« Polly Sigh | Main | TV Show About Censorship is Censored »
Thou Shall Not Steal
[Editors Note: This is the next article in our ongoing series examining the intersection of religion and politics and its relationship to our present state of democracy, written exclusively for the DCP, by Matthew Carnicelli]
As a follow-up to last week’s column on the Ten Commandments, my focus this week will be on the political and economic implications of one of those Commandments: Thou Shall Not Steal. Assuming that one accepts it as being applicable to a 21st Century world, what would adherence to this moral imperative require of us?
A Conservative Perspective
Let’s begin our exploration with a formal definition of the word “steal”. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary lists a number of possible definitions, but only one that properly fits the context in which it is used in the Commandment:
– To take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.
If we extrapolate the meaning of the Commandment based on this definition, to steal is to wrongfully take someone else’s property: their money, their Rolex, or their Hummer. This definition might be expanded to include areas like intellectual property (as in plagiarism, or copyright infringement) or identity theft. Seen in this light, the moral imperative communicated by the Commandment appears fixed and precise. Do not wrongfully take other people’s property.
I’m going to describe this definition as a conservative interpretation for two reasons – one, because it represents a very traditional understanding of what it means to steal; two, because it presupposes a paradigm where legal possession or control of something is seen as the ultimate determinant of ethical standing in any dispute about its ownership or use. Inasmuch as I’ve described this definition as conservative, is there also a “liberal” interpretation that we might want to consider? In fact, there is.
A Liberal Perspective
If you remember my column on the Declaration Towards a Global Ethic, you’ll recall that the theologians who participated in the creation of that document arrived at a much broader formulation of this same moral imperative.
– Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order.
This modern reformulation asks us to be aware of two additional things: a) the notion of solidarity among human beings; b) the need for a “just” economic order. How might these requirements come into play? Consider the following scenario.
A company based in a small town in Middle America produces consumer products. This company’s products enjoy an excellent reputation, as least partly due to the quality workmanship of its employees, and sell at a slight premium to others available in the marketplace. The company is profitable. The owner’s original investment was recouped long ago. Investment in the company’s shares offers a stable, safe return. Management and workers are paid a fair salary. These workers, in turn, pay taxes that support the maintenance of the local infrastructure and schools. This is America at its best. Everybody is a winner in this scenario
In time, however, ownership or new management see an opportunity to dramatically lower labor costs by producing their products overseas, in a developing nation. Because there is little industry in that third world country, and no labor unions to deal with, management can hire workers at wages that do little more than allow these new employees to live from check to check, often amidst an appalling quality of life. Management further asks them to work under deplorable environmental and safety conditions that would never pass muster in the United States or Europe.
Despite this influx of new jobs, many of their countrymen still aspire to become economic refugees, with America itself being their favored destination. But because of this new strategic approach, corporate profits soar, stock analysts and investors are thrilled, and ownership and top executives enjoy a financial windfall.
Meanwhile, the workers here in America who were an integral component of the company’s original reputation are now either unemployed or underemployed. Many are deeply in debt, unable to make ends meet, and now dependent on local and State government for healthcare and food stamps. And because there are fewer jobs, tax revenues decline at the very moment when the town’s expenses are increasing. The remaining taxpayers must pay more to make up the difference, or see the quality of life in the community completely deteriorate. And as unemployment grows, social problems increase exponentially – including various forms of stealing.
The scenario that I just described could have been ripped from today’s newspaper. Conservative economists or Wall Street analysts might applaud ownership or management’s decision to maximize profitability. But would Jesus? And should a truly ethical society promote or reward these kinds of strategic decisions? And more pointedly, seen through the lens of the Global Ethic, and the theologians’ reformulation of this Commandment, might this approach be viewed as roughly equivalent to stealing?
For instance, in acting to maximize their own personal financial interest at the expense of the community, ownership and management are specifically denying the notion of human solidarity – either with workers in their local community or the workers they hire in the developing country. And consider that the American workers in my scenario lost their jobs not on the basis of either inadequate individual or group performance, or even the company’s inability to compete within the global marketplace, but simply because they were being paid more than someone in ownership or management arbitrarily decided that they should be worth (as is happening today with technology jobs via the outsourcing phenomenon).
Clearly, notions of economic and social justice are not much of a factor in these kinds of ruthless financial calculations. Yet, extend this approach to its logical endpoint, and you void the idea of a social contract, and unleash the whirlwind – as society returns to what the 16th Century English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes described as the “State of Nature”, and the “war of all against all”. As Hobbes warns us, life in the “State of Nature” is "poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
Application
The above scenario was meant to illustrate a few of the ethical considerations that arise out of a liberal conception of "Thou Shall Not Steal" – without which many today believe that the accompanying conservative interpretation is undermined.
Truly, which is the greater sin for a man: stealing from the table of someone much better off than you, or allowing your family to go hungry, homeless, and without proper medical care? Which choice better supports the ideal of family values in a society that increasingly does not value families?
This scenario also affords me an opportunity to make some very preliminary points in an essential debate that needs to take place – a debate about the profound difference between the ideals of free trade and fair trade, between outright human exploitation and an enlightened 21st Century capitalism.
For instance, I’d argue that workers in developing nations are entitled to a better future, and we Americans have an ethical obligation to take their interests into account – and not simply the interests of entrepreneurs who control capital – when negotiating trade deals. Justice demands that governments negotiate deals that specifically advocate a non-exploitative approach – an approach that pays fair wages for the work performed (based on some reasonable comparison to what a First World worker might be paid to do the same task), and mandates a work environment that is supportive of health and human dignity.
As history has demonstrated, governments cannot effectively legislate morality – but it can make the bad actors pay. Individuals or corporations would still be free to produce goods under exploitative conditions for their local market; but their products would be subject to hefty tariffs when exported to the United States, the EU, or any other participating trading partner, and thus be stripped of any advantage that this unsavory and reprehensible tactic might entail.
By adopting this kind of approach, we not only promote genuine human solidarity and economic justice (thus fulfilling the requirements of the liberal formulation of the Commandment), but also protect our own legitimate economic interests. As Henry Ford discovered nearly one hundred years ago, paying a worker fair wages creates both a better employee and a future customer.
If workers in developing nations are paid fair wages, and given the ability to accumulate real wealth, they are much more likely to buy products made by American workers – and fulfill the promise of global trade. That will help reverse this nation's crippling trade deficit.
But that’s not our policy today. If Washington refuses to implement this crucial adjustment, American workers will remain captive participants in a "nasty, brutish, and short" race to the bottom. And make no mistake: a race to the bottom is a race towards Hell.
Reeverse Robin Hood:
Mr. Bush's Stealthy Tax Increase
As recently as 2000, only about one million taxpayers owed the alternative minimum tax, created by a provision in the federal tax code that is supposed to prevent multimillionaires from using loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. But by the time Americans file their 2005 taxes, some 3 million taxpayers will owe the alternative tax and by 2010, nearly 30 million taxpayers will be hit - among them, a staggering 94 percent of married filers who have children and make $75,000 to $100,000.
SNIP
Meanwhile, and most outrageous, only 35 percent of taxpayers who earn $1 million or more will owe the alternative tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13sun1.html?th
It's a little OT, but it does have to do with stealing -- or looting, for that matter.
To all those security moms out there who voted for this regime because they were sure it would keep them safe, I ask you, "Do you feel safer now? Uh, do you, Moms???"
Ok, I may not be that sarcastic when I casually talk to other moms I meet in the course of my day, but I will not fail to mention it.
Looting at Iraqi Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Official Says
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.
Read the whole article from today's NYTimes: http://lootedweapons.notlong.com
Password: fkh-gbmm (if you need it...I've used notlong.com to shorten the URL; hope it works...)
Here is a hopeful story. Please rate it high at the end, its been freepered.
Poll Shows Concern About Gov't Secrecy
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050313/ap_on_re_us/sunshine_week_poll
Is your representative one of those who has contributed to DeLay's defense fund???
As DeLay's Woes Mount, So Does Money
WASHINGTON, March 12 - A legal defense fund established by Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, has dramatically expanded its fund-raising effort in recent months, taking in more than $250,000 since the indictment last fall of two his closest political operatives in Texas, according to Mr. DeLay's latest financial disclosure statements.
The list of recent donors includes dozens of Mr. DeLay's House Republican colleagues, including two lawmakers who were placed on the House ethics committee this year, and several of the nation's largest corporations and their executives.
Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13delay.html
Check the donor list here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/delay.asp
Madame defarge:
Interesting chart. Big donors appear to be the tobacco industry, sinclair, and somebody from Spirit of Democratic Capitalism Fund.
Perhaps somebody should investigate his voting record to see if they're buying his votes.
Posted by: sparrow at March 13, 2005 11:00 AM
Interesting idea. But my point was more to do with seeing how "ethical" and "moral" some of our representatives are, and especially those who might be up for re-election in 2006.
The NYTimes is full of goodies today, imho...
Here's something about how the middle class will be the ones paying for the alterative minimum tax:
Mr. Bush's Stealthy Tax Increase
President Bush is presiding over a big middle-class tax hike.
As recently as 2000, only about one million taxpayers owed the alternative minimum tax, created by a provision in the federal tax code that is supposed to prevent multimillionaires from using loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. But by the time Americans file their 2005 taxes, some 3 million taxpayers will owe the alternative tax and by 2010, nearly 30 million taxpayers will be hit - among them, a staggering 94 percent of married filers who have children and make $75,000 to $100,000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13sun1.html
A commentary by Frank Rich about how our freedom of speech is being stolen from us and how our history is being rewritten by people like Lynne Cheney...
The Greatest Dirty Joke Ever Told
--snip--
This is why "Deadwood" could not be better timed. It reminds us of who we are and where we came from, and that even indecency is part of an American's birthright. It also, if inadvertently, illuminates the most insidious underpinnings of today's decency police by further reminding us that the same people who want to stamp out entertainment like "Deadwood" also want to rewrite American history (and, when they can, the news) according to their dictates of moral and political correctness. They won't tolerate an honest account of the real Deadwood in a classroom or museum any more than they will its fictionalized representation on HBO.
Lynne Cheney has taken to writing and promoting triumphalist children's history books that, as she said on Fox News recently, offer "an uncynical approach to our nation and to our national story." (So much for her own out-of-print "Deadwood"-esque novel of 1981, "Sisters," with its evocation of lesbian passions on the frontier.) That's her right. But when her taste is enforced as government policy that's another matter. The vice president's wife has used her current political clout, as The Los Angeles Times uncovered last fall, to quietly squelch a Department of Education history curriculum pamphlet for parents that didn't fit her political agenda. It's no coincidence that Senator Stevens attacked the Smithsonian Institution in the 1990's when it mounted an exhibit deromanticizing the old West, "Deadwood"-style, by calling attention to the indignities visited on women, Indians and the environment.
--snip--
I'm not a particular enthusiast for dirty jokes, but that freedom is exactly what I, and I suspect others, felt when a comic with a funny voice in a bad suit broke all the rules of propriety at that Friars Roast. But it was just three days earlier at the White House that Ari Fleischer, asked to respond to a politically incorrect remark about 9/11 by another comedian, Bill Maher, warned all Americans "to watch what they say." That last week in September 2001, I've come to realize, is as much a marker in our cultural history as two weeks earlier is a marker in the history of our relations with the world. Even as we're constantly told we're in a war for "freedom" abroad, freedom in our culture at home has been under attack ever since.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/arts/13Rich.html
And finally, how USA Next is gearing up for more advertising against AARP, "the planet's largest liberal lobbying organization" and social security -- of course, in support of this regime's plans.
AARP's Antagonist
--snip--
With 35 million members, AARP is considered the leading organizational champion of seniors in this country, and I am wondering whether you can say anything positive about the group.
I have nothing positive to say about their goals. They are stodgy, out-of-date and they don't really know the facts about an issue like Social Security. We do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/magazine/13QUESTIONS.html
The Social Security debacle only emphasizes the bias of Bush Republicans to the wealthy:
Every economic entity has a budget for payroll. From that Payroll, they must pay both employees and the employer's portion of the payroll tax. We can ignore the employee's portion for a minute. After the entity has reached the maximum coverage for FICA tax, then it is cheaper to pay the million dollar executive than it is to pay the lower wage workers who are producing the goods. That is the reality of the payroll tax. That is why we are seeing skyrocketing executive salaries at the same time that we are seeing layoffs of hourly wage employees.
Until the social security tax applies - at least on the employer - to every payroll dollar that goes to every employee, then it is the lower wage employees, the taxpayers and the stockholders who continue to subsidize the salaries.
Posted by: madame defarge at March 13, 2005 12:17 PM
Good point, Md. Mine was not on that list; however, he's new to congress.
Sometimes I wish I didn't live in such a right-wing area of the country, but I do, and, because I do, I know that the people who are trying to banish such shows as Deadwood really do believe in an idyllic version of American history. They don't think that they're doing anything wrong- they don't believe the Old West was that way. They think that shows like Deadwood are an insidious plot by the "liberal media" (of course, no such thing exists) to "slander America." I would almost feel better if I only thought these people were historical revisionists who were intionally out to clean up our past, but the sad thing is that they truly believe that our history is pure. They're ignorant of the negatives of history, because they've been sheltered from those negatives during their lives. Their history teachers never taught them about our country giving smallpox infested blankets to the native Americans, they never learned about the Japanese Americans who were held in concentration camps here in America, and they most certainly have no interest in learning about our CIA sending prisoners to other countries to be tortured and boiled alive today. They love their blinders, and think, if they could only put them on everyone else, how much happier a country this would be. Ignorance it truly bliss to them, and they refuse to listen to any truth that might make them unhappy. I know that's how they think, because, like so many other people who post on here, I have them in my family too. No mess can ever be straightened out until someone is willing to notice that it's there, and it's much easier to kick it under the couch where it can't be seen. We desparately need to keep dragging the garbage out from under the couch, no matter how unhappy it makes our fellow citizens. It's what makes them hate us, that we're constantly uncovering the nasty ,inconvenient facts, and reminding them that someone has to claim responsibility. And it's seeming more and more every day that the internet is the only way to drag those facts out into the light- I just wish more of the blind would come online. Of course, you have to turn off the sitcoms and turn on a computer to do that, and that just takes too much energy.
Posted by: Ray S at March 13, 2005 05:11 PM
Ray:
Great point you made as well. Those are things that not only did I not know. It reminds me of Toolmakers post in the forum about bringing forth these facts in SIMPLE and easy to understand language.
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=387&pid=1435&st=0&#entry1435
We need to reach people and simplify the language out there. Let them know in easy terms what the cause and effects are of specific policys.
We can not trust our media to be faithful to the people instead of to the corporation. And the social security is the exact issue to prove it--as well as the upcoming bancruptsy bill.
okay I have to say to much is going on for alot to really tick me off these days, but this article writen by George F Will managed to make me fire off my first Letter since we lost Angie.
Lindsey Graham's Good Idea
By George F. Will
Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page B07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28526-2005Mar11.html
and this was letter I sent in response to Mr. Wills ( I say mister with sarcasm) About his misguided and misrepresenting statements about how Republicans will pay for any increase in SS Tax because they earn more than Democrats.
"The tax increase from lifting the cap to $162,000 would be paid mostly by Republicans"
--
You assume with this statement that its republicans who are the wealthiest Americans, you know
what assume stands for don't you? Look at the average income and education level of those in "red"
states versus those in "blue states" Blue staters make more money and are more educated as a
whole, in fact it has been argued and argued well that its the Blue States that pay for the Red
States. Alls a Republican is, is a person who is trying to grasp a hold of the wealth no matter
who they have to step on! A few years ago some of your friends on the Republican side of congress
issued a report on who had the most money in the Senate and the House, trying to embarrass the
Democrats it backfired, people saw that although tax increases were asked for by Democrats it was
by a large majority Democrats who would be paying more in taxes, they had the most money in both
bodies of government, so before you spout off your opinion kindly go and check the facts. It is
people like you that are responsible for the misinformation put out to the public and you make me
sick.
April Maurer
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at March 13, 2005 05:22 PM
Linda,
Maybe simple news signs in laundrymats and grocery stores. I think the dcp is trying to make this information easily attainable and printable.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at March 13, 2005 05:22 PM
Linda, you hit the nail on the head. Wish we could broadcast versions of "Survivor" and "Fear Factor" on themes like social security, bankruptcy, and all the other scary issues we're facing today... Maybe then they'd pay attention...
Thank you for your well-stated opinion.
Linda, April
I am really enjoying reading this! Nice summaries of how much more comfortable it is to be "blind" about American history and what a fallacy it is that Republicans are somehow "of the people" moreso than Democrats.
Nice day here in Seattle, almost possible to pretend things are normal today. In reality, we're expecting quite a drought, half of & the state wants to split off, our state is lacking badly for money but the budget has to come together by Monday. Might be a rocky 6 months or so, then we'll see.
A few years ago some of your friends on the Republican side of congress issued a report on who had the most money in the Senate and the House, trying to embarrass the Democrats it backfired, people saw that although tax increases were asked for by Democrats it was
by a large majority Democrats who would be paying more in taxes, they had the most money in both bodies of government
Posted by: April at March 13, 2005 05:27 PM
I never saw that report. Does somebody have access to it.
TV Alert, for those who missed it earlier on Light Up the Darkness: John Kerry is scheduled to be on C-SPAN at 6:30 eastern time.
Posted by: sparrow at March 13, 2005 05:54 PM
I had it saved before Noah fixed my puter then downloaded a virus and wiped it out, Soons I get a sec I will see if I can find a trace of it anywhere it happened under Clinton, in the last years of his presidency.
The New York Times article on the newly released document called the "Evangelical Call" is pretty interesting. I pulled up the Evangelical Call document online, and found that now "credit card abuse" is being listed as one of the sins that Evangelicals must fight against.
I wonder when this document was released- it doesn't have a date on it, but it's purpose is to spur evangelicals into political areas besides abortion and gay marriage.
Amazingly, the document says that Christ is the king of Evangelicals, and not the leader of any earthly government. That's very interesting, because I tried to find "credit card abuse" in the concordance to my Bible, and couldn't find it anywhere. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. What gives??????? Surely, Jesus must have said SOMETHING about credit card abuse. Or about bankruptcy reform. Dang. I must just not be looking hard enough.
I have heard Democrats with money here in Seattle say they would RATHER pay more taxes, if they went to a good cause. I think that is generally the case.
Democrats are the party of economic and social justice, not the party of every man out for himself. They are also the party of tolerance, not the party of division or the party of conformity.
For those who missed Ron's reminder (and my earlier ones) of the 6:30 ET telecast of the Kerry-Oliphant interview on CSPAN, it will be rebroadcast at 9:30 pm ET this evening. . .video will also be available at www.cspan.org.
Kerry's remarks were broadcast in their entirety. However, unfortunately, they cut out most of Kennedy's comments, including the very funny "Moses" scene, when Kerry wandered around the stage with his arms outstretched, jokingly awaiting Kennedy's celestial bestowal of the Distinguished American award.
(Also, as seems to be usual, the audience reactions were somewhat muffled in this videotape ).
. . the 6:30 ET telecast of the Kerry-Oliphant interview on CSPAN . . . will be rebroadcast at 9:30 pm ET this evening. .
Posted by: mbk at March 13, 2005 07:53 PM
. .and even a third broadcast of Kerry-Oliphant on CSPAN just after midnight tonight (12:35 am, technically Monday) .. again, .video will also be available at www.cspan.org .
My brother in Colorado:
Good old Robert Byrd. There should be more like him.
I watched a lttle bit of John Kerry accepting an award on CSpan today.
Love Charles
That is my reminder that I need to check C-span at http://www.c-span.org and see if I can watch it on there. If not, it'll be archived on there, probably. I don't have cable. I haven't seen JK since he conceded and in fact haven't turned on my tv since.
Craig Crawford's 1600: Winning the 'Debate'
Louisville, Kentucky
Imagine a “conversation” where one person does all the talking, except for a few laudatory comments from well-wishers, while those who speak
up in disagreement are forcibly removed from sight before anyone can hear what they say.
That is what the White House is calling “A Conversation on Strengthening Social Security” — when the president appears in middle America, as he did here on March 10, to promote his ideas for changing the nation’s 70-year-old retirement system.
It is more like a conversation with himself. These orchestrated events, before crowds of mostly handpicked supporters, serve the purpose of helping George W. Bush get his message out directly. But I suspect there’s another reason for keeping the naysayers at bay.
That could be why the president is so good at sticking to his guns on issues ranging from Iraq to Social Security: He is protected from opposing views. It is much easier to be inflexible when a vast staff of White House handlers and security forces prevent any chance that he will hear alternative ideas.
One of the so-called protesters at the Louisville appearance says he just wanted to know if the president would consider a credible alternative to create private savings accounts for future Social Security beneficiaries. Diverting Social Security payments to such accounts goes to the heart of this debate. Some who are following it,
such as protester Mike Bailey, want Bush to look at the idea of allowing investment accounts that do not divert those contributions.
“How about private accounts outside Social Security,” Bailey shouted as Bush began detailing his plans.
We only know what the Louisville man said, or what he was trying to say, because afterwards Bailey explained it to reporters. When Bailey spoke up during the president’s talk, Bush andhis audience of supporters made sure that few in the room could hear what he said.
Bush talked over Bailey in a quickly improvised reference to Kentucky’s strong economy. The gratuitous mention of their home state prompted a
vocal reaction from the audience, eager to help the president muzzle dissent. During the ensuing standing ovation, police quickly hauled Bailey out of the theater.
Did Bailey get his point across? After all, his suggestion of setting up private accounts that do not divert Social Security contributions is one
of the ideas floating around on Capitol Hill.
“He wasn’t listening,” Bailey said. “He’s good at that.”
Retired Louisville schoolteacher James McMillen voiced another dissenting — and mostly unheard — view during Bush’s Kentucky appearance. McMillen said he wanted the president to address concerns
that his changes to Social Security could scuttle its finances, putting it in more jeopardy. But he, too, was drowned out by the president and
his applauding crowd, then whisked away by security forces before being heard.
Both men maintain that they did not go to this event planning to interrupt the president.Neither gave the appearance of being professional protesters. Each said they had never done anything like this, but grew frustrated as they realized Bush was not going to invite any tough questions. “He just wasn’t giving the whole story,” Bailey said, “It came into mind while he was talking. I had to say something.”
Power of Debate
Here is what I don’t get about the president’s one-way approach to so many debates. Wouldn’t he make a stronger case if these “conversations”
included a bit of presidential interaction with those who do not accept his word as gospel?
Sure, he doesn’t have to entertain shouts from the audience — although I wonder if even that might be quite effective for him — but why not have a couple of local professors, or maybe a retiree activist, on stage to pose some tough questions?
I guess it is naive in today’s world of staged political events to expect a president to submit to the type of grilling that British prime
ministers endure in those famous exchanges in Parliament called “Question Time.” But Tony Blair, and Margaret Thatcher before him, gained strength with their constituents by deftly handling biting questions from members of the opposing political party.
But Bush’s team knows him better than I do. After all, his worst public moment was the first debate of the 2004 presidential campaign when Democrat John Kerry pointedly disagreed with Bush at every turn. The looks of irritation and disgust on Bush’s face gave the impression of a man who cannot stand criticism.
Maybe these so-called town halls are devoid of any real debate simply because Bush doesn’t like real debate.
Did his famously authoritative mother spark this resistant trait in him? Turning to a woman in the audience with two sons at her side, Bush joked: “Boys, listen to your mother.”
Pausing for comedic effect, Bush then went for the laugh line and a telling twist: “I still listen to mine — most of the time.”
Raw Story interview with Scott Ritter:
1st in a 3-part series
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=170
http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
When is this Administration, ever going to be charged with war crimes, Iraq liberated never God Help them God help the children of Iraq
I need to check C-span at http://www.c-span.org and see if I can watch it on there. If not, it'll be archived on there, probably. .
Posted by: DiAnne at March 13, 2005 10:29 PM
Hi, Dianne-- It's definitely supposed to be archived on there, eventually. (Nothing listed yet, but only broadcasts up to March 11 are listed so far)
Craig Crawford's 1600: Winning the 'Debate'
Louisville, Kentucky
Imagine a “conversation” where one person does all the talking, except for a few laudatory comments from well-wishers, while those who speak
up in disagreement are forcibly removed from sight before anyone can hear what they say.
Posted by: DiAnne at March 13, 2005 10:39 PM
Dianne-- Do you happen to have a url for this familiar-but-still-chilling-as-usual story? Or do you know where it was published?I was going to pass this around, but I don't like to send things withoutproviding some info on its origin. .
THis week is "National SUnshine Week", a national initiative sponsored in part by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Knight Foundation, to push for increased access to government information. The American Library Association is also a partner in this effort.
More information here:
http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/about
http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/newabout
One of our Kerry blogger friends (wild salmon, I believe) coined the phrase, "Be the media!" Here's something from the NYT today about how bloggers are working with mainstream media to counter balance the conservative message with a progressive one. Perhaps we should try to get a DCP representative in on these calls.
Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media
Even as online pundits criticize traditional news organizations as slow, biased and technologically challenged, a group of bloggers is trying to use old-fashioned telephone conference calls to share their ideas with newspaper and television journalists.
The bloggers, who describe themselves as liberal or progressive, say the conference calls are intended to counter what they regard as the much stronger influence of conservative pundits online. Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, the host of the two calls so far, views them as a step toward getting their reports out to mainstream news organizations.
While there is no way to know precisely who dialed in, reporters from news organizations including CBS, The Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC and The National Journal asked for a call-in number, according to one participant.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/technology/14blog.html?th
For those concerned about ANWR and the environment, it looks like the vote (not a cloture vote) is going to be Wednesday. ANWR got added to the budget negtiations.
Today and tomorrow are good days to let your voice be heard, pro or con. Sen. Landrieu may be a key vote either way--you might want to contact her office.
Wild Salmon posted great things - last I saw of her was on Kos right after the election.
"Be the Media" actually comes from IndyMedia.
http://www.indymedia.org and that started in Seattle during the WTO. She was probably very aware of that early on though.
MBK
I was sent that without a link or I'd have posted the link but I think this will work.
http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=crawford/crawford_current
Half a Dozen Lawmakers Have Kids at War:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4863877,00.html
Also, Daeschle is taking a job as consultant to a law firm.
Liberal Bloggers Reaching Out to Major Media
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/technology/14blog.html?pagewanted=print&position=
______________
Even as online pundits criticize traditional news organizations as slow, biased and technologically challenged, a group of bloggers is trying to use old-fashioned telephone conference calls to share their ideas with newspaper and television journalists.
The bloggers, who describe themselves as liberal or progressive, say the conference calls are intended to counter what they regard as the much stronger influence of conservative pundits online. Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com, the host of the two calls so far, views them as a step toward getting their reports out to mainstream news organizations. . .
Posted by: Karen at March 14, 2005 08:36 AM
Karen, et al
Sandy posted a piece last night with a special TOLL FREE Number to call your Senators about ANWR and some talking points. here is a list of Senators to target including Repubs who voted for the Boxer Amendment and the Dems who voted against. This is oh so important!
MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=540
There is also a list of Action Alerts on our Environment Page. We'll have more on this later today...
. .and even a third broadcast of Kerry-Oliphant on CSPAN just after midnight tonight (12:35 am, technically Monday) .. again, .video will also be available at www.cspan.org .
Posted by: mbk at March 13, 2005 08:15 PM
and:
ref: I need to check C-span at http://www.c-span.org and see if I can watch it on there. If not, it'll be archived on there, probably. .
Posted by: DiAnne at March 13, 2005 10:29 PM
Hi, Dianne-- It's definitely supposed to be archived on there, eventually. (Nothing listed yet, but only broadcasts up to March 11 are listed so far)
Posted by: mbk at March 14, 2005 06:48 AM
I got a chance to watch the above referenced interview. It was wonderful. Kerry was positive, and articulate. I strongly urge everyone to see it.
Looks like the business community is having second thoughts about bush's SS scheme.
"But the Washington Post's Jeffrey Birnbaum reports that it's not just the public who's skeptical about the President's Social Security plan — some in the business community are jittery too. The Financial Services Forum, an association of 19 heads of large financial services companies, is withdrawing from Compass, the financial industry's group to gain support for the plan. LINK
"The forum is the third defection in a month from business-led Social Security coalitions. Waddell & Reed Financial Inc., a Kansas-based money management company, and Edward D. Jones & Co., a Missouri-based brokerage, withdrew from the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security. The alliance, a sister organization to Compass, focuses on direct lobbying of Congress on behalf of Bush's proposal, which includes private accounts as part of Social Security."
"The moves are a blow to Bush's effort. The White House is relying on coalitions such as Compass and the alliance to help persuade lawmakers and the public to rally behind the president's plan. Wall Street groups have been leaders in the fundraising for those drives..
Karen I hope those of here will contact Landrieu, Salazar and DeWine regarding the Anwar vote tomorrow.
Pamela, I hope all those here will contact Landrieu, Salazar and DeWine regarding the Anwar vote tomorrow and any possible Republican defectors.