This morning while doing quick read over the post with members comments on Daniel Okrent, an e-mail arrived from Ruth (her Ruth's Morning Edition Report). Her post went up (as it always will, we enjoy Ruth's posts) but I thought we might follow up with an interview to round it out. Ruth gladly agreed.
First, the community loves Ruth's Morning Edition Report.
Ruth: Thank you and thank you to all the members who write. I would like to do something on the e-mails in the next week again because I enjoy the feedback, the questions and the comments. I'll also say thank you for adding my correction this morning.
You'd heard "lewd" but then realized the guest on Rehm's show had used "food."
Ruth: Right. "Food fight" not "lewd fight." It was in my notes and when Tracey rad over it, she asked me what was "lewd" about Bill Moyers? That's when I realized I had used the wrong word.
And we'll thank our friend of the community who went and fixed that during the day because I'm not able to. And note that it first got fixed as "rude." I got a call and I was saying "Thank you, but it's 'food.'"
Ruth: I'm sorry if there was any trouble.
No, but I knew it was important to you and I wanted to get it fixed it ASAP. But if a mistake goes up in a post, it is corrected, if you catch it or a member does. But mistakes will happen and I wanted to be sure, after you contacted me about it, that you knew it's not a big deal. Mistakes will be made and as long as they're caught and corrected, it's not a problem. Let's jump into the thing Media Matters did this afternoon. We're talking about an interview that aired on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show.
Ruth: My granddaughter came by to pick up my grandson and she asked me if I'd seen it yet and I hadn't. So I immediately checked that out. It was very strong and covered a great deal. I hope people will read it. Instead of discussing the strong points that Media Matters already covered, I'd like to focus on some additional areas.
We discussed a few issues on this earlier, when we spoke of the correction. There was a frustration on your part with Ken Tomlinson, CPB chair, and you felt you weren't able to go into the interview on your own.
Ruth: It was so frustrating to listen to and, I think I noted this, I couldn't deal with it "straight" and I wasn't able to find a way to deal with it humorously, the way Tracey had suggested, because I just found Mr. Tomlinson so offensive and depressing because he's got the power to destroy NPR.
One thing that you'd mentioned was the comments on Israel and Palestine and since that wasn't in the Media Matters item, how about we start there?
Ruth: Well, obviously, I'm Jewish. A Congressman, Brad Sherman, felt that the Middle-East coverage was biased against Israel and Mr. Tomlinson kept returning to that allegation. Diane made the point of that being one complaint and asked is he'd spoken to anyone else? His reply was that there was a meeting with a lot of Jewish people who were offended by the coverage. I don't doubt that it happened. There are a lot of Jewish people in this country who are offended. But there are a lot more who aren't. Myself, I think we need more coverage of reality and I think NPR tries to provide that. Diane offered that, this is a paraphrase from my notes, "whenever we have done a program on what's happening in the Middle East we have always tried to represent the Palestinian perspective and the Israeli perspective and on each program they have been criticized from both sides of having favored one." Mr. Tomlinson wouldn't address specifics and resorted to terms such as case by case basis. He said let it be decided on a case by case basis. Diane asked for an example and he couldn't provide one, he fumbled around and started saying the examples would come later but that people needed to have their complaints heard and addressed. Which led to Diane pointing out something very basic, NPR already has its own ombudsmen doing that and yet he's assigning two ombudsmen in addition to that, to cover both NPR and PBS. Coming as it did in the conversation, it could be thought that the ombudsmen were being added in some part due to the Middle East coverage.
Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly cited a right-wing advocacy group for Israel. He wasn't interested, when Diane brought up the question, of whether or not some listeners might find the Middle East coverage anti-Arab. He also compared NPR to the NRA. Diane asked him if he'd heard any complaints that the coverage was anti-Palestinian and he didn't want to address that issue. He was very selective in what he cited and what he chose to discuss. So, when I was reading the Media Matters review, I thought this was something that didn't get mentioned that we could pick up here.
That segment really bothered you. When we spoke earlier in the day, that was the first thing you identified.
Ruth: It bothers me because I didn't enjoy my religious beliefs being lumped in with people I share nothing with. Mr. Tomlinson spoke as though all Jewish people, because they were Jewish, felt one way which is simply not true. He portrayed as a monolithic, right-wing group. There is a faction of that among Jews in this country but it's a small overall faction. In the larger picture, you do have people who are apethetic and you do have people who feel that the faction is knee jerk and not reflective of any consensus. Diane noted that he was citing the views of advocacy group. Mr. Tomlinson cut her off, as he did frequently, and the issue she attempted to raise was that this group was a sub-section of the American Jewish community. This may have been, it probably was, why I had so much trouble offering anything to the community other than what I did. Mr. Tomlinson stereotyped and traditionally stereotypes have harmed all Jews regardless of their political or personal beliefs.
What you offered was a kind of heads up.
Ruth: Exactly. But it troubles me, and I'm probably not addressing this correctly, that Mr. Tomlinson wanted to advocate a position and instead of honestly stating that he was utilizing a right-wing group of hawks to back up his opinion, he attempted to portray the divide as "The Jewish people are offended." That's not the case. He was using us for cover to hide behind. Then we had Congressman Sherman call in and make similar claims. This was an important part of the broadcast to me and the best I feel like I'm doing right now is going around circles.
Okay, let me offer something and you can respond to it. Tomlinson wants to argue that the coverage of NPR, the reporting, is anti-Jewish, he used that term repeatedly. To make the claim, he appears to equate support for the policies of the Israeli government's actions with being Jewish? Is that a correct reading of your impressions?
Ruth: That's it in a nut shell. Israel is foreign government, a government, not a religion, not a club. No government is beyond criticism. Somehow Mr. Tomlinson appears to feel that because I'm Jewish, my loyalties are with, automatically with, a foreign government. I am American and I am Jewish. I'm also a widow. My husband passed away several years ago. If I wanted to live in Israel, I'd live in Israel. It's not my home. The United States is my home and I felt offended that, because a group of right-wing hawks want to act in a manner similar to the way right-wing Cuban exiles in Florida might act, Mr. Tomlinson wants to equate my religion with some allegience to a foreign government. Mr. Tomlison is doing that to push his own agenda and may or may not be aware of it. But as an elderly Jewish woman, I am quite aware of the nonsense of "Jewish conspiracy" and the nonsense of "divided loyalties" and how both have been used historically to stigmatize Jewish people. He's using it to advance his own agenda and may or may not be aware of how offensive his stereotype is but it is offensive and, historically, that stereotype has resulted in actions that harmed all Jews. That a voice, with power on the CPB, wants to promote stereotypes that are in fact harmful honestly disgusts me.
We have a members in our community who are very intelligent, much smarter than I am, but we also get visitors every day and in case anyone's confused on this point, I'd like to you to elaborate on the "Jewish consiparcy" myths.
Ruth: Historically, they've been used to do harm to Jewish people. Whether it's that we control all the money in the world or that we're sacrficing babies or whatever nonsense has been put out there in this stereotype, it always creates the impression that we're not fully vested in the larger communities in which we live. We're, instead, according to the stereotype, attempting to control the world. The result is that a Hitler or whomever comes along and uses the stereotype to justify harm to all Jewish people. That's the extreme harm that can come, a loss of life, an extermination of a people. But the stereotype is harmful on a day to day basis as well.
There is a faction, of Jews in this country, with loyalties that might appear to lie partially or completely with the Israeli government. But it's a faction. When Mr. Tomlinson equates being Jewish with support for a government, a foreign government, he falls back on a dangerous stereotype that's brought great harm to all Jews. I find it offensive as a Jewish woman. I hope that the use of such a stereotype reveals Mr. Tomlinson's ignorance because I hope that he wouldn't engage in dangerous stereotypes he knew were false just for political gain.
And, while we're addressing the issue of the government of Israel, it should be noted that not all Israelies support the actions of the Sharon government.
Ruth: Correct. There are divisions within their own country. You can see it with the actions of the refuseniks who refuse to serve in the Israeli army or with the opinions regarding the wall that would act as physical barrier or border. I hope that this is just a case of Mr. Tomlinson being an outsider looking in that results in his reducing all Jewish people to a monolithic group sharing one set of opinions and beliefs. But regardless of why he's doing it, what he's doing is stereotyping and using a historically dangerous stereotype. As someone servince on the CPB board --
Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
Ruth: Corporation of Public Broadcasting, right. As someone serving on a public board, he has no business in engaging in stereotypes. I honestly feel he should be removed from the board immediately. He should be asked to step down because he has promoted a very dangerous stereotype that has been historically harmful. Public broadcasting, NPR or PBS, is a domestic organization that's meant to represent the American people. By equating my religion with a foreign government, he's cast me as less American than some. That is offensive to me and suggests that he is unable to represent the people of this country. He did not merely acknowledge that a segment of Jewish people in this country might feel a certain way. He repeatedly implied that this is how all Jews in this country feel, that to be Jewish was to subscribe to this one belief system. That is not the case. When Diane asked him for examples of bias in the reporting, he was unable to provide any. I bring that up again because he is going impressions and stereotypes and anyone doing that needs to be working at a private organization and not one responsible for serving the public.
You spoke earlier of National Congress Radio.
Ruth: Tomlinson only values the voices he wants to value. That's evident when he listens only to one group of Jews. It's also evident when he places so much weight on the opinions of Congressman Brad Sherman, for instance. The wall that CPB is supposed to provide between the Congress and the people at NPR or PBS is being torn apart. Congressman Sherman, who later called in to the program, was cited repeatedly by Mr. Tomlinson. I'm confused as to why a Congressman's opinion matters more than the public's. It is National Public Radio. It is not National Congress Radio. I believe they already have C-Span as their voice and NPR belongs to the public.
With e-mailers and callers, Mr. Tomlinson openly mocked their opinions. It is National Public Radio, not National Congress Radio. Jeff Chester made a similar point when he called in to the show.
Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Ruth: Correct. Mr. Chester made the point that public broadcasting is for the public and not intended to be an arm of the government. Mr. Tomlinson fails to grasp that.
You spoke earlier of how the interview bothered you in terms of NPR's future. What is your
fear of what Tomlinson means to the future of NPR?
Ruth: This is a man, Mr. Tomlinson, who can't comprehend the difference between reporting, which is what NOW often does, and a talking heads show full of pundits offering their opinions. He thinks that NOW and Paul Gigot's show are equivalent. He even said they were both advocacy journalism which implies that he doesn't grasp what advocacy journalism traditionally entails.
Gigot's show is editorializing, it's op-ed, it's not reporting. Mr. Tomlinson equates opinion with reporting and that's a very dangerous misunderstanding. Diane addressed his spoken of desire to replace news programming with classical music. I'm unaware of any public cry for make classical music. But it's another step in removing actual reporting. When it aired, my hands were trembling as I made notes. I thought Diane did a great job. I thought she pressed him to answer questions and I think if it weren't for her earlier show, he wouldn't have even felt compelled to respond to the public criticism. She interviewed him and allowed to him express his opinions. What I heard was disturbing to me.
If we can, I want to return to a point you made earlier, when Tomlinson brought up the NRA.
Ruth: He referred to NPR's listeners as "liberal" and stated that they get aroused when they perceive NPR is under attack the same way that NRA members get aroused when they feel the Second Amendment is under attack.
Second Amendment being the right to bear arms.
Ruth: If he's attempting to suggest that NPR listeners are concerned with the free speech clause of the First Amendment, he's correct. Like the Bully Boy, he's attacking facts as "liberal." He sees "liberal" everywhere. NPR was liberal in its early days. But as Scott Sherman pointed out those days were some time ago. They have moved into the mainstream. Mr. Tomlinson is either unaware of that or he's pulling out a straw man. But when he speaks of Gigot's need to balance out NOW, he's unconcerned that PBS offers stock market programming on the economy but no weekly programs on the economy that address a working class perspective.
He is either unable to move beyond his very narrow views, full of stereotypes, or he's aware that he's being dishonest. Either way, he is a danger to PBS and NPR. I've listened to NPR my entire adult life. Morning Edition has suffered tremendously since the departure of Bob Edwards. But The Diane Rehm Show, Nina Totenberg and other old lions continue to make it worth listening to and continue to provide information and serve the public. I was, and still am, worried about what it means for NPR that the kiddie patrol lacks the skills of the old lions because when they retire or are forced out we're not left with much. The purpose of my contributions here was that by highlighting the current problems, a dialogue could be started and members could address this before it was too late for NPR. If Mr. Tomlinson is put in charge, I fear that there's no time to address it. By his statements, he's interested in destroying NPR as a news provider and he's interested in replacing news with opinion.
NPR's strength is a serious discussion with perspective and that appears to be the very thing that Mr. Tomlinson wants to destroy. When I started doing my contributions here, I assumed that there was time to plant some seeds in the minds of a few members who would plant seeds in their own circles. The hope was that the dialogue would allow for NPR to strengthen their best qualities and that my grandchildren would be growing up with a strong news source. With Mr. Tomlison on the horizon, I now worry that those hopes have been voided.
The community is split on NPR in terms of whether it's worth saving or not. We're a community of the left and we don't see the rampant liberalism at NPR that Tomlinson does. But, as you know from the e-mails that are forwarded to you, your earlier remarks on the importance you still see NPR having did touch some who were otherwise prepared to write NPR off. FAIR's latest action alert regarding the CPB provides contact information and we'll provide a link because I'm thinking that your remarks tonight will make some who haven't gotten involved want to take action.
Ruth: I understand why some would feel "What's the point?" You wrote about that and how you were sure you'd take part in an attempt to save NPR and PBS again but you were distressed by the impression that NPR and PBS stood on the sidelines during the battles. Has your opinion changed?
I think Diane Rehm has done a wonderful job. There's obviously a line she has to acknowledge, as a journalist, and she's done that. She's raised the issue and made sure that NPR listeners had access to information. I'm less impressed with what I've heard on other NPR shows. Rehm's one of the "old lions," as you call them. Media Channel.org has a take action page on this issue and we'll provide a link to that. Media Matters' entry also includes contact information so members who are interested can go there as well. In terms of making a difference, I think to this community, you've made a strong case for activism on this issue. Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) has noted that your remarks and calling attention to Diane Rehm's previous show on this topic made her decide to fight the fight one more time. Between her post and the e-mails that arrive, I think an impact's been made that wouldn't have been otherwise.
I do understand the attitude of why should we bother again and I do understand those who feel we'd be smarter to invest our time and monies into BuzzFlash, Democracy Now!, The Nation, The Progressive, Free Speech Radio News, et al. Speaking for myself and not the community, I'm willing to sign on for one battle to defend public broadcasting. And I'll give you and Diane Rehm equal credit for that.
Before we go, I'd like to touch on a non-public broadcasting issue. In your last two Ruth's Morning Edition Report, you included no Yiddish words. I wish you would include them. I was discussing that and some members reactions with a friend during a long phone call this weekend (the battery in her cordless phone went out). This week Francisco offered a comment on Daniel Okrent for the community and he used two Spanish words. One was for trash and I understood it immediately. The other I didn't know. That's fine. If I want to know it, I'll look it up and I feel that any member can do that. Type in the word in a search engine and I'm sure you'll be able to find a definition. I've always encouraged Francisco to use Spanish whenever he wanted to. I always harp on the need for more voices -- not less. Part of "more voices" includes not just opinions, but also expression. When you use a Yiddish term, members who know Yiddish, or some Yiddish, are delighted. Those who don't should be able to determine the meaning from the context or by looking it up online. So I hope you won't censor yourself.
Ruth: There have been a few e-mails, as you know, that have requested I stop using a Yiddish word here and there. Tracey, my granddaughter, also expressed her displeasure that none were used in two entries this week. I think, if I had used them in the last entry for instance, I wouldn't have felt so frustrated and unable to address my reaction to Mr. Tomlinson's statements and attitude. So they will be popping back up. If I could, I'd also like to address why it's always called Ruth's Morning Edition Report. That's the show I can always listen to in the morning while I'm getting ready for the day and waiting for my grandson to be dropped off. If I hear a promo for a show on later in the day that sounds interesting, I'll drag out all the toys and we'll be in the middle of the living room playing during that show. I still call it Ruth's Morning Edition Report because if I'm emphasizing Diane's show or another show, it's saying that I heard nothing on Morning Edition that moved enough to comment. When Bob Edwards hosted the show, I could always find something worth commenting on. But if I'm focusing on another show that means that either Morning Edition had nothing that I thought was worth commenting on or that
Nina Totenberg did a report and there's not much I could say to that other than, "Listen, she knows what she's talking about." For instance, this morning she gave a strong, historical report on Robert Bork. You're not going to get that sort of reporting on Good Morning America, The Today Show or whatever CBS is calling their latest attempt at a morning show.
Absolutely.
Ruth: The statement was made, by Congressman Sherman when he called in, that an internal report by NPR was impossible for him to get ahold of. While he did have the report, he didn't have the research data. He was speaking of an internal study of NPR's Middle East coverage. Tomlinson never noted, as Media Matters does, that he's refused to release the study he commissioned with tax payer funds on Bill Moyer's Now. I'd like to quote two paragraphs from the Media Matters report:
In the interview on the May 18 edition of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, responding to an email from a listener who cited "numerous conservative figures" appearing on Moyers' program, Tomlinson responded in jest, "Am I gonna have to go back and hire another consultant and demonstrate this is incorrect?" The reference was to an outside content review study of NOW he reportedly commissioned in 2004. The study is reported to have cost taxpayers $10,000, but Media Matters for America has been unable to determine the identity of the firm conducting the study. Further, Tomlinson never sent the results to the CPB board, and he has yet to release them to the public [The New York Times, 5/2/05].
The identity of the firm conducting the study would be relevant for a number of reasons, including Tomlinson's apparent willingness to engage the services of a conservative firm that employs questionable methodologies. Tomlinson has reportedly contacted S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), "about conducting a study on whether NPR's Middle East coverage was more favorable to Arabs than to Israelis." As Media Matters has noted (here and here), CMPA, which has received funding from right-wing organizations, has conducted numerous flawed studies purporting to confirm liberal bias in media and academia, and Lichter himself has misrepresented those findings in media interviews.
While Congressman Sherman complained that he'd only been able to see a report, not the research, on a study of NPR's Middle East coverage, Mr. Tomlinson refuses to release the report he had commissioned, at tax payer expense, on Bill Moyer's Now.
Good point. Diane Rehm's interview with Ken Tomlinson aired Wednesday, May 18th and people can listen to it online.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
William Hughes on "Jobless America: Outsourcing Prosperity" and Colorado IMC back up
From Baltimore IMC, Susan e-mails to note William Hughes' "Jobless America: Outsourcing Prosperity!" Here's an excerpt:
How can there be a so-called "economic recovery" without the creation of new jobs? Well, thanks to author, activist and social critic, Stanley Aronowitz, we now know the scheming Plutocrats have been able to "delink" the two. Speaking in Baltimore, MD, at Red Emma's Coffeehouse, he detailed some of the means used to deprived workers in this country of their jobs. Outsourcing, of course, is only one of those Labor-bashing tactics.
Baltimore, MD - Stanley Aronowitz's timing was impeccable! The activist, author and educator arrived in town, on Friday, May 13, 2005, to talk about a continuing economic crisis. He labeled it as "The Paradox of the Jobless Recovery," which is also part of the title of his latest book. (1) On the same day that he arrived, General Motors' sprawling Broening Highway plant, which had been in operation for over 70 years, closed its doors forever. It is located on the east side of the city. Over 1,100 of its workers were permanently put out of their jobs through no fault of their own. The GM plant's demise, as a manufacturing colossus, follows hard on the heels of the collapse of the once-mighty Bethlehem Steel, and its Sparrows Point plant, and the earlier loss, also on the east side, of the Western Electric facility.
"There are about 121 millions jobs in this country for wages and salaries," Aronowitz began, "in both the public and private sector. A small percentage of the jobs in the private sector, however - very small - are tied to the domestic economy. The rest in the private sector are connected to the global economy. As a result of that connection, we have lost about 10 million jobs, industrial jobs, the very best paying jobs, in recent years. Today, we have an estimated 11.5 million factory jobs left. In the steel industry, back in the late 50s, there were 600,000 steel workers. Today, we only have 175,000 jobs left. We have lost almost 2/3 of the good paying steel-working jobs that we once had in this country," he lamented.
Aronowitz emphasized that this is all part of "the bleeding that is going on in the U.S."
Referring to the GM plant closure in Baltimore and a recent plant closing in New Jersey, he added, "Plants shut down and plants stay open, and the working class, understandably, gets jittery about what is going on. What is going to happen next? Of course, outsourcing is one of the main things that is going on." Over the decades, under Democrats and Republicans, Aronowitz found, as he details in his latest tome, that economic growth had become "delinked" from job creation and that the rich have received "financial windfalls" at the expense of most other Americans as a result of that unfair, deindustrialization process.
Colorado IMC is back up and I know we're all happy about that. Glen Newell has
"Hacker, Schmacker- A COIMC volunteer responds" which is a response to the way the hack has been played out in Boulder Weekly. We're going to note it in full:
Let me begin by saying it's clear to me that Joel Warner is good at his job: He got all the right facts in the right order, he talked to everyone he ought to, and he told a really good story. I was enthralled.
Trouble is, it's just a story.
True- facts are facts, and most of them are there. But facts can be presented in such a way that it becomes clear that rather than tell the story as it is, Joel Warner , the NEWS EDITOR for the Boulder Weekly ('Boulder's true alternative voice'), is about selling newspapers. That's a fact, too. It's his JOB.
First, as a volunteer for the Colorado Independent Media Center , I am disappointed: I am saddened by the characterization of the criminal 'Clorox' as some kind of misunderstood hero. He committed a crime, not only against the law, but against the very principles we hold most sacred as an organization: everyone gets a voice, noone gets shut out, we're a community of volunteers dedicated to serving social good. What he did was the philisophical and moral equivalent of driving by a community center and throwing a brick through the window.
It took very little actual skill, and his tantrum ruined a good thing for a bunch of other people, and only for a short time ( so not only was it childish and selfish, it was wasteful and inefficient). I can't speak for other IMC's, but I can tell you /I'm fairly certain /that no volunteer content manager would 'dump' an article simply because it was pro-bush, if at all. It's simply not true that he was ostracized for his political beliefs.
I will even make an offer publicly that if he is serious about writing, he should post to our open wire. If he's as smart as he thinks he is, and has something to say, I bet there are people who want to hear it. On the other hand, as I understand it, there is some history here, antagonism that goes back further in history than he will admit, and noone is required to facilitate bullying, especially volunteers.
Next, as an Information Technology professional, I am appalled at the comparison of these kinds of miscreants as heros: Clorox the punk has nothing at all in common with Oxblood Ruffin or Kevin Mitnick: both of these men, as well as the MIT engineers who coined the moniker many would like to lend this childish thug, would view him as nothing more complimentary than a precocious infant.
As for 'letting us find him on purpose', that's hogwash. The people that found him are smart, experienced professionals. If he really wanted to do something that he could be recognized for, why has he used TWO diffferent aliases ( that we know of) in his vandalism? What he has proved is nothing more than it is possible to do what he did, but noone ever denied it was possible. It's just that most grown-up people would deny that it was necessary.
One of the subjects Warner interviews tries to liken himself to the 'A Team' ( that's a TV SHOW, by the way...) but this group of common thugs ( okay, goons is an appropriate title) has niether the skill, nor the committment, nor the pr staff for the comparison . And furthermore, the several mis-used references both to 'hacker' culture and technology, bring into doubt the quality of the research conducted, even if he did talk to all the right parties.
"It would be kind of neat to have my face in the paper." (Clorox)
What a telling quote that is. And you, Mr Warner, played right into his adolescent fantasy. I say shame on you.
Glen Newell
Volunteer, Colorado Independent Media Center
Information Technology Consultant
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
How can there be a so-called "economic recovery" without the creation of new jobs? Well, thanks to author, activist and social critic, Stanley Aronowitz, we now know the scheming Plutocrats have been able to "delink" the two. Speaking in Baltimore, MD, at Red Emma's Coffeehouse, he detailed some of the means used to deprived workers in this country of their jobs. Outsourcing, of course, is only one of those Labor-bashing tactics.
Baltimore, MD - Stanley Aronowitz's timing was impeccable! The activist, author and educator arrived in town, on Friday, May 13, 2005, to talk about a continuing economic crisis. He labeled it as "The Paradox of the Jobless Recovery," which is also part of the title of his latest book. (1) On the same day that he arrived, General Motors' sprawling Broening Highway plant, which had been in operation for over 70 years, closed its doors forever. It is located on the east side of the city. Over 1,100 of its workers were permanently put out of their jobs through no fault of their own. The GM plant's demise, as a manufacturing colossus, follows hard on the heels of the collapse of the once-mighty Bethlehem Steel, and its Sparrows Point plant, and the earlier loss, also on the east side, of the Western Electric facility.
"There are about 121 millions jobs in this country for wages and salaries," Aronowitz began, "in both the public and private sector. A small percentage of the jobs in the private sector, however - very small - are tied to the domestic economy. The rest in the private sector are connected to the global economy. As a result of that connection, we have lost about 10 million jobs, industrial jobs, the very best paying jobs, in recent years. Today, we have an estimated 11.5 million factory jobs left. In the steel industry, back in the late 50s, there were 600,000 steel workers. Today, we only have 175,000 jobs left. We have lost almost 2/3 of the good paying steel-working jobs that we once had in this country," he lamented.
Aronowitz emphasized that this is all part of "the bleeding that is going on in the U.S."
Referring to the GM plant closure in Baltimore and a recent plant closing in New Jersey, he added, "Plants shut down and plants stay open, and the working class, understandably, gets jittery about what is going on. What is going to happen next? Of course, outsourcing is one of the main things that is going on." Over the decades, under Democrats and Republicans, Aronowitz found, as he details in his latest tome, that economic growth had become "delinked" from job creation and that the rich have received "financial windfalls" at the expense of most other Americans as a result of that unfair, deindustrialization process.
Colorado IMC is back up and I know we're all happy about that. Glen Newell has
"Hacker, Schmacker- A COIMC volunteer responds" which is a response to the way the hack has been played out in Boulder Weekly. We're going to note it in full:
Let me begin by saying it's clear to me that Joel Warner is good at his job: He got all the right facts in the right order, he talked to everyone he ought to, and he told a really good story. I was enthralled.
Trouble is, it's just a story.
True- facts are facts, and most of them are there. But facts can be presented in such a way that it becomes clear that rather than tell the story as it is, Joel Warner , the NEWS EDITOR for the Boulder Weekly ('Boulder's true alternative voice'), is about selling newspapers. That's a fact, too. It's his JOB.
First, as a volunteer for the Colorado Independent Media Center , I am disappointed: I am saddened by the characterization of the criminal 'Clorox' as some kind of misunderstood hero. He committed a crime, not only against the law, but against the very principles we hold most sacred as an organization: everyone gets a voice, noone gets shut out, we're a community of volunteers dedicated to serving social good. What he did was the philisophical and moral equivalent of driving by a community center and throwing a brick through the window.
It took very little actual skill, and his tantrum ruined a good thing for a bunch of other people, and only for a short time ( so not only was it childish and selfish, it was wasteful and inefficient). I can't speak for other IMC's, but I can tell you /I'm fairly certain /that no volunteer content manager would 'dump' an article simply because it was pro-bush, if at all. It's simply not true that he was ostracized for his political beliefs.
I will even make an offer publicly that if he is serious about writing, he should post to our open wire. If he's as smart as he thinks he is, and has something to say, I bet there are people who want to hear it. On the other hand, as I understand it, there is some history here, antagonism that goes back further in history than he will admit, and noone is required to facilitate bullying, especially volunteers.
Next, as an Information Technology professional, I am appalled at the comparison of these kinds of miscreants as heros: Clorox the punk has nothing at all in common with Oxblood Ruffin or Kevin Mitnick: both of these men, as well as the MIT engineers who coined the moniker many would like to lend this childish thug, would view him as nothing more complimentary than a precocious infant.
As for 'letting us find him on purpose', that's hogwash. The people that found him are smart, experienced professionals. If he really wanted to do something that he could be recognized for, why has he used TWO diffferent aliases ( that we know of) in his vandalism? What he has proved is nothing more than it is possible to do what he did, but noone ever denied it was possible. It's just that most grown-up people would deny that it was necessary.
One of the subjects Warner interviews tries to liken himself to the 'A Team' ( that's a TV SHOW, by the way...) but this group of common thugs ( okay, goons is an appropriate title) has niether the skill, nor the committment, nor the pr staff for the comparison . And furthermore, the several mis-used references both to 'hacker' culture and technology, bring into doubt the quality of the research conducted, even if he did talk to all the right parties.
"It would be kind of neat to have my face in the paper." (Clorox)
What a telling quote that is. And you, Mr Warner, played right into his adolescent fantasy. I say shame on you.
Glen Newell
Volunteer, Colorado Independent Media Center
Information Technology Consultant
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center: "Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation?" and Puerto Rico
For those wondering how last weekend's independent media conference went, from Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note John Peebles' "Seymour Hersh, Other Prominent Media Personalities Offer Perspectives on Media Control at University of Illinois Conference:"
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals....
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.... "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush....
According to...Congressman (Sanders), this media distortion is no accident; as fewer and fewer corporations control more and more media outlets, viewpoints are increasingly channeled and contrived to benefit narrow commercial interests at the expense of the public good....Klein defined the obsessive prominence of the Michael Jackson and Terri Schiavo cases in the media as "spasms of collective mourning."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was the site of a conference entitled “Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation?” on May 10th and 11th, 2005.
The Conference focused on the impact of media conglomeration and corporate control on the dissemination of news in the United States.
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals.
The Illinois Initiative for Media Policy Research sponsored the conference in conjunction with various University of Illinois academic departments and the Center for Advanced Study/MillerComm series. University of Illinois Professor Robert McChesney, Executive Director of I.I.M.P.R., was instrumental in organizing the conference.
According to McChesney, the press' failure to provide unbiased information in the lead-up to the Iraqi War repeated similar tendencies from previous American wars. Early in the history of the American Republic, founders saw the dangerous consequences of unchecked military power, and sought to balance the threat with public accountability for decision-makers, in a strong press protected by the 1st Amendment.
McChesney also criticized large media corporations for claiming to act in the public’s name while using their powerful lobbying influence to limit media ownership and control.
Kicking off the conference was Seymour Hersh, famous for reporting the My Lai massacre from the Vietnam War, and more recently recognized for breaking the inmate abuse story at Abu Ghraib.
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.
The Pulitzer-prize winning journalist revisited the Abu Ghraib story, noting how prosecution focused on the prosecuted guards as "bad seeds," while ignoring the possibility of any illicit behavior from higher-ups in the chain of command. Hersh alluded to photographs of inmates engaged in homosexual acts as an intentional violation of Arab cultural precepts, as a "way to the soul of the Arab man."
Hersh highlighted the inaction of the Bush Administration in a timeline which began with photographs of abuse at the prison taken in September, 2003, and culminated in a disk sent up the chain-of-command in January, 2004, which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a catastrophic blow to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis," should it be made public. Steering responsibility for Abu Ghraib toward Rumsfeld, Hersh claimed the Defense Secretary had been "de-programmed"--judging from a lack of any coherent response to the briefings he'd been through which must have addressed the events at Abu Ghraib.
The Arab world now sees the US as a "sexually perverse society" because of the photos, Hersh said.
The investigative journalist alluded to disturbing recent events in Iraq--including the reconstitution of Saddam's secret police formerly known as the Mukhabarat. As for the January elections in Iraq, Hersh said voting was conducted exclusively along religious and tribal lines, and threatened to cut Iraq into pieces, under militia rule. The US is apparently looking the other way as Kurds assert military control over strategic oil fields in Northern Iraq.
Information has been increasingly hard to come by through traditional sources, Hersh said. Information on targets hit and the quantities of bombs dropped in Iraq has become unavailable since the bombing campaign accelerated in the Fall of 2004, unlike Vietnam, where Hersh said data had been readily available.
Hersh referred to attempts by the US military to limit information on Iraqi casualties in Fallujah, preceding the US attack on the city in November, 2004, as referenced in the English paper The Guardian (1).
According to the accounts of Dr. Ali Fadhil, doctors in Fallujah had been tied up and their cell phones taken, as to prevent casualty data from escaping the US zone of control around the city.
Hersh alluded to many of the current problems in Iraq as the direct result of military action by the US which targeted key Iraqi ministries early in the Occupation. The "machinery of occupation" has undoubtedly contributed to the "insurgency", a term Hersh said had been spun to give the mistaken impression of a US victory, followed by some form of rebellion against a legitimate government--terminology which avoids any notion of resistance to illegitimate foreign occupation.
On the domestic front, Hersh said Bush is convinced that democracy can be brought to Iraq, despite clear indications from his advisers that his goals for the nation are not being achieved. "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush.
Also from the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note Philip Stinard's "Puerto Rican legislature paralyzed by losing gubernatorial candidate’s quest for power:"
Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. The Puerto Rican people rejected Rosselló as governor in the 2004 election, Rosselló was not elected to the Puerto Rican Senate and Rosselló does not have the support of his fellow Senators to be Senate President. However, in Puerto Rican politics, these are just minor inconveniences.
Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. After losing a hotly contested election to Popular Democratic Party (PDP) candidate AnÃbal Acevedo Vilá, the former Governor (1993-2001) and NPP President vowed to rule Puerto Rico from the Senate, and he was not content with being "just another Senator," he had to be Senate President. He only had two obstacles in his way: he was not a Senator, and the Senate had already elected a President, NPP Senator Kenneth McClintock.
No stranger to corruption during his previous stint as governor (cabinet members and political associates diverted public funds for AIDS treatment to NPP politicians, used public monies for partisan political activities, sold off public assets to cronies, etc.), Rosselló exercised all of the political pressure at his disposal, cajoling, threatening, and bribing the newly elected Senators from his party in the hopes that one would resign so that he could be appointed in their stead. The pressure paid off, and a Senator from Rosselló’s home district of Arecibo (alleged home district, since Rosselló had recently moved to Puerto Rico from Virginia to run for governor "at the request of the people of Puerto Rico") resigned hours after being sworn in. After Rosselló occupied the empty seat, he expected his party's Senators to lie down at his feet and declare him Senate President, but he had forgotten that he had personally approved McClintock’s presidency at a November 4 party caucus, following the election, but before a winner was declared in the gubernatorial race, and McClintock was not going to give up his position of privilege willingly.
Rosselló used his position as NPP President to convene an assembly of NPP delegates on May 15, and he set the following rules: the delegates were to select the Senate President from between Rosselló and McClintock, and any Senator who did not vote for the President chosen by the assembly would be disciplined, up to and including expulsion from the NPP. The results were a foregone conclusion. McClintock supporters boycotted the assembly, and fewer than 50% of the eligible delegates voted. Among the delegates who did vote, 96% supported Rosselló, and Rosselló declared a mandate for assuming the Senate Presidency. "The people have spoken, and I must obey."
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals....
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.... "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush....
According to...Congressman (Sanders), this media distortion is no accident; as fewer and fewer corporations control more and more media outlets, viewpoints are increasingly channeled and contrived to benefit narrow commercial interests at the expense of the public good....Klein defined the obsessive prominence of the Michael Jackson and Terri Schiavo cases in the media as "spasms of collective mourning."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was the site of a conference entitled “Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation?” on May 10th and 11th, 2005.
The Conference focused on the impact of media conglomeration and corporate control on the dissemination of news in the United States.
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals.
The Illinois Initiative for Media Policy Research sponsored the conference in conjunction with various University of Illinois academic departments and the Center for Advanced Study/MillerComm series. University of Illinois Professor Robert McChesney, Executive Director of I.I.M.P.R., was instrumental in organizing the conference.
According to McChesney, the press' failure to provide unbiased information in the lead-up to the Iraqi War repeated similar tendencies from previous American wars. Early in the history of the American Republic, founders saw the dangerous consequences of unchecked military power, and sought to balance the threat with public accountability for decision-makers, in a strong press protected by the 1st Amendment.
McChesney also criticized large media corporations for claiming to act in the public’s name while using their powerful lobbying influence to limit media ownership and control.
Kicking off the conference was Seymour Hersh, famous for reporting the My Lai massacre from the Vietnam War, and more recently recognized for breaking the inmate abuse story at Abu Ghraib.
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.
The Pulitzer-prize winning journalist revisited the Abu Ghraib story, noting how prosecution focused on the prosecuted guards as "bad seeds," while ignoring the possibility of any illicit behavior from higher-ups in the chain of command. Hersh alluded to photographs of inmates engaged in homosexual acts as an intentional violation of Arab cultural precepts, as a "way to the soul of the Arab man."
Hersh highlighted the inaction of the Bush Administration in a timeline which began with photographs of abuse at the prison taken in September, 2003, and culminated in a disk sent up the chain-of-command in January, 2004, which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a catastrophic blow to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis," should it be made public. Steering responsibility for Abu Ghraib toward Rumsfeld, Hersh claimed the Defense Secretary had been "de-programmed"--judging from a lack of any coherent response to the briefings he'd been through which must have addressed the events at Abu Ghraib.
The Arab world now sees the US as a "sexually perverse society" because of the photos, Hersh said.
The investigative journalist alluded to disturbing recent events in Iraq--including the reconstitution of Saddam's secret police formerly known as the Mukhabarat. As for the January elections in Iraq, Hersh said voting was conducted exclusively along religious and tribal lines, and threatened to cut Iraq into pieces, under militia rule. The US is apparently looking the other way as Kurds assert military control over strategic oil fields in Northern Iraq.
Information has been increasingly hard to come by through traditional sources, Hersh said. Information on targets hit and the quantities of bombs dropped in Iraq has become unavailable since the bombing campaign accelerated in the Fall of 2004, unlike Vietnam, where Hersh said data had been readily available.
Hersh referred to attempts by the US military to limit information on Iraqi casualties in Fallujah, preceding the US attack on the city in November, 2004, as referenced in the English paper The Guardian (1).
According to the accounts of Dr. Ali Fadhil, doctors in Fallujah had been tied up and their cell phones taken, as to prevent casualty data from escaping the US zone of control around the city.
Hersh alluded to many of the current problems in Iraq as the direct result of military action by the US which targeted key Iraqi ministries early in the Occupation. The "machinery of occupation" has undoubtedly contributed to the "insurgency", a term Hersh said had been spun to give the mistaken impression of a US victory, followed by some form of rebellion against a legitimate government--terminology which avoids any notion of resistance to illegitimate foreign occupation.
On the domestic front, Hersh said Bush is convinced that democracy can be brought to Iraq, despite clear indications from his advisers that his goals for the nation are not being achieved. "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush.
Also from the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note Philip Stinard's "Puerto Rican legislature paralyzed by losing gubernatorial candidate’s quest for power:"
Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. The Puerto Rican people rejected Rosselló as governor in the 2004 election, Rosselló was not elected to the Puerto Rican Senate and Rosselló does not have the support of his fellow Senators to be Senate President. However, in Puerto Rican politics, these are just minor inconveniences.
Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. After losing a hotly contested election to Popular Democratic Party (PDP) candidate AnÃbal Acevedo Vilá, the former Governor (1993-2001) and NPP President vowed to rule Puerto Rico from the Senate, and he was not content with being "just another Senator," he had to be Senate President. He only had two obstacles in his way: he was not a Senator, and the Senate had already elected a President, NPP Senator Kenneth McClintock.
No stranger to corruption during his previous stint as governor (cabinet members and political associates diverted public funds for AIDS treatment to NPP politicians, used public monies for partisan political activities, sold off public assets to cronies, etc.), Rosselló exercised all of the political pressure at his disposal, cajoling, threatening, and bribing the newly elected Senators from his party in the hopes that one would resign so that he could be appointed in their stead. The pressure paid off, and a Senator from Rosselló’s home district of Arecibo (alleged home district, since Rosselló had recently moved to Puerto Rico from Virginia to run for governor "at the request of the people of Puerto Rico") resigned hours after being sworn in. After Rosselló occupied the empty seat, he expected his party's Senators to lie down at his feet and declare him Senate President, but he had forgotten that he had personally approved McClintock’s presidency at a November 4 party caucus, following the election, but before a winner was declared in the gubernatorial race, and McClintock was not going to give up his position of privilege willingly.
Rosselló used his position as NPP President to convene an assembly of NPP delegates on May 15, and he set the following rules: the delegates were to select the Senate President from between Rosselló and McClintock, and any Senator who did not vote for the President chosen by the assembly would be disciplined, up to and including expulsion from the NPP. The results were a foregone conclusion. McClintock supporters boycotted the assembly, and fewer than 50% of the eligible delegates voted. Among the delegates who did vote, 96% supported Rosselló, and Rosselló declared a mandate for assuming the Senate Presidency. "The people have spoken, and I must obey."
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)