Howard Kurtz Should Have Been More Thorough

Howard Kurtz, on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” had Ken Auletta as one of his guests this morning. He is the author of "Googled: The End of the World as We Know It," a story of the search engine “Google” and its creators.

I don’t have the transcript available, but I’ll try to explain as best as possible what I found interesting. They both were lamenting the fact that the Print Media was declining because of the onset of the Internet and the lack of foresight that Print Media had in utilizing the web. This, according to them, is the reason for newspapers and magazines folding at a very fast rate.

What both Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Auletta failed to take into account is a perspective that Michael Moore pontificated at an interview last September. He first brings up the fact that European newspapers aren’t going under (though they are having a tough time due to the worldwide economic crisis), and they have the Internet. Neither Mr. Kurtz nor Mr. Auletta brought that up. This is an excellent example of American egocentrism within the mainstream media.

Mr. Moore has two points he discusses. First, during the nineties, the corporate owners of the newspapers downsized to increase profits. This resulted in the elimination of various “beats” of the local reporting world (crime, labor, etc.). Of course, this will not induce their local readers into buying the paper, since there is nothing really concerning them in the publication.

The second point he mentions is:

We live in a nation of 40 million functional illiterates: that's 40 million adults who cannot read and write above a fourth grade or fifth grade level. We have another probably 40 million adults who can read and write above a fourth grade level but don't have the comprehension beyond that very much. So if you have literally that many tens of millions of adults who either can't read and write above a fourth and fifth grade level or can't comprehend what they do read, you've created a nation of people who are not going to be reading the newspapers.

And how did we get that way?

In the 17 elections between 1940 and 2004, the majority of American newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate for President 14 of the 17 elections. 14 of the 17 elections the majority of American papers endorsed the party that was going to cut back on the very thing that their readers needed in order to read the newspaper, which was literacy and education. These newspapers slit their own throats by siding with the group of politicians - I mean, it would be like General Motors funding candidates who promised to get rid of Driver Education.

In his summation, Mr. Moore had this to say about American newspapers:

America's newspapers in 14 of the 17 elections between 1940 and 2004 supported the candidate that would guarantee their ruination. Good riddance.

Both Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Auletta did not even address these possible causes. I’m not saying that these are the specific reasons for the failure American newspapers; however, I do believe that they should be addressed and discussed at length...that is, if you’re going to do a thorough analysis of the failing American Print Media. I do have to admit, though, that "thorough" is not really a word in the dictionary of the Mainstream Media's seven minute sound bite world.

The Reprehensible Thirty

Well, it’s just over two months before the end of the year, but I’m sure the most egregious act by our representatives has already occurred. I will be astounded if anything in the next two months can top one of the most outrageous lines of thinking imaginable.

Of course, I’m talking about the thirty Republican Senators who voted against Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Immunity Legislation Bill. I truly find this unbelievable. This bill will allow our government to withhold defense contracts for companies “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court,” according to the originator of the bill, Al Franken (D-MN).

In addition, Franken (speaking from the Senate floor) said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law. …And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. …The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court. Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

Jamie Leigh Jones worked for Halliburton/KBR and was gang raped by her fellow employees while she was working for the corporation in Iraq. She was not allowed to bring charges in court against the corporation because of her employment contract. It stated that private arbitration was her only means of redress.

This is such a no-brainer. How on Earth can ANYONE not allow persons full redress for criminal atrocities committed against them? This is one of the most horrible crimes that can be committed against anyone. It is against the state and federal law. Corporate contracts should have nothing to do with it. I would love to get inside the mind of those who came up with the original thought that criminal behavior can be decided by the corporate hierarchy. Pretty sick.

Yet, here we are, thirty of our “august” Senators believing (at least according to their votes) that a rape victim can’t have a day in court, that she/he must rely on the corporate powers-that-be to “arbitrate” the “dispute.” Amazing.

Rape is a criminal act. It must be addressed in a criminal court, and if found guilty the perpetrators should be punished to the full extent of the law. A person’s life is forever changed after a sexual assault. We should not allow the victims to be victimized a second time by a good-old-boys system of justice.

Personally, I think that these 30 are so bought by the multinational corporations that they must vote for the Corporate Entity regardless of the harm the corporate structure will commit against another human being. That is so tragic, and an excellent example of just what’s wrong with our country and our representatives.

It appears to me that the “Captains of Industry” would love to wrest judicial control away from our government and perform their own Roy Bean “justice,” somewhat similar to the military courts martial. A sort of, “We know how to discipline our employees, not the government” mentality. “Our ‘laws’ are separate and apart from your ‘laws.’”

These thirty senators need to be ousted at the next available opportunity. I really hope that their opponents in their next elections will hammer this particular issue to the electorate to such an extent that these despicable creatures never be allowed to decide the fate of another human being.

One Senator I would like to point out in particular. Senator John McCain of Arizona. He ran for President of the United States! Here is a man who ran for the most powerful position in the world, a position that is the representative of ALL the people of the United States, and he has the audacity to advocate the marginalization of rape victims to the mercy of corporate arbitration? Wow!

I am including his and the other Senators’ names in this post. I want the names to be burned into the hearts and minds of every decent human being in order that they can be vilified wherever they go. If they are willing to put money in their pockets before common decency, they do not deserve to be holding any office whatsoever. Personally, I think they should be sentenced to a lifetime of working in a rape crisis center and see just what a tragedy rape is to a human being. Fie on them all!

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Obama School Address Issues? Get Over It!

This brouhaha about the President speaking to classrooms across the country tomorrow would be absurd if there weren't such scary undertones. I mean, really...what harm can the President do with a short speech to the children of our country?

Think about it. All he's going to do is to tell the students to work hard, stay in school and strive to be a success in life. What's more telling is the fact that he is black. He is an inspiration to minorities everywhere in this country. After Obama's election, I heard a black commentator emotionally express the fact that now that a black man has become President, he can truly say to his children that one can achieve anything in this country if one perseveres.

What do these parents/citizens think will happen to the children after a five to ten minute speech by the President of the United States? Are they somehow going to be irrevocably “tainted” by his message? They will instantly become dreaded “liburals” upon the completion of the speech? Good grief...they might even become “pod people” (“You're next!”)? This is not the equivalent of a re-education camp brainwashing.

Does anyone really think that after a five to ten minute speech, a child's current mindset on life is irrevocably changed from the input they've been receiving from family and friends through their entire lives? President Obama's short message will not “curve your spine...or keep the country from winning the war“(apologies to George Carlin).

Presidents in the past have spoken to the children of our nation (Reagan, Bush I to start) and not a squawk was heard. This is the ugly undercurrent. Is it that the President is black that foments the outrage making this particular presentation different from past presidential school speeches? Is it that he's a democrat? Is it the desire by the (maybe not so) extreme right to foil the President on every single gesture he makes no matter how benign?

Are we really at that point in time that we will not work together to make this a better country and only our self-interests must be addressed? A “We need to utterly destroy those who do not agree with us at every turn” mentality?

I remember as a young student that any break in the normal school routine was welcome relief. Having the President break up the routine and let the children be aware that they can realize great accomplishments through perseverance is nothing but a positive gain for the children.

It astounds me that this subject matter even needs to be addressed. It's a five to ten minute, inspirational speech, people. Get over it!

Private Health Insurance Has GOT to Go!

I have been in favor of single payer health care for decades. It appalls me that this great country of ours is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some kind of single payer avenue for “we, the people.”

The latest polls show that the majority of Americans want some kind of single payer system. Yet, here we are at the threshold of health care “reform,” and the greatly watered-down version of single payer, the “public option,” is in danger of being flung off the table! Our government representatives are NOT speaking for the people. They’re speaking for the moneyed interests who are massively profiting from those who are sick and dying and diverting those profits into the pockets of our representatives.

I am so sick of hearing about “death panels” (whoever first coined that phrase should be hung by the yardarm), or worse yet, the absolutely stupid question of us wanting some “government bureaucrat” deciding on our health. Hello? Who is now currently deciding on our health care? Some “insurance bureaucrat” whose sole interest is generating profits for the insurance conglomerates, which leads him or her to deny benefits for the flimsiest of reasons.

The horror stories of citizens who for years dutifully paid their “premiums” suddenly needing health care are denied for “pre-existing conditions” or “incorrect filling out of the health form,” thus invalidating the claim are rampant in this country. This is ridiculous!

The best idea I’ve heard came first came from Dr. Marcia Angell, currently a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. She was on “Bill Moyers Journal” July 24, 2009 (The emphasis is mine):

“I think we have to start all over on this. I really do. I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.”

Love it! I’ve heard the idea of gradually lowering the age for Medicare a few times since then, but Dr. Angell is right on with this comment. Let’s incrementally lower Medicare until all are covered, and let the private insurance companies go play with “hurricanes, earthquakes or something.”

Better yet, have them go away and come up with something better. If they crassly deny those needing health care, letting them die or remain infirm, all in the name of the almighty dollar, they most likely will do a variation of the theme with disaster victims…and who needs that?

Doing the Right Thing

On July 23rd, Amy Goodman had anti-corporate pranksters “The Yes Men” on her show, “Democracy, Now!”. They have a new film called “The Yes Men Fix the World.” It’s a very interesting interview if you’re of a mind, but I want to point out something during the interview that profoundly struck me.

One of the hoaxes they pulled was “Yes Man” Andy Bichlbaum posing as Dow Chemical spokesperson "Jude Finnesterra" for an international BBC interview back in 2004. Under that guise, he proceeded to “do the right thing” and have Dow admit that Union Carbide was responsible for the infamous 1984 Bhopal industrial accident. Here is some of what he said:

Today is a great day for all of us at Dow and, I think, for millions of people around the world, as well. It's twenty years since the disaster. And today I’m very, very happy to announce that for the first time Dow is accepting full responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe.

We have a $12 billion plan to finally, at long last, fully compensate the victims, including the 120,000 who may need medical care for their entire lives, and to fully and swiftly remediate the Bhopal plant site.

Keep in mind that this was a total fabrication. Here is the part that really, really gets me. After word got out that Dow was “accepting full responsibility,” according to Juan Gonzalez, co-host of “Democracy Now!,” it cost Dow Chemical over $2 billion in market value within a half-hour.

Think about it. The World was under the impression that a giant, multi-national corporation was going to do the right thing and help those that Union Carbide caused great suffering, and the value of the corporation goes down by $2 billion! How pathetic is that?

I know it’s very naïve of me, but I would hope that a giant corporation who causes grief among the world’s population would reap benefits from its generosity in admitting and rectifying the disaster that it caused. The fact that Dow dropped $2 billion just reinforces other multinational corporations to deny, deny and deny again any responsibility for disasters they cause.

The ultimate questions are: What does it say to us as a world community that corporations suffer if they do the right thing? Is the world really a two-tiered system in which the moneyed power players don’t want the multinationals to “do the right thing” under threat of major devaluation and the rest of us folk have no say or influence in the matter? Really sad.

"Waste" Used in the Wrong Context

I was just over at ThinkProgress, and I ran across this quote from the “Dick” himself (Cheney) regarding the deadline approaching for us to remove troops from Iraq:

“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“

Sorry, but the “waste” of 4,316 American lives (as of this writing) prior to this moment rests fully on him and Bush. They wanted to get us into a war and, by God, by hook or crook, they did it. Never mind the lives permanently lost because of their desire to overthrow Hussein. These chicken hawks should be held accountable for every one of those lives.

I’ve written about this a couple of times in the past. We need to get out and stay out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period.

How dare Cheney use this excuse for staying put? We’ve acted like bullying conquerors, invading a nation with no good reason. I repeat…no GOOD reason. This pre-emptive bulls**t doctrine that Bush fomented years ago is totally outrageous on its face. I realize this has been gone over and over, again and again, but what right do we have to decide some country will attack us in the future; therefore, we must attack them first? To play the tape to its conclusion, that means we can attack ANY country, because, who knows, fifty or a hundred years from now it could be our enemy. Might as well attack them now, just to be safe!

We are now a permanent war state, ladies and gentlemen. Obama has picked up the ball and is running with it in Afghanistan. And if you think that we will be completely out of Iraq any time within the next century, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Florida.

“Tremendous sacrifice,” my ass. Better to cut our losses (and not "waste" any more lives) and become the country we should be. One that leads the world in freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, we have to clean our house big time before we can get to that level of respect from the rest of the world. And we should start by punishing those responsible for murdering over 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Bush and Cheney shall be first.

I want us working on our own problems (and we have many, to be sure), and when another nation asks us for help, we will lend an altruistic hand in friendship. Every country has the right to its own sovereignty. We should NOT impose our will nor force ourselves upon it. Hegemony should not be our mantra.

Celebrity Ratings Bonanzas

I just knew this was coming:

From Howard Kurtz, Media Correspondent (CNN & Washington Post) -

"Michael Jackson TV ratings in U.S.: ...Cable ratings thru the roof. CNN up 973% at one point, MSNBC 330%, Fox 243%"

We are definitely a celebrity driven society. Of course, the government loves this...they can now do unnoticed major profitable business with the multinational corporations (conglomerates) at the expense of the common person. They’ve been able to do this for decades (think O.J. Simpson in the 90’s), and look where it’s gotten us.

The masses stay focused on this "tragedy" and other perpetual celebrity "major events," ad nauseum. Ergo, this leads to their not paying attention to what's really going on that's affecting their lives. It gives "The Powers That Be" opportunities to create policy and pass laws that will slip past a deliberately uninformed public.

The ratings bonanza further feeds the Main Stream Media sharks to keep paying close attention to celebrities, waiting for the next ratings boom (read: profits) and continually keeps the focus away from the really important issues in our lives.

Another method of making us look the other way is to make celebrities out of missing women. Of course, the women must be white, middle class and very attractive (usually blond). A child will also do. Once one turns up missing we then get weeks and weeks of hammering all the same “what if” or “who could have” scenarios as the hunt goes on. And the ratings escalate with the drama.

One last point: The Main Stream Media outlets are completely owned by the multinationals. As an example, GE (major war equipment supplier) owns NBC and MSNBC. They (GE, et. al.) are extremely interested in sleight-of-hand manipulation in order to garner more profits.

During the hysterical drumbeat to war with Iran, Phil Donahue, an anti-war activist, had a show on MSNBC that was one of the highest rated shows on that network. MSNBC (remember, owned by war-profiteering GE) demanded he match his anti-war guests with pro-war advocates. By the way, the pro-war were to be two to one (they felt Phil counted as an anti-war advocate). MSNBC canceled his show just before we attacked that sovereign nation because they were afraid to look like the anti-war network. At least, that was the spin.

I do recommend a documentary entitled: “War Made Easy: How the Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” The film talks about how we, the people, are manipulated into a war fever. Great film.

If you're old enough, remember the days when network news (Huntley/Brinkley, Cronkite) delivered news, nothing but the news and there was no concern whether there were profits to be made in the network news business? I did hear on a show that the death of Elvis was the second lead story of a major news network (I forget which one) after an actual "news" event. My...how things have changed.

Now? The "news" is basically "infotainment." 'Tis a pity...