Amazon will have to pay the network operator for access to customers, finally legitimating the dream of telecom executives to tax the eyeblinks of every user. Apple will have to pay the networks to allow its customers to download iTunes music and video. If it chooses, the network can simply block iTunes music or Amazon book purchases, redirecting customers to another service the network operator prefers. In fact, there is no guarantee that Internet access, as we know it today, will continue to exist at all.
The thousands of startup visionaries living in the Northwest might want to find their passports, because creating new business models in the U.S. will become much more complicated, and expensive. In the rest of the developed world, it won't be a problem, because every developed country has a strong network-neutrality law in place, extending not just to the Internet, but also to mobile networks, cable TV and television. Stevens' bill puts the U.S. out of step with the rest of world, a world that is fast passing us in productivity, the knowledge economy and broadband connectivity. . .
The telecom and cable duopoly will find its respective monopolies enshrined in the law, with no obligation to play fairly with new entrants to the market (there can't be any under Stevens' bill), no requirement to carry traffic for "freeloaders" like YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Real Networks or MSN, and no fear of future entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin or Craig McCaw horning in on the action. . .
Every other major developed country has strong network-neutrality laws in place, far stronger than anything the Congress is considering in any of the many amendments to Stevens' bill.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003092244_telecom29.html
Under Stevens' bill, all that will change. The telecoms will be able to split Internet access into premium lanes, segregating access to customers based on the content, origin and purpose of the data or bits. Amazon will have to pay the network operator for access to customers, finally legitimating the dream of telecom executives to tax the eyeblinks of every user. Apple will have to pay the networks to allow its customers to download iTunes music and video. If it chooses, the network can simply block iTunes music or Amazon book purchases, redirecting customers to another service the network operator prefers. In fact, there is no guarantee that Internet access, as we know it today, will continue to exist at all.
The thousands of startup visionaries living in the Northwest might want to find their passports, because creating new business models in the U.S. will become much more complicated, and expensive. In the rest of the developed world, it won't be a problem, because every developed country has a strong network-neutrality law in place, extending not just to the Internet, but also to mobile networks, cable TV and television. Stevens' bill puts the U.S. out of step with the rest of world, a world that is fast passing us in productivity, the knowledge economy and broadband connectivity. . .
The telecom and cable duopoly will find its respective monopolies enshrined in the law, with no obligation to play fairly with new entrants to the market (there can't be any under Stevens' bill), no requirement to carry traffic for "freeloaders" like YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Real Networks or MSN, and no fear of future entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin or Craig McCaw horning in on the action. . .
Every other major developed country has strong network-neutrality laws in place, far stronger than anything the Congress is considering in any of the many amendments to Stevens' bill.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003092244_telecom29.html
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Media Literacy 101
In the mainstream and even select alternative media, Israeli forces “arrest” or “detain” unarmed Palestinian civilians and hold them as “prisoners,” whereas Palestinians “abduct” and “kidnap” armed Israeli soldiers and hold them as “hostages.”
--Brian Dominick, NewStandard
No bias there, right? Of course not!--Pete
--Brian Dominick, NewStandard
No bias there, right? Of course not!--Pete
SUPREME COURT RULES MONEY IS SPEECH IN ELECTIONS
[Whether the same principle applies to paying a hooker or bribing a cop remains undecided--Sam Smith, Undernews]
NEIL A. LEWIS, NY TIMES - The Supreme Court ruled today that a Vermont law restricting campaign donations and expenditures was unconstitutional. The court said that the law's limits on how much a candidate could spend violated a landmark 30-year-old ruling equating such spending with free speech and that its limits on donations to a campaign were far too stringent. . . The justices said that some limits on donations were constitutional as part of an effort to control the influence of money in politics. But the court said that the money a candidate spent in an election was equivalent to free speech and any limit on that would be an unconstitutional infringement on that right.
NYT Article...
NEIL A. LEWIS, NY TIMES - The Supreme Court ruled today that a Vermont law restricting campaign donations and expenditures was unconstitutional. The court said that the law's limits on how much a candidate could spend violated a landmark 30-year-old ruling equating such spending with free speech and that its limits on donations to a campaign were far too stringent. . . The justices said that some limits on donations were constitutional as part of an effort to control the influence of money in politics. But the court said that the money a candidate spent in an election was equivalent to free speech and any limit on that would be an unconstitutional infringement on that right.
NYT Article...
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Miami bomb plot suspects 'entrapped,' lawyers say
Reuters Article...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven men charged with conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami were entrapped by a federal informant, lawyers for two of the suspects said on Monday.
An indictment issued last week accused the men of pledging loyalty to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and seeking the group's support to "wage war" against the U.S. government.
The person they thought was an al Qaeda representative was actually an FBI informant, U.S. Justice Department officials said.
Albert Levin, the court-appointed attorney for suspect Patrick Abraham, said he believes his client was ensnared by the informant.
There was "a lot of talking going on by the informant and more listening by the defendant and or the defendants," Levin told Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly.
Nathan Clarke, a lawyer for another suspect Rotschild Augustine, agreed.
"With respect to my client, from what I can read in the indictment, there's going to be a question of whether there's even sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof on conviction," Clarke said.
"If by any chance there's a scintilla of that then, of course, there's going to be the entrapment issue," he said.
"This thing took place over eight months, according to the indictment and at the end of the indictment, it says that this thing became disorganized and nobody had ever done anything or did anything," Clarke said.
Abraham, Augustine and three other men arrested on Thursday in Miami appeared briefly in a magistrate's court on Friday.
Another suspect arrested in Atlanta made his initial court appearance there on Friday. The seventh suspect, arrested in the Miami area earlier last week on a probation violation, was scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven men charged with conspiring to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami were entrapped by a federal informant, lawyers for two of the suspects said on Monday.
An indictment issued last week accused the men of pledging loyalty to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and seeking the group's support to "wage war" against the U.S. government.
The person they thought was an al Qaeda representative was actually an FBI informant, U.S. Justice Department officials said.
Albert Levin, the court-appointed attorney for suspect Patrick Abraham, said he believes his client was ensnared by the informant.
There was "a lot of talking going on by the informant and more listening by the defendant and or the defendants," Levin told Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly.
Nathan Clarke, a lawyer for another suspect Rotschild Augustine, agreed.
"With respect to my client, from what I can read in the indictment, there's going to be a question of whether there's even sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof on conviction," Clarke said.
"If by any chance there's a scintilla of that then, of course, there's going to be the entrapment issue," he said.
"This thing took place over eight months, according to the indictment and at the end of the indictment, it says that this thing became disorganized and nobody had ever done anything or did anything," Clarke said.
Abraham, Augustine and three other men arrested on Thursday in Miami appeared briefly in a magistrate's court on Friday.
Another suspect arrested in Atlanta made his initial court appearance there on Friday. The seventh suspect, arrested in the Miami area earlier last week on a probation violation, was scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Labor News - Nurses file wage-suppression lawsuits
In an action designed to draw attention to the chronic shortage of nurses across the nation, a Washington, DC law firm last week filed four class-action suits alleging that hospitals in four cities are illegally colluding to drive down wages.
The suits, filed in Chicago, San Antonio, Albany, and Memphis, accuse hospital administrators of agreeing not to compete with one another over nurse wages.
In 2001, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the number of registered nurses had been declining for several years and noted that a near-flat growth in wages was one of many factors contributing to the decline. Median salaries for RNs have been at or below the change-rate of the consumer price index since the early 1990s, the GAO noted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average annual income for registered nurses in 2004 was $52,330.
The suits, filed in Chicago, San Antonio, Albany, and Memphis, accuse hospital administrators of agreeing not to compete with one another over nurse wages.
In 2001, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the number of registered nurses had been declining for several years and noted that a near-flat growth in wages was one of many factors contributing to the decline. Median salaries for RNs have been at or below the change-rate of the consumer price index since the early 1990s, the GAO noted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average annual income for registered nurses in 2004 was $52,330.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
AL JAZEERA REPORTERS HARASSED BY U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT
The fifth paragraph is the kicker.--Pete
JOANNE LEVINE, WASHINGTON POST - A team of reporters I supervise went to shoot a story about the Great Plains emptying out. When the sheriff of Crosby, a town near the Canadian border, heard about it, he contacted the U.S. Border Patrol. An agent soon showed up at the local newspaper, asking for the journalists' names. Other agents asked whether they "seemed like U.S. citizens." The journalists are Peggy Holter, Josh Rushing and Mark Teboe. They are all experienced reporters, and they are all U.S. citizens. So what was it that raised officials' antennae? The channel they work for: al-Jazeera. . .
Take Border Patrol Assistant Chief Lonnie Schweitzer, who questioned the legitimacy of our reporters' presence in Crosby. "It's al-Jazeera," he told the local newspaper. "What is the interest of an Arab news organization in Crosby, North Dakota?". . .
Several employees I know believe they have suffered consequences for joining the network -- one was dropped by an adoption agency she once used and another had two rental applications rejected after naming her employer. . .
Perhaps most significant, scores of people refuse to be interviewed by our reporters. On numerous stories, I have approached people who know me from my past jobs. They will talk to me on the phone, but they refuse to appear on camera, saying they can't be seen on al-Jazeera. I have heard this too often -- from officials in government and Congress as well as from other people in the
media. . .
What many Americans also don't know is that, before Sept. 11, 2001, al-Jazeera was lauded and applauded by the Bush administration for [its] fearless attitude toward the dictatorships of the Middle East. High-ranking administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, made frequent appearances on the network.
After 9/11 -- and especially after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- tensions between the West and the Middle East escalated, and al-Jazeera's reporting often angered Americans. The network showed civilian casualties caused by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also showed images of U.S. troops taken hostage in Iraq. It broadcast pictures of Iraqis celebrating over a downed U.S. aircraft. When four U.S. contractors were killed in Fallujah in March 2004 and their burned and mutilated bodies were hung from a bridge, al-Jazeera put it on TV.
The White House now takes every opportunity to demonize the network's editorial choices. . .
Each incident shrouded in bigotry has served to convince me ever more that the United States needs an outlet like al-Jazeera International, offering a wider panorama of views. These are dangerous times
WaPo Article here...
JOANNE LEVINE, WASHINGTON POST - A team of reporters I supervise went to shoot a story about the Great Plains emptying out. When the sheriff of Crosby, a town near the Canadian border, heard about it, he contacted the U.S. Border Patrol. An agent soon showed up at the local newspaper, asking for the journalists' names. Other agents asked whether they "seemed like U.S. citizens." The journalists are Peggy Holter, Josh Rushing and Mark Teboe. They are all experienced reporters, and they are all U.S. citizens. So what was it that raised officials' antennae? The channel they work for: al-Jazeera. . .
Take Border Patrol Assistant Chief Lonnie Schweitzer, who questioned the legitimacy of our reporters' presence in Crosby. "It's al-Jazeera," he told the local newspaper. "What is the interest of an Arab news organization in Crosby, North Dakota?". . .
Several employees I know believe they have suffered consequences for joining the network -- one was dropped by an adoption agency she once used and another had two rental applications rejected after naming her employer. . .
Perhaps most significant, scores of people refuse to be interviewed by our reporters. On numerous stories, I have approached people who know me from my past jobs. They will talk to me on the phone, but they refuse to appear on camera, saying they can't be seen on al-Jazeera. I have heard this too often -- from officials in government and Congress as well as from other people in the
media. . .
What many Americans also don't know is that, before Sept. 11, 2001, al-Jazeera was lauded and applauded by the Bush administration for [its] fearless attitude toward the dictatorships of the Middle East. High-ranking administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, made frequent appearances on the network.
After 9/11 -- and especially after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- tensions between the West and the Middle East escalated, and al-Jazeera's reporting often angered Americans. The network showed civilian casualties caused by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also showed images of U.S. troops taken hostage in Iraq. It broadcast pictures of Iraqis celebrating over a downed U.S. aircraft. When four U.S. contractors were killed in Fallujah in March 2004 and their burned and mutilated bodies were hung from a bridge, al-Jazeera put it on TV.
The White House now takes every opportunity to demonize the network's editorial choices. . .
Each incident shrouded in bigotry has served to convince me ever more that the United States needs an outlet like al-Jazeera International, offering a wider panorama of views. These are dangerous times
WaPo Article here...
BUSH REGIME KICKS ALL MEDIA OUT OF GITMO - EXCEPT FOR FOX!
How surprising...--Pete
THINK PROGRESS - Last week, the Pentagon shut down access entirely to the Guantanamo Bay prison after the suicide deaths of three detainees. Journalists covering the suicides had their clearances revoked and were immediately flown back to the United States, and regular visits between detainees and their lawyers were cancelled. Human rights groups protested: "The Bush Administration is afraid of American reporters, afraid of American attorneys and afraid of American laws."
Afraid of American journalists, that is, as long as they're not from Fox. This morning, Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano described how the Defense Department had personally invited him on a trip to Guantanamo on Wednesday:
NAPOLITANO: I was doing my radio show with Brian Kilmeade the other day and I get an email from the Defense Department saying, "We have an extra seat on a flight down to Guantanamo, would you like to come?" So, of course, I cleared it all — I cleared it here with our superiors. …
HOST: What'd you see?
NAPOLITANO: Well, we saw everything. . . We saw all six camps. . . We had FBI interviews, I actually sat down and examined the evidence they're going to use at trial with prosecutors. It was very detailed.
HOST: That was some kind of access.
NAPOLITANO: It was. It was great.
Napolitano offered his fair and balanced review of conditions at the prison: among other glowing reviews, he claimed it is "now gentle, almost child-like the way they treat the detainees."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/23/fox-gitmo/
THINK PROGRESS - Last week, the Pentagon shut down access entirely to the Guantanamo Bay prison after the suicide deaths of three detainees. Journalists covering the suicides had their clearances revoked and were immediately flown back to the United States, and regular visits between detainees and their lawyers were cancelled. Human rights groups protested: "The Bush Administration is afraid of American reporters, afraid of American attorneys and afraid of American laws."
Afraid of American journalists, that is, as long as they're not from Fox. This morning, Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano described how the Defense Department had personally invited him on a trip to Guantanamo on Wednesday:
NAPOLITANO: I was doing my radio show with Brian Kilmeade the other day and I get an email from the Defense Department saying, "We have an extra seat on a flight down to Guantanamo, would you like to come?" So, of course, I cleared it all — I cleared it here with our superiors. …
HOST: What'd you see?
NAPOLITANO: Well, we saw everything. . . We saw all six camps. . . We had FBI interviews, I actually sat down and examined the evidence they're going to use at trial with prosecutors. It was very detailed.
HOST: That was some kind of access.
NAPOLITANO: It was. It was great.
Napolitano offered his fair and balanced review of conditions at the prison: among other glowing reviews, he claimed it is "now gentle, almost child-like the way they treat the detainees."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/23/fox-gitmo/
TERROR PLOT COMPLETELY OVERBLOWN BY REGIME, MEDIA
JOHN O'NEIL - The Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director said today that a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago by seven Miami men now facing federal conspiracy charges was "more aspirational than operational," but illustrated the threat posed by small groups without connections to international terror networks. . . "These are members of a homegrown terrorist cell," said John S. Pistole, the F.B.I.'s deputy director. "Their goal was simple: to accomplish attacks against America.". . . Mr. Pistole said the group had no actual connection to Al Qaeda. And beyond the oath, the only other overt act described in the indictment was taking video footage of the F.B.I. office in Miami. (Italics mine - Pete)
NYT Article Here... (semiotics analysis advised)
And Furthermore...
When U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the group "posed no immediate threat," you wonder what the yelping is all about, if not to stir the media and bolster the watchdog successes of the FBI, INS, and homeland security. Or, much more alarming, the further scape-goating and criminalization of African American youth. . .
Herb Boyd, Black World Today
NYT Article Here... (semiotics analysis advised)
And Furthermore...
When U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the group "posed no immediate threat," you wonder what the yelping is all about, if not to stir the media and bolster the watchdog successes of the FBI, INS, and homeland security. Or, much more alarming, the further scape-goating and criminalization of African American youth. . .
Herb Boyd, Black World Today
Monday, June 26, 2006
The People's Path to Impeachment
By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet
Posted on June 26, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38042/
On June 6, Jim Bronke of Concord, Penn., addressed the Concord Township board of supervisors:
Bronke requested that the board consider a motion to request an impeachment inquiry of the president of the United States. When a board supervisor told Bronke that the only path to impeachment was through U.S. senators and representatives, Bronke corrected the supervisor, stating that "there are multiple paths toward impeachment, this is another."
Bronke was absolutely right.
The Concord board is hardly national news. But taken in conjunction with the staggering number of state legislatures and city and town councils across the country that have passed impeachment resolutions, the lack of coverage of the movement is a conspicuous absence in mainstream media.
Illinois, Vermont and California state legislatures have impeachment resolutions pending. The Democratic parties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii have all passed resolutions. Then there are the 18 city and town councils that have passed resolutions, with seven more resolutions (including Concord) pending, to say nothing of the 27 local political groups and parties across the country that have adopted impeachment resolutions.
The broad sweep is not surprising as the evidence is well-documented: President George W. Bush lied to Congress and the American people in order to lead the country into war, and continues to conduct illegal wiretaps, sanction torture and violate the separation of powers by picking and choosing congressional legislation.
Despite the clear case, impeachment has become a taboo word in D.C. politics. A chasm has emerged between high-level politicians too afraid to push for accountability, the media that seeks the "news" that comes from these politicians and their circles, and the American public they are supposed to be serving.
In a recent Zogby poll, Americans were asked what would restore their trust in government and the No. 1 reply was "personnel changes/impeachment." As David Swanson of impeachpac.org notes, polls by Ipsos, Zogby and American Research Group have found support between 43 percent and 53 percent. And if it's Democrats, the numbers shoot up to 80-90 percent, with a consistent majority of Independents supporting impeachment.
Swanson says, "For impeachment to have anything close to majority support despite opposition by both political parties and almost no positive coverage in the media is remarkable."
Dennis Loy Johnson of Melville House Publishing is intimately familiar with the divide between Americans and the political representatives and media who are supposed to represent them. Johnson worked with lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) to create the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush -- a concise reader that makes the legal case for impeachment. Says Johnson, "We've had more than one friendly mainstream journalist tell us they pitched a story to their editor and were told, 'Don't even go there.'"
Despite the media blackout, people from every state in the union have participated in the Melville House campaign, sending copies of the book to their representatives. Johnson notes that they have heard from groups as varied as Veterans for Peace, Goldstar Families and Republicans for Impeachment. "A lot of people were paying more attention in civics class than you think," he quips.
Teaming up again, Melville House and CCR have arranged a National Impeachment Teach-In launching on July 19 with events around the country. Centered on a 30-minute DVD, "How to Impeach a President," materials are being made available online, providing the information and tools to reclaim political power. It's telling that the constitutional lawyers at CCR are appealing to the public -- attesting to the fact that holding this administration legally accountable will not happen without public support.
As CCR lawyer Michael Ratner says in the film, "This is not going to happen in a court. It's going to happen when the people of the United States say to their members of Congress, we've had enough."
But what of the political likelihood? Johnson thinks it's a "winnable fight." He says,
Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a former assistant editor of AlterNet.
Posted on June 26, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38042/
On June 6, Jim Bronke of Concord, Penn., addressed the Concord Township board of supervisors:
Township supervisors and friends, I come here today not as a Republican or as a Democrat but as an American citizen concerned for our way of life. I hope that you can view this package not as a political statement but as a plan for the future … Rules of the House of Representatives explicitly allow state and city legislatures to introduce resolutions. Our First Amendment guarantees any citizen, city, or state "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is what I ask you to do with this motion.
Bronke requested that the board consider a motion to request an impeachment inquiry of the president of the United States. When a board supervisor told Bronke that the only path to impeachment was through U.S. senators and representatives, Bronke corrected the supervisor, stating that "there are multiple paths toward impeachment, this is another."
Bronke was absolutely right.
The Concord board is hardly national news. But taken in conjunction with the staggering number of state legislatures and city and town councils across the country that have passed impeachment resolutions, the lack of coverage of the movement is a conspicuous absence in mainstream media.
Illinois, Vermont and California state legislatures have impeachment resolutions pending. The Democratic parties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii have all passed resolutions. Then there are the 18 city and town councils that have passed resolutions, with seven more resolutions (including Concord) pending, to say nothing of the 27 local political groups and parties across the country that have adopted impeachment resolutions.
The broad sweep is not surprising as the evidence is well-documented: President George W. Bush lied to Congress and the American people in order to lead the country into war, and continues to conduct illegal wiretaps, sanction torture and violate the separation of powers by picking and choosing congressional legislation.
Despite the clear case, impeachment has become a taboo word in D.C. politics. A chasm has emerged between high-level politicians too afraid to push for accountability, the media that seeks the "news" that comes from these politicians and their circles, and the American public they are supposed to be serving.
In a recent Zogby poll, Americans were asked what would restore their trust in government and the No. 1 reply was "personnel changes/impeachment." As David Swanson of impeachpac.org notes, polls by Ipsos, Zogby and American Research Group have found support between 43 percent and 53 percent. And if it's Democrats, the numbers shoot up to 80-90 percent, with a consistent majority of Independents supporting impeachment.
Swanson says, "For impeachment to have anything close to majority support despite opposition by both political parties and almost no positive coverage in the media is remarkable."
Dennis Loy Johnson of Melville House Publishing is intimately familiar with the divide between Americans and the political representatives and media who are supposed to represent them. Johnson worked with lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) to create the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush -- a concise reader that makes the legal case for impeachment. Says Johnson, "We've had more than one friendly mainstream journalist tell us they pitched a story to their editor and were told, 'Don't even go there.'"
Despite the media blackout, people from every state in the union have participated in the Melville House campaign, sending copies of the book to their representatives. Johnson notes that they have heard from groups as varied as Veterans for Peace, Goldstar Families and Republicans for Impeachment. "A lot of people were paying more attention in civics class than you think," he quips.
Teaming up again, Melville House and CCR have arranged a National Impeachment Teach-In launching on July 19 with events around the country. Centered on a 30-minute DVD, "How to Impeach a President," materials are being made available online, providing the information and tools to reclaim political power. It's telling that the constitutional lawyers at CCR are appealing to the public -- attesting to the fact that holding this administration legally accountable will not happen without public support.
As CCR lawyer Michael Ratner says in the film, "This is not going to happen in a court. It's going to happen when the people of the United States say to their members of Congress, we've had enough."
But what of the political likelihood? Johnson thinks it's a "winnable fight." He says,
This is not about party politics. It's about the very real damage being done to the constitutional separation of powers by this administration. This is a grassroots movement that represents American democracy at its best -- people from all walks of life trying to work with their government to enact the corrective measures put into the Constitution by the founding fathers for exactly this purpose.
Onnesha Roychoudhuri is a former assistant editor of AlterNet.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Behind the "Delay" in Renewing Law is Scheme for Theft
by Greg Palast
For The Guardian
June 23, 2006
[New York] Don't kid yourself. The Republican Party's decision yesterday to "delay" the renewal of the Voting Rights Act has not a darn thing to do with objections of the Republican's White Sheets Caucus.
Complaints by a couple of Good Ol' Boys to legislation has never stopped the GOP leadership from rolling over dissenters.
This is a strategic stall — meant to de-criminalize the Republican Party's new game of challenging voters of color by the hundreds of thousands.
In the 2004 Presidential race, the GOP ran a massive multi-state, multi-million-dollar operation to challenge the legitimacy of Black, Hispanic and Native-American voters. The methods used broke the law -- the Voting Rights Act. And while the Bush Administration's Civil Rights Division grinned and looked the other way, civil rights lawyers are circling, preparing to sue to stop the violations of the Act before the 2008 race.
Therefore, Republicans have promised to no longer break the law -- not by going legit but by eliminating the law.
The Act was passed in 1965 after the Ku Klux Klan and other upright citizens found they could use procedural tricks -- "literacy tests," poll taxes and more -- to block citizens of color from casting ballots.
De-criminalizing the "caging" lists
Here's what happened in '04 -- and what's in store for '08.
In the 2004 election, over THREE MILLION voters were challenged at the polls. No one had seen anything like it since the era of Jim Crow and burning crosses. In 2004, voters were told their registrations had been purged or that their addresses were "suspect."
Denied the right to the regular voting booths, these challenged voters were given "provisional" ballots. Over a million of these provisional ballots (1,090,729 of them) were tossed in the electoral dumpster uncounted.
Funny thing about those ballots. About 88% were cast by minority voters.
This isn't a number dropped on me from a black helicopter. They come from the raw data of the US Election Assistance Commission in Washington, DC.
At the heart of the GOP's mass challenge of voters were what the party's top brass called, "caging lists" -- secret files of hundreds of thousands of voters, almost every one from a Black-majority voting precinct.
When our investigations team, working for BBC TV, got our hands on these confidential files in October 2004, the Republicans told us the voters listed were their potential "donors." Really? The sheets included pages of men from homeless shelters in Florida.
Donor lists, my ass. Every expert told us, these were "challenge lists," meant to stop these Black voters from casting ballots.
When these "caged" voters arrived at the polls in November 2004, they found their registrations missing, their right to vote blocked or their absentee ballots rejected because their addresses were supposedly "fraudulent."
Why didn't the GOP honchos 'fess up to challenging these allegedly illegal voters? Because targeting voters of color is AGAINST THE LAW. The law in question is the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Act says you can't go after groups of voters if you choose your targets based on race. Given that almost all the voters on the GOP hit list are Black, the illegal racial profiling is beyond even Karl Rove's ability to come up with an alibi.
The Republicans target Black folk not because they don't like the color of their skin. They don't like the color of their vote: Democrat. For that reason, the GOP included on its hit list Jewish retirement homes in Florida. Apparently, the GOP was also gunning for the Elderly of Zion.
These so-called "fraudulent" voters, in fact, were not fraudulent at all. Page after page, as we've previously reported, are Black soldiers sent overseas. The Bush campaign used their absence from their US homes to accuse them of voting from false addresses.
Now that the GOP has been caught breaking the Voting Rights law, they have found a way to keep using their expensively obtained "caging" lists: let the law expire next year. If the Voting Rights Act dies in 2007, the 2008 race will be open season on dark-skinned voters. Only the renewal of the Voting Rights Act can prevent the planned racial wrecking of democracy.
"Pre-clearance" and the Great Blackout of 2000
Before the 2000 presidential balloting, then Jeb Bush's Secretary of State purged thousands of Black citizens' registrations on the grounds that they were "felons" not entitled to vote. Our review of the files determined that the crimes of most on the list was nothing more than VWB -- Voting While Black.
That "felon scrub," as the state called it, had to be "pre-cleared" under the Voting Rights Act. That is, "scrubs" and other changes in procedures must first be approved by the US Justice Department.
The Florida felon scrub slipped through this "pre-clearance" provision because Katherine Harris' assistant assured the government the scrub was just a clerical matter. Civil rights lawyers are now on the alert for such mendacity.
The Burning Cross Caucus of the Republican Party is bitching that "pre-clearance" of voting changes applies only to Southern states. I have to agree that singling out the Old Confederacy is a bit unfair. But the solution is not to smother the Voting Rights law but to spread its safeguards to all fifty of these United States.
White Sheets to Spread Sheets
Republicans argue that the racial voting games and the threats of the white-hooded Klansmen that kept African-Americans from the ballot box before the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act no longer threaten Black voters.
That's true. When I look over the "caging lists" and the "scrub sheets," it's clear to me that the GOP has traded in white sheets for spreadsheets.
For The Guardian
June 23, 2006
[New York] Don't kid yourself. The Republican Party's decision yesterday to "delay" the renewal of the Voting Rights Act has not a darn thing to do with objections of the Republican's White Sheets Caucus.
Complaints by a couple of Good Ol' Boys to legislation has never stopped the GOP leadership from rolling over dissenters.
This is a strategic stall — meant to de-criminalize the Republican Party's new game of challenging voters of color by the hundreds of thousands.
In the 2004 Presidential race, the GOP ran a massive multi-state, multi-million-dollar operation to challenge the legitimacy of Black, Hispanic and Native-American voters. The methods used broke the law -- the Voting Rights Act. And while the Bush Administration's Civil Rights Division grinned and looked the other way, civil rights lawyers are circling, preparing to sue to stop the violations of the Act before the 2008 race.
Therefore, Republicans have promised to no longer break the law -- not by going legit but by eliminating the law.
The Act was passed in 1965 after the Ku Klux Klan and other upright citizens found they could use procedural tricks -- "literacy tests," poll taxes and more -- to block citizens of color from casting ballots.
De-criminalizing the "caging" lists
Here's what happened in '04 -- and what's in store for '08.
In the 2004 election, over THREE MILLION voters were challenged at the polls. No one had seen anything like it since the era of Jim Crow and burning crosses. In 2004, voters were told their registrations had been purged or that their addresses were "suspect."
Denied the right to the regular voting booths, these challenged voters were given "provisional" ballots. Over a million of these provisional ballots (1,090,729 of them) were tossed in the electoral dumpster uncounted.
Funny thing about those ballots. About 88% were cast by minority voters.
This isn't a number dropped on me from a black helicopter. They come from the raw data of the US Election Assistance Commission in Washington, DC.
At the heart of the GOP's mass challenge of voters were what the party's top brass called, "caging lists" -- secret files of hundreds of thousands of voters, almost every one from a Black-majority voting precinct.
When our investigations team, working for BBC TV, got our hands on these confidential files in October 2004, the Republicans told us the voters listed were their potential "donors." Really? The sheets included pages of men from homeless shelters in Florida.
Donor lists, my ass. Every expert told us, these were "challenge lists," meant to stop these Black voters from casting ballots.
When these "caged" voters arrived at the polls in November 2004, they found their registrations missing, their right to vote blocked or their absentee ballots rejected because their addresses were supposedly "fraudulent."
Why didn't the GOP honchos 'fess up to challenging these allegedly illegal voters? Because targeting voters of color is AGAINST THE LAW. The law in question is the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Act says you can't go after groups of voters if you choose your targets based on race. Given that almost all the voters on the GOP hit list are Black, the illegal racial profiling is beyond even Karl Rove's ability to come up with an alibi.
The Republicans target Black folk not because they don't like the color of their skin. They don't like the color of their vote: Democrat. For that reason, the GOP included on its hit list Jewish retirement homes in Florida. Apparently, the GOP was also gunning for the Elderly of Zion.
These so-called "fraudulent" voters, in fact, were not fraudulent at all. Page after page, as we've previously reported, are Black soldiers sent overseas. The Bush campaign used their absence from their US homes to accuse them of voting from false addresses.
Now that the GOP has been caught breaking the Voting Rights law, they have found a way to keep using their expensively obtained "caging" lists: let the law expire next year. If the Voting Rights Act dies in 2007, the 2008 race will be open season on dark-skinned voters. Only the renewal of the Voting Rights Act can prevent the planned racial wrecking of democracy.
"Pre-clearance" and the Great Blackout of 2000
Before the 2000 presidential balloting, then Jeb Bush's Secretary of State purged thousands of Black citizens' registrations on the grounds that they were "felons" not entitled to vote. Our review of the files determined that the crimes of most on the list was nothing more than VWB -- Voting While Black.
That "felon scrub," as the state called it, had to be "pre-cleared" under the Voting Rights Act. That is, "scrubs" and other changes in procedures must first be approved by the US Justice Department.
The Florida felon scrub slipped through this "pre-clearance" provision because Katherine Harris' assistant assured the government the scrub was just a clerical matter. Civil rights lawyers are now on the alert for such mendacity.
The Burning Cross Caucus of the Republican Party is bitching that "pre-clearance" of voting changes applies only to Southern states. I have to agree that singling out the Old Confederacy is a bit unfair. But the solution is not to smother the Voting Rights law but to spread its safeguards to all fifty of these United States.
White Sheets to Spread Sheets
Republicans argue that the racial voting games and the threats of the white-hooded Klansmen that kept African-Americans from the ballot box before the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act no longer threaten Black voters.
That's true. When I look over the "caging lists" and the "scrub sheets," it's clear to me that the GOP has traded in white sheets for spreadsheets.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
BushCo Tries To Make The Corporate Press Capitulate To His Version Of "Freedom"
Surprisingly, they refuse!
AP - The Bush administration and The New York Times are again at odds over national security, this time with new reports of a broad government effort to track global financial transfers. The newspaper. . . declined a White House request not to publish a story about the government's inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country. The Los Angeles Times also reported on the issue Thursday night on its Web site, against the Bush administration's wishes. The Wall Street Journal said it received no request to hold its report of the surveillance. Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security. . . Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/23/D8IDMQ180.html
AP - The Bush administration and The New York Times are again at odds over national security, this time with new reports of a broad government effort to track global financial transfers. The newspaper. . . declined a White House request not to publish a story about the government's inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country. The Los Angeles Times also reported on the issue Thursday night on its Web site, against the Bush administration's wishes. The Wall Street Journal said it received no request to hold its report of the surveillance. Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security. . . Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/23/D8IDMQ180.html
Ann Coulter/General Grievous: Separated at Birth?
With an assist from La Cucaracha
Right-wing columnist Ann Coulter, who claims to be from Earth, is a dead ringer for Star Wars creature General Grievous.
One is a cold, heartless automaton and the other is a Star Wars character.
Right-wing columnist Ann Coulter, who claims to be from Earth, is a dead ringer for Star Wars creature General Grievous.
One is a cold, heartless automaton and the other is a Star Wars character.
The End of Net Neutrality?
Big Telecom companies want to control the Internet
By Joshua Frank
Published: Tuesday June 20th, 2006
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2369/The_End_of_Net_Neutrality
If you haven’t been following this big story about the future of Net Neutrality, I’ll try to lay it out as simply as I can.
Good Guys: Proponents of Net Neutrality.
Bad Guys: The telecom giants who want to extract fees for service.
The Good Guys want to protect the internet and keep it in the hands of folks like you and I. The Bad Guys want to control it and put it in the hands of big telecommunication corporations. Now, it’s not that black and white of an issue, but for the most part the Bad Guys are looking to gain more, while the Good Guys (Google, Amazon.com – still not great) want to protect what they already have.
Right now the Senate is heating up, with a vote likely to come down in the near future. A lot of our elected representives have not come out one way or another on this important issue. This really is the future of the internet we are talking about here. In the days ahead, if we abandon Net Neutrality and some big honcho in New York City decides websites like this one aren’t worth putting on his company’s search engine, or provider package, it could be lost.
These corporations very well could decide what is and what isn’t available to be viewed on the internet. They could price the little guys out. It could be like Wal-Mart of the web. They could very well control most content, and pick what you can and cannot see, read or listen to. It’d be the end of internet democracy in the United States, where all sites can be accessed.
There is quite an underhanded campaign going on now by a group called “Hands off the Internet”, who claim to want to protect the internet from regulators and Big Government. They are even running deceptive ads on blogs and other websites in hopes of pulling internet readers in to their camp. Some of the big names behind these cunning ads include AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon.
Co-chair of this group is the ex-spokesman for President Bill Clinton and other Democrats, Mike McCurry. And what a trickster McCurry is. He even writes a column over at the “liberal” Huffington Post from time to time. He claims Net Neutrality will kill the internet.
Fact is, it’s Net Neutrality that has gotten us this far. Yet he writes, “The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky. You all worship at Vince Cerf who has a clear financial interest in the outcome of this debate but you immediately castigate all of us who disagree and impune our motives. I get paid a reasonable but small sum to argue what I believe.”
So how much does this guy get paid? Well, not sure how much the big telecom giants are dolling out (hundreds of thousands, I’m sure), but he charges $10,000 and up per speaking gig. That’s not a “small sum” in my book. And to think that the web isn’t a “pubic good” is exactly the kind of thinking that has taken away our airwaves and put them in the hands of big corporations.
You know how when you turn on your TV how there isn’t thousands of channels at your disposal? That’s because you have to pay for those channels, they aren’t free – even though you supposedly own the airwaves. The same thing could happen to the internet if guys like McCurry have their way. You’d have to pay for access to the web, and each carrier would have much different ideas about what the “web” is. There would be different packages and different sites available per package. Sort of like cable TV vs. DirectTV. It would radically change the way the web works. And in the process it would likely leave out alternative blogs and news sites – as they would have to pony up big bucks to have access to consumers. And even if they did, they might not make the cut. Somebody else could decide if it’s a site worth your time or interest.
The internet is a work in progress, spearheaded by innovative and creative people, not big corporations. As the ol’ adage goes: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
By Joshua Frank
Published: Tuesday June 20th, 2006
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2369/The_End_of_Net_Neutrality
If you haven’t been following this big story about the future of Net Neutrality, I’ll try to lay it out as simply as I can.
Good Guys: Proponents of Net Neutrality.
Bad Guys: The telecom giants who want to extract fees for service.
The Good Guys want to protect the internet and keep it in the hands of folks like you and I. The Bad Guys want to control it and put it in the hands of big telecommunication corporations. Now, it’s not that black and white of an issue, but for the most part the Bad Guys are looking to gain more, while the Good Guys (Google, Amazon.com – still not great) want to protect what they already have.
Right now the Senate is heating up, with a vote likely to come down in the near future. A lot of our elected representives have not come out one way or another on this important issue. This really is the future of the internet we are talking about here. In the days ahead, if we abandon Net Neutrality and some big honcho in New York City decides websites like this one aren’t worth putting on his company’s search engine, or provider package, it could be lost.
These corporations very well could decide what is and what isn’t available to be viewed on the internet. They could price the little guys out. It could be like Wal-Mart of the web. They could very well control most content, and pick what you can and cannot see, read or listen to. It’d be the end of internet democracy in the United States, where all sites can be accessed.
There is quite an underhanded campaign going on now by a group called “Hands off the Internet”, who claim to want to protect the internet from regulators and Big Government. They are even running deceptive ads on blogs and other websites in hopes of pulling internet readers in to their camp. Some of the big names behind these cunning ads include AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon.
Co-chair of this group is the ex-spokesman for President Bill Clinton and other Democrats, Mike McCurry. And what a trickster McCurry is. He even writes a column over at the “liberal” Huffington Post from time to time. He claims Net Neutrality will kill the internet.
Fact is, it’s Net Neutrality that has gotten us this far. Yet he writes, “The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky. You all worship at Vince Cerf who has a clear financial interest in the outcome of this debate but you immediately castigate all of us who disagree and impune our motives. I get paid a reasonable but small sum to argue what I believe.”
So how much does this guy get paid? Well, not sure how much the big telecom giants are dolling out (hundreds of thousands, I’m sure), but he charges $10,000 and up per speaking gig. That’s not a “small sum” in my book. And to think that the web isn’t a “pubic good” is exactly the kind of thinking that has taken away our airwaves and put them in the hands of big corporations.
You know how when you turn on your TV how there isn’t thousands of channels at your disposal? That’s because you have to pay for those channels, they aren’t free – even though you supposedly own the airwaves. The same thing could happen to the internet if guys like McCurry have their way. You’d have to pay for access to the web, and each carrier would have much different ideas about what the “web” is. There would be different packages and different sites available per package. Sort of like cable TV vs. DirectTV. It would radically change the way the web works. And in the process it would likely leave out alternative blogs and news sites – as they would have to pony up big bucks to have access to consumers. And even if they did, they might not make the cut. Somebody else could decide if it’s a site worth your time or interest.
The internet is a work in progress, spearheaded by innovative and creative people, not big corporations. As the ol’ adage goes: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)