http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5586
"
This past weekend was the two year anniversary of the beginning of ’shock and awe’ of the US Government’s aggression in Iraq. If all you did was watch CNN, FOX News, or MSNBC, you would never know.
There were protests all across our nation. CNN called the over 800 protest events ’barely a ripple’. I spoke at a protest in Fayetteville, North Carolina where there were right around 4000 people. 4000 people full of energy and committed to the task of peace and justice and reclaiming our country from the socio-pathic maniacs who are in power right now.
So what were the hypocrites in DC doing while much of the country was working for peace either at rallies, marches, or candlelight vigils? They were conducting an emergency smokescreen session in Congress to draft legislation for one woman: Terry Schiavo.
...
"
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5586
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Justice and Human Rights Go on Trial in Tampa
http://www.jesusprinceofpeace.org/
"
Judge in Al-Arian Trial Will Seat Jurors Who Have Contempt for Muslims and Palestinians
March 5, 2005, Tampa, Florida
During two days of hearings for the up-coming trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, et al, U.S. District Judge James Moody refused to disqualify potential jurors who made anti-Muslim and/or anti-Palestinian statements in a survey sent to them by the court. Hearings were held March 3rd and 4th at the Tampa Federal Courthouse. The trial has been re-scheduled for May 16th.
According to the Tampa Tribune one potential juror stated on the survey, "I have feelings of contempt against all three groups [Muslims, Palestinians, and Arabs]." During discussion of this potential juror, Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Zitek claimed that there was not "a demonstration of bias in these answers." Judge Moody sided with Mr. Zitek and refused to disqualify that individual from sitting on the jury that is scheduled to hear a case involving defendants who are all Muslims, Arabs, and/or Palestinians.
Unlike many of the previous hearings in this case, Dr. Al-Arian was allowed to attend this hearing. He was dressed in orange prison overalls and he was kept in leg irons throughout the hearings. Two of the codefendants also attended the hearing.
Concerned citizens from several local churches were present to watch the proceedings and offer support to the families.
Reference:
Judge Postpones Al-Arian Trial Until May 16 by Elaine Silvestrini in the Tampa Tribune - March 5, 2005
"
http://www.jesusprinceofpeace.org/
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Petition to oppose "Nuclear Option" : Protect Your Rights. Support Our System of Checks and Balances
http://action.dscc.org/campaign/balance
"
Throughout our history, our federal courts have protected our fundamental constitutional rights and provided a level playing field where anyone could seek justice. Now, Senate Republicans want to upset that balance and do away with 200 years of checks and balances in one fell swoop.
Senate Democrats refuse to be merely a rubber stamp. Sign our petition to maintain our system of checks and balances today!
"
http://action.dscc.org/campaign/balance
"
Throughout our history, our federal courts have protected our fundamental constitutional rights and provided a level playing field where anyone could seek justice. Now, Senate Republicans want to upset that balance and do away with 200 years of checks and balances in one fell swoop.
Senate Democrats refuse to be merely a rubber stamp. Sign our petition to maintain our system of checks and balances today!
"
http://action.dscc.org/campaign/balance
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Radical corporatist theocrats use Schiavo Case to divert attention from Iraq Invasion Anniversary
Bush couldn't be bothered with repeated warnings of impending terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in 2001. He didn't leave his vacation ranch when the tsunami hit. He jumped on the Schiavo case.
In addition to evidence provided by the leaked "Republican" memo to senators describing the Schiavo case as "a great political issue" that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives", there is also the "coincidence" that this political media circus is happening during the second anniversary of the Bush Administration's illegal invasion of the soveriegn nation of Iraq, that act of aggression having to date cost that country over one hundred thousand lives and the decimation of its infrastructure; and also having cost the people of the United States at least fifteen thousand lives, along with our own diplomatic and fiscal security.
This grandstanding over one poor lady in a hospital bed is a form of peddling influence to aristocratic and religious-fundamentalist campaign funding-sources; and as such is plain evidence that the executive and legislative branches are fully engaged in a campaign to disregard the first amendment and bring religious influence directly into the intentionally secular government of the United States.
You want to save lives? Stop the frigging war! Hypocrites!
It is also an attack on the judicial system of the government of the State of Florida, just like the 2000 election intervention was.
The phrase "Impeachment by referendum" comes to mind. Just think. We have LOTS of new voting machines. Now all we need are PRINTERS.
In addition to evidence provided by the leaked "Republican" memo to senators describing the Schiavo case as "a great political issue" that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives", there is also the "coincidence" that this political media circus is happening during the second anniversary of the Bush Administration's illegal invasion of the soveriegn nation of Iraq, that act of aggression having to date cost that country over one hundred thousand lives and the decimation of its infrastructure; and also having cost the people of the United States at least fifteen thousand lives, along with our own diplomatic and fiscal security.
This grandstanding over one poor lady in a hospital bed is a form of peddling influence to aristocratic and religious-fundamentalist campaign funding-sources; and as such is plain evidence that the executive and legislative branches are fully engaged in a campaign to disregard the first amendment and bring religious influence directly into the intentionally secular government of the United States.
You want to save lives? Stop the frigging war! Hypocrites!
It is also an attack on the judicial system of the government of the State of Florida, just like the 2000 election intervention was.
The phrase "Impeachment by referendum" comes to mind. Just think. We have LOTS of new voting machines. Now all we need are PRINTERS.
Big Money behind Schiavo Case
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/22/93155/7030
"
The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money
The Recorder
By Jon B. Eisenberg
March 4, 2005
Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached?
During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were famously advised to "follow the money." In the Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas.
For the past 12 years, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have been locked in a bitter dispute over whether to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Terri, whom the courts have determined is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers want the doctors to keep Terri alive; Michael does not. Late last year, in Bush v. Schiavo, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush violated the constitutional separation of powers when he attempted to overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
I filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing the governor's action. Two months later I participated in a public debate on the case at Florida State University. Among the participants supporting Gov. Bush's position were Pat Anderson, one of multiple attorneys who have represented the Schindlers, and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, two activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent vegetative state patients. I found myself wondering: "I'm doing this pro bono; are they?"
I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).
I found a Web site called mediatransparency.com which tracks funding for these foundations. Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo.
Here are a few examples:
Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.
Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family.
Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation.
The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation.
Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation.
These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more.
With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight over their daughter going for so long. And it's still not over. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene, the Schindlers' lawyers are now trying to prolong the litigation yet again through a series of post-judgment motions which, regardless of their merit, could yield stays that would continue to forestall the removal of Terri's feeding tube.
Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March 18.
On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: still more delay.
There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory.
They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up.
"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/22/93155/7030
"
The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money
The Recorder
By Jon B. Eisenberg
March 4, 2005
Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached?
During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were famously advised to "follow the money." In the Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas.
For the past 12 years, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have been locked in a bitter dispute over whether to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from Terri, whom the courts have determined is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers want the doctors to keep Terri alive; Michael does not. Late last year, in Bush v. Schiavo, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush violated the constitutional separation of powers when he attempted to overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
I filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing the governor's action. Two months later I participated in a public debate on the case at Florida State University. Among the participants supporting Gov. Bush's position were Pat Anderson, one of multiple attorneys who have represented the Schindlers, and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, two activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent vegetative state patients. I found myself wondering: "I'm doing this pro bono; are they?"
I did some Internet research and learned that many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products).
I found a Web site called mediatransparency.com which tracks funding for these foundations. Using just that Web site and the Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. Schiavo.
Here are a few examples:
Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.
Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith Richardson family.
Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. Schiavo litigation.
The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation.
Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of disability rights organizations that included the National Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM Foundation.
These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more.
With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight over their daughter going for so long. And it's still not over. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene, the Schindlers' lawyers are now trying to prolong the litigation yet again through a series of post-judgment motions which, regardless of their merit, could yield stays that would continue to forestall the removal of Terri's feeding tube.
Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March 18.
On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: still more delay.
There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case into a war of attrition, where delay is victory.
They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up.
"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/22/93155/7030
Thursday, March 24, 2005
"There is no trust"
http://www.benfrank.net/nuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=294
"
Bush in the 2001 State of the Union: "To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."
"
"
Bush in 2005: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there’s a pile of money being accumulated. That’s just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They’re spent on benefits and they’re spent on government programs. There is no trust."
...
This is Mr. Bush caught in a lie. "There is no trust".... what is he talking about, what did he do with it?
"
http://www.benfrank.net/nuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=294
Uh, Umm,, ... impeach.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Secular State
From "What would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann
"
In fact, President George Washington supervised the language of a treaty with African Muslims that explicitly stated that the United States was a secular nation.
"
From "What would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann
"
In fact, President George Washington supervised the language of a treaty with African Muslims that explicitly stated that the United States was a secular nation.
"
From "What would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann
Friday, March 18, 2005
Some passing thoughts about news media
Working people will continue to vote against their own interests as long as the information they get is controlled by those who own monopolized media.
We need to break up the monopolies. Given that the current power-structure will not do this, direct and organized action from consumers is required, to put market pressures on media sponsors to influence policy and/or content at broadcasters.
Until the media outlets in a given place are once again many and of different owners, enough to enable outlets to focus on viewpoints of their own choice, there must be a requirement that those dominating coverage for a given area provide fair and balanced coverage. This fair and balanced coverage should be demanded directly, by organized consumers, as we simultaneously work to re-establish a government that truly represents the population as a whole and not just the aristocracy/theocracy/corporatocracy.
We need to break up the monopolies. Given that the current power-structure will not do this, direct and organized action from consumers is required, to put market pressures on media sponsors to influence policy and/or content at broadcasters.
Until the media outlets in a given place are once again many and of different owners, enough to enable outlets to focus on viewpoints of their own choice, there must be a requirement that those dominating coverage for a given area provide fair and balanced coverage. This fair and balanced coverage should be demanded directly, by organized consumers, as we simultaneously work to re-establish a government that truly represents the population as a whole and not just the aristocracy/theocracy/corporatocracy.
More Thom Hartmann (recommended reading)
"
Those who are not independently wealthy yet support this so-called conservative agenda are pushing for their own children to become slaves.
"
-- From "What Would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann (find in Amazon banner Here)
Those who are not independently wealthy yet support this so-called conservative agenda are pushing for their own children to become slaves.
"
-- From "What Would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann (find in Amazon banner Here)
News Broadcasts are for public service, not for profit
"
For years, the television networks and TV and radio stations across the nation were so aware of the critical importance of unbiased and clearly presented news to democracy that their news operations were separate from all other divisions of the corporation and were not required to make a profit. Producing news was part of the "giving back," fulfilling the obligation of electronic media that uses public airwaves or public rights-of-way (in the case of cable) to "serve the public good."
"
-- From Thom Hartmann's book, "What would Jefferson Do"
Find Here
For years, the television networks and TV and radio stations across the nation were so aware of the critical importance of unbiased and clearly presented news to democracy that their news operations were separate from all other divisions of the corporation and were not required to make a profit. Producing news was part of the "giving back," fulfilling the obligation of electronic media that uses public airwaves or public rights-of-way (in the case of cable) to "serve the public good."
"
-- From Thom Hartmann's book, "What would Jefferson Do"
Find Here
Moral Values
Did I mention that our federal legislative branch had to lower their ethical standards so that Tom Delay could retain his post, and that he may still face grave legal penalties?
Or that a pimp for male prostitutes, Jeff Gannon / Gary Guckert, spent almost two years with close access to the president, without a permanent press-pass, because he was instrumental in pitching "softball party-line questions" to the President, taking up time and space that could have been used by the REAL press (although they aren't let in those sessions)?
Maybe it's just that some folks don't believe that ethics or discretion are moral values.
Or that a pimp for male prostitutes, Jeff Gannon / Gary Guckert, spent almost two years with close access to the president, without a permanent press-pass, because he was instrumental in pitching "softball party-line questions" to the President, taking up time and space that could have been used by the REAL press (although they aren't let in those sessions)?
Maybe it's just that some folks don't believe that ethics or discretion are moral values.
Help us Fight the Crony Sell-Off
Please click this link to send a message to
Congress urging them to sign the Pledge to Strengthen Social
Security and oppose privatization:
http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/57q3if41Ru4m/
Congress urging them to sign the Pledge to Strengthen Social
Security and oppose privatization:
http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/57q3if41Ru4m/
Thursday, March 17, 2005
New Word for the day: Corporatocrat
What we have infecting much of our government as well as much of our press today is an ideology we fought a revolution against 200 years ago. When the East India Corporation, based in England, began to undersell (through unfair tax policy) and thus monopolize the American colonial tea market, threatening to dominate that industry and then others, the way they were in India, entrepreneurs in these colonies recognized that danger and took action. The resulting new republic (read: representative democracy) created a nation of laws including those designed specifically to prevent the development and spread of the same cancer it had fought to rid itself of in revolution: the corporate aristocracy. Jefferson, Lincoln and both Roosevelts wrote extensively on the dangers of neglecting to maintain control over and limits on, the size and power of, corporate aristocracy. The new republic defined in the Constitution Began with the words "We, the People" to emphasize that this was a government to be run by representatives of the population at large, and not by or for an aristocracy, a theocracy, or a corporatocracy.
What we have occupying much of our government as well as much of our press today are not Democrats or Republicans, not Conservatives, not Liberals: they are, and represent only, the Corporate Aristocrats. They are Corporatocrats.
Cor-por-a-to-crats.
Otherwise known as Fascists, according to the definition given by Mussolini, the man who invented the word Fascism.
With that in mind, Gitmo, AbuGraib, ANWR, a cabinet of deregulatory industry-lobbyists, perpetual war and the continual dismemberment of programs designed to promote the general welfare , should be no surprise at all.
But, see, not everyone knows this.
Yet.
What we have occupying much of our government as well as much of our press today are not Democrats or Republicans, not Conservatives, not Liberals: they are, and represent only, the Corporate Aristocrats. They are Corporatocrats.
Cor-por-a-to-crats.
Otherwise known as Fascists, according to the definition given by Mussolini, the man who invented the word Fascism.
With that in mind, Gitmo, AbuGraib, ANWR, a cabinet of deregulatory industry-lobbyists, perpetual war and the continual dismemberment of programs designed to promote the general welfare , should be no surprise at all.
But, see, not everyone knows this.
Yet.
Be a citizen co-sponsor of the Count Every Vote Act
 |
Dear Friends, Thank you so much for signing up as a citizen co-sponsor of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005. With your support and that of more than 116,000 people all across the country, we have made substantial progress in recent weeks. But, even with all the energy and action you have helped generate, we still have an uphill climb. It doesn't appear that the administration and the Republican leadership are as concerned as we are about ensuring people's right to vote. We need to gather even more momentum -- forward this email to your friends and ask them to become a citizen co-sponsor at: http://www.friendsofhillary.com/CountEveryVote Isn't it ironic that at the same time the White House is welcoming elections in other parts of the world, we still have to fight to make democracy real here at home! But fight we will. And, in the weeks since the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 was introduced by Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Kerry and myself, your personal commitment has helped build our momentum:
As I look at the record of this Republican Congress, I know that our task is not going to be easy. But I also know that, together, we can make a difference. We can insist that the right of every American to vote - and to have our votes counted - is fundamental to our democracy. We are going to keep organizing, keep building support and demanding action - and we are going to succeed. Sincerely,  Hillary Rodham Clinton P.S. Our whole family deeply appreciates all the kind words of encouragement concerning Bill's recent surgery. He's doing well and is very moved by your well wishes. Contribute |
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
More on the War on Brains
From "What would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann
"
That American citizens (particularly those who speak on our nation's airwaves) could be so ignorant--or willing to blatantly lie--about the nature of the social contract our Founders put into place, and think that borrowing money and giving it to the wealthy was a "tax cut," is an indication of the damage conservatives have done with thirty years of relentless attacks on the funding and functioning of our public education system, and the consolidation of our media keeping out nonconservative voices.
"
From "What would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann
"
That American citizens (particularly those who speak on our nation's airwaves) could be so ignorant--or willing to blatantly lie--about the nature of the social contract our Founders put into place, and think that borrowing money and giving it to the wealthy was a "tax cut," is an indication of the damage conservatives have done with thirty years of relentless attacks on the funding and functioning of our public education system, and the consolidation of our media keeping out nonconservative voices.
"
From "What would Jefferson Do" by Thom Hartmann
Oppose dictatorship. Sign Dean DNC petition
As they goose-step to the marching-orders of corporate and aristrocratic power, they are working to dismantle our republic.
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
"
when one party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.
...
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
...
to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate
...
We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate.
...
Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.
Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech:
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in order to protect our democracy.
"
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
"
when one party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.
...
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
...
to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate
...
We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate.
...
Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.
Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech:
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in order to protect our democracy.
"
http://www.democrats.org/freespeech
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Funny flash movie with action
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/creatures1/index.html
I added this to my letter:
"
Please resist radical attempts at dismantling our republic and stripping away our freedoms. After all, it's what we pay you for.
"
I added this to my letter:
"
Please resist radical attempts at dismantling our republic and stripping away our freedoms. After all, it's what we pay you for.
"
Is it time to boycott mainstream broadcasters until they begin to serve the public good?
When a government no longer acts with the consent of the governed, the populace itself must work to right the wrongs inflicted on it.
What if all mainstream media outlets were faced with this:
"
We will no longer patronize your services until you adopt the former "Fairness Doctrine", as defined in the United States Code prior to 1987, as official company policy in your standard operating procedures, and adhere to the spirit of that unjustly-removed law.
"
Let us know what you think.
What if all mainstream media outlets were faced with this:
"
We will no longer patronize your services until you adopt the former "Fairness Doctrine", as defined in the United States Code prior to 1987, as official company policy in your standard operating procedures, and adhere to the spirit of that unjustly-removed law.
"
Let us know what you think.
Why Democracy is better than Socialism
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
-- Alexis De Tocqueville
When you hear pundits in the media attacking people for being "conceited, individualist elitists", beware. They are trying to get people used to the idea that the individual is nothing more than a cog in the wheel of the state. Nazi meant "National Socialist". While Hitler hated the theoretical proletarian rule of communism, he loved the negation of the individual that was inherent in socialism.
-- Alexis De Tocqueville
When you hear pundits in the media attacking people for being "conceited, individualist elitists", beware. They are trying to get people used to the idea that the individual is nothing more than a cog in the wheel of the state. Nazi meant "National Socialist". While Hitler hated the theoretical proletarian rule of communism, he loved the negation of the individual that was inherent in socialism.
Improper use of the church
"Every man in [Hitler's] rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott mit uns" - God is with us - and most of them fervently believed it was true."
---- Thom Hartmann
from http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0420a-almanac.htm
---- Thom Hartmann
from http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0420a-almanac.htm
When Democracy Failed - 2005
When Democracy Failed - 2005
The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm
"
...
It started when the government, in the midst of an economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist. Some, like Sefton Delmer - a London Daily Express reporter on the scene - say they certainly did not, while others, like William Shirer, suggest they did.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.
He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.
His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
...
"
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm
The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm
"
...
It started when the government, in the midst of an economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist. Some, like Sefton Delmer - a London Daily Express reporter on the scene - say they certainly did not, while others, like William Shirer, suggest they did.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.
He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.
His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
...
"
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Gannon/Guckert according to the rude pundit
Caution: the rude pundit's language is vulgar, nasty, and quite accurate.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/why-gannonguckert-matters-rude-version.html
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/why-gannonguckert-matters-rude-version.html
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
A crony selloff
Proposed Social Security Reform is nothing but a crony selloff. It is the continuation of the transfer of resources and power from the people, to the malefactors of great wealth. Those are our tax dollars. All the republicans are involved in slicing up and selling off our public trust and resources, as are a large number of the Democrats.
Just think.. we could have had Dean and Kucinich if more working people knew what's really going on in this country.
Hmmm..... 2008?
Just think.. we could have had Dean and Kucinich if more working people knew what's really going on in this country.
Hmmm..... 2008?
BCRA is supposed to limit crony money. It's not supposed to be used to attack free speech.
There's an idea called "The spirit of the law", versus the "letter of the law". It means that the law is in place in order to make people do what is right, with reference to the subject of the law. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain and Feingold sponsors) was an attempt to control the influence of private and corporate money over our election campaigns. Then-acting-president George W. Bush did not want to sign the bill, as it would make many of the contributions he received from the super-rich, and from corporations, unusable. He grudgingly, reluctantly and almost secretly signed the BCRA into law. Once it was signed, his FEC busily went about cutting the --ahem-- off the law through watered-down implementation.
Now that at least half the U.S. population is beginning to smell what is issuing from Washington, beginning to recognize it's paid-off media-whore megaphone (some of that with our own tax-dollars (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/11/1446234)), people are beginning to speak out. When they assemble peacefully in public places, to redress this acting government for their grievances, they are penned into "free-speech zones", normally far from the events they are attempting to attend, often in the presence of a daunting militarized police-force.
In such a situation, people are communicating with one another more and more from the "privacy of their own homes" *(read section 215 of the Patriot-act (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130)) over the Internet. This is akin to a country that is thinking, and having second thoughts. It is the thought-process of a nation, and even a world, at work. New communications technologies enabled the Russians to learn of freedom and throw off an oppressive government. New communications technologies helped the Spanish learn that Aznar was lying to them, then vote him out of office. More and more, people are learning. They are talking. They are sending messages back and forth. They are Blogging.
Communication such as this is dangerous for a despotic class who want to keep the rabble under their thumb. Communication between citizens in an un-hampered fashion is always bad for those who would oppress them. Soldiers learn early on that one of the things you do with prisoners is "Silence", so that they won't work together and escape.
So now, after not wanting a law that would limit a puppet's access to gargantuan sums of money from super-rich individuals and oppressive corporations, and after subsequently crippling many of those limits through implementation, those same crony corruptors are going to try to use this same law in their continuing attack on free speech.
They are going to try to prevent people from expressing their views on the Internet Blogs (Here's one of many stories: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001654.htm.
Some say that this might be a bluff-attack, in an attempt to force the repeal of a law that these crony corruptors don't really want, and I won't advocate its repeal (don't throw out the baby with the bath-water); but I will advocate that those in power be forced to obey the spirit of that law as it was originally designed, and to NOT attack our Constitutional first amendment right to free speech with it.
This deserves discussion in the bars. At the water-coolers. On the radio. Until that guy in the work-worn pickup-truck finally gets it and realizes that that "W" sticker on his vehicle is nothing more than a thinly-veiled swastika (READ: TORTURE, CONFINEMENT WITHOUT TRIAL, UNLAWFUL INVASION OF SOVERIEGN NATIONS), we cannot rest.
Come to think of it, why don't we just outlaw all private campaign financing, and force TV and Radio stations to give opposing candidates equal coverage, as a condition of continued licensure?
But don't mess with Free Speech. If you don't have that, you don't have America.
Now that at least half the U.S. population is beginning to smell what is issuing from Washington, beginning to recognize it's paid-off media-whore megaphone (some of that with our own tax-dollars (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/11/1446234)), people are beginning to speak out. When they assemble peacefully in public places, to redress this acting government for their grievances, they are penned into "free-speech zones", normally far from the events they are attempting to attend, often in the presence of a daunting militarized police-force.
In such a situation, people are communicating with one another more and more from the "privacy of their own homes" *(read section 215 of the Patriot-act (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130)) over the Internet. This is akin to a country that is thinking, and having second thoughts. It is the thought-process of a nation, and even a world, at work. New communications technologies enabled the Russians to learn of freedom and throw off an oppressive government. New communications technologies helped the Spanish learn that Aznar was lying to them, then vote him out of office. More and more, people are learning. They are talking. They are sending messages back and forth. They are Blogging.
Communication such as this is dangerous for a despotic class who want to keep the rabble under their thumb. Communication between citizens in an un-hampered fashion is always bad for those who would oppress them. Soldiers learn early on that one of the things you do with prisoners is "Silence", so that they won't work together and escape.
So now, after not wanting a law that would limit a puppet's access to gargantuan sums of money from super-rich individuals and oppressive corporations, and after subsequently crippling many of those limits through implementation, those same crony corruptors are going to try to use this same law in their continuing attack on free speech.
They are going to try to prevent people from expressing their views on the Internet Blogs (Here's one of many stories: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001654.htm.
Some say that this might be a bluff-attack, in an attempt to force the repeal of a law that these crony corruptors don't really want, and I won't advocate its repeal (don't throw out the baby with the bath-water); but I will advocate that those in power be forced to obey the spirit of that law as it was originally designed, and to NOT attack our Constitutional first amendment right to free speech with it.
This deserves discussion in the bars. At the water-coolers. On the radio. Until that guy in the work-worn pickup-truck finally gets it and realizes that that "W" sticker on his vehicle is nothing more than a thinly-veiled swastika (READ: TORTURE, CONFINEMENT WITHOUT TRIAL, UNLAWFUL INVASION OF SOVERIEGN NATIONS), we cannot rest.
Come to think of it, why don't we just outlaw all private campaign financing, and force TV and Radio stations to give opposing candidates equal coverage, as a condition of continued licensure?
But don't mess with Free Speech. If you don't have that, you don't have America.
"These people don't only behave like fascists, they have a family background that seems to condone it."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/151715/5913+rove+dachau&hl=en
"
Karl Rove's grandfather was a Nazi..Gauleiter of Oldenburg[,] and helped plan and build concentration camps in that area.
...
Bush's grandfather did business with Hitler, through his bank. He facilitated the buying of raw materials for the Nazis during the war.
"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/151715/5913+rove+dachau&hl=en
"
Karl Rove's grandfather was a Nazi..Gauleiter of Oldenburg[,] and helped plan and build concentration camps in that area.
...
Bush's grandfather did business with Hitler, through his bank. He facilitated the buying of raw materials for the Nazis during the war.
"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/151715/5913+rove+dachau&hl=en
Kill the Messenger, or "off with her head"
Do you see a similarity between what happened at CBS, and what's happening at the University of Colorado?
At CBS, information was brought to the public regarding George W. Bush's disgusting National Guard record. Eventually Dan Rather was out.
At the University of Colorado, professor Ward Churchill gained the public spotlight for his comments that 9-11 was another form of the "chickens coming home to roost". Now the University of Colorado president is out, and they're going after Churchill too.
It appears that the Bush/Rove axis, through their lemming followers, is simply silencing the better judgment of America.
We miss you, Hunter S. Thompson.
At CBS, information was brought to the public regarding George W. Bush's disgusting National Guard record. Eventually Dan Rather was out.
At the University of Colorado, professor Ward Churchill gained the public spotlight for his comments that 9-11 was another form of the "chickens coming home to roost". Now the University of Colorado president is out, and they're going after Churchill too.
It appears that the Bush/Rove axis, through their lemming followers, is simply silencing the better judgment of America.
We miss you, Hunter S. Thompson.
More on the "War against Brains"
http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-03-07-voa61.cfm
:
"
American Colleges Debate Limits on Academic Freedom
By Maura Jane Farrelly
New York
07 March 2005
...
[source page contains audio links]
...
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that any American can challenge the status quo and not be thrown in jail because of it. University professors enjoy an additional protection known as academic freedom.
...
[this is under attack]
...
First, there was the case of Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He had written in an essay that the civilians who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, were deserving of their fate.
...
A second controversy involves Harvard University president Lawrence Summers, who suggested that biological differences may explain why more women are not in the fields of math and science.
...
A third debate concerns Columbia University's Middle Eastern Studies Department, which has been an ongoing concern for Jewish students. They are calling for the resignation of several prominent professors who have published papers highly critical of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.
Cases such as this are dangerous because they undermine the very purpose of a university, according to Jonathan Knight, who directs the Program on Academic Freedom and Tenure for the American Association of University Professors. "We want to tolerate the freedom of the professors to teach and do research and write as they think right," says Mr. Knight, "because, in the end, what they do contributes so greatly to the betterment of our society."
Jonathan Knight says academic freedom does not guarantee that a professor will never lose his or her job. But he says it is a promise that a professor's research and ideas will not be judged by the changing winds of the political climate.
...
[tenure] must be determined by those who have the long training and experience to assess whether an individual faculty member has strayed egregiously from the path."
Increasingly, however, lawmakers, students, and members of the general public are insisting that they have the right to determine whether a faculty member stays or goes.
...
"What I found is that the crucial factor in determining who gets into trouble and who gets punished is not the seriousness of the charges against them, but rather the political context."
...
Conservatives have been far more aggressive than liberals in their attacks on academia.
...
[David Horowitz goes on to say that faculties have too many liberals in them. He does not go on to explain, however, that any good school would naturally contain a disproportionate number of thoughtful people who challenge the status quo. Too many liberals for a fascist dictatorship, more like it.--MAF]
...
"Lawrence Summers was not saying that women are innately inferior to men in science
...
Ward Churchill's fate in Colorado is still undetermined. And Rashid Khalidi, one of the professors at Columbia whose comments about Israel have generated controversy, was recently dismissed by New York City's Department of Education
"
http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-03-07-voa61.cfm
:
"
American Colleges Debate Limits on Academic Freedom
By Maura Jane Farrelly
New York
07 March 2005
...
[source page contains audio links]
...
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that any American can challenge the status quo and not be thrown in jail because of it. University professors enjoy an additional protection known as academic freedom.
...
[this is under attack]
...
First, there was the case of Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He had written in an essay that the civilians who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, were deserving of their fate.
...
A second controversy involves Harvard University president Lawrence Summers, who suggested that biological differences may explain why more women are not in the fields of math and science.
...
A third debate concerns Columbia University's Middle Eastern Studies Department, which has been an ongoing concern for Jewish students. They are calling for the resignation of several prominent professors who have published papers highly critical of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.
Cases such as this are dangerous because they undermine the very purpose of a university, according to Jonathan Knight, who directs the Program on Academic Freedom and Tenure for the American Association of University Professors. "We want to tolerate the freedom of the professors to teach and do research and write as they think right," says Mr. Knight, "because, in the end, what they do contributes so greatly to the betterment of our society."
Jonathan Knight says academic freedom does not guarantee that a professor will never lose his or her job. But he says it is a promise that a professor's research and ideas will not be judged by the changing winds of the political climate.
...
[tenure] must be determined by those who have the long training and experience to assess whether an individual faculty member has strayed egregiously from the path."
Increasingly, however, lawmakers, students, and members of the general public are insisting that they have the right to determine whether a faculty member stays or goes.
...
"What I found is that the crucial factor in determining who gets into trouble and who gets punished is not the seriousness of the charges against them, but rather the political context."
...
Conservatives have been far more aggressive than liberals in their attacks on academia.
...
[David Horowitz goes on to say that faculties have too many liberals in them. He does not go on to explain, however, that any good school would naturally contain a disproportionate number of thoughtful people who challenge the status quo. Too many liberals for a fascist dictatorship, more like it.--MAF]
...
"Lawrence Summers was not saying that women are innately inferior to men in science
...
Ward Churchill's fate in Colorado is still undetermined. And Rashid Khalidi, one of the professors at Columbia whose comments about Israel have generated controversy, was recently dismissed by New York City's Department of Education
"
http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-03-07-voa61.cfm
"A grave assault on academic institutions"
http://www.lumberjackonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/06/422ba6796ebc5(hit "STOP" as soon as you see article or it'll disappear)
:
"
CHURCHILL'S PLIGHT DISTURBING
by James DiPadua
March 06, 2005
...
Currently teaching at the University of Colorado--Boulder, is a professor, Ward Churchill, who is under review for speaking his opinion on the events leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 20001. I would hate to put words into the mouth of such an intelligent and powerful speaker and thinker, but the crux of the issue is that there are people who were offended by what Mr. Churchill describes as the truth. The truth being that he explicitly holds every American responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as it is American policy that ultimately created an international atmosphere of hatred and animosity toward our nation.
...
What ultimately caused such a ruckus is that Mr. Churchill used a Malcolm X expression, " chickens coming home to roost," to describe how it is that an attack of such magnitude and obvious hatred could occur within the United States. This statement has been used countless times in its short 40-year history to describe the double standards as well as hypocrisy represented by U.S. international and domestic policy.
Simply stated, "What goes around, comes around."
...
Mr. Churchill illustrates how American policy has influenced and provided the templates necessary for other world atrocities such as the Holocaust.
...
The fact that a tenured professor may lose his profession because of an analysis and documentation of what he perceives as the truth is a grave assault on academic institutions. There is no longer a bastion of protection provided by being intellectual. Please keep in mind that we created a "halfamnesty" for professors so that they could think and express themselves without worry of ramifications such as loss of employment. This is a reinforcement of our first amendment right and absolutely necessary for real progress to be made and achieved.
...
Mr. Churchill's current predicament also illustrates American reaction to its own dark history.
...
we Americans tend to think of ourselves as good people: liberators and bringers of democracy and freedom from oppression. Outside a few isolated events, this is hardly the case and it is general ignorance that leads to such self-conceptions. We're not innocents in any sense of the word.
...
James DiPadua
"
http://www.lumberjackonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/06/422ba6796ebc5(hit "STOP" as soon as you see article or it'll disappear)
:
"
CHURCHILL'S PLIGHT DISTURBING
by James DiPadua
March 06, 2005
...
Currently teaching at the University of Colorado--Boulder, is a professor, Ward Churchill, who is under review for speaking his opinion on the events leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 20001. I would hate to put words into the mouth of such an intelligent and powerful speaker and thinker, but the crux of the issue is that there are people who were offended by what Mr. Churchill describes as the truth. The truth being that he explicitly holds every American responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as it is American policy that ultimately created an international atmosphere of hatred and animosity toward our nation.
...
What ultimately caused such a ruckus is that Mr. Churchill used a Malcolm X expression, " chickens coming home to roost," to describe how it is that an attack of such magnitude and obvious hatred could occur within the United States. This statement has been used countless times in its short 40-year history to describe the double standards as well as hypocrisy represented by U.S. international and domestic policy.
Simply stated, "What goes around, comes around."
...
Mr. Churchill illustrates how American policy has influenced and provided the templates necessary for other world atrocities such as the Holocaust.
...
The fact that a tenured professor may lose his profession because of an analysis and documentation of what he perceives as the truth is a grave assault on academic institutions. There is no longer a bastion of protection provided by being intellectual. Please keep in mind that we created a "halfamnesty" for professors so that they could think and express themselves without worry of ramifications such as loss of employment. This is a reinforcement of our first amendment right and absolutely necessary for real progress to be made and achieved.
...
Mr. Churchill's current predicament also illustrates American reaction to its own dark history.
...
we Americans tend to think of ourselves as good people: liberators and bringers of democracy and freedom from oppression. Outside a few isolated events, this is hardly the case and it is general ignorance that leads to such self-conceptions. We're not innocents in any sense of the word.
...
James DiPadua
"
http://www.lumberjackonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/06/422ba6796ebc5(hit "STOP" as soon as you see article or it'll disappear)
Monday, March 07, 2005
What's in a word
Evidence of the existence of a genuine "war on brains" is in the transformation of a word denoting good, into an expletive. Case in point:
"
liberal
SYLLABICATION: lib·er·al
PRONUNCIATION: lbr-l, lbrl
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
"
from Bartleby.com.
Evidence of the "Big Lie" is in the fact that if you tell enough morons that the above word is bad, often enough, they will believe it.
They need guidance. If you hear someone repeating a lie, correct them and continue on. This will require patience, of course, and persistence.
"
liberal
SYLLABICATION: lib·er·al
PRONUNCIATION: lbr-l, lbrl
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
"
from Bartleby.com.
Evidence of the "Big Lie" is in the fact that if you tell enough morons that the above word is bad, often enough, they will believe it.
They need guidance. If you hear someone repeating a lie, correct them and continue on. This will require patience, of course, and persistence.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Another attack on free speech
Based on what was pretty much a 50/50 split in a partially uncounted election, I would tend to believe that pending restrictions of internet communications are aimed primarily at the better judgment of the United States. We need to fight restriction of our free speech on the Internet.
This story from Buzzflash:
The coming crackdown on blogging; "Even forwarding a political candidate's
press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished
by fines." 3/3
http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html?tag=st.prev
This story from Buzzflash:
The coming crackdown on blogging; "Even forwarding a political candidate's
press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished
by fines." 3/3
http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html?tag=st.prev
Friday, March 04, 2005
Tell your legislator to co-sponsor the "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act" (HR 501)
The only thing at stake is the informed citizenry essential to democracy and freedom.
http://www.freepress.net/washington/billinfo.php?id=109
http://www.freepress.net/washington/billinfo.php?id=109
More on the "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act"
HR 501: Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act
details:
http://www.freepress.net/washington/billinfo.php?id=109
details:
http://www.freepress.net/washington/billinfo.php?id=109
These two deserve recognition and support
Here's a letter we sent to the following two congressmembers. We encourage you to do the same:
"
Thank you for introducing the Fairness and Accountability in Media Act. Democracy cannot function without an informed citizenry, and the absence of the Fairness Doctrine (which was even supported by Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms) has given rise to propaganda mills such as Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News channel, to the detriment of America and of the world. We recognize, applaud and support your efforts to re-introduce fairness and accountability into the media.
"
Contact Rep. Slaughter (D - NY)
http://www.slaughter.house.gov/HoR/Louise/Contact+Louise/EMAIL+ME.htm
Contact Rep Hinchey (D - NY)
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/contact/
or if you're not in New York,
Phone: (202) 225-6335
"
Thank you for introducing the Fairness and Accountability in Media Act. Democracy cannot function without an informed citizenry, and the absence of the Fairness Doctrine (which was even supported by Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms) has given rise to propaganda mills such as Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News channel, to the detriment of America and of the world. We recognize, applaud and support your efforts to re-introduce fairness and accountability into the media.
"
Contact Rep. Slaughter (D - NY)
http://www.slaughter.house.gov/HoR/Louise/Contact+Louise/EMAIL+ME.htm
Contact Rep Hinchey (D - NY)
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/contact/
or if you're not in New York,
Phone: (202) 225-6335
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Court-stripping is a power-grab
When you hear mention of "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench", what you hear is a sales-pitch for the continued reduction of the ability of our judicial branch to review executive and legislative branch actions. Such review is part of the foundation of our system of government, as it is there to prevent the other two branches of government from doing things that are un-constitutional, such as section 215 of the Patriot-act, for example. After 9-11, which has sinister similarities to the Reichstag-fire in 1933 Germany regarding the ways in which the incident has been used by extremists to seize our government, the ACLU immediately recognized the dangers posed by the Patriot - Act (Hitler's version was called the "Enabling Act"), and some of what they noted can be read here.
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9810&c=111
This is a crucial issue and our careful resolution of it will make the difference between Liberty and Justice for all, ...
or the gas chambers.
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9810&c=111
This is a crucial issue and our careful resolution of it will make the difference between Liberty and Justice for all, ...
or the gas chambers.
We do not condone torture.
1. Watch the Web movie "The New Face of America?":
http://www.aclu.org/newface
2. Send a message to Attorney General Gonzales urging him to appoint a special counsel to investigate high-level violations of the War Crimes Act and other federal laws forbidding torture:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17420&c=206
http://www.aclu.org/newface
2. Send a message to Attorney General Gonzales urging him to appoint a special counsel to investigate high-level violations of the War Crimes Act and other federal laws forbidding torture:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17420&c=206
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Snide remark of the day
I guess it's okay to waste our tax money, so long as it explodes and kills people in the process. Not in my name, it's not.
Awkward riddle of the day:
q: What do you call it when the guys at the white-house call Jeff Gannon over for some "soft-questioning" (no permanent pass required)?
a: A Man-Date!
a: A Man-Date!
Hostettler = wacko
This guy Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN),(yes, the same guy who was arrested for trying to get his loaded gun through airport security) is working hard to attack our 6th Amendment right to a fair and speedy trial. Get a load of this:
"When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy... The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."
Reminds me of a song they used to play on rock and roll stations, by Dennis Leary, called "I'm an @$$hole".. one of the lines went "You know why? Cause we got the bombs, that's why".
They are attacking the courts. They are attacking the courts' ability to review the constitutionality of laws, which is part of the foundation of the U.S. system of government.
They are attacking your ability to defend yourself, disabling class-actions and capping damages. They are currently encarcerating AND TORTURING people without representation and without trial. The phrase "enemy combatant" does not appear in the constitution. Be aware.
You'd think this was China or something.
Join the ACLU. Get a friend to join. Corporatists have already taken over two branches of our government.
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm
"When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy... The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."
Reminds me of a song they used to play on rock and roll stations, by Dennis Leary, called "I'm an @$$hole".. one of the lines went "You know why? Cause we got the bombs, that's why".
They are attacking the courts. They are attacking the courts' ability to review the constitutionality of laws, which is part of the foundation of the U.S. system of government.
They are attacking your ability to defend yourself, disabling class-actions and capping damages. They are currently encarcerating AND TORTURING people without representation and without trial. The phrase "enemy combatant" does not appear in the constitution. Be aware.
You'd think this was China or something.
Join the ACLU. Get a friend to join. Corporatists have already taken over two branches of our government.
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)