Original Article: May 18th, 2011 @bigthink: What Happens When Anonymous Gets a Bank? http://bit.ly/jGoG1y
The same people who brought you Wikileaks are back, and this time, they've created a virtual currency called Bitcoin that could destabilize the entire global financial system. Bitcoin is an open-source virtual currency generated by a computer algorithm that is completely beyond the reach of financial intermediaries, central banks and national tax collectors. Bitcoins could be used to purchase anything, at any time, from anyone in the world, in a transaction process that it is almost completely frictionless. Yes, that's right, the hacktivists now have a virtual currency that's untraceable, unhackable, and completely Anonymous.
And that's where things start to get interesting. Veteran tech guru Jason Calacanis recently called Bitcoin the most dangerous open source project he's ever seen. TIME suggested that Bitcoin might be able to bring national governments and global financial institutions to their knees. You see, Bitcoin is as much a political statement as it is a virtual currency. If you think there's a shadow banking system now, wait a few more months. The political part is that, unlike other virtual currencies like Facebook Credits (used to buy virtual sock puppets for your friends), Bitcoins are globally transferrable across borders, making them the perfect instrument to finance any cause or any activity -- even if it's banned by a sovereign government.
You don't need a banking or trading account to buy and trade Bitcoins - all you need is a laptop. They're like bearer bonds combined with the uber-privacy of a Swiss bank account, mixed together with a hacker secret sauce that stores them as 1's and 0's on your computer. They're "regulated" (to use the term lightly) by distributed computers around the world. Most significantly, Bitcoins can not be frozen or blocked or taxed or seized.
Think back to the very peak of the Wikileaks Affair, when financial institutions were blocking payments to and from bank accounts controlled by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. This then precipitated a wave of hacktivist attacks on financial institutions ranging from Bank of America to Mastercard to Visa. Anybody who attempted to stop Wikileaks was slammed with massive denial-of-service attacks that had people seriously concerned about the fate of the world's financial system. That was just the amuse-bouche.
Theoretically, you could start generating Bitcoins right now on your laptop by putting a sophisticated computer algorithm to work. (Watch this video segment from Jason Calacanis for all the details) Right now, there are six million Bitcoins in circulation, trading at an average value of $6.70 each. $40 million is a lot of money, but a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. After all, trillions of dollars trade hands each day in the spot FX markets. However, remember that computer algorithm I mentioned earlier? Well, it controls the value of all those Bitcoins in circulation. The greater the demand, the higher the value of the Bitcoins. Within years, we could be talking about billions of dollars' worth of Bitcoins in circulation. Money might not grow on trees, but now it grows on your laptop.
There are so many fascinating angles to this that even the digitally-savvy folks at Boing Boing have had a hard time wrapping their heads around Bitcoin. Quite frankly, it sounds like something out of a James Bond movie: a group of shadowy individuals attempt to bring the world's financial system to its knees. The founder of the Bitcoin open source project, Satoshi Nakamoto, hasn't been heard from in months, but other leaders of the open source movement have taken over. (People really aren't sure if a Satoshi Nakamoto really exists -- he's more like a Keyser Soze figure right now). What's fascinating is that anybody can download an 8-page PDF explaining this P2P virtual currency system and judge for themselves if it makes sense -- just be prepared to work through some differential calculus and probability theory.
Can any government do anything about Bitcoin? Well, the hacktivists like to point to the example of P2P distributed systems like Bit Torrent or The Pirate Bay. What happened then? Nobody has been able to consistently shut them down. So... back to our original question: What happens when Anonymous gets a bank? Well, it's worth re-reading the final chapter of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, where Swedish hacker Lisbeth Salander single-handedly re-routes hundreds of millions of dollars around the world and brings down a huge billion dollar corporation, all without leaving an electronic fingerprint. Truth, it seems, may soon be stranger than fiction.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Fukushima Nuclear Fallout Reaches U.S.
Trace levels of radiation found in rainwater from California to Massachusetts
By Mike Whitney
March 31, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- - Three of the six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have partially melted down and highly toxic plutonium is seeping into the soil outside. Plutonium is less volatile than other radioactive elements like iodine or cesium, but it's also more deadly. According to Businessweek, "When plutonium decays, it emits what is known as an alpha particle, a relatively big particle that carries a lot of energy. When an alpha particle hits body tissue, it can damage the DNA of a cell and lead to a cancer-causing mutation." If plutonium leaches into groundwater or pristine aquifers, the threat to public health and the environment will be extreme. This is an excerpt from an article in the Guardian:
"The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to a concrete floor, experts say, raising fears of a major release of radiation at the site. The warning follows an analysis by a leading US expert of radiation levels at the plant....
Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at Fukushima, told the Guardian workers at the site appeared to have "lost the race" to save the reactor..." ("Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor", The Guardian)
It also appears that underground tunnels at the facility have been flooded with radioactive water that contains high-concentrations of caesium-137. A considerable amount of the water has made its way to the sea where samples show the levels of contamination steadily rising. This is from the Wall Street Journal:
"Levels of radiation in the ocean next to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have surged to record highs, the government said Wednesday, as operators try to deal with large amounts of radioactive water—the unwanted byproduct of operations to cool the reactors.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said water taken Tuesday afternoon from the monitoring location for the troubled reactors Nos. 1 to 4 had 3,355 times the permitted concentration of iodine-131. That is the highest yet recorded at the sampling location, which is 330 meters south of the reactors' discharge outlet." ("Seawater Radiation Level Soars Near Plant", Wall Street Journal) All fishing has been banned in the vicinity as the toxins pose a danger to human health.
The Japanese government's chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, issued a public statement admitting that the situation at Fukushima is progressively getting worse with no end in sight. "We are not yet in a situation where we can say when we will have this under control," said Edano. In other words, the emergency effort is failing.
The fact that Japan is experiencing the biggest environmental catastrophe in history explains why the media has been trying so hard to divert the public's attention to Obama's military adventure in Libya. But it hasn't worked; all eyes are locked on Fukushima where the crisis continues to get more precarious by the day. News anchors assure their viewers that they are only being exposed to "safe levels of radioactivity", but people aren't buying it. They've seen the comparisons to Chernobyl and made their own judgements. Here's an excerpt from an article in Counterpunch by Chris Busby that gives a thumbnail sketch of the human costs of the meltdown at Chernobyl:
"The health effects of the Chernobyl accident are massive and demonstrable. They have been studied by many research groups in Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine, in the USA, Greece, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan. The scientific peer reviewed literature is enormous. Hundreds of papers report the effects, increases in cancer and a range of other diseases. My colleague Alexey Yablokov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, published a review of these studies in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2009). Earlier in 2006 he and I collected together reviews of the Russian literature by a group of eminent radiation scientists and published these in the book Chernobyl, 20 Years After. The result: more than a million people have died between 1986 and 2004 as a direct result of Chernobyl." ("Deconstructing Nuclear Experts, Chris Busby, Counterpunch)
One million dead, that's the bottom line. And, according to Busby, "we can already calculate that the contamination (at Fukushima) is actually worse than Chernobyl."
That's certain, but don't expect to read it in the MSM. Or this, which is also from Busby:
Since the official International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) figures for the Fukushima contamination are from 200 to 900kBq.sq metre out to 78km from the site, we can expect between 22% and 90% increases in cancer in people living in these places in the next 10 years."
There's a large body of research on the effects of radiation on humans. In fact, scientists conducted a series of studies on the people living on the Marshall Islands following nuclear weapons tests at Bikini and Enewetak atolls. This is where the US exploded more than 60 atomic bombs between 1946-58. Here's an excerpt from an article in Counterpunch titled "Radiation, Japan and the Marshall Islands; Living and dying downwind":
"The legacy of latent radiogenic diseases from hydrogen bomb testing in the Marshall Islands provides some clues about what ill-health mysteries await the affected Japanese in the decades ahead.....Traces of I-131 have been discovered in Tokyo drinking water and in seawater offshore from the reactors. It took nine years for the first thyroid tumor to appear among the exposed Marshallese and hypothyroidism and cancer continued to appear decades later......
o Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,000 years, is considered one of the most toxic substances on Earth, and if absorbed is a potent alpha emitter that can induce cancer. This isotope too is found in the soils and groundwater of the downwind atolls from the Bikini and Enewetak H-bomb tests...
Radioactive Iodine-129 with a half-life of 15 million years and a well-documented capacity to bioaccumulate in the foodchain, will also remain as a persistent problem for the affected Japanese...
The sociocultural and psychological effects [e.g., PTSD] of the Fukushima nuclear disaster will be long-lasting, given the uncertainty surrounding the contamination of their prefecture and beyond." ("Radiation, Japan and the Marshall Islands; Living and dying downwind", Glenn Alcalay, Counterpunch)
It's all bad, which is why the nuclear industry needs stooges in the media to soft-peddle the news. Because, in truth, what they're selling is a noxious stew of irradiated poison that kills and maims people while causing incalculable damage to the environment. That's why industry bigwigs have turned to their friends at the EPA to loosen regulations so that the radioactive material that's presently showering-down on the US falls within EPA safety standards. Here's a clip from Washington's Blog that explains what's going on behind the public's back:
"....the EPA is considering drastically raising the amount of allowable radiation in food, water and the environment.
As Michael Kane writes:
In the wake of the continuing nuclear tragedy in Japan, the United States government is still moving quickly to increase the amounts of radiation the population can “safely” absorb by raising the safe zone for exposure to levels designed to protect the government and nuclear industry more than human life. It’s all about cutting costs now as the infinite-growth paradigm sputters and moves towards extinction. As has been demonstrated by government conduct in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Deepwater Horizon and in Japan, life has taken a back seat to cost-cutting and public relations posturing. The game plan now appears to be to protect government and the nuclear industry from “excessive costs”… at any cost." (Washington's Blog)
The radioactive toxins that are now oozing into the soil and water-table or flowing into Japan's coastal waters or lofting skyward into the jet-stream where they will spread across continents, will continue to wreak havoc long after this generation has passed its mortal coil. Easing EPA safety standards won't change a thing. Where goes radiation, there too goes cancer and death. The disaster in Japan merely buys a little time for us to rethink our own policies before a similar crisis strikes here. And, it will strike here; it's only a matter of time. Consider the comments of Dave Lochbaum, Director of UCS’s Nuclear Safety Project, who testified on Wednesday before the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Here's what he said:
"Today, tens of thousands of tons of irradiated fuel sits in spent fuel pools across America. At many sites, there is nearly ten times as much irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pools as in the reactor cores. The spent fuel pools are not cooled by an array of highly reliable emergency cooling systems capable of being powered from the grid, diesel generators, or batteries. Instead, the pools are cooled by one regular system sometimes backed up by an alternate makeup system.
The spent fuel pools are not housed within robust concrete containment structures designed to protect the public from the radioactivity released from damaged irradiated fuel. Instead, the pools are often housed in buildings with sheet metal siding like that in a Sears storage shed. I have nothing against the quality or utility of Sears’ storage sheds, but they are not suitable for nuclear waste storage.
The irrefutable bottom line is that we have utterly failed to properly manage the risk from irradiated fuel stored at our nation’s nuclear power plants. We can and must do better." (The Union of Concerned Scientists)
Nuclear energy is a ticking-timebomb. There are safer ways to keep the lights on.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
LA TIMES: STUDY SAYS CELL PHONE RADIATION CAUSES HIGH LEVELS OF BRAIN ACTIVITY
latimes.com/health/la-he-cell-phones-brain-20110223,0,4544944.story
latimes.com
Radiation from cellphone antenna boosts brain activity, study finds
The study suggests electromagnetic radiation from the antenna may be altering the way we think and behave. The findings may spark new concerns about the health effects of cellphone use.
By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2011
advertisement
The electromagnetic radiation emitted by a cellular phone's antenna appears to activate nearby regions of the brain to unusually high levels, according to a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. that is likely to spark new concerns about the health effects of wireless devices.
The preliminary study, led by a respected neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health, raises many more questions than it answers. But by providing solid evidence that cellphone use has measurable effects on brain activity, it suggests that the nation's passionate attachment to its 300 million cellphones may be altering the way we think and behave in subtle ways.
Researchers peered inside the brains of 47 healthy subjects using positron emission tomography, also known as PET scanning, to measure the location and timing of brain activity by detecting signs that cells were consuming energy. They found that despite official skepticism that cellphones' electromagnetic energy exerts any influence on nearby cells — including statements issued by the Food and Drug Administration — it clearly does.
"Because there's been such a massive expansion in cellphone use these past 15 to 20 years, it behooves us to try to understand whether, if we use these devices repeatedly and intensively for years, do they have lasting effects?" said study leader Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who researches how addiction affects the brain.
Those effects could vary widely depending upon the location of a cellphone's antenna, the frequency on which it operates, and how long one uses the device, Volkow said.
What the study does not suggest is that cellphone use contributes to the development of brain cancers. Although that concern is pressed adamantly by activists, a growing body of research has failed to find evidence to support it.
The study found that two areas of the brain close to the phone's antenna, which was embedded in the mouthpiece of the phone used, showed unusual increases in activity throughout a 50-minute period of live transmission. The researchers speculated that a cellphone with its antenna placed elsewhere — near the phone's earpiece, for instance — might activate different regions in the brain.
That the heightened activity occurred closest to the antenna, and not near the place where the phone was in direct contact with the head, signaled to the study's authors that the changes were a response to electromagnetic signals and not a reaction to the heat generated by the device. The FDA has taken the position that any harmful effects of cellphones are the result of tissue becoming overheated by direct exposure to the device as it warms with prolonged use.
Researchers also were careful to rule out that the increased brain activity was a response to language or other sounds heard over the phone. In their "live" phase, the phones in the experiment were connected to a recorded message, but the audio signal was muted, so subjects heard nothing.
"It's a surprising finding," said Dr. Keith L. Black, chairman of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who wasn't involved in the study. "We normally don't expect the brain to be activated unless it's in response to stimulation, or unless it's in a pathological state such as epilepsy."
That the mere proximity of an electromagnetic radiation source could stimulate activity in the brain is potentially significant, Black added. "We don't know whether this is a good effect, a neutral effect or a bad effect — and if it is a bad effect, we don't know what kind of exposure is required" to cause harm, he said. That should come with further research.
In an editorial accompanying the study, University of Washington bioengineer Henry Lai and Swedish oncologist Lennart Hardell wrote that the study raises questions that are potentially worrisome.
For starters, they asked whether the brain activity observed in the study may have resulted from a shift in the levels or action of certain brain chemicals, such as the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin. Because those chemicals play crucial roles elsewhere in the body, changes brought about by cellphone use could have unpredictable health effects far from the brain, they wrote.
Lai and Hardell also wondered whether regular use of wireless devices would prompt chronic stimulation of certain parts of the brain, and whether such stimulation could, over time, have unpredictable effects.
melissa.healy@latimes.com
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Is Wisconsin Our Egypt? 15,000 Protest Off-the-Wall Right-Wing Governor's Policies
'I've never seen anything like it... there were Steelworkers, Teamsters, Pipefitters, building trades unions and more -- unions I've never seen at a rally in 10 years.'
By Rose Aguilar, AlterNet
Posted on February 17, 2011, Printed on February 17, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/149942/
The people power in Wisconsin has become too big for the local and national media to ignore. Just a few weeks ago, Milwaukee Labor Press editor Dominique Paul North told me that workers' rights rallies receive very little media coverage compared to Tea Party rallies. Last month, over 700 people gathered outside the Wisconsin State Capitol to the hold the state's first ever anti-inauguration rally, but it got very little coverage in the local media. Numbers clearly matter.
On February 15, an estimated 15,000 citizens, including union and non-union workers, surrounded the state capitol to express opposition to Republican Governor Scott Walker's plan to strip the state’s 175,000 public employees of almost all of their collective bargaining rights and require them to make larger contributions to their pensions and health insurance plans.
"In Wisconsin we're smart enough to know the truth. We know what this is all about. It's about breaking the back of the middle class," AFSCME International president Gerald McEntee told the crowd. [Watch WBAY-TV's coverage.]
Mike Imbrogno, a shop steward in AFSCME Local 171, told the Socialist Worker's Aongus O'Murchadha how union members surged inside the capital building, chanting their demands.
"I've never seen anything like it. It wasn't just teachers and union members from the University of Wisconsin (UW), where I work. There were Steelworkers, Teamsters, Pipefitters, building trades unions and more--unions I've never seen at a rally in 10 years," he said. "The most amazing thing is when the firefighters came in a delegation. Along with police, Walker has exempted firefighters from the legislation, but they came with signs that said, 'Firefighters for workers' rights.' People were crying."
Nearly 800 Madison East High School students walked out of class to join the demonstration. "Last time I checked Madison was the new Cairo," said senior Riley Moore, whose mother is a Madison teacher and father works for UW-Madison.
Viroqua high school students walked out of class and marched to the Vernon County Courthouse where they gave speeches and were joined by business owners and city employees. "If teachers are willing to stand by us when we need them, we as students need to stand by teachers when they need us," said student organizer Luke Cleiber, in an interview with WXOW. They were back in class by 11am.
That night, about 1,000 citizens, including teachers, nurses and other public employees, gathered outside of Governor Walker's home in Wauwatosa chanting, "Kill the bill," and carrying signs saying, "Stop the attack on workers' rights."
On February 16, Madison public schools were closed because 40 percent of teachers and staff called in sick to protest the bill.
On February 13, at least 100 union workers in Horicon marched in front of the home of Republican State Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald to protest the plan. "I've got a message for Scott Walker. This is my union card and you can pry it from my cold dead hand," organizer Colin Millard said to the crowd once they reached Fitzgerald's home.
The AP reports that Fitzgerald wasn't home and he declined an interview request from WTMJ.
On February 14, more than 1,000 people, including students, teaching assistants and professors from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee marched to the governor's door to express their opposition. "I have two pre-existing conditions and cannot buy health care on the open market," Karen Outzen, a research associate who joined UWM in July, told the crowd. In an interview with JSOnline, Outzen said her health insurance, the only source of coverage for her husband, an electrician who was laid off last year, and her children, would be eliminated under Governor Walker's proposal.
In a separate rally that same day, a coalition of groups presented the governor with the "heartless award" for his proposed plan to rollback the state's Family and Medical Leave Act. Under the plan, employees working less than 25 hours a week would lose access to family leave.
The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson writes, "In Egypt, workers are having a revolutionary February. In the United States, by contrast, February is shaping up as the cruelest month workers have known in decades."
Other actions you may have missed this month
-On February 1, just minutes before 250 citizens, including nurses, patients, and health advocates, gathered outside of Blue Shield's corporate headquarters in San Francisco, the company announced plans to delay raising health insurance rates by 59 percent for two more months. The announcement comes a week after Pacific Care, Anthem, and Aetna also agreed to postpone rate hikes for two months. California's insurance commissioner Dave Jones is currently reviewing the increases to determine whether they are necessary, but he doesn't have the authority to stop them.
“We are here because this is the scene of corporate crime. The bean counters upstairs don’t sit at the bedside and hold the hands of our patients," said DeeAnn McEwen, co-president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU). "A 60-day delay is a small victory, but it won't alleviate the pain experienced by patients every day who must endure callous price increases and care denials by an industry that cares more about its bottom line than the patients it purports to serve."
"Blue Shield’s announcement today won’t stop protests against Blue Shield or other insurance corporations," said CNA/NNU executive director Rose Ann DeMoro. "We can learn a lesson from the streets of Egypt and other Arab countries. Public pressure is essential to confront tyranny, whether you are faced with political repression or corporate control of our health. There are lives in the balance. We can’t count on legislators, regulators, courts or the lobbyists. We have to rely on the mobilization of people to stop these insurance abuses and step up the call for genuine reform, expanding Medicare to cover everyone."
At the rally, a number of people with Blue Shield insurance said they can no longer afford the premiums. Kerry Abukhalaf said her family's monthly rate increased from $420 to $540 in January. Before the delay was announced, she was notified that her rate would increase to $640 in March. “Our insurance is completely not worth the price. We pay almost half what we pay for rent,” she said with her son in her arms. “It's just a big rip-off. We may just throw our chances to the wind and find insurance for our son and pay out of pocket for my husband and myself.”
Members of groups including Healthcare Now, the San Francisco Labor Council, Consumer Watchdog, and Physicians for a National Health Program, also attended the rally.
According to a new CNA/NNU report, seven of California's main insurers rejected almost 13 million claims, or 26 percent of claims submitted in the first three quarters of last year.
“These rejection rates demonstrate one reason medical bills are a prime source of personal bankruptcies as doctors and hospitals will push patients and their families to make up what the insurer denies,” said McEwen. The national reform law signed by President Obama last spring has, to date, had no impact on the high pace of insurance denials."
WellPoint, the parent company of Blue Shield of California and Anthem Blue Cross beat Wall Street's expectations after it reported revenue of $14.42 billion. Fourth-quarter net income was $548 million. Aetna's fourth quarter net income increased to $215 million from 165 million last year. "It is a very good time for profits in the health-insurance industry," Robert Laszewski, president of consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates LLC, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
The Blue Shield action received local TV and print coverage.
Watch video and hear from people who can no longer afford health insurance.
--On February 7, a few dozen citizens, including consumer advocate and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, greeted President Obama with chants as he walked across Lafayette Square to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where he told the CEOs of multi-national corporations that he's convinced "we can and must work together." Members of National Nurses United and Single Payer Action shouted, "What about single payer, Mr. President? Stop caving to the corporations. What about your pledge for single payer? Stop buckling to the corporate power."
"I don't think a U.S. president has ever walked from the White House to pay homage to the business barons. Usually, a president has enough character to say to the corporate barons, 'Would you come and meet in the White House?' So symbolically, it's like a transfer of overt power to the corporate barons who've been opposing almost everything he's proposing," said Nader. “The fact that he snubbed the AFL-CIO headquarters which is right around the corner, whose member unions represent 13 million workers all over the country, sends us a message – that he’ll pay homage to his adversaries and continue to turn his back on his supporters because he knows his supporters have no where to go. They are not going to vote Republican in 2012, so that's disrespect for his supporters.”
"We're protesting the fact that we want our President to pay more attention to what's happening to working people in this county and to not kowtow to the Chamber," said Donna Smith, community organizer and legislative advocate with the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United.
Single Payer Action reports that the President walked within a couple hundred feet of the protesters and waved to them.
National media outlets reported that the President was hoping to ">"mend ties" with the Chamber even though the administration's economic team is filled with Wall Street executives and most multi-nationals have posted better-than-expected fourth-quarter profits, but none of the reporters who covered the speech bothered to interview the protesters outside.
Watch video from Stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
--On February 8, some 2,000 teachers and public school supporters packed the Indiana statehouse to oppose Republican Governor Mitch Daniels' proposal to drastically change the state's education system. His plan includes restrictions on collective bargaining, performance-based pay for teachers, and a publicly funded voucher system that could be used to send students to charter schools. The South Bend Tribune reports that teachers jeered when the Republican-controlled House approved a bill that would expand charter schools.
The Indiana State Teachers Association's Nate Schnellenberger told WLFI-TV that the political debate is not about education reform. "It’s much more about diminishing our rights as educators to do what we know is right in the classroom and to share our expertise with our administrators," he said.
Democratic Representative Craig Fry told the South Bend Tribune that collective bargaining is really at the root of the push for education reform. "The bottom line in this whole thing is the Republicans want to destroy the teachers unions," he said. "They can say whatever they want, but the bottom line is they want to destroy the teachers unions because of politics."
Teachers from across the state traveled to Indianapolis to attend the rally, which was organized by state unions and the PTA, and express their frustrations. “We are very concerned they are trying to destroy public education without having a working knowledge of what is going on in public education," said Sande Bemis, an English teacher at Riverton Parke Junior-Senior High School, in an interview with The Tribune-Star. "I think it’s critically important we take a stand and let them know teachers aren’t just going to roll over and accept this.”
Hundreds of teachers rallied across the street from the courthouse in Martinsville on February 14 to keep the momentum going and show their support for public education. "Today's event is to get a positive message out, that our schools do work," said Justin Oakley, an eighth-grade teacher, in an interview with WRTV.
More than 600 steelworkers gathered in the Indianapolis Statehouse on February 15 to oppose what they called the Republican's "anti-worker agenda."
"Our people have worked hard and long," said steelworker Terie Creal in an interview with the AP. "We don't want to give back our rights." --Also on February 8, hundreds of citizens gathered in Frankfort, Kentucky to express opposition to Senate Bill 6, which would allow law enforcement to check anyone they "suspect" is undocumented.
"There are many of us in the House of Representatives who will not sit quietly and let this Senate Bill 6 see the light of day," said Democratic Representative Reginald Meeks. "We will not stand by and promote racism and inequality and injustice being done to you, the citizens of the commonwealth of Kentucky."
Check out photos and a video from the Stop SB6 Rally.
--And 200 people with disabilities, their family members, and caregivers demonstrated outside the gates of Northern California's San Quentin State Prison to protest a plan to build a new $356 million death row facility, while cutting services for the disabled.
"If they keep cutting, the day centers and group homes won't be able to afford to keep their doors open, and there is nowhere for these people to go," said Denise Scussel of Tamalpais Valley, in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News.
Scussel's daughter Christina, 27, is neurologically impaired and spends her days at Marin Ventures. "Really and truly, my daughter loves this program," Scussel said. "It's her life."
--On February 9, 400 immigrants and their supporters from 41 legislative districts in Washington gathered at the state Capitol in Olympia to call on the legislature to oppose budget cuts and anti-immigration legislation. According to The News Tribune, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire's proposed budget would cut health insurance for 27,000 undocumented children, eliminate state funding for medical interpreters, cut job preparation programs for refugees, and eliminate state-funded services that help immigrants and low-income refugees apply for citizenship. Those attending the rally also expressed opposition to legislation that would require people to verify their immigration status before they could get a driver's license.
--On February 10, 23 workers, clergy, and community supporters were arrested for blocking the front entrance to the Hyatt Regency hotel in downtown San Francisco. Over 350 workers picketed the hotel for refusing to settle a contract with 700 of its San Francisco hotel workers. According to Unite Here! Local 2, it's been over a year and a half since the last contract expired, but Hyatt management continues to propose contracts that would increase health care costs for workers by hundreds of dollars a month, freeze pensions, and increase workloads. All three Hyatts in San Francisco are under boycott.
According to Labor Notes, workers in seven cities, from Chicago to Honolulu held similar actions. "In San Antonio, Texas, workers put the focus on excessive workloads that cause injuries. They marched into the Hyatt Regency lobby, carrying nine-foot-tall “body maps”—posters of room attendants dotted with “Ouch” stickers where workers report common injuries. Arm, shoulder, and back injuries due to a speedup are the most often reported," writes Jenny Brown.
In Los Angeles, 550 hotel workers and their supporters surrounded the doors of the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza, while protesters dropped a banner from a hotel room reading, "Hyatt--Stop Hurting Housekeepers."
In Honolulu, 400 union workers marched outside the Hyatt Regency Waikiki and occupied the lobby to highlight safety concerns. KITV reports that last November, Hyatt housekeepers in Honolulu and seven other cities on the mainland filed injury complaints with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), reporting repetitive motion, back injuries and other ailments suffered on the job. OSHA logs recorded 750 injuries at 12 Hyatt hotels in eight different cities between 2007-2009. According to UNITE-HERE, the union representing over 100,000 workers in more than 900 hotels in North America, at some Hyatt hotels, room attendants are required to clean as many as 30 rooms a day, nearly double what is commonly required in the industry.
--Also on February 10, two dozen members of the Black Economic Council, the Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles, and the National Asian American Coalition gathered outside of Google's Mountain View, California headquarters to call on technology companies to do a better job of hiring people of color. The group also criticized Google, Apple, and 20 other Silicon Valley companies for refusing to share their work force diversity data with them. According to a report in the San Jose Mercury News, the groups are asking the government to force the companies to disclose their data.
A report in the Mercury News last year, based on the combined work force date from 10 of Silicon Valley's largest corporations--including Intel, Hewlett-Packard, and eBay-- found that Hispanics and blacks made up a smaller share of high-tech workers in 2008 than they did in 2000, even as their share grew across the country. By 2005, only about 2,200 of the 30,000 Silicon Valley-based workers at those 10 companies were black or Hispanic. The share of women at those 10 companies declined to 33 percent in 2005, from 37 percent in 1999.
According to the report, of the 5,907 top managers and officials in the Silicon Valley offices of the 10 large companies in 2005, 296 were black or Hispanic, a 20 percent decline from 2000, according to U.S. Department of Labor work-force data obtained by the Mercury News through a Freedom of Information request.
--On February 12, thousands of North Carolinians marched through downtown Raleigh to protest state budget cuts and rally for a 14-point progressive agenda, including universal health care, affordable housing, immigrations rights, educational equality, jobs, and equal protection under the law. According to the News & Observer, the NAACP and a coalition of more than 100 organizations from across the state met for the Historic Thousands on Jones Street rally, which also commemorated the 102nd anniversary of the NAACP.
"We will challenge Democrats who are not progressive, and we will challenge Republicans who attempt to revise history, saying that you are back in power after 100 years of absence," said North Carolina NAACP President Rev. William Barber. "This is the people's house. It's not their house. And it's so important we hear from all the people."
"Look at Egypt. That's a perfect example. Talk about the power of the people," said University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student Rachel Holtzman, in an interview with WRAL.
--On February 14, hundreds of Kentuckians marched several blocks to the state Capitol to take part in the "I Love Mountains" rally and demand an end to mountain top removal. The march took place as 14 environmental activists, including 76-year-old Kentucky author of poet Wendell Barry, ended a three-day sit-in at the governor's office. "We visit with the legislators and nothing happens," said Berry. "There at least needs to be a debate."
Environmental groups say surface mining has buried more than 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams. "The bigger issue, I think, is that it's killing a culture. It's changing a people's way of life," said Kentucky author and playwright Slias House. "We identify as mountain people, and when those are taken away, what do we have left?"
"It's about the oldest most bio diverse mountain range in the world being destroyed," said protester Mickey McCoy. "And it's about the cancer rates and other disease these carcinogenic heavy metals are causing."
The Courier-Journal reports that in an impromptu 20-minute meeting with Berry and the other protesters on February 11, Democratic Governor Steve Beshear said he believes "surface mining can be done in a responsible way.” At the group's request, the governor has agreed to meet with people who are affected by strip mining, but he declined a request to withdraw from a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency over the Clean Water Act.
--On February 14, 300 victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault and their supporters marched on the Texas Capitol to urge lawmakers to continue funding family violence programs and crisis centers across the state. Members of the Texas Council on Family Violence and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault said the programs and centers save lives and can't survive if their budgets are cut. One rape occurs every hours in Texas, reports KVUE.
--Affordable housing advocates in 19 cities, including San Francisco, California, Dallas, Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Portland, Maine, gathered to demand an end to drastic cuts to Section 8 and public housing, and to ask lawmakers to "Have a Heart, Save Our Homes." According to the National Alliance of HUD Tenants, the new Republican-led House leadership has proposed to cut as much as $100 billion from the 2011 budget. This could cut off 750,000 Section 8 tenants from federal assistance, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The Obama administration's new budget calls for an additional 5 percent cut to HUD and a $1 billion reduction from the $4 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which funds local housing programs.
The actions in the larger cities received some media attention, but overall, they failed to receive the coverage they deserved.
--On February 15, 45 NARAL Pro-Choice California supporters gathered outside of Republican Representative Dan Lungren's district office in Gold River, California to oppose his support of the current anti-choice, anti-women agenda in Congress. Rep. Lungren is co-sponsor of three anti-choice measures that would severely limit women's access to reproductive health services, cut funding to family planning and allow hospitals to deny a woman abortion care even if her life is in danger.
“Instead of focusing on jobs and the economy, Dan Lungren has chosen to back an extreme anti-choice agenda that is an assault on the personal, private decisions of women in California,” said Amy Everitt, state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California. “Lungren, whose priorities are wildly out of touch with his district and with California, needs to be held accountable for his support of these outrageous bills.”
NARAL supporters were met by abortion opponents who held signs perpetuating the lie that abortion causes breast cancer. [Watch video from the Sacramento Bee.]
In Seattle, Washington, 90 people lined the streets in front of Planned Parenthood to support the health center and oppose a Republican amendment to cut all of its federal funding. The Seattle rally was one of eight statewide, according to the Seattle Times.
The House is scheduled to vote on the amendment this week.
A number of pro-choice organizations including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice NY have called for a mass rally for women's health in New York City on Saturday, February 26.
If you know of any future planned actions and rallies, email rose@yourcallradio.org.
Rose Aguilar is the host of Your Call, a daily call-in radio show on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco and KUSP 88.9 FM in Santa Cruz, and author of Red Highways: A Liberal's Journey into the Heartland.
© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149942/
Labels:
activism,
labor,
revolution,
rights,
wisconsin
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
"Facts Still Matter ..."
Monday 14 February 2011
by: Bill Moyers, t r u t h o u t | Speech
History Makers is an organization of broadcasters and producers from around the world concerned with the challenges and opportunities faced by factual broadcasting. Bill Moyers was the keynote speaker at the 2011 convention on January 27, 2011, in New York City.
Thanks to all of you for your welcome - and for the chance to be here among so many kindred spirits. Your dedication to factual broadcasting, to our craft and calling; your passion for telling stories that matter; for connecting the present to the past, has created a community whose work is essential in this disquieting time when "what is happening today, this hour, this very minute, seems to be our sole criterion for judgment and action." It is a sad world that exists only in the present, unaware of the long procession that brought us here. As Milan Kundera’s insight reminds us, the struggle against power "is the struggle of memory against forgetting."
I talked about this gathering when I was in California this past weekend and spent time with a good friend and supporter of my own work on television, Paul Orfalea. He's the maverick entrepreneur who founded Kinko's in a former hamburger stand with one small rented Xerox copier and turned it into a business service empire with more than two billion dollars a year in revenue. After selling Kinko's, Paul became one of the most popular, if unorthodox, teachers of undergraduates at the University of California/ Santa Barbara. When I told him what I would be doing today he applauded and understood immediately the importance of what you do. He described to me how he teaches history "backwards" to college students who have learned little about the past in high school, don't know that the past is even alive, much less that it lives in them and question its value today. He hands his students a contemporary story from some daily news source, tells them to begin with the "now" of it and to then walk the trail back down the chronology to trace the personalities, circumstances and choices that made it today's news. Their assignment, in effect, is to begin at the entrance to the cave and rewind Ariadne's thread in the opposite direction, back to the deep origins of the story. In an era marked by the lack of continuity and community between the generations, this strikes me as an inspired way to stretch young imaginations across the time zones of human experience.
And it's, of course, what you do so often in your work. No one I know does it more effectively than "Frontline." and I was pleased to learn that you are honoring its executive director, David Fanning, who is a genius, in my book, at story telling grounded in fact and presented with perspective. Over the past quarter century, I have been privileged to collaborate occasionally with David. But beyond my own personal and professional gratitude to him, all of us who produce current affairs and history programming know that he has kept the bar high while producing a body of work unequaled since Fred Friendly. Most of you are too young to have seen the whole arc of David's extraordinary career or to have known Fred Friendly's work. But some of us can never forget we're standing on the shoulder of those two giants.
I also had the privilege of witnessing Fred in action. When he was president of "CBS News" and I was the White House press secretary, he would come down from New York on the shuttle and slip in the back door of the White House and along the hall past the Cabinet Room to the private entrance to my office for an hour-or-so chat. I had done some preliminary work at the Office of Education on the future of public television in 1964, and we were soon talking about the medium's future; he was a true believer in television "that dignifies instead of debases" and of the importance "of at least one channel free of commercials and commercial values." Little did we know at the time that he would soon quit the job he relished as president of the news division that he and Edward R. Murrow had built. The two of them created "See It Now" and "CBS Reports," which set the standard for investigative reporting and documentaries of unprecedented power and impact. One of their collaborations was the famous documentary on the demagogic and dangerous Senator Joseph McCarthy. They made the brilliant decision to let McCarthy speak for himself, an entire broadcast's worth of his bullying words and techniques. McCarthy obligingly hanged himself on national television, far more effectively and fatally than anyone else's words could. His own words had turned Americans against his demagoguery - something for which the right to this day has never forgiven what they denounced as the "Communist Broadcasting System." Watching that documentary over and again, I realized that it is through such unhurried honoring of reality that we can approach the myriad and messy truths of human experience. For lasting effect, those truths cannot be forced into the mind of the public; they must be nurtured.
Fred never wanted to leave CBS, but in 1966, when the network refused to carry Senate hearings on the Vietnam War, choosing instead to run a repeat of "I Love Lucy," he resigned, became the media adviser to the Ford Foundation and was the prime mover in the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He became our Johnny Appleseed, persuading the foundation to put its money - millions of dollars - where his mind was.
I had left the White House by then to be publisher of Newsday and would soon join public television as anchor of a weekly broadcast. Fred's first teaching assistant, Martin Clancy, was my star producer. It was usually one of Fred's people who taught me the most about our craft - how it was possible through the coupling of word and image to come close to the verifiable truth and an honest accounting of reality. Fred played a critical role in my life when, after stints at both CBS and PBS, I had to choose between the two. I had found it increasingly difficult at the network to do the work I most wanted to do, but was reluctant to take off the golden handcuffs and leap into the world of independent production. I went over to see Fred at the foundation and there was nothing subtle in his advice. He said, "You're never going to do the work you most want to do until you do it for yourself." So, I followed him overboard.
Fred was right, as he so often was: independence meant the best hope for me to pursue journalism as a mission. Perhaps, we were naïve, but in those days many of us still assumed that an informed public is preferable to an uninformed one. Hadn't Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government"? And wasn't a free press essential to that end?
Maybe not. As Joe Keohane reported last year in The Boston Globe, political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency "deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information." He was reporting on research at the University of Michigan, which found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in new stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts were not curing misinformation. "Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger." You can read the entire article online.
I won't spoil it for you by a lengthy summary here. Suffice it to say that, while "most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence," the research found that actually "we often base our opinions on our beliefs ... and rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions."
These studies help to explain why America seems more and more unable to deal with reality. So many people inhabit a closed belief system on whose door they have hung the "Do Not Disturb" sign, that they pick and choose only those facts that will serve as building blocks for walling them off from uncomfortable truths. Any journalist whose reporting threatens that belief system gets sliced and diced by its apologists and polemicists (say, the fabulists at Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the yahoos of talk radio.) Remember when Limbaugh, for one, took journalists on for their reporting about torture at Abu Ghraib? He attempted to dismiss the cruelty inflicted on their captives by American soldiers as a little necessary "sport" for soldiers under stress, saying on air: "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation ... you [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?" As so often happens, the Limbaugh line became a drumbeat in the nether reaches of the right-wing echo chamber. So, it was not surprising that in a nationwide survey conducted by The Chicago Tribune on First Amendment issues, half of the respondents said there should be some kind of press restraint on reporting about the prison abuse. According to Charles Madigan, the editor of the Tribune's Perspective section, 50 or 60 percent of the respondents said they "would embrace government controls of some kind on free speech, particularly when it has sexual content or is heard as unpatriotic."
No wonder many people still believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, as his birth certificate shows; or that he is a Muslim, when in fact he is a Christian; or that he is a socialist when day by day he shows an eager solicitude for corporate capitalism. Partisans in particular - and the audiences for Murdoch's Fox News and talk radio - are particularly susceptible to such scurrilous disinformation. In a Harris survey last spring, 67 percent of Republicans said Obama is a socialist; 57 percent believed him to be a Muslim; 45 percent refused to believe he was born in America; and 24 percent said he "may be the antichrist."
The bigger the smear, the more it sticks. And there is no shortage of smear artists. Last year, Forbes Magazine, obviously bent on mischief, allowed the right-wing fantasist Dinesh D'Souza to tar Obama with a toxic brew so odious it triggered memories of racist babble - a perverted combination of half-baked psychology, biology and sociology - that marked the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan. Seizing upon the anti-colonial views of Obama's Kenyan father, who had deserted the family when the boy was two years old and whose absence from his life Obama meditated upon in his best-selling book "Dreams of My Father," D'Souza wrote that, "Incredibly, the US is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son."
In a sane political world, you might think at least a few Republican notables would have denounced such hogwash by their own kind for what it was. But no. Newt Gingrich, once their speaker of the House, whose own fantasies include succeeding Obama in the White House, set the tone by praising D'Souza's claptrap as the "most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama." D'Souza, said Gingrich, has made a "stunning insight" and had unlocked the mystery of Obama. I could find only one conservative who stood up against this trash. David Frum, the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, wrote on his blog: "The argument that Obama is an infiltrating alien, a deceiving foreigner - and not just any kind of alien, but specifically a Third World alien - has been absorbed to the very core of the Republican platform for November 2010." Once again, the right-wing media machine had popularized a false narrative and made of it a destructive political weapon.
Disinformation is not unique to the right, of course. Like other journalists, I have been the object of malevolent assaults from the "9/11 truthers" for not reporting their airtight case proving that the Bush administration conspired to bring about the attacks on the World Trade Center. How did they discover this conspiracy? As the independent journalist Robert Parry has written, "the truthers" threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the "truthers" cherry-picked a few supposed "anomalies" to build an "inside-job" story line. Fortunately, this Big Lie never took hold in the public mind. These truthers on the left, if that is where GPS can find them on the political map, are outgunned, outmatched and outshouted by the media apparatus on the right that pounds the public like drone missiles loaded with conspiracy theories and disinformation and accompanied by armadas of outright lies.
George Orwell had warned six decades ago that the corrosion of language goes hand in hand with the corruption of democracy. If he were around today, he would remind us that "like the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket," this kind of propaganda engenders a "protective stupidity" almost impossible for facts to penetrate.
But you, my colleagues, can't give up. If you do, there's no chance any public memory of everyday truths - the tangible, touchable, palpable realities so vital to democracy - will survive. We would be left to the mercy of the agitated amnesiacs who "make" their own reality, as one of them boasted at the time America invaded Iraq, in order to maintain their hold on the public mind and the levers of power. You will remember that in Orwell's novel "1984," Big Brother banishes history to the memory hole, where inconvenient facts simply disappear. Control of the present rests on obliteration of the past. The figure of O'Brien, who is the personification of Big Brother, says to the protagonist, Winston Smith: "We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves." And they do. The bureaucrats in the Ministry of Truth destroy the records of the past and publish new versions. These in turn are superseded by yet more revisions. Why? Because people without memory are at the mercy of the powers that be; there is nothing against which to measure what they are told today. History is obliterated.
Fight the lies and misinformation; support truth! Please make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout today and keep real independent journalism strong.
The late scholar Cleanth Brooks of Yale thought there were three great enemies of democracy. He called them "The Bastard Muses": Propaganda, which pleads sometimes unscrupulously, for a special cause at the expense of the total truth; sentimentality, which works up emotional responses unwarranted by, and in excess of, the occasion; and pornography, which focuses upon one powerful human drive at the expense of the total human personality. The poet Czeslaw Milosz identified another enemy of democracy when, upon accepting the Noble Prize for Literature, he said "Our planet that gets smaller every year, with its fantastic proliferation of mass media, is witnessing a process that escapes definition, characterized by a refusal to remember." Memory is crucial to democracy; historical amnesia, its nemesis.
Against these tendencies it is an uphill fight to stay the course of factual broadcasting. We have to keep reassuring ourselves and one another that it matters and we have to join forces to defend and safeguard our independence. I learned this early on.
When I collaborated with the producer Sherry Jones on the very first documentary ever about the purchase of government favors by political action committees, we unfurled across the Capitol grounds yard after yard of computer printouts listing campaign contributions to every member of Congress. The broadcast infuriated just about everyone, including old friends of mine who a few years earlier had been allies when I worked at the White House. Congressmen friendly to public television were also outraged, but, I am pleased to report, PBS took the heat without melting.
But shining the spotlight on political corruption is nothing compared to what can happen if you raise questions about corporate power in Washington, as my colleague Marty Koughan and I discovered when we produced a program for David Fanning and "Frontline" on pesticides and food. Marty had learned that industry was attempting behind closed doors to dilute the findings of the American Academy of Sciences study on the effects of pesticide residues on children. Before we finished the documentary, the industry somehow purloined a copy of our draft script - we still aren't certain how - and mounted a sophisticated and expensive campaign to discredit our program before it aired. Television reviewers and editorial pages of key newspapers were flooded with propaganda. Some public television managers were so unnerved by the blitz of misleading information about a film they had not yet broadcast that they actually protested to PBS with letters that had been prepared by the industry.
Here's what most perplexed us: the American Cancer Society - an organization that in no way figured in our story - sent to its 3,000 local chapters a "critique" of the unfinished documentary claiming, wrongly, that it exaggerated the dangers of pesticides in food. We were puzzled. Why was the American Cancer Society taking the unusual step of criticizing a documentary that it had not seen, that had not aired and that did not claim what the Society alleged? An enterprising reporter named Sheila Kaplan later looked into those questions for the journal Legal Times. It turns out that the Porter Novelli public relations firm, which had worked for several chemical companies, also did pro bono work for the American Cancer Society. Kaplan found that the firm was able to cash in some of the goodwill from that "charitable" work to persuade the compliant communications staff at the Society to distribute some harsh talking point about the documentary before it aired - talking points that had been supplied by, but not attributed to, Porter Novelli. Legal Times headlined the story "Porter Novelli Plays All Sides." A familiar Washington game.
Others also used the American Cancer Society's good name in efforts to tarnish the journalism before it aired, none more invidiously than the right-wing polemicist Reed Irvine, who pumped his sludge through an organization with the Orwellian name Accuracy in Media. He attacked our work as "junk science on PBS" and demanded Congress pull the plug on public broadcasting. Fortunately, PBS once again stood firm. The documentary aired, the journalism held up and the publicity liberated the National Academy of Sciences to release the study that the industry had tried to cripple.
However, there's always another round; the sharks are always circling. Sherry Jones and I spent more than a year working on another PBS documentary called "Trade Secrets," a two-hour investigative special based on revelations - found in the industry's own archives - that big chemical companies had deliberately withheld from workers and consumers damaging information about toxic chemicals in their products. These internal industry documents are a fact. They exist. They are not a matter of opinion or point of view. They state what the companies knew, when they knew it and what they did with what they knew (namely to deep-six it) at peril to those who worked with and consumed the potentially lethal products.
The revelations portrayed deep and pervasive corruption in a major American industry and raised critical policy implications about the safety of living under a regulatory system manipulated by the industry itself. If the public and government regulators had known what the industry knew about the health risks of its products when the industry knew it, America's laws and regulations governing chemical manufacturing would have been far more protective of human health. But the industry didn't want us to know. That's what the documents revealed and that was the story the industry fought to keep us from telling.
The industry hired as an ally a public relations firm in Washington noted for using private detectives and former CIA, FBI and drug enforcement officers to conduct investigations for corporations under critical scrutiny. One of the company's founders acknowledged that corporations may need to resort to "deceit" and other unconventional resources to counter public scrutiny. Given the scurrilous campaign that was conducted to smear our journalism, his comments were an understatement. To complicate matters, the Congressman, who for years had been the single biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the chemical industry, was the very member of Congress whose committee had jurisdiction over public broadcasting's appropriations. As an independent production firm, we had not used public funds to produce the documentary. But even our independence didn't stop the corporate mercenaries from bringing relentless pressure on PBS not to air the broadcast. The then president of PBS, Pat Mitchell, stood tall in resisting the pressure and was vindicated: one year later, The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences awarded "Trade Secrets" an Emmy for outstanding investigative journalism.
Now, you can understand how it is that journalism became for me a continuing course in adult education. It enabled me to produce documentaries like "Trade Secrets" and out-of-the-box series like "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth." It enabled me to cover the summits of world leaders and the daily lives of struggling families in Newark. It empowered me to explain how public elections are subverted by private money, and to how to make a poem. Journalism also provided me a passport into the world of ideas, which became my favorite beat, in no small part because I never met anyone - philosopher or physicist, historian, artist, writer, scientist, entrepreneur or social critic - who didn't teach me something I hadn't known, something that enlarged my life.
Here's an example: One of my favorite of all interviews was with my sainted fellow Texan, the writer and broadcaster John Henry Faulk, who had many years earlier, been the target of a right-wing smear campaign that resulted in his firing by CBS from his job as a radio host here in New York, one of the low moments in that network's history. But John Henry fought back in court and won a landmark legal victory against his tormentors. After he returned home to Texas, I did the last interview with him before his death in 1990. He told me the story of how he and his friend Boots Cooper were playing in the chicken coop when they were about 12 years old. They spied a chicken snake in the top tier of nests, so close it looked like a boa constrictor. As John Henry put it, "All our frontier courage drained out our heels - actually it trickled down our overall legs - and Boots and I made a new door through that henhouse wall." Hearing all the commotion Boots' momma came out and said, "Don't you boys know chicken snakes are harmless? They can't harm you." And Boots, rubbing his forehead and behind at the same time, said, "Yes, Mrs. Faulk, I know that, but they can scare you so bad, it'll cause you to hurt yourself." John Henry Faulk told me that's a lesson he never forgot. Over and again I've tried to remember it, too, calling on it to restore my resolve and my soul.
I've had a wonderful life in broadcasting, matriculating as a perpetual student in the school of journalism. Other people have paid the tuition and travel and I've never really had to grow up and get a day job. I think it's because journalism has been so good to me that I am sad when I hear or read that factual broadcasting is passé - that television as a venue for forensic journalism is on its way out and that trying to find out "what really happened" - which is our mandate - is but a quaint relic in an age of post-structuralism and cyberspace. But despite all our personal electronic devices, people are watching more television than ever. Much of this programming is posted online; I believe at least half the audience for my last two weekly series on Friday night came over the weekend via streaming video, iPods and TIVO. I was pleased to discover that the web sites most frequented by educators are those of PBS and that our own sites were among the most popular destinations. That's what keeps us going, isn't it? The knowledge that all the bias and ignorance notwithstanding, facts still matter to critical thinking, that if we respect and honor, even revere them, they just might help us right the ship of state before it rams the iceberg.
That's why, on balance, I count WikiLeaks a plus for democracy. Whatever side you take on the controversy, whether or not you think this information should be disclosed, all parties - those who want it released and those who don't - acknowledge that information matters. Partly because I grew up in the south and partly because of my experience in the Johnson White House, I'm on the side of disclosure, even when it hurts. The truth about slavery had been driven from the pulpits, newsrooms and classrooms during the antebellum days; it took a bloody civil war to drive the truth home. At the Johnson White House, we circled the wagons and grew intolerant of news that didn't conform to our hopes, expectations and strategies for Vietnam, with terrible, tragic results for Americans and Vietnamese, north and south. I say: "Never again!"
Here's a sidebar: I remember vividly the day President Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): July 4, 1966. He signed it "with a deep sense of pride," declaring in almost lyrical language "that the United States is an open society in which the people's right to know is cherished and guarded." That's what he said. The truth is, the president had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of journalists rummaging in government closets, hated them challenging the authorized view of reality, hated them knowing what he didn't want them to know. He dug in his heels and even threatened to pocket veto the bill after it reached the White House. Only the courage and political skill of a Congressman named John Moss got the bill passed at all and that was after a 12-year battle against his Congressional elders, who blinked every time the sun shined on the dark corners of power. They managed to cripple the bill Moss had drafted and, even then, only some last-minute calls to LBJ from a handful of influential newspaper editors overcame the president's reluctance. He signed "the f------ thing," as he called it and then, lo and behold, went out to claim credit for it.
It's always a fight to find out what the government doesn't want us to know. The official obsession with secrecy is all the more disturbing today because the war on terrorism is a war without limits, without a visible enemy or decisive encounters. We don't know where the clandestine war is going on or how much it's costing and whether it's in the least effective. Even in Afghanistan, most of what we know comes from official, usually military, sources.
Thus, a relative handful of people have enormous power to keep us in the dark. And when those people are in league with their counterparts in powerful corporations, the public is hit with a double whammy. We're usually told the issue is national security, but keeping us from finding out about the danger of accidents at chemical plants is not about national security; it's about covering up an industry's indiscretions and liabilities. Locking up the secrets of meetings with energy executives is not about national security; it's about hiding confidential memos sent to the White House showing the influence of oil companies on policies of global warming We only learned about that memo from the Bush White House, by the way, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act.
Consider WikiLeaks, then, to be one big FOIA dump. Were some people in high places embarrassed? Perhaps. They did squeal, but I don't think they were stuck.
And even so, we learned some important things from WikiLeaks. For example, as Reza Alsan writes in The Atlantic, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may not be as fanatical as we think he is; the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks portray him as "a moderate reformer who'd like to cut deals with the West, but can't because hard-liners are calling the shots." One of them even slapped Ahmadinejad across the face when, at a high-level meeting. he proposed that the government allow more personal and press freedom at the height of the 2009 public protests in Iran. Such information can help us evaluate the incessant demands of neoconservative warmongers - the very people who rode the circuit with news of "weapons of mass destruction" in an effort to build support for invading Iraq - that we use military force against Iran to eliminate its nuclear capacity.
There are other uses of the disclosures from WikiLeaks admirably compiled by Greg Mitchell in the current edition of The Nation, where the one-time editor of Editor and Publisher performed an important public service by culling the gold from the dust.
I will close with an urgent appeal to you about one fight we won't win unless all of us join it. I'm sure everyone here agrees that we will eventually be moving to the web, all of us and that "free, instant, worldwide connectivity" is the future. But I'm sure you know that this incredible, free, open Internet highway is at risk, that corporations are on the brink of muscling their way to the front of the line. Media companies want the power to censor Internet content they don't like, to put toll booths on the web so they can charge more for the privilege of driving in the fast lanes, to turn it into a private preserve.
You may have heard that last month the FCC decided to protect free/open Internet access only on landline connections, not wireless - which is to say, there's no net neutrality in most of the online world. As Jenn Ettinger of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Free Press reported in Yes! magazine just two days ago:
The rules that the FCC passed in December are vague and weak. The limited protections that were placed on wired connections, the kind you access through your home computer, leave the door open for the phone and cable companies to develop fast and slow lanes on the Web and to favor their own content or applications.
Worse, the rules also explicitly allow wireless carriers ... to block applications for any reason and to degrade and de-prioritize websites you access using your cell phone or a device like an iPad.
Perhaps the FCC is biding its time, waiting to see how things develop technologically, with the current FCC chair seemingly more open to citizen input than was his predecessor. Or, again, maybe the landline regulation was meant simply to get media reformers off the commission's back. We can't relax our vigilance. In Ettinger's words:
The FCC still has the opportunity to put in place a solid framework that would put the public interest above the profit motive of the phone and cable companies that it is supposed to regulate. And the FCC should take immediate steps to close the loopholes it created, to strengthen its rules and to include wireless protections. The fight is far from over. We can work to change the rules, demand better oversight and consumer protections and make sure that the big companies can't pad their bottom lines on the backs of their customers.
In this effort, we have a strong ally in FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who. on my broadcast last year, spelled out how "our future is going to ride on broadband. How we get a job is going to ride on broadband. How we take care of our health. How we educate ourselves about our responsibilities as citizens ... And it's absolutely imperative that we have a place, that we have a venue to go to, to make sure that that Internet is kept open ... That's our decision to make as a people, as citizens: who's going to control this ultimately?"
With all the media consolidation that's happening today, the web may be the last stand of independent factual broadcasters like you. The stakes are high and we have come to the decisive round. I'll leave you with a story Joseph Campbell told me years ago for my series "The Power of Myth." It seems a fellow rounding the corner saw a fight break out down the block. Running up to one of the bystanders, he shouted: "Is this a private fight or can anyone get in it?"
The Internet fight for democracy is a public fight. Come on in!
YOUTH IN REVOLT After Egypt, Riots Ripple Through Arab World
Iran Opposition Leaders Should Be Tried And Executed, Hardline Lawmakers Say
AP/The Huffington Post NASSER KARIMI First Posted: 02/15/11
TEHRAN, Iran -- Hardline Iranian lawmakers called on Tuesday for the country's opposition leaders to face trial and be put to death, a day after clashes between opposition protesters and security forces left one person dead and dozens injured.
Hundreds of thousands of people turned out for the opposition rally Monday in solidarity with Egypt's popular revolt that toppled President Hosni Mubarak after nearly 30 years in power. The demonstration was the first major show of strength from Iran's beleaguered opposition in more than a year.
1,500 people have allegedly been arrested.
At an open session of parliament Tuesday, pro-government legislators demanded opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mahdi Karroubi and former reformist President Mohammad Khatami face be held responsible for the protests.
Pumping their fists in the air, the lawmakers chanted "death to Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami."
"We believe the people have lost their patience and demand capital punishment" for the opposition leaders, 221 lawmakers said in a statement.
Hardliners have long sought to put senior opposition figures on trial, but the calls for the death penalty signaled an escalation in their demands.
Story continues below
Advertisement
Iran has already tried scores of opposition figures and activists on charges of fomenting the mass protests following the country's disputed 2009 presidential elections that saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win a second term. More than 80 of people were sentenced to prison terms ranging from six months to 15 years.
The opposition says scores were killed in the massive crackdown on those protests, while the government says only around 30 people died.
Following Monday's opposition demonstrations, the first since December 2009, authorities vowed to move quickly to stifle the opposition before its gains momentum.
"The judiciary will quickly and resolutely deal with major elements and those who violated public order and peace," the spokesman for Iran's judiciary and state prosecutor, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi, told the official IRNA news agency.
The U.S. has voiced support for the demonstrators. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday the protesters "deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt and are part of their own birthright."
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, on Tuesday rejected Clinton's remarks, and accused the U.S. of "meddling" in Iranian affairs.
Also Tuesday, Iranian officials confirmed that one person was killed in the protests.
IRNA quoted the security chief for Iran's Culture Ministry, Gholam Ali Zarei, as saying Sane Jaleh, a 26-year-old student at Tehran's University of Art, was killed. He said Jaleh was a government supporter.
Acting police commander Gen. Ahmad Reza Radan told IRNA that one person injured in the clashes remains in critical condition. He also confirmed that several people were arrested, but did not specify how many.
Radan claimed that members of the armed opposition group MEK, or Mujahedeen Khalq, opened fire at police and protesters, IRNA said. He did not provide any evidence to back up his claim.
He also accused the U.S., Britain and Israel of stoking the protests - a common allegation from officials in Tehran following any unrest in Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/iran-opposition-leaders-s_n_823303.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)