Yup, instead of checking work emails while drinking my morning coffee, I'm answering my facebook friends one of whom posted this great video ... work email can stew. I know that when I open it, there is just going to be a slew of spam in there anyway. Summer is slow ... Actually, there are a lot of recent DD videos on YouTube, from various shows around the country. It's amazing how an entire crowd can sing off-key. And the band sounds pretty good too. Good morning!
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Importance of Including Truth Emergency Inside the International Progressive Media Reform Movement
Guest Perspective by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff
An international truth emergency, now in evidence, is the result of fraudulent elections, compromised 9/11 investigations, illegal preemptive wars, and continued top down corporate media propaganda across the spectrum on public issues. Glenn Beck recently was able to say on national Fox News television that 9/11 Truth people openly supported the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Beck claimed that 9/11 truth proponents see James von Brunn as a “hero.” Beck’s statement is completely without factual merit and represents a hyperrealist slamming of a group already slanderously pre-labeled by the corporate media as “conspiracy theorists.”
Conspiracies tend to be actions by small groups of individuals rather than massive collective plots by entire governments. However, small groups can be dangerous, especially when the individuals have significant power in huge public and private bureaucracies. Corporate boards of directors meet in closed rooms to plan to how best to maximize profit. If they knowingly make plans that hurt others, violate laws, undermine ethics, or show favoritism to friends, they are involved in a conspiracy.
The main method of critics of unofficial investigations into 9/11, election fraud, and other controversial issues is to lump together all the questions and/or lines of inquiry as if they all have equal validity. Obviously, they do not. This, however, allows critics to dismiss fact-based, transparent inquiries into major problems with official explanations of these crucial matters by focusing on the most absurd claims only. These are fallacies of overgeneralization, straw persons, appeals to authority, and red herrings that provide distractions from actual fact-based, scientific investigations. These tactics avoid the debates about truth entirely. We the people must not be afraid to openly discuss, research, and validate these issues.
Here is a case in point: former Brigham Young University physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones and some 700 scientific professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering, and physics have now concluded that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Especially troubling is the collapse of WTC 7, a forty-seven-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint” in 6.6 seconds in the same manner as a controlled demolition.
To support his theory, Jones and eight other scientists conducted chemical research on the dust from the World Trade centers. Their research results were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009. The authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings. This should be a part of our political discourse given how much of the policy in the past eight years has been based on assumptions about 9/11.
These are some of the reasons we are in a truth emergency, which is predicated on the inability of many to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Corporate media, Fox in particular, offers “news” that creates a hyper-reality of real world problems and issues. Consumers of corporate news media — especially those whose understandings are framed primarily from that medium alone — are embedded in a state of excited delirium of knowinglessness. This lack of factual awareness of issues like election fraud in 2000 and 2004, and the increasing evidence of 9/11 Commission report inaccuracies, leaves people politically paralyzed.
To counter knowinglessness, media activists need to include truth emergency issues as important elements of radical-progressive media reform efforts. We must not be afraid of corporate media labeling and instead build truth from the bottom up. Critical thinking and fact-finding are the basis of democracy, and we must stand for the maximization of informed participatory democracy at the lowest possible level in society.
Progressive media activists should openly support 9/11 Truth and other truth emergency issues as important components of building a new non-exploitative world based on media democracy, full transparency and openness, and fundamental human rights.
Peter Phillips is Professor of Sociology, Sonoma State University; President, Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored; 9/11 Truth Steering Committee. Mickey Huff is Associate Professor of History, Diablo Valley College; Executive Committee, Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored; 9/11 Truth Advisory Committee.
An international truth emergency, now in evidence, is the result of fraudulent elections, compromised 9/11 investigations, illegal preemptive wars, and continued top down corporate media propaganda across the spectrum on public issues. Glenn Beck recently was able to say on national Fox News television that 9/11 Truth people openly supported the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Beck claimed that 9/11 truth proponents see James von Brunn as a “hero.” Beck’s statement is completely without factual merit and represents a hyperrealist slamming of a group already slanderously pre-labeled by the corporate media as “conspiracy theorists.”
Conspiracies tend to be actions by small groups of individuals rather than massive collective plots by entire governments. However, small groups can be dangerous, especially when the individuals have significant power in huge public and private bureaucracies. Corporate boards of directors meet in closed rooms to plan to how best to maximize profit. If they knowingly make plans that hurt others, violate laws, undermine ethics, or show favoritism to friends, they are involved in a conspiracy.
The main method of critics of unofficial investigations into 9/11, election fraud, and other controversial issues is to lump together all the questions and/or lines of inquiry as if they all have equal validity. Obviously, they do not. This, however, allows critics to dismiss fact-based, transparent inquiries into major problems with official explanations of these crucial matters by focusing on the most absurd claims only. These are fallacies of overgeneralization, straw persons, appeals to authority, and red herrings that provide distractions from actual fact-based, scientific investigations. These tactics avoid the debates about truth entirely. We the people must not be afraid to openly discuss, research, and validate these issues.
Here is a case in point: former Brigham Young University physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones and some 700 scientific professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering, and physics have now concluded that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Especially troubling is the collapse of WTC 7, a forty-seven-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint” in 6.6 seconds in the same manner as a controlled demolition.
To support his theory, Jones and eight other scientists conducted chemical research on the dust from the World Trade centers. Their research results were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009. The authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings. This should be a part of our political discourse given how much of the policy in the past eight years has been based on assumptions about 9/11.
These are some of the reasons we are in a truth emergency, which is predicated on the inability of many to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Corporate media, Fox in particular, offers “news” that creates a hyper-reality of real world problems and issues. Consumers of corporate news media — especially those whose understandings are framed primarily from that medium alone — are embedded in a state of excited delirium of knowinglessness. This lack of factual awareness of issues like election fraud in 2000 and 2004, and the increasing evidence of 9/11 Commission report inaccuracies, leaves people politically paralyzed.
To counter knowinglessness, media activists need to include truth emergency issues as important elements of radical-progressive media reform efforts. We must not be afraid of corporate media labeling and instead build truth from the bottom up. Critical thinking and fact-finding are the basis of democracy, and we must stand for the maximization of informed participatory democracy at the lowest possible level in society.
Progressive media activists should openly support 9/11 Truth and other truth emergency issues as important components of building a new non-exploitative world based on media democracy, full transparency and openness, and fundamental human rights.
Peter Phillips is Professor of Sociology, Sonoma State University; President, Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored; 9/11 Truth Steering Committee. Mickey Huff is Associate Professor of History, Diablo Valley College; Executive Committee, Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored; 9/11 Truth Advisory Committee.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Cahill a "socialist"? Sounds like it ...
For those of us who work in the media in Massachusetts or even just follow things there, for sport, the announcement by Treasurer Tim Cahill that he was leaving the Democrat Party and becoming an independent [or "unenrolled"] was a bit of a shocker.
However, here he is on "Keller at Large" this morning, calling himself a "socialist"! ["Keller @ Large"].
About seven minutes into the interview, Cahill says he doesn't know if he supports Cape Wind or not but does support wind power. Then he says this:
Later, in the conversation, he stated that considered himself a social moderate, saying that his religion made him uncomfortable with some positions. But he also said that he believed in the separation of church and state.
Of course, this is just a small bit of misspeak in an otherwise brilliant political move that had tongues wagging around the state last week. It's a big gamble by Cahill but probably his only chance to win the corner office - and set the state on the right track. And when you have nothing to lose, it's always better to go out with a bang ... standing by your principles.
However, here he is on "Keller at Large" this morning, calling himself a "socialist"! ["Keller @ Large"].
About seven minutes into the interview, Cahill says he doesn't know if he supports Cape Wind or not but does support wind power. Then he says this:
"I think where I differ from some of the in--, some of the other socialists, I would be open and, and potentially supportive of, of, uh, the death penalty in the state of Massachusetts ..."Now, I think what Cahill meant to say was, I think where I differ from some of the other social liberals ... but, that's not what he said.
Later, in the conversation, he stated that considered himself a social moderate, saying that his religion made him uncomfortable with some positions. But he also said that he believed in the separation of church and state.
Of course, this is just a small bit of misspeak in an otherwise brilliant political move that had tongues wagging around the state last week. It's a big gamble by Cahill but probably his only chance to win the corner office - and set the state on the right track. And when you have nothing to lose, it's always better to go out with a bang ... standing by your principles.
More on the Eagle Times closing
The Union Leader has a pretty good story here about the demise of the Eagle Times newspaper by a former reporter and current UL correspondent: ["Claremont mourns loss of local voice"].
Interestingly, the owner said he couldn't subsidize the newspaper anymore. Well, that makes sense but it also makes me wonder a bit. Why were they hiring more people if things were so bad? Why were they closing titles instead of trying to sell them for at least something? This doesn't seem like good business to me. Everyone in the business is having to do more with less. I don't understand why they couldn't figure out a way to adapt. Could the Eagle Times be turned into a weekly or bi-weekly instead of a daily? A circ of 9,000 is pretty good but with so many employees, I can see where it might have been hard to make it work.
As daily newspapers go the way of the dodo, they do have options. Going to multiple editions a week or ending editions which are not popular are possibilities [I've written about this previously]. The Eagle Times didn't have a Saturday edition. Maybe it could have published Monday, Thursday, and Sunday, and done it with half the employees? I don't know. I'm just guessing. But it seems more than a little sad to close down a 175 year institution.
Update: The Monitor's great columnist Ray Duckler has a piece here about the shuttering of the newspaper: ["Paper vanishes; community reels"].
Interestingly, the owner said he couldn't subsidize the newspaper anymore. Well, that makes sense but it also makes me wonder a bit. Why were they hiring more people if things were so bad? Why were they closing titles instead of trying to sell them for at least something? This doesn't seem like good business to me. Everyone in the business is having to do more with less. I don't understand why they couldn't figure out a way to adapt. Could the Eagle Times be turned into a weekly or bi-weekly instead of a daily? A circ of 9,000 is pretty good but with so many employees, I can see where it might have been hard to make it work.
As daily newspapers go the way of the dodo, they do have options. Going to multiple editions a week or ending editions which are not popular are possibilities [I've written about this previously]. The Eagle Times didn't have a Saturday edition. Maybe it could have published Monday, Thursday, and Sunday, and done it with half the employees? I don't know. I'm just guessing. But it seems more than a little sad to close down a 175 year institution.
Update: The Monitor's great columnist Ray Duckler has a piece here about the shuttering of the newspaper: ["Paper vanishes; community reels"].
Saturday, July 11, 2009
For Mikey Dee fans ...
For those of you out there who were fans of the late, great Mikey Dee, Drugless Douglas reminds us that he has a ton of the live performances from "On the Town with Mikey Dee" up online: ["http://druglessdouglas.com/ott/old.html"].
I know Joel Simches, another fill-in and master band mixer, is planning a big anniversary show coming up and has asked people to submit clips. I have been trying to find something worthy of airplay to give him ...
I know Joel Simches, another fill-in and master band mixer, is planning a big anniversary show coming up and has asked people to submit clips. I have been trying to find something worthy of airplay to give him ...
Neglecting the blogs ...
Admittedly, I've been neglecting my Politizine and OurConcord Web sites, mostly due to work commitments, which have been pretty overwhelming lately.
A few weeks ago, the staff reporter I worked with took another job in the industry. We were all excited for her but it left a huge hole. Because I haven't had staff support, I have been putting in a lot more than the 45-plus hours per week I normally put into the job, in order to get everything done and maintain what I have always believed was my own personal work standard.
Frankly, it has not been easy trying to maintain the standard alone. In fact, it has been nearly impossible to continue to be one of the top home page poster of the 100-plus weeklies, produce video content, a weekly email alert, weekly poll, numerous blog posts, writing even more stories and editorials [one week it was seven and the next two weeks it was nine ...], and producing, granted, a small print edition. It gave me a broad, albeit short, view into the world of what it is like to be a single editor running an entire operation, trying to meet high journalistic standards while delivering what customers want and expect [thankfully, the reporter was replaced with another from within the company. But, shockingly 14 other newspapers in the unit I work in have no other staff support, just correspondents, and it's not bound to get better].
Needless to say, it's extremely difficult, even in a busy and active town where the stories just fall off the trees. So, you can understand why things might fall by the wayside, or, you would at least assume why some things might.
On top of this, I'm trying to spend more time at home so that my wife can devout more time to her freelance business, in order to make up the difference of a 7 percent corporate pay cut. As things get worse, and they probably will, who knows what will happen. And yet, the journalistic standard - personal, corporate, reader, whatever - remains, nearly impossible to fill in a 40-plus hour workweek.
As I have flipped back and forth between radio and newspapers numerous times during the last decade-plus, the threshold of what is expected from employees keeps changing. Consumers want more for less; management wants more for less, etc. Essentially, the finish line keeps being moved forward while management and owners fiddle with everything under the sun, unable to predict the future and in some cases, unable to make the smallest decision about what is best. Sometimes, they make extremely bad decisions. They are only human, after all. We all make mistakes. But shouldn't employees be honest about what they are feeling and shouldn't they have more of a role than just mopping up the mess and trying to make due? We're all in the boat together, right?
At some point, it just breaks. For many, it already has. I can count on four or five sets of hands the number of talented broadcasters and journalists who have left [or been driven out of] the business due to these factors when it simply didn't need to be this way. And yet, it didn't have to be this way. I know from my reading that there is really a difference between management and leadership and it is clear. It isn't easy to change from moving the chairs on the Titanic to making sure that everyone gets off the boat safely and soundly. Should employees be inspired and driven to reach new heights or driven and inspired to flee?
I don't claim to have all the answers. I know I don't. Everyone seems to be in the same pickle these days. But it clear is that something needs to be done to keep the news business alive while at the same time keeping quality employees engaged, activated, and feeling as if they have a role in the future - instead of fearing the future. There are other things too but I want to get on to enjoying my weekend ...
Back to the blogs. I don't know what the future holds for them frankly. As can happen, a couple of times a year, I begin to question and wonder what I'm doing with them and whether or not they are worth the time. I honestly don't know. I had a short conversation with a family member the other day and I realized in the course of that conversation that I am technically middle aged. At 44, I'm probably past what was once considered middle-aged [A Google search of "how old is middle age" revealed 96 million entries on the topic ... Wikipedia says that the U.S. Census lists middle age at 35-44 and 45-54 ... so, that's about right, correct?]
I keep coming back to the book ideas I'm never going to finish, the degree I never finished, the fact that I'm not learning much or growing from much that I'm doing. Sure, life is an education. Family always needs more, and that's fulfilling. But, I need more too and I don't quite know how to bring about that change that will allow me to grow personally and professionally.
I wonder, what are all of you doing out there? Do you think about these things? Do you prospect for the future or does it fall in your lap? Do you analyze the fork in the road or just take one route in the hope that if you make a mistake, you can turn around and drive back? Or, are you just doing whatever you can to get by? Let me know, I'm interested in having an online conversation about how other folks are handling everything that is going on in the world.
A few weeks ago, the staff reporter I worked with took another job in the industry. We were all excited for her but it left a huge hole. Because I haven't had staff support, I have been putting in a lot more than the 45-plus hours per week I normally put into the job, in order to get everything done and maintain what I have always believed was my own personal work standard.
Frankly, it has not been easy trying to maintain the standard alone. In fact, it has been nearly impossible to continue to be one of the top home page poster of the 100-plus weeklies, produce video content, a weekly email alert, weekly poll, numerous blog posts, writing even more stories and editorials [one week it was seven and the next two weeks it was nine ...], and producing, granted, a small print edition. It gave me a broad, albeit short, view into the world of what it is like to be a single editor running an entire operation, trying to meet high journalistic standards while delivering what customers want and expect [thankfully, the reporter was replaced with another from within the company. But, shockingly 14 other newspapers in the unit I work in have no other staff support, just correspondents, and it's not bound to get better].
Needless to say, it's extremely difficult, even in a busy and active town where the stories just fall off the trees. So, you can understand why things might fall by the wayside, or, you would at least assume why some things might.
On top of this, I'm trying to spend more time at home so that my wife can devout more time to her freelance business, in order to make up the difference of a 7 percent corporate pay cut. As things get worse, and they probably will, who knows what will happen. And yet, the journalistic standard - personal, corporate, reader, whatever - remains, nearly impossible to fill in a 40-plus hour workweek.
As I have flipped back and forth between radio and newspapers numerous times during the last decade-plus, the threshold of what is expected from employees keeps changing. Consumers want more for less; management wants more for less, etc. Essentially, the finish line keeps being moved forward while management and owners fiddle with everything under the sun, unable to predict the future and in some cases, unable to make the smallest decision about what is best. Sometimes, they make extremely bad decisions. They are only human, after all. We all make mistakes. But shouldn't employees be honest about what they are feeling and shouldn't they have more of a role than just mopping up the mess and trying to make due? We're all in the boat together, right?
At some point, it just breaks. For many, it already has. I can count on four or five sets of hands the number of talented broadcasters and journalists who have left [or been driven out of] the business due to these factors when it simply didn't need to be this way. And yet, it didn't have to be this way. I know from my reading that there is really a difference between management and leadership and it is clear. It isn't easy to change from moving the chairs on the Titanic to making sure that everyone gets off the boat safely and soundly. Should employees be inspired and driven to reach new heights or driven and inspired to flee?
I don't claim to have all the answers. I know I don't. Everyone seems to be in the same pickle these days. But it clear is that something needs to be done to keep the news business alive while at the same time keeping quality employees engaged, activated, and feeling as if they have a role in the future - instead of fearing the future. There are other things too but I want to get on to enjoying my weekend ...
Back to the blogs. I don't know what the future holds for them frankly. As can happen, a couple of times a year, I begin to question and wonder what I'm doing with them and whether or not they are worth the time. I honestly don't know. I had a short conversation with a family member the other day and I realized in the course of that conversation that I am technically middle aged. At 44, I'm probably past what was once considered middle-aged [A Google search of "how old is middle age" revealed 96 million entries on the topic ... Wikipedia says that the U.S. Census lists middle age at 35-44 and 45-54 ... so, that's about right, correct?]
I keep coming back to the book ideas I'm never going to finish, the degree I never finished, the fact that I'm not learning much or growing from much that I'm doing. Sure, life is an education. Family always needs more, and that's fulfilling. But, I need more too and I don't quite know how to bring about that change that will allow me to grow personally and professionally.
I wonder, what are all of you doing out there? Do you think about these things? Do you prospect for the future or does it fall in your lap? Do you analyze the fork in the road or just take one route in the hope that if you make a mistake, you can turn around and drive back? Or, are you just doing whatever you can to get by? Let me know, I'm interested in having an online conversation about how other folks are handling everything that is going on in the world.
Real unemployment figures? Probably at least 10 million
Check out this interesting analysis from "the fringes," if you will ...: ["Unemployment Claims: How Bad are the "Real" Numbers?"].
I only say "the fringes" because this guy seems a bit out there not unlike Alex Jones and some of the other folks online who are telling people what seems to be the truth but they may not be all that trustworthy.
However, I like the way he has broken out the official numbers to present what looks like a true depression, in the sense that the unemployment numbers, even altered for population growth, are twice as bad as the 1982 and 1975 recessions! That means we're in a depression at this point folks, no doubt about it.
Again, like I said a few weeks ago, these numbers don't include the folks who have fallen off the rolls, who are only able to get part-time work or are unemployed, or anyone else who isn't working full-time but is not counted in the statistics. What does that mean? Well, it means that there are probably a lot more than 10 million people out of work right now.
I only say "the fringes" because this guy seems a bit out there not unlike Alex Jones and some of the other folks online who are telling people what seems to be the truth but they may not be all that trustworthy.
However, I like the way he has broken out the official numbers to present what looks like a true depression, in the sense that the unemployment numbers, even altered for population growth, are twice as bad as the 1982 and 1975 recessions! That means we're in a depression at this point folks, no doubt about it.
Again, like I said a few weeks ago, these numbers don't include the folks who have fallen off the rolls, who are only able to get part-time work or are unemployed, or anyone else who isn't working full-time but is not counted in the statistics. What does that mean? Well, it means that there are probably a lot more than 10 million people out of work right now.
Friday, July 10, 2009
More newspaper problems in NH
I almost took a job at this newspaper two and a half years ago ... and now, it's gone: ["Eagle Times Publisher Filing For Bankruptcy"].
This is one day when I realize that I made the right decision not taking a job. I really wonder about my decisions sometimes. At the same time, it was Tim Donnelly, the managing editor, who saw my resume online and called my house one day. I saw his number on the phone and said, "Who would be calling me from the Claremont Eagle Times?" We had a nice chat over the phone and I went up for the interview. The drive was a haul - about an hour and 20 minutes - and I was just wondering how bad it would be in the winter ... going north!
But the money wasn't bad and I was impressed with the small-time operation when I got there. Tim wore a dress shirt that was too small on him and a strange small necktie but I thought, "Well, a bit eccentric, no biggie ..." I was interviewed by him and the new editor who had just moved to New Hampshire from Chicago, which seemed a tad odd, but whatever. I thought the interview went pretty well and it seemed like they wanted me for the job.
Afterward, I took a short drive around Claremont and the back way home and realized that the region was a treasure trove of potential stories. I noticed a slew of independent businesses which seemed to be struggling which made me think that a series of features might be a good thing. There were run-down buildings all over the place. It got me wondering about poverty levels; code and zoning issues; how difficult is it to find housing in Claremont and surrounding communities; etc. I wondered, were my assumptions based incorrectly on what I saw ... which might not be the reality?
I pitched the ideas and a few more questions about responsibilities and other issues and, later, got a response from the editor that just took me back a little bit. Instead of being excited about the fact that one of his new reporters had already come up with a slew of new story ideas after being in the city for about an hour, he seemed discouraging. So I turned the job down and it was the right decision at the time.
Later, the owner of the Eagle Times and a slew of other weeklies closed down the Argus Champion, the newspaper of record for the Lake Sunapee area and surrounding communities. The newspaper was one of the oldest in the state, dating back 177 years. People were furious about the decision and the Concord Monitor published a few articles about the newspaper closing down. There was a rumor that the owner was interested in selling it. I attempted to find out if this was true but, it turned out, the owner was more interested in closing than selling ... I found that odd too. Hmm, close something down or get something for it ... weighing the options ... something vs. nothing ... he chose nothing.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Argus Champion was closed nearly a year ago. I wonder who is going to go next.
This is one day when I realize that I made the right decision not taking a job. I really wonder about my decisions sometimes. At the same time, it was Tim Donnelly, the managing editor, who saw my resume online and called my house one day. I saw his number on the phone and said, "Who would be calling me from the Claremont Eagle Times?" We had a nice chat over the phone and I went up for the interview. The drive was a haul - about an hour and 20 minutes - and I was just wondering how bad it would be in the winter ... going north!
But the money wasn't bad and I was impressed with the small-time operation when I got there. Tim wore a dress shirt that was too small on him and a strange small necktie but I thought, "Well, a bit eccentric, no biggie ..." I was interviewed by him and the new editor who had just moved to New Hampshire from Chicago, which seemed a tad odd, but whatever. I thought the interview went pretty well and it seemed like they wanted me for the job.
Afterward, I took a short drive around Claremont and the back way home and realized that the region was a treasure trove of potential stories. I noticed a slew of independent businesses which seemed to be struggling which made me think that a series of features might be a good thing. There were run-down buildings all over the place. It got me wondering about poverty levels; code and zoning issues; how difficult is it to find housing in Claremont and surrounding communities; etc. I wondered, were my assumptions based incorrectly on what I saw ... which might not be the reality?
I pitched the ideas and a few more questions about responsibilities and other issues and, later, got a response from the editor that just took me back a little bit. Instead of being excited about the fact that one of his new reporters had already come up with a slew of new story ideas after being in the city for about an hour, he seemed discouraging. So I turned the job down and it was the right decision at the time.
Later, the owner of the Eagle Times and a slew of other weeklies closed down the Argus Champion, the newspaper of record for the Lake Sunapee area and surrounding communities. The newspaper was one of the oldest in the state, dating back 177 years. People were furious about the decision and the Concord Monitor published a few articles about the newspaper closing down. There was a rumor that the owner was interested in selling it. I attempted to find out if this was true but, it turned out, the owner was more interested in closing than selling ... I found that odd too. Hmm, close something down or get something for it ... weighing the options ... something vs. nothing ... he chose nothing.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Argus Champion was closed nearly a year ago. I wonder who is going to go next.
Annoyed with Gov. Lynch ...
For the first time, I'm actually annoyed with Gov. Lynch: ["Lynch Vetoes Medicinal Marijuana Bill"].
I can't believe he would veto this law. It is a simple thing that we can do for people who are very sick with cancer or AIDS. The plant, which God created, is much better for the body than all the chemical-based THC substitutes the pharma companies have come up with. No heart at all on this one. A big disappointment.
I can't believe he would veto this law. It is a simple thing that we can do for people who are very sick with cancer or AIDS. The plant, which God created, is much better for the body than all the chemical-based THC substitutes the pharma companies have come up with. No heart at all on this one. A big disappointment.
Practically On the Table
Guest Perspective by Ralph Nader
A few days ago, a citizen asked the progressive legislator from California, Congressman Henry Waxman why he took his name off the list of about Eighty House sponsors of single-payer health insurance? Mr. Waxman replied: “it [H.R. 676] isn’t going to happen.”
In early January and last year, Americans who believe in Presidential accountability for constitutional, statutory and treaty violations asked Democrats in Congress—“If not impeachment, why not at least a resolution of censure of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?” The uniform reply was “It’s not practical.”
These lawmakers—Democrats all, who are the majority in Congress and who agree with these questioners—keep saying “It’s not going to happen” or “It’s not practical.”
“It’s just not practical” to provide a federal minimum wage equal to that in 1968, inflation adjusted, which would be $10 an hour.
“It’s not going to happen” to get comprehensive corporate reform at a time when a corporate crime wave and the Wall Street multi-trillion dollar collapse on Washington, on taxpayers and on the economy is tearing this country apart. A little regulatory tinkering is all citizens are told to expect.
“It’s just not practical” to give workers, consumers and taxpayers simple facilities for banding together in associations with their own voluntary dues to defend these interests in the corporate occupied territory known as Washington, D.C.
Last year, the excuse was a Bush veto. So the Democrats didn’t even try to advance reforms they believe in, knowing Bush and his Republican Party would stonewall. What’s the excuse this year with Obama in the White House?
After all, it was only a year and a half ago when nominating and then electing an African-American President was “not going to happen, was not practical.”
But since it did happen, why aren’t these and many other long overdue beneficial redirections and efficiencies happening for the American people? Why aren’t there rollbacks, at least, of the Bush-driven inequities and injustices that have so damaged the well-being of working people?
Why isn’t a simpler and more efficient carbon tax more “practical” than the complex corruption-prone, corporatized cap and trade deal driven by Goldman Sachs and favored by most Democrats? The avaricious tax cuts for the super-wealthy are still there.
The statutory ban on Uncle Sam negotiating volume discounts on medicines purchased by the federal government are still there. Taking the huge budgets for the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off their annual fast track, and putting them a meaningful House and Senate Appropriations Committee hearing process has not happened.
Face it, America. You are a corporate-controlled country with the symbols of democracy in the constitution and statutes just that—symbols of what the founding fathers believed or hoped would be reality.
Even when the global corporate giants come to Washington dripping with crime, greed, speculation and cover-ups, and demand gigantic bailouts on the backs of taxpayers and their children, neither the Republicans nor the now majority Democrats are willing to face them down.
The best of America started with our forebears who faced down those who told them “it’s not going to happen,” or “it’s not practical” to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, elevate the conditions of workers and farmers, provide social security and medicare, make the air and water less polluted and so on. These pioneers, with grit and persistence, told their members of Congress and Presidents—“It is going to happen.”
To paraphrase the words of a great man, the late Reverend William Sloan Coffin, it is as if those legendary stalwarts from our past, knowing how much more there is to achieve a practical, just society, are calling out to us, the people today, and saying “get it done, get it done!”
A few days ago, a citizen asked the progressive legislator from California, Congressman Henry Waxman why he took his name off the list of about Eighty House sponsors of single-payer health insurance? Mr. Waxman replied: “it [H.R. 676] isn’t going to happen.”
In early January and last year, Americans who believe in Presidential accountability for constitutional, statutory and treaty violations asked Democrats in Congress—“If not impeachment, why not at least a resolution of censure of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?” The uniform reply was “It’s not practical.”
These lawmakers—Democrats all, who are the majority in Congress and who agree with these questioners—keep saying “It’s not going to happen” or “It’s not practical.”
“It’s just not practical” to provide a federal minimum wage equal to that in 1968, inflation adjusted, which would be $10 an hour.
“It’s not going to happen” to get comprehensive corporate reform at a time when a corporate crime wave and the Wall Street multi-trillion dollar collapse on Washington, on taxpayers and on the economy is tearing this country apart. A little regulatory tinkering is all citizens are told to expect.
“It’s just not practical” to give workers, consumers and taxpayers simple facilities for banding together in associations with their own voluntary dues to defend these interests in the corporate occupied territory known as Washington, D.C.
Last year, the excuse was a Bush veto. So the Democrats didn’t even try to advance reforms they believe in, knowing Bush and his Republican Party would stonewall. What’s the excuse this year with Obama in the White House?
After all, it was only a year and a half ago when nominating and then electing an African-American President was “not going to happen, was not practical.”
But since it did happen, why aren’t these and many other long overdue beneficial redirections and efficiencies happening for the American people? Why aren’t there rollbacks, at least, of the Bush-driven inequities and injustices that have so damaged the well-being of working people?
Why isn’t a simpler and more efficient carbon tax more “practical” than the complex corruption-prone, corporatized cap and trade deal driven by Goldman Sachs and favored by most Democrats? The avaricious tax cuts for the super-wealthy are still there.
The statutory ban on Uncle Sam negotiating volume discounts on medicines purchased by the federal government are still there. Taking the huge budgets for the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off their annual fast track, and putting them a meaningful House and Senate Appropriations Committee hearing process has not happened.
Face it, America. You are a corporate-controlled country with the symbols of democracy in the constitution and statutes just that—symbols of what the founding fathers believed or hoped would be reality.
Even when the global corporate giants come to Washington dripping with crime, greed, speculation and cover-ups, and demand gigantic bailouts on the backs of taxpayers and their children, neither the Republicans nor the now majority Democrats are willing to face them down.
The best of America started with our forebears who faced down those who told them “it’s not going to happen,” or “it’s not practical” to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, elevate the conditions of workers and farmers, provide social security and medicare, make the air and water less polluted and so on. These pioneers, with grit and persistence, told their members of Congress and Presidents—“It is going to happen.”
To paraphrase the words of a great man, the late Reverend William Sloan Coffin, it is as if those legendary stalwarts from our past, knowing how much more there is to achieve a practical, just society, are calling out to us, the people today, and saying “get it done, get it done!”
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy 4th!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Ode to Perot
Guest perspective by Ralph Nader
I’ve wondered often why people who go to “town meetings” held by campaigning politicians rarely ask fundamental questions.
Here is one that should have been asked of presidential candidate Barack Obama: “If you get to the White House, will you appoint to top positions Americans who have a track record of making the right decisions in their respective fields?”
“Of course, I will,” Obama would have undoubtedly replied.
Of course, he did not when it came to the collapse of the corrupt Wall Street casinos and the bailout of these gamblers by the American people. Obama chose the very Wall Streeters and Wall Street servants who were involved in, condoned, or profited from the speculative binges that led to the biggest government bailout scheme in world history. The President’s explanation is that he wants experienced people who know how Wall Street works. Yeah, right! In reality, he wanted political cover.
Something very important is missing when even people who are part of the ruling establishment are ignored, marginalized, or ridiculed even though their detailed, public warnings prove to be all too accurate.
Consider billionaire, Ross Perot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Ross, as everyone calls him, was right on General Motors, right on NAFTA trade, and right on the federal deficits.
In 1984, he joined the Board of Directors of GM after selling his successful company, EDS, to the auto giant. He could scarcely believe how stodgy, bureaucratic, and insensitive GM executives were in running the company. He tried to shake up the boys at the top to meet the fast-growing competition from Asia and Europe.
The GM brass couldn’t stand Ross “at large” probing up and down the company, so in 1986 they bought out his shares in return for him leaving the Board.
Two years later, reflecting on his experience at GM with a reporter from Fortune, Perot called the “General Motors system a blanket of fog that keeps people from doing what they know needs to be done.”
Warming up, Perot continued: “One day I made a speech to some senior executives. I said, ‘Okay, guys, I’m going to give you the whole code on what’s wrong. You don’t like your customers. You don’t like your dealers. You don’t like the people who make your cars. You don’t like your stockholders. And, to a large extent, you don’t like one another. For this company to win, we’re going to have to love our customers. We’re going to have to stop fretting about dealers who make too much money and hope they make $1 billion a year though us. The guys on the factory floor are the salt of the earth—not mad-dog, rabid, burn-the-plant-down radicals. And all this sniping at one another—the financial guys vs. the cars guys—is terribly destructive.’”
GM didn’t listen to Ross. Now, after a long, relentless slide, GM is bankrupt, abandoning their workers, two thousand of their dealers, and their customers’ grievances. Moreover, GM is into the U.S. taxpayer for over $70 billion.
Perot devoted much of his 1993 published book Save Your Job, Save Our Country to NAFTA and trade. Looking back, he was right most of the time. NAFTA cost more U.S. jobs than it created, generated a huge U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, and mainly benefited the “36 businessmen who own Mexico’s 39 largest conglomerates or over half of Mexico’s Gross National Product.”
The border-located maquiladora factories have high worker turnover and squeeze the laborers in often unsafe conditions for little pay.
Here is how Perot described the scene behind the boasting of Washington, DC, and corporations about the large increase in trade after NAFTA:
“Most of the goods produced in the maquiladoras are shipped into the U.S. market. Consequently, most of the so-called trade between the U.S. and Mexico is not trade as trade is commonly understood. Rather, it is primarily U.S. companies shipping their own machinery, components, and raw materials across the border into their Mexican factories and then shipping their finished or semi-finished goods back over the border into the U.S.”
A good deal of the U.S. auto industry went south after NAFTA, leaving workers and communities stranded in Michigan and other states. Bankrupt Chrysler is planning to move a modern, award-winning engine plant in Wisconsin to Mexico after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts.
On Perot’s nationally-televised deficit warnings (with charts), what more need be said? Even he did not envision what would pile up after his clarion calls. The burden on the next generation and the tax dollars diverted from our country’s needs to pay the interest on these trillions of dollars of debt were pointed out again and again nearly twenty years ago by the Texas entrepreneur. He even has a website (perotcharts.com) updating the red ink.
In Bush’s and Obama’s Washington, there is no room for Perot to gain visibility and recognition.
It is one thing for the Washington politicians to ignore prescient progressive commentators, like William Grieder, who have been prophetically right on. It is quite another escape from reality to turn their backs on leaders within the business establishment itself.
There are many like Perot who must be watching the day’s news and saying “we told you so, but you didn’t listen then and you are not listening now.”
I’ve wondered often why people who go to “town meetings” held by campaigning politicians rarely ask fundamental questions.
Here is one that should have been asked of presidential candidate Barack Obama: “If you get to the White House, will you appoint to top positions Americans who have a track record of making the right decisions in their respective fields?”
“Of course, I will,” Obama would have undoubtedly replied.
Of course, he did not when it came to the collapse of the corrupt Wall Street casinos and the bailout of these gamblers by the American people. Obama chose the very Wall Streeters and Wall Street servants who were involved in, condoned, or profited from the speculative binges that led to the biggest government bailout scheme in world history. The President’s explanation is that he wants experienced people who know how Wall Street works. Yeah, right! In reality, he wanted political cover.
Something very important is missing when even people who are part of the ruling establishment are ignored, marginalized, or ridiculed even though their detailed, public warnings prove to be all too accurate.
Consider billionaire, Ross Perot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Ross, as everyone calls him, was right on General Motors, right on NAFTA trade, and right on the federal deficits.
In 1984, he joined the Board of Directors of GM after selling his successful company, EDS, to the auto giant. He could scarcely believe how stodgy, bureaucratic, and insensitive GM executives were in running the company. He tried to shake up the boys at the top to meet the fast-growing competition from Asia and Europe.
The GM brass couldn’t stand Ross “at large” probing up and down the company, so in 1986 they bought out his shares in return for him leaving the Board.
Two years later, reflecting on his experience at GM with a reporter from Fortune, Perot called the “General Motors system a blanket of fog that keeps people from doing what they know needs to be done.”
Warming up, Perot continued: “One day I made a speech to some senior executives. I said, ‘Okay, guys, I’m going to give you the whole code on what’s wrong. You don’t like your customers. You don’t like your dealers. You don’t like the people who make your cars. You don’t like your stockholders. And, to a large extent, you don’t like one another. For this company to win, we’re going to have to love our customers. We’re going to have to stop fretting about dealers who make too much money and hope they make $1 billion a year though us. The guys on the factory floor are the salt of the earth—not mad-dog, rabid, burn-the-plant-down radicals. And all this sniping at one another—the financial guys vs. the cars guys—is terribly destructive.’”
GM didn’t listen to Ross. Now, after a long, relentless slide, GM is bankrupt, abandoning their workers, two thousand of their dealers, and their customers’ grievances. Moreover, GM is into the U.S. taxpayer for over $70 billion.
Perot devoted much of his 1993 published book Save Your Job, Save Our Country to NAFTA and trade. Looking back, he was right most of the time. NAFTA cost more U.S. jobs than it created, generated a huge U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, and mainly benefited the “36 businessmen who own Mexico’s 39 largest conglomerates or over half of Mexico’s Gross National Product.”
The border-located maquiladora factories have high worker turnover and squeeze the laborers in often unsafe conditions for little pay.
Here is how Perot described the scene behind the boasting of Washington, DC, and corporations about the large increase in trade after NAFTA:
“Most of the goods produced in the maquiladoras are shipped into the U.S. market. Consequently, most of the so-called trade between the U.S. and Mexico is not trade as trade is commonly understood. Rather, it is primarily U.S. companies shipping their own machinery, components, and raw materials across the border into their Mexican factories and then shipping their finished or semi-finished goods back over the border into the U.S.”
A good deal of the U.S. auto industry went south after NAFTA, leaving workers and communities stranded in Michigan and other states. Bankrupt Chrysler is planning to move a modern, award-winning engine plant in Wisconsin to Mexico after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts.
On Perot’s nationally-televised deficit warnings (with charts), what more need be said? Even he did not envision what would pile up after his clarion calls. The burden on the next generation and the tax dollars diverted from our country’s needs to pay the interest on these trillions of dollars of debt were pointed out again and again nearly twenty years ago by the Texas entrepreneur. He even has a website (perotcharts.com) updating the red ink.
In Bush’s and Obama’s Washington, there is no room for Perot to gain visibility and recognition.
It is one thing for the Washington politicians to ignore prescient progressive commentators, like William Grieder, who have been prophetically right on. It is quite another escape from reality to turn their backs on leaders within the business establishment itself.
There are many like Perot who must be watching the day’s news and saying “we told you so, but you didn’t listen then and you are not listening now.”
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Jobless rate reaches 9.5 percent
And, frankly, this is only the folks who are collecting: ["467K Jobs Cut In June; Jobless Rate At 9.5 Percent"].
At this point, all the people who have fallen off the rolls, because they have been out of work for more than a year, are no longer counted. I would bet that the un- and under-employment numbers are probably around 20 percent, maybe more.
I recall an article in the Boston Herald back in 1992 that had the real unemployment rate - which included people collecting, people out of work, people in part-time jobs who couldn't find full-time jobs - was around 30 percent. It was based on some study that was performed by some think tank. I don't remember exactly since it was so long ago. However, times were not as bad then as they are now. So, who knows what the number potentially is.
At this point, all the people who have fallen off the rolls, because they have been out of work for more than a year, are no longer counted. I would bet that the un- and under-employment numbers are probably around 20 percent, maybe more.
I recall an article in the Boston Herald back in 1992 that had the real unemployment rate - which included people collecting, people out of work, people in part-time jobs who couldn't find full-time jobs - was around 30 percent. It was based on some study that was performed by some think tank. I don't remember exactly since it was so long ago. However, times were not as bad then as they are now. So, who knows what the number potentially is.
Not surprisingly ...
There is a flash flood warning for Hillsborough County. I can't just imagine how high the Merrimack is at this point ... the rain can end any time now ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)