|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| . | |
|
|
PAST TALES:
My Mom Hates You, Wal-Mart fired my mom because of her bad hip. At least, that’s what she believes. Originally hired for desk work, she was eventually asked to perform duties that involved walking the sales floor most of the day. Management did not appreciate her reluctance. Then, after several long weeks of recovery from hip-replacement surgery, she returned to the store only to be told that her position had evaporated. So these days, my mom hates Wal-Mart. It wasn’t always this way. Years back, she fell in love with their prices, their smiling greeters, and their homey, family-friendly image. When she learned that a massive Wal-Mart was coming to town, she immediately rushed out to apply for a job; within a week of the store opening, the grandkids could already sing the company song. Before long, however, her love affair showed signs of faltering. Brought up frugal, Mom watched with disgust as hundreds of mildly-damaged items were crushed to bits in the store’s industrial compactor. She bristled at the constant employee surveillance in the name of theft prevention. After several competent, agreeable co-workers were let go for insufficient smiling, even the daily team-building exercises that she initially enjoyed took on a threatening quality. She knew they were being strong-armed. She didn’t feel much like a valued associate, and certainly not part of any family. Soon after her dismissal, I returned from a year living in the UK to find my hometown dramatically yet predictably gutted. My mom was left with one last bitter pill to swallow: although she had sworn off Wal-Mart, there was scarcely anywhere left for her to go. How many more ruined small businesses and barren Main Streets before the bloom comes off of Wal-Mart’s family-friendly rose? How much union busting and employee intimidation before repeating “Our People Make the Difference” is no longer enough? If the currently panicked pace of Wal-Mart’s corporate spin is any indication, we’re fast approaching that watershed. The fact is, Wal-Mart has always had its opponents – activists who resent the ecological consequences of big-box retail, labor organizations critical of the company’s dubious manufacturing practices, and tight-knit (usually well-to-do) communities that fear for their small businesses. But these were never Wal-Mart’s people. My mom, on the other hand, definitely was, and she’s joined a growing constituency that has seen some very ugly guts through all of Wal-Mart’s folksy window dressing. Mikhail Onushko
Gordon Campbell, drunk-driving and democracy He said it was personal - it had nothing to do with his role and responsibilities as premier. But what if he had been caught using cocaine, engaging in some serious financial misdeed, or got caught with a prostitute? He would have resigned immediately - and these crimes don't relate to his political office either. Yet the question is an important one, especially these days when cynicism about politicians is perhaps at its highest level in fifty years. Canadians can be very tough on their politicians and I am one of those who think that this kind of cynicism can be very destructive of democracy. I am speaking here of the kind of sweeping and wrong generalization that all politicians are opportunist or corrupt or incompetent. It has led to an extraordinary decline in voter turn-out in Canada and that's just bad for democracy. But the actions of Gordon Campbell fall into a category of their own and his appalling behaviour is a potential source of real cynicism. His behaviour speaks to the fact that there are and should be standards of ethical behaviour for our political leaders and that if they consistently or spectacularly - fail to meet them, they should find some other work. Gordon Campbell got into a vehicle falling down drunk (He had with a road-side test reading of .161; ninety minuets later it was .149) and drove a dark, very windy road. He was speeding (70 mph in a 45 zone) and weaving all over the highway. The arresting cops say he staggered, slurred his speech and reeked of alcohol. He's incredibly lucky he didnt kill someone. Let's be really clear about how serious this crime is. In Canada drunk driving is the leading cause of criminal death - three times as high as homicide; 40 percent of road deaths are caused by impaired drivers; 50,000 Canadian families are directly affected by accidents caused by drunk drivers every year. At his level of impairment Gordon Campbell was over 250 times more likely to have an accident than a sober driver. Every adult Canadian who is not a hermit has had the message If you drink, don't drive drilled into them for at least fifteen years. In his emotional explanation on the Sunday following the incident, Mr Campbell kept saying that he made a 'terrible mistake." But that isn't what happened. If he had been unaware or ignorant of the potential consequences of being drunk on the road that would be a mistake. But this was a calculated decision Mr Campbell made to take a huge risk that he might cause a fatal accident by driving when he absolutely knew he was drunk.
Spin more important than patients to B.C. Liberals Vancouver - The Campbell government is more interested in spinning its line on health care than looking after the health of patients themselves, says George Heyman, president of the B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union (BCGEU/NUPGE). He was commenting on a decision by the premier's office to advertise for a "full-service advertising agency to act as an Agency of Record (AOR) for strategic advertising planning and market research..." "It is outrageous that the premier's office is advertising for a public relations firm to help them sell their ill-conceived health care plans," said Heyman. "British Columbians don't need spin doctors to conduct market research on health care. The public has made it clear that they want improved access to health care just like the premier promised during the election campaign," said Heyman. "The Campbell government's cuts, are bitter medicine that no spin doctor will be able to cure. The government's actions in closing facilities like the Strathcona Adult Day Centre, Gateby extended health facility, hospitals and extended care facilities is hurting seniors. These people need homes to live in safely, not market research," said Heyman.
Sexing up South Africa's Female Soccer Team Wed Mar 9, 6:30 AM ET JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa's female football team will be coached in etiquette and given tighter T-shirts in a drive to soften their image and attract sponsorship ahead of a 2007 World Cup bid. A top women's football official said on Wednesday that female players who dressed and acted like men were giving women's football a bad name and needed to nurture their feminine side by wearing more shapely kit and sitting like ladies. "They need to learn how to be ladies," Ria Ledwaba, head of the women's committee at the South African Football Association 9AFA) told Reuters. "At the moment you sometimes can't tell if they're men or women." The national team would be given a more shapely kit to emphasise their femininity on the pitch and would swap dowdy track suits for skirts and jackets when travelling. "Obviously they can't wear skirts on pitch... but they will be given outfits made for women, with female shirts that are shaped for breasts," Ledwaba said. SAFA would also hold etiquette workshops to turn the players -- often plucked from the streets of South Africa's sprawling townships with no schooling -- into "national assets". "We need to teach them etiquette and the importance of being a role model," said Ledwaba. "There are mothers out there who won't let their daughters play football because they think they'll start acting like boys." The efforts to soften the team's image are part of a drive to attract hot new talent to the team, which has never competed in a world tournament, and to lure sponsors ahead of the 2007 women's World Cup. FIFA President Sepp Blatter last year courted controversy when he urged women players to wear tighter shorts to distinguish them from men. (If you want a break from this... click here) Wal-Mart: Union forces store
closing NEW YORK - In the latest salvo in a long-running battle between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and organized labor, the company said Wednesday it will close a Canadian store where about 200 workers are near winning the first union contract from the world's largest retailer. Wal-Mart said it was shuttering the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, in response to unreasonable demands from union negotiators that would make it impossible for the store to sustain its business. The United Food & Commercial Workers Canada last week asked Quebec labor officials to appoint a mediator, saying that negotiations had reached an impasse. "We were hoping it wouldn't come to this," said Andrew Pelletier of Wal-Mart Canada. "Despite nine days of meetings over three months, we've been unable to reach an agreement with the union that in our view will allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably." Pelletier said the store will close in May. The retailer had discussed closing the store in October, saying it was losing money. Union leaders promised to fight the move, and rejected Wal-Mart's stated reasons for closing the store. "Wal-Mart has fired these workers not because the store was losing money but because the workers exercised their right to join a union," Michael Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada, said. "Once again, Wal-Mart has decided it is above the law and that the only rules that count are their rules." Wal-Mart's decision to close the store reflects the retailer's deeply rooted aversion to unions, and its worries that organized labor had nearly established a beachhead, said Burt Flickinger III of Strategic Resource Group, a consulting firm specializing in retailing and consumer goods. But the move could backfire for a company that has worked hard recently to counter a wave of bad publicity and portray itself as a generous employer, he said. "They're trying to snuff it out but it may be self-defeating," Flickinger said. "The store closing may potentially catalyze the combination of the government (officials in Canada), organized labor and consumers working together against Wal-Mart." Some employees at the store said they believed it was closing because of their agreement to join the union and several cried as they left the store. They told Radio-Canada TV that managers made the announcement Wednesday morning and they had not been allowed to ask questions. "Many people cried, including myself," said Claudia Tremblay, a cashier who abstained from the vote. "I'm a mother of two children and I'm separated from my husband. It's very difficult." The store in Jonquiere, about 240 miles northeast of Montreal, became the first unionized Wal-Mart store in North America in September. Since then, workers at a second Quebec store have been granted union status. Neither had reached a contract. Careful Not to Get Too Much Education...Or
You Could Turn Liberal I've been giving a lot of thought lately to a conversation I overheard at a Starbucks in Nashville last winter. It was a cold and rainy night as I worked away at my laptop, but the comforting aroma of cappuccino kept me going. My comfort was interrupted, however, by two young men who sat down in upholstered chairs near my table. One was talking, the other listening, in what appeared to be an informal college orientation. "The only trouble with David Lipscomb (a conservative Christian college nearby) is that old man Lipscomb apparently didn't like football. So we don't have a football team, but we have a great faculty." "But you do have to be careful about one thing," he said more quietly, coming closer and speaking in hushed tones, "My professor-I have this great professor-told me that you have to be careful not to get too much education, because you could lose your foundation, your core values." The neophyte nodded solemnly, his eyebrows raised with worry. "If you get a bachelors," the seasoned student reassured, "you'll probably be okay. But my professor said that when you get a master's, and definitely if you go beyond that, you can lose your values. He said that college students have to be watchful because if you get too much education, you could turn LIBERAL. He's seen it happen to a lot of good Christians." Both young men looked around again to make sure no-one was listening (unfortunately my hearing is excellent, even when I wish it weren't), and shuddered visibly. They shook their heads at the terrifying fate that could befall them. I found it hard to concentrate after that, my mind returning again and again to one question: "What would happen to higher education in America if this fear of "too much education", and this presumption that liberal views are the devil's snare rather than the logical consequences of exposure to science, philosophy, literature and diversity, became widespread?" Sadly, it has already happened, and is growing on college campuses across the US. A recent article by Justin Pope, "Conservatives Flip Academic Freedom Debate: Liberal professors are accused of attempting to indoctrinate students. But some teachers say pupils are trying to avoid new ideas." (AP, 12/25/04) describes this anti-liberal movement, weakly disguised as "balancing" their courses with conservative views:
Nation's Poor Win Election For Nation's Rich WASHINGTON, DC—The economically disadvantaged segment of the U.S. population provided the decisive factor in another presidential election last Tuesday, handing control of the government to the rich and powerful once again. "The Republican party—the party of industrial mega-capitalists, corporate financiers, power brokers, and the moneyed elite—would like to thank the undereducated rural poor, the struggling blue-collar workers in Middle America, and the God-fearing underpriviledged minorities who voted George W. Bush back into office," Karl Rove, senior advisor to Bush, told reporters at a press conference Monday. "You have selflessly sacrificed your well-being and voted against your own economic interest. For this, we humbly thank you." Added Rove: "You have acted beyond the call of duty—or, for that matter, good sense." According to Rove, the Republicans found strong support in non-urban areas populated by the people who would have benefited most from the lower-income tax cuts and social-service programs championed by Kerry. Regardless of their own interests, these citizens turned out in record numbers to elect conservatives into office at all levels of the government. "My family's been suffering ever since I lost my job at the screen-door factory, and I haven't seen a doctor for well on four years now," said father of four Buddy Kaldrin of Eerie, CO. "Shit, I don't even remember what a dentist's chair looks like... Basically, I'd give up if it weren't for God's grace. So it's good to know we have a president who cares about religion, too." Kaldrin added: "That's why I always vote straight-ticket Republican, just like my daddy did, before he lost the farm and shot himself in the head, and just like his daddy did, before he died of black-lung disease in the company coal mines." Kaldrin was one of many who listed moral issues among their primary reasons for voting Republican. "Our society is falling apart—our treasured values are under attack by terrorists," said Ellen Blaine of Givens, OH, a tiny rural farming community as likely to be attacked by terrorists as it is to be hit by a meteor. "We need someone with old-time morals in the White House. I may not have much of anything in this world, but at least I have my family." "John Kerry is a flip-flopper," she continued. "I saw it on TV. Who knows what terrible things might've happened to my sons overseas if he'd been put in charge?" Kerry supporters also turned out in large numbers this year, but they were outnumbered by those citizens who voted for Bush. "The alliance between the tiny fraction at the top of the pyramid and the teeming masses of mouth-breathers at its enormous base has never been stronger," a triumphant Bush said. "We have an understanding, them and us. They help us stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor. See? No matter what naysayers may think, the system works." Added Bush: "God bless America's backwards hicks, lunchpail-toting blockheads, doddering elderly, and bumpity-car-driving Spanish-speakers." Taken from The Onion
Ralph Nader on the Election November 3, 2004 Nader: Bush Re-Election Signals Need for Renewed Effort Immediate Need for Peace Movement to be Re-activated Time for Progressive Populists to Stand Up For the Interests of the People Washington, DC: Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, commenting on the results of the election, stated that, "November 2 is not the end, it is a new beginning. The challenge to the two-party system that is choking political expression and response in the United States will continue and grow. If the parties want to continue losing significance in attending to the country's necessities, they need only continue to place the interests of Big Business before the interests of the people." "The re-election of George Bush would not have occurred had the Democrats stood up for the needs of the American people. Tens of millions of Americans have been left out of the political process because their needs are being ignored. Many of these people did not even bother to vote because they feel unrepresented, others ended up voting against their own personal interests for George Bush because of the absence of clear attracting policies by the Democrats. As the votes are analyzed we will find that significant percentages of union members, low-income earners, seniors and women will have voted for the president. These people voted against their interest because the Democrats did not put their interests on the table and issues like gay marriage, abortion and guns swayed them," said Nader. "It is now urgent for the peace movement to be re-awakened.
They have sidelined themselves in this election by their silent support
for a "The straitjacket of the political duopoly needs to be broken.
This campaign exposed the ballot access barriers that confront all
third party and independent candidates as well as the potential for
anti-democratic activities as a result of the complex costly web of
ballot laws. The Presidential debates this year, with their 32 pages
of rules, showed how the Commission on Presidential Debates is an
extension of the two parties that is designed to not allow voters
to hear diverse views. It is time to challenge the shared monopoly
of the two parties at every level and to do so consistently,"
said Nader adding, "There needs to be one federal standard for
ballot access to federal ballots, not fifty difference state The civil liberties movement in the United States needs to do some soul searching in reaction to this election. They remained silent while the rights of millions of voters to vote for their candidate of their choice were being trampled on. Civil liberties are for all voters, not just voters with whom civil liberties groups agree. If this is not faced up to, the civil liberties community will have reduced credibility.
THE CULTURE OF CONTROL By Derrick Jensen and George Draffan Right now, military researchers at MIT and elsewhere are working hard to fabricate technologies that will—and we have to stress that we’re not making this up—allow soldiers to leap buildings, deflect bullets, and even become invisible. Shoes containing power packs will store energy when soldiers—or state police, or corporate security guards, insofar as there’s a difference—walk, then release this energy in bursts to allow them to jump over walls. Soldiers—cops, corporate goons—will be given exoskeletons, like insects, to deflect bullets. These exoskeletons will have the capacity to turn into offensive weapons as well. These exoskeletons will also deflect light so that those wearing them will be as invisible as the man at the center of the Panopticon, as invisible as God. Ned Thomas, director of the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT, explains why he wants to try to create these übersoldiers—and I picture him laughing like all the mad scientists in all the bad science fiction movies as he speaks—“Imagine the psychological impact upon a foe when encountering squads of seemingly invincible warriors, protected by armour and endowed with superhuman capabilities, such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls.” ... A couple of years ago, the United States government began bringing together information-gathering programs under a vast surveillance network called Total Information Awareness (TIA). TIA was a program of the Information Awareness Office, which in turn is part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), run by the Pentagon. ... In response to criticism, the United States government changed the name of Total Information Awareness—though not, of course, its function—to the less accurate Terrorism Information Awareness. Presumably it also began dossiers on everybody who complained about the program.
by Adbusters Oh Phil, your timing couldn't be better. On the eve of our Blackspot sneaker launch, you try to commodify the meaning of "peace" with your John Lennon All Star Peace Chuck. (If you didn't know, Converse is now owned by Nike.) So, as Lennon rolls in his grave, we're emboldened with a renewed sense of purpose: to reclaim our culture from corpo mindfuckers like you. Enter the world's first global anti-brand: the Blackspot sneaker. A shoe and a message and a vision of the future. We've produced an environmentally friendly sneaker that's a bold statement against sweatshop labor. Our anti-corporate campaign is a shareholder-driven enterprise that prioritizes ethical consumerism and grassroots empowerment. Join us in this quest to create an authentic, non-corporate cool and reassert consumer sovereignty over capitalism. The Blackspot is an alternative to the commercial, pseudo 'culture' of the mega corporations. Nike has always been the champion of logo culture, its swoosh an icon of global cool. Despite this, Phil Knight flies the flag of a fading empire. His swoosh has been hurt by years of "brand damage" as activists fought against his mindfuck marketing and dirty sweatshop labor. It's time to rethink the cool. Let's turn shoes into a counter branding tool. Let's buy shoes from an anti-corporation where customers have a say. Let's pit the swoosh against the anti-swoosh. Which side are you on? Taken from Adbusters
by Kurt Vonnegut I, like probably most of you, have seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Its title is a parody of the title of Ray Bradbury’s great science fiction novel, Fahrenheit 451. This temperature 451° Fahrenheit, is the combustion point, incidentally, of paper, of which books are composed. The hero of Bradbury’s novel is a municipal worker whose job is burning books. And on the subject of burning books: I want to congratulate librarians, not famous for their physical strength or their powerful political connections or their great wealth, who, all over this country, have staunchly resisted anti-democratic bullies who have tried to remove certain books from their shelves, and have refused to reveal to thought police the names of persons who have checked out those titles. So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media. The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries. And still on the subject of books: Our daily sources of news, papers and TV, are now so craven, so unvigilant on behalf of the American people, so uninformative, that only in books can we find out what is really going on. I will cite an example: House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger, published near the start of this humiliating, shameful blood-soaked year. In case you haven’t noticed, and as a result of a shamelessly rigged election in Florida, in which thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily disenfranchised, we now present ourselves to the rest of the world as proud, grinning, jut-jawed, pitiless war lovers, with appallingly powerful weaponry and unopposed. In case you haven’t noticed, we are now almost as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis were. With good reason. In case you haven’t noticed, our unelected leaders have dehumanized millions and millions of human beings simply because of their religion and race. We wound and kill ’em and torture ’em and imprison ’em all we want. Piece of cake. In case you haven’t noticed, we also dehumanize our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class. Send ’em anywhere. Make ’em do anything. Piece of cake. The O’Reilly Factor. So I am a man without a country, except for the librarians and the Chicago-based magazine you are reading, In These Times. Before we attacked Iraq, the majestic New York Times guaranteed that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Albert Einstein and Mark Twain gave up on the human race at the end of their lives, even though Twain hadn’t even seen World War I. War is now a form of TV entertainment. And what made WWI so particularly entertaining were two American inventions, barbed wire and the machine gun. Shrapnel was invented by an Englishman of the same name. Don’t you wish you could have something named after you? Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now am tempted to give up on people too. And, as some of you may know, this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine. My last words? “Life is no way to treat an animal, not even a mouse.” Napalm came from Harvard. Veritas! Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler. What can be said to our young people, now that psychopathic personalities, which is to say persons without consciences, without a sense of pity or shame, have taken all the money in the treasuries of our government and corporations and made it all their own? Taken from In These Times
Where are you now, when we need you most, Rage Against the Machine? By The Onion For nearly 10 years, Rage Against The Machine provided a voice for the disaffected, the disenfranchised, and the angry. Blending punk, pop, hip-hop, metal, and thrash, their music fought corporate America, cultural imperialism, and government oppression head on during a time when most of America was lulled into a Clinton-induced torpor. When Rage Against The Machine's cry for justice was amplified by a major-label debut in 1992, hundreds of thousands of American youths turned to them for guidance. Over the course of eight years, Rage released three original albums and one covers album, each a new and varied challenge, a 60-minute call to arms, a soul cry for the low and lost. But then, in October of 2000, the unthinkable happened: Singer Zack De La Rocha left the band. On that fateful election night in November, there was no one to articulate the outrage and denounce the Supreme Cult's appointment of George W. Shrub to Commander-In-Thief. Where were you then, Rage Against The Machine? Where are you now? Every album you released was a Declaration Of Independence for music fans no longer content with music that served only to entertain. Hearing the teeth-grinding post-metal riffs of "Sleep Now In The Fire," thousands awoke from MTV and Top 40 radio's 24-7 "pop-ulum somnalocasts." Every song, every lyric furthered your message. Your words about the war for oil in the Middle East were prophetic. You were an inspiration! What happened? Now, of all times, we look to you for clear-eyed articulation of the fucked-up world we live in. The people of the sun still labor in Mexico, but no one plays bass about their struggles! Mumia sits in prison, yet no one sings for his freedom. What do we hear? Silence. You've abandoned us in our hour of need. How could you? Everywhere: exploitation. Where's the rock? You summed it up so clearly in "Fistful Of Steel" when you sang, "If the vibe was suicide, then you would push da button, but if you're bowin' down, then let me do the cuttin'." You lifted the nation's youth up out of the mire and taught us to question, to act. Rage Against The Machine, come back. Bring us more slamming riffs and sonic wallop. Bring us more shredding and axing. Do that thing where you make your guitar sound like bagpipes. Seriously, we need a healthy dose of your cuttin', or Bush will win. It's Vietnow, man, and just like you said before, America's getting its news-trients from the likes of Benito Hannity and Adolf Limbaugh. We need a musical antidote to the poison. This nation needs another bomb track to ignite it! We are lost, Rage Against The Machine. Where have you gone? The voice of the voiceless is silent. Surely Zack has ample material for new songs. This empire couldn't be any more evil. What about Abu Ghraib? If ever anyone was sleeping in the fire, it was those prisoners. Zack, if you're listening, if you're reading this—we need you. And where are you, Tom, Tim, and Brad? You bravely stood up for the dispossessed of the Third World, but in the current political climate, we are dispossessed in our own country. The erosion of our rights and liberties makes captives of us all. Do you no longer care? Did the machine defeat you? I'm sorry. I got carried away. It's only my fear for the future that led me to question you. For if not you, then who will rage for us? Audioslave? They're only three-fourths of Rage Against The Machine, and you know it. Besides, they broke up. Limp Bizkit? Slipknot? They have the infectious energy, but aren't so vocal about saving the world from Dick Chicanery and Donald Grab-The-Money-And-Rumsfeld. Only one band has the power to rage against the machine, and that is Rage Against The Machine. If you have any sort of a conscience, you will heed my call. Taken From The Onion
May 5, 2004 WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday. The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating. Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route. In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably." But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said. "We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands." Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out. Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor. "Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved." Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel. A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many. "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said. Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats. Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' " Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative. Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said. Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said. Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics. Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it. While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high. Taken from the NEW YORK TIMES Also check out Michael Moore's Site
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA wants to privatize healthcare and they don't want to tell you about it until after the next election! "In a stunning flip-flop, Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew (OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA) said Wednesday the federal government will not encourage provinces to experiment with medicare by hiring for-profit private companies to deliver medical services within the publicly funded system. The dramatic turnaround was delivered by Pettigrew in a prepared statement he read to reporters on Parliament Hill. It came as the Martin government, likely on the verge of calling an election, launched a damage-control exercise to repair the political wounds caused by Pettigrew's comments on privatization a day earlier." TRANSATION: the Federal Liberals are going to privatization healthcare right after the next election! Welcome to USA for-profit healthcare, will you be paying with Visa or Mastercard? I like how the media (who are big liberal supports) try and spin the story away from the liberal party! the bury the first article which announced his the privatization on page 3, while murders and union bashing made the frontpage. and on the second day when the liberals renounced the statement only for election damage control. the headline reads in next days' paper read "Pettigrew backtracks on private health care" They want to confuse the public and make it seem like it was all the action of this Pettigrew guy.. and draw attenion away from his party the liberal party, yeah the one with Paul Martin. That's the one. He's the health minister of the party that wants to privatize healthcare. So be sure to vote LIBERAL for an American Style Healthsystem. another headline reads.. "B.C. passes back-to-work legislation in bid to end health care strike." and by BC they mean the Prov. Liberal Government! Bill 37 opps.. I mean the LIBERAL GOVERNMENT imposes a 15-per-cent wage rollback on 43,000 health-care workers, extends the work week by 1.5 hours and imposes no cap on the employer's ability to contract out union jobs to the private sector. The BC Liberals have forced another union back to work, showing no respect for the democracy process or the working class. To date, B.C. health employers have eliminated more than 4,000 unionized hospital jobs since he Liberals came to power in 2001. The liberals have also legislated the ferry unions and teachers union back to work. They have no respect for the democratic process of labour negotations. Online music swapping found to
be legal in Canadian Court TORONTO - Individuals who share personal copies of music files on the internet are safe after a Federal Court rejected a motion on Wednesday that would have allowed the music industry to sue them. Justice Konrad von Finckenstein said the Canadian Recording Industry Association hadn't shown copyright infringement by 29 people who had allowed their music files to be uploaded. Making files available in online, shared directories is within the bounds of Canadian copyright law, von Finckenstein ruled. "No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service." The music industry wants to shut down internet file sharing of music, blaming it for plummeting sales of compact discs. Last year, the recording industry in the United States began going after people who share music online. The Recording Industry Association of America has sued about 400 individuals in the U.S. for allowing others access to song files. Several people have settled out of court for about $3,000 US each. On Tuesday, the recording industry sent warning letters or filed charges against 247 people in Denmark, Germany, Italy and Canada. Taken from the CBC MORE LINKS: CBC: INDEPTH: Downloading music FAQ CBC: INDEPTH: Downloading For more news articles on the topic check this link out.
Georgia House bans genital piercings for women The Associated Press - ATLANTA Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation. The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom. An amendment adopted without objection added "piercing" to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate. Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings. "What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said. "I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing." The ban applies only to women, not men. The bill has already been approved by the Senate but now must return to that chamber because of the piercing amendment. Both chambers of the Legislature must agree on a single version of a bill before it can go to the governor for final approval. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press
Quarantining dissent
By James Bovard When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us." The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind." At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' " Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?" Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome." One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct." Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media." When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars. The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone." Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing." Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States." If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide. Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate. The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded. The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat." The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity. The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard." Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area. For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages. Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings." Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists. Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere. One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act." Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people." Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies. On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox." The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report. On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor. James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is adapted from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American Conservative. Taken from SFGate.com
Wal-Mart is putting By Jim Hightower / Guest Columnist Wal-Mart, the recidivist criminal, is back in trouble with the law. Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Al Capone had nothing on this notorious violator of our nation's laws and moral code of behavior. It routinely robs its nearly one million workers, depriving them of a fair wage and a fair chance. For example:
The largest sex discrimination suit ever filed in U.S. history is under way against Wal-Mart on behalf of nearly a million women who've worked there. Wal-Mart has been sued more times by federal authorities for discrimination against the disabled than any other corporation. Wal-Mart has been formally cited more than 40 times in the past five
years for using illegal tactics to deny its workers the right to join
a union. Oh, no, cried Wal-Mart executives, they don't work for us, but for cleaning contractors we hire, and -- trust us -- we had no idea that they were hiring illegal workers and paying illegal wages! What a crock. Wal-Mart is renowned for its elaborate computer network that tracks every cost it incurs, down to the penny -- and for demanding that its suppliers and contractors pay the least wage possible. Plus, this is the third time in the past five years that Wal-Mart has been caught pulling this same crime of using illegal cleaning crews. Not only does Wal-Mart know what's going on, but such exploitation of workers is integral to this corporate criminal's ongoing profit plan.
Woman Knocked Unconscious While Shopping
Patricia VanLester had her eye on a $29 DVD player, but when the siren blared at 6 a.m. Friday announcing the start to the post-Thanksgiving sale, the 41-year-old was knocked to the ground by the frenzy of shoppers behind her.
Who plans to steal
Vanishing Act "Disappearing" the Republic at the Push of a Button By Chris Floyd It's a shell game, with money, companies and corporate brands switching in a blur of buy-outs and bogus fronts. It's a sinkhole, where mobbed-up operators, paid-off public servants, crazed Christian fascists, CIA shadow-jobbers, war-pimping arms dealers--and presidential family members--lie down together in the slime. It's a hacker's dream, with pork-funded, half-finished, secretly-programmed computer systems installed without basic security standards by politically-partisan private firms, and protected by law from public scrutiny. It's how America, the "world's greatest democracy," casts its votes. And it's why George W. Bush will almost certainly be the next president of the United States--no matter what the people of the United States might want. The American vote-count is controlled by three major corporate players--Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia--with a fourth, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), coming on strong. These companies--all of them hardwired into the Bushist Party power grid--have been given billions of dollars by the Bush Regime to complete a sweeping computerization of voting machines nation-wide by the 2004 election. These glitch-riddled systems--many using "touch-screen" technology that leaves no paper trail at all--are almost laughably open to manipulation, according to corporate whistleblowers and computer scientists at Stanford, John Hopkins and other universities. The technology had a trial run in the 2002 mid-term elections. In Georgia, serviced by new Diebold systems, a popular Democratic governor and senator were both unseated in what the media called "amazing" upsets, with results showing vote swings of up to 16 percent from the last pre-ballot polls. In computerized Minnesota, former vice president Walter Mondale--a replacement for popular incumbent Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash days before the vote--was also defeated in a large last-second vote swing. Convenient "glitches" in Florida saw an untold number of votes intended for the Democratic candidate registering instead for Governor Jeb "L'il Brother" Bush. A Florida Democrat who lost a similarly "glitched" local election went to court to have the computers examined--but the case was thrown out by a judge who ruled that the innards of America's voting machines are the "trade secrets" of the private companies who make them. Who's behind these private companies? It's hard to tell: the corporate lines--even the bloodlines--of these "competitors" are so intricately mixed. For example, at Diebold--whose corporate chief, Wally O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, has publicly committed himself to "delivering" his home state's votes to Bush next year--the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked in the vote-count business by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing "steering group" stacked with Bushist faithful. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, an extremist faction that openly advocates a theocratic takeover of American democracy, with the imposition of strict Christian dominion, placing "the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere under Christ the King." This "dominion" includes the death penalty for homosexuals, exclusion of citizenship for non-Christians, stoning of sinners and--we kid you not--slavery, "one of the most beneficent of Biblical laws." As the movement's leader--and Ahmanson's fellow CNP member--R.J. Rushdoony puts it: "The Christian should therefore not fear laws in support of Christian social goals just because they interfere with personal freedom." Ahmanson also holds a major stake in ES&S, where he's joined by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Before his ascension to high office, Hagel was CEO of an earlier ES&S incarnation. Thus, when he ran for the Senate, his own company counted the votes. Needless to say, his initial victory was reported as "an amazing upset." Hagel still has a million-dollar stake in the parent company of ES&S. In Florida, Jeb Bush's first choice for a running mate in his 1998 gubernatorial race was ES&S lobbyist Sandra Mortham, who made a mint installing the machines that counted Jeb's votes. Sequoia also has a colorful history, most recently in Louisiana, where it was the center of a massive corruption case that sent top state officials to jail for bribery, most of it funneled through Mob-connected front firms. Sequoia executives were also indicted, but escaped trial after giving immunized testimony against state officials. The company's corporate parent is the UK communications and printing firm De La Rue, which even as we speak is churning out the colonial currency notes for the new Iraq, courtesy of a hefty Coalition contract. De La Rue, in turn, is owned by the private equity firm Madison Dearborn--a partner of the Carlyle Group, where George Bush I makes millions trolling the world for war pork, privatizations and sweetheart deals with government insiders. Investigations by Bev Harris, Thom Hartmann and many others have forced some of these concerns about computer voting into the edge of the mainstream. Maryland, for example, was so worried about its fat new contract with Diebold that it hired another company to vet the software: SAIC. On the surface, this seems a bit like asking Pepsi to certify the taste of Coke, as top SAIC executives have now spun off into the vote-counting game. These include former CEO Admiral Bill Owens--former military aide to Dick Cheney and Carlyle honcho Frank Carlucci--and ex-CIA director Robert Gates, of Iran-Contra fame. Another SAIC executive, David Kay, has been hired by the Bushists to "find" Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction. SAIC's long history of fraud charges and security lapses in its electronic systems hasn't prevented it from becoming one of the largest contractors for the Pentagon and the CIA--and it will doubtless pose little obstacle to its entrance into election engineering. The mad rush to install unverifiable computer voting is driven by the Help America Vote Act, signed by Bush last year. The chief lobbying group pushing for HAVA was a consortium of arms dealers--those disinterested corporate citizens--including Northop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin. The bill also mandates that all states adopt the computerized "voter purge" system used by Florida's Jeb Bush to eliminate 91,000 eligible black voters from the rolls in November 2000. This was done by a private firm, the Republican-run ChoicePoint Inc., which delivered a list of supposedly "ineligible" voters--identified by race--to Florida officials. ChoicePoint was supposed to help local officials correct any mistakes, but despite taking several million dollars for this task, they somehow neglected to do it. Now Bush's HAVA requires that all states conduct similar operations--and no points for guessing which Republican-run private firm is gobbling up the lion's share of those contracts. (This gives a whole new meaning to the term "whitewash"). The unelected Bush Regime now controls the government, the military, the judiciary--and the machinery of democracy itself. Absent some unlikely great awakening by the co-opted dullards of the corporate media, next November the last shreds of a genuine American republic will disappear--at the push of a button. See Also Taken From Counterpunch
12-Year-Old Sued for Music Downloading NEW YORK — The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun. Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country. "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother. "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?" The Recording Industry Association of America (search) — a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits — couldn't answer that question. "We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss. Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals." Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock." "My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said. The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge. Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said. When reporters visited the apartment last night, Brianna — who her mom says is an honors student — was helping her brother with his homework. Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software — and thousands more suits could be on the way. "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action." At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet. People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty. Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000. "It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud." taken from foxnews
RELATED LINKS: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Tax Cuts While Problems of Homeless
Grow Two views of the nation's capital were on display last week. At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the main event was the ceremony for President Bush's signing of still another massive tax cut designed primarily for the wealthy. On hand were the usual bevy of reporters and cameras to record the event. There were Republican leaders from the House and Senate full of self-praise for their legislative achievement that will balloon the deficit and drain funding from critical federal programs. A dozen blocks away, some 500 health workers from all over the country were gathered in a hotel ballroom to discuss ways to meet the desperate need for housing and health care for the nation's growing population of homeless Americans. None of the Republican leadership brass was in sight and no media showed to carry forth the message of the desperate plight of people without shelter or health care or hope. High on the agenda of the advocates for the homeless-whose organization is formally known as Health Care for the Homeless (HCH)--is the closing of the enormous gap in the supply of affordable housing. The nation is five to six million units short of the demand for the barest affordable housing. This fact places heavy pressure on the effort to find decent shelter for low and moderate income families. Fourteen million families spend more than half of their entire income on housing much of it crowded and substandard, leaving little for other necessities such as food, clothing and medical care. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has long urged that families try to keep their housing outlays to less than 30 percent of their income. Any payout for housing beyond that often leads to serious economic problems which push families into bankruptcy and homelessness-not to mention the fact that many forgo proper nutrition and medical care in an attempt to keep their homes. Meanwhile at Bush's White House tax cut ceremony, it was obvious that the political oligarchies were not thinking about affordable housing or, for that matter, any other pressing economic need of the nation. Needs? What needs? It's party time for the wealthy as the Treasury is emptied for them. This means that critically important social and economic programs will be put off for years while the nation struggles out of budget deficits created by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the rising costs of the invasion and prolonged occupation of Iraq. This will have a serious negative impact on the national economy in coming years. Future Administrations and future generations will have to struggle with the consequences long after George W. Bush has left office and is lounging under a mesquite tree in Crawford, Texas. But, the impact on homeless people and families is immediate. Not only will affordable housing programs be pushed to the background, but the other big need of the homeless-adequate universal health care-will slide further down the national agenda if the budget deficits balloon. Sadly, people without homes are not on the decline. Homelessness is increasing and along with it a growing number of serious health problems, some contagious. It is difficult to pin down the exact number of homeless at a given moment, but a 2001 study by "Helping America's Homeless" estimated that 842,000 people were homeless in a given week and 3.5 million became homeless over the course of a year. A 1995 study reports that over a five-year period two to three percent of the U. S. population will experienceat least one night of homelessness. Many of the homeless are the working poor who earn only the minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour-totally inadequate in today's housing market.
The purchasing power of the minimum wage is less than a third of the
minimum wage of 1968. How can minimum wage families exist-even put
proper food on the table and cloth their children much less pay rent
in today's market? A worker would have to earn $14.66 an hour to provide
enough income to afford a two-bedroom home at the national weighted
Fair Market Rent (FMR). With the unemployment rate at six percent
and rising, the problem of homelessness is only going to worsen.
"At some point, we may be the only ones left.
That's okay with me. We are America." "This is not an isolated incident. The public
might lose focus. A month from now Americans will be watching football
and the World Series. But the government would have to carry on the
war indefinitely."
14 FACES OF FASCISM 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses. 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion. 9. Power of corporations protected. Although
the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the
ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not
compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way
to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but
also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic
elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued
mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not”
citizens. This article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
TV Turn Off Week Hit power off. Go cold turkey. Stash - or smash! - the television. Make this the start of your personal mental revolution. Live and breathe and think and feel. Celebrate TV Turnoff Week. A WASTED LIFE They’re an unlikely set of whistleblowers – the people who create our cinematic illusions are suddenly nervous about the power of their own brand of magic. Actor Tom Cruise, a daddy of two, recently told the press that he limits his kids’ television viewing to a maximum of three and a half hours a week – one-eighth the US average – and then “only if they’re doing well in school.” They’re not making up for lost screen-time in front of a computer, either. “We’re focused on reading, a lot of reading,” says Cruise. Other virtual mythmakers are also putting their kids on firmer ground. Madonna pledges minimal tube-time for her two tots, and director Steven Spielberg limits his five children to an hour a day (after homework, chores and dinner). He also makes a special effort to keep his kids’ innocent eyes sheltered from the network news. “Things are so frightening right now that I like the news to come from me,” he says. “That way I can reassure them they are safe.” The Spielberg brood isn’t missing much, of course. Some of the day’s top stories never make it to TV – like new studies that show that kids themselves are turning off the telly more often. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, close to 50 percent of fourth graders now watch two or less hours of television a day, up from 40 percent in 1994. And here’s another story that Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw seem to have missed: the American Academy of Pediatrics is advising its members to “lead efforts in . . . developing local TV turnoff week projects.” With a critical body of research that warns of television’s negative side effects – from poor body image and substance abuse to mental dopiness and violence – the healthcare jammers are finally set to walk their talk. On April 21-27, TV Turnoff Week will once again storm the airwaves of America and the world. Expect the unexpected – there’ll be a million kids on the loose and running free, looking for games to play. TAKEN FROM abusters.org American "free press" in action US networks agree to serve as Pentagon propaganda
tool in Iraq Having served unofficially as a propaganda arm of the White House and Pentagon before and during the war on Iraq, the major US media networks, with the exception of CNN, have agreed to make their function official. In the name of providing Iraq’s people with a taste of a “free press,” ABC, CBS, Fox and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) have decided to provide content for a Pentagon-controlled television service in Iraq. The five-hour-a-day program, called “Toward Freedom,” will consist primarily of repeats of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, The PBS NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, NBC Nightly News and Fox News Special Report With Brit Hume. Confident that the content will serve the purposes of the US-led occupation of Iraq, the Pentagon has pledged to air the repeats unedited. Interspersed with the network programs, Iraqi people with access to TV will also view the Pentagon briefings given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, translated into Arabic. Some British content, one hour of the daily total, will be supplied by Britain’s Foreign Office, which has outsourced production to a private London-based company called World Television. The programs will be beamed throughout Iraq via Commando Solo, a fleet of specially equipped military C-130 cargo planes—the same planes that have conducted the Pentagon’s psychological warfare operations on Iraqi television frequencies since the US-led invasion began. A government official said the network-supplied programming would not be “intermingled” with Air Force “psy ops” material. The US government has used Commando Solo planes as part of its information wars since Vietnam, and deployed them last year in Afghanistan. But this is believed to be the first time American media organizations have officially joined the “psy-ops” effort, setting a precedent for future partnerships at home and abroad. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair inaugurated the broadcasts with statements taped during their summit in Northern Ireland last week. In his message, aired in English with Arabic subtitles, Bush declared, “I assure every citizen of Iraq: Your nation will soon be free.” Blair said: “Our forces are friends and liberators of the Iraqi people, not your conquerors.” On the ground, troops have been distributing flyers to residents with the text of the messages by Bush and Blair. US and British forces have also begun publishing an Arabic-language newspaper, the Times, with a starting circulation of 10,000. Under the banner of “freedom,” the new propaganda service enjoys a monopoly in Iraq, thanks to the bombing and destruction of Iraqi TV and radio facilities. The US attacks on the Iraqi media are a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which forbid such attacks on civilian facilities, even if state-controlled, during war. One US network, Time-Warner’s CNN, has refused to join the broadcasting project. In a statement, a CNN spokesman said: “We didn’t think that as an independent, global news organization it was appropriate to participate in a United States government video transmission.” Other networks, however, quickly overcame any reservations. CBS News President Andrew Heyward said he was “skeptical” on first hearing that the project would be funded by the government and operated by the Middle East Committee of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a State Department communications agency. He became convinced that “this is a good thing to do ... a patriotic thing to do” after conversations with “some of the most traditional-minded colleagues” at CBS News. Defending the project, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer raised to a new level of absurdity Washington’s claims to be “liberating” Iraq’s population. “For decades, the Iraqi people have heard nothing but totalitarian propaganda that was designed to prop up the regime of Saddam Hussein,” he said. “That will now change, and that is for the good of the Iraqi people.” Fleischer confirmed that the Pentagon and the British military would decide what airs in the nightly broadcasts. Asked if Iraqis would just see “Toward Freedom” as yet more propaganda, but from another source, Fleischer said: “If the scenes that we’re seeing on the streets carried through free media’s cameras are any indication, the Iraqi people welcome a message from President Bush.” His response underscored the administration’s gratitude for the US media’s stage-managed and highly-selective coverage of events throughout the war, culminating in the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. [See “The stage-managed events in Baghdad’s Firdos Square: image-making, lies and the ‘liberation’ of Iraq”] Fleischer’s comments summed up the seamless transition that government and media officials anticipate in the functioning of the US networks. To go from having their media crews “embedded” with military units, eulogizing their killing activities, to glorifying the next phase—a colonial-style American occupation—is a natural progression for the media conglomerates. Fleischer insisted that Pentagon control over broadcasting was a praiseworthy enterprise. “I think it’s entirely appropriate, from the president’s point of view, for DOD [Department of Defense] to be involved in this. It remains a dangerous country where DOD assets are needed to field these missions. DOD is very good ... at providing information for people who have a thirst for information.” Fleischer portrayed the campaign as a transitional effort designed to fill an information vacuum until Iraqi news media are up and running. But he added that the media campaign would run indefinitely. Any Iraqi media will remain under US oversight, as indicated by the fact that the US Agency for International Development has a team in Iraq to help administer the longer-term media policy. The Pentagon will work with the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which supervises all the US government’s international broadcasting, including Voice of America, Radio Sawa, an Arabic-language radio service, and Radio Farda, a new Persian station broadcast in Iran. Together, the services broadcast in 65 languages. Its Middle East Committee, inaugurated last year, operates under the direction of Radio Sawa news director Moaufac Harb and consultant Bill Headline, a former CBS News and CNN executive. Chairing the Board of Governors is Norman Pattiz, chairman of radio distributor Westwood One. Pattiz said the Board’s mission was “to promote democracy by being an example of a free press. What better way to fulfill that mission than to provide actual examples of America’s free press?” Not accidentally, prominent sections of this “free press” agitated for the illegal bombardment of Iraq’s media, which created the monopoly now exercised by the Pentagon. Almost as soon as the war began, TV network correspondents and hosts demanded that Iraq’s broadcasting facilities be targeted. On March 24, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly declared: “I think they should have taken out the television, the Iraqi television.... Why haven’t they taken out the Iraqi television towers?” MSNBC correspondent David Shuster agreed: “A lot of questions [remain] about why state-run television is allowed to continue broadcasting. After all, the coalition forces know where those broadcast towers are located.” After the facility was struck, reporters expressed satisfaction. On March 25, CNN’s Aaron Brown recalled that “a lot of people wondered why Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did.” New York Times reporter Michael Gordon appeared on CNN to endorse the attack: “And personally, I think the television, based on what I’ve seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people ... when we’re trying to send the exact opposite message, was an appropriate target.” This support extended to US military attacks on other non-US media sources, not merely Iraq’s state-controlled services. No US network called into question, let alone objected to, the deliberate April 8 bombing of the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, in which Al Jazeera reporter Tariq Ayoub was killed. This “free press” provides a revealing example of what the US government and the mainstream media mean by the “liberation” of Iraq. The country’s people and society have been shattered to remove all obstacles to US domination and the “free market” of corporate power. One of the capitalist “models” on display, the US media, is dominated by a handful of media magnates and vast conglomerates. Far from serving “democracy,” it constitutes a major part and critical instrument of the ruling plutocracy. From cheerleading for war to the embedding of journalists, the conquest of Iraq has already become a milestone in the final debasement of the US media, with the networks openly enlisting in the establishment of US colonial-style rule. This voluntary and open integration by the media into the apparatus of the Pentagon must be taken as a sharp warning of the breakdown of democratic processes within the US itself. Can there be any doubt that the same media conglomerates will serve as direct accomplices in sweeping attacks on political dissent and the establishment of authoritarian forms of rule? Taken From WSWS.org
Millions March Worldwide To Denounce Bush's War Plans The largest anti-war rally the world has ever seen. Millions of people from cities all over the globe on Feb. 15th 2003 say no to war in Iraq. • Barcelona:
1 million
One Generation to Save World, Report
Warns The longer that no remedial action is taken, the greater the degree of misery and biological impoverishment that humankind must be prepared to accept, the institute says in its 20th annual report. Overuse of resources, pollution and destruction of natural areas continue to threaten life on the planet. Conditions continue to deteriorate rapidly, the report says, although there are some hopeful signs in that technical solutions to the problems have been found and - where there is political will - adopted. In most cases, though, nothing is being done. Among the worst trends worldwide is that 420 million people live in countries which no longer have enough crop land to grow their own food and have to rely on imports. Around 1.2 billion people, or about a fifth of the world's population, live in absolute poverty - defined as surviving on the equivalent of less than $1, or 62p, a day. About one quarter of the developing world's crop land is being degraded, and the rate is increasing. The greatest threat is not a shortage of land, says the report, but a shortage of water, with more than 500 million people living in regions prone to chronic drought. By 2025 that number is likely to have increased at least fivefold, to between 2.4bn and 3.4bn. A probable world population increase of 27% over the same period will create social and ecological instability. Global warming is accelerating, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 370.9 parts per million, the highest level for at least 420,000 years and probably for 20m years. Toxic chemicals are being released in ever-increasing quantities, and global production of hazardous waste has reached more than 300m tonnes a year. There is only a vague idea of what damage this does to humans and natural systems, the report says. Another threat is the movement of highly invasive species to regions where they may pose problems to native species. The state of the world's natural life support system is perhaps the most worrying indicator for the future, says the report. About 30% of the world's surviving forests are seriously fragmented or degraded, and they are being cut down at the rate of 50,000sq miles a year, it says. Wetlands have been reduced by 50% over the last century. Coral reefs, the world's most diverse aquatic systems, are suffering the effects of overfishing, pollution, epidemic diseases and rising temperatures. A quarter of the world's mammal species and 12% of the birds are in danger of extinction. On the hopeful side, the report says that renewable energy technologies have now developed sufficiently to supply the world. They could significantly reduce the threat to the world from pollution - but currently there is a lack of political will to introduce them fast enough. Another industry which causes widespread destruction, mining for minerals, could be largely replaced by re-use and recycling. Mining consumes 10% of the world's energy, spews out toxic emissions, and threatens 40% of the world's undeveloped forests but these effects could be drastically reduced. Another crisis which the report identifies is in the world's cities, where one billion people seek shelter in shanty towns, often on hillsides, flood plains, in rubbish dumps or downstream of industrial polluters. The inhabitants of these settlements live at constant threat of eviction, but also of natural disasters and disease. Urban centers in the south now dominate the ranks of the world's largest cities. Slum dwellers are organizing for greater rights and better lives, the report says. One of the great challenges for governments is to help their poorest citizens feel secure in their own homes, make a living and improve their environment. Dark clouds, silver linings Worst trends: Reasons for hope:
Taken from Common
Dreams
|
