For those of you who are excited and comfortable with what is left of diversity in opinon, you can ignore this email. For the rest of you (who are rather upset), you may want to write some letters, make some angry phone calls. The article attacking PBS is below (from today’s NYtimes).
Other information you need to ‘act’ is here:
The website for the broadcasting board is here: http://www.bbg.gov/
The phone number for Mr. Tomlinson’s office is:
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20237
Tel: 202/203-4545
Fax: 202/203-4585
And, if you want to show support for PBS you can do that here (by states):
DC
WETA TV 26 / 90.9 FM
2775 South Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22206-2304
Phone: (703) 998-2600
Fax: (703) 998-3401
Email: info@weta.com
IA
IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION/IPTV
6450 Corporate Drive
P.O. Box 6450
Johnston, IA 50131
Phone: (515) 242-3100
Fax: (515) 242-4113
Email: webcomm3@iptv.org
MN
PT - Twin Cities Public Television
172 East Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1447
Phone: (651) 222-1717
Fax: (651) 222-1282
Email: viewerservices@tpt.org
VT
VPT/VERMONT PUBLIC TELEVISION
Vermont Public Television
204 Ethan Allen Avenue
Colchester, VT 05446
Phone: (802) 655-4800
Fax: (802) 655-6593
Email: viewerservices@vpt.org.
WI
Wisconsin Public Television
821 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: (608) 265-2302
Fax: (608) 263-9763
Email: comments@wpt.org
Others: http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/stationfinder_relocalize.html
It is never a bad idea to contact your senators/congressmembers either
Peace, krissy
May 2, 2005
Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases
By STEPHEN LABATON, LORNE MANLY
and ELIZABETH JENSEN
ASHINGTON, May 1 - The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."
In late March, on the recommendation of administration officials, Mr. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member, corporation officials said. While she was still on the White House staff, she helped draft guidelines governing the work of two ombudsmen whom the corporation recently appointed to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts.
Mr. Tomlinson also encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. And while a search firm has been retained to find a successor for Kathleen A. Cox, the corporation's president and chief executive, whose contract was not renewed last month, Mr. Tomlinson has made clear to the board that his choice is Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who is now an assistant secretary of state.
Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, explaining that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support.
"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."
But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."
Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.
"I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate," Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.
Robert Coonrod, who stepped down as corporation president in July 2004, has known Mr. Tomlinson about 20 years and considers him a good friend. "I believe that his motives are exactly what he says they are," he said. Mr. Tomlinson is "trying to help the people in public broadcasting understand why some people in the conservative movement think PBS is hostile to them and, two, imbue public broadcasting with the notion of balance because he thinks that long term it's a winner in getting Congressional support."
"Whether people like the way he goes about it or not is a different issue," Mr. Coonrod added.
Though PBS's ratings have stabilized lately after several years of decline, the network has faced criticism that much of its programming - shows like "Antiques Roadshow" and "Masterpiece Theater" - is little different from what can be found on cable television. Though a huge bequest to National Public Radio from the estate of Joan Kroc, widow of the founder of McDonald's, has furthered the independence of public radio, corporate support and state financing for public television have slipped in recent years, making the nearly $400 million in federal money annually funneled through the corporation increasingly important.
Nor have administration officials and lawmakers been shy about challenging certain programming. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, for example, earlier this year publicly denounced a program featuring a cartoon rabbit named Buster who visited a pair of lesbian parents.
The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure "objectivity and balance" is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting's independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant "a program schedule that's not skewed in one direction or another." Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.
Beth Courtney, president and chief executive of Louisiana Public Broadcasting and one of three non-Republicans on the nine-member board, said there had been no chilling of journalistic efforts. "What we should look for are the real actions," she said. "We shouldn't speculate about people's motivations."
But Mr. Tomlinson's tenure has brought criticism that his chairmanship has been the most polarizing in a generation. Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush's election changed the board's political composition, the tenor changed, she said.
"There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction," said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a "very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers."
It is not a shock that Mr. Moyers's work exercised Mr. Tomlinson. He is a reliable source of agitation for conservatives, who complain that "Now" under Mr. Moyers (who left the show last year and was replaced by David Brancaccio) was consistently critical of Republicans and the Bush administration. Days after the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, Mr. Moyers - an aide in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and a former newspaper publisher who has been associated with PBS since the 1970's - said the entire federal government was "united behind a right-wing agenda" that included "the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives."
In December 2003, three months after he was elected chairman, Mr. Tomlinson sent Ms. Mitchell of PBS a letter outlining his concerns. " 'Now With Bill Moyers' does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting," he wrote.
Shortly after, Mr. Tomlinson hired a consultant to review Mr. Moyers's program; one three-month contract cost $10,000. The reports Mr. Tomlinson saw placed the program's guests in categories like "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti-Tom DeLay," referring to the House majority leader, corporation officials said. The reports found the guests were overwhelmingly anti-Bush, a conclusion Mr. Moyers disputed.
Mr. Moyers said on Friday that he did not know a content review was undertaken but that he was not surprised. "Tomlinson has waged a surreptitious and relentless campaign against 'Now' and me," he said, dismissing complaints that he is biased. Mr. Moyers left "Now" to write a book but is back on public television as host of the series "Wide Angle."
Mr. Tomlinson said he conducted the content review on his own, without sending the results to the board or making them public, because he wanted to better understand complaints he was hearing without provoking a storm. "If I wanted to be more destructive to public broadcasting but score political points, I would have come out with this study a year and a half ago," he said.
Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS's agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the "objectivity and balance" language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.
The corporation said it had no such plans, and the contract was finally signed about a month ago.
Mr. Tomlinson did help get one program, "The Journal Editorial Report," on the air as a way of balancing "Now." Ms. Mitchell backed the program, but public broadcasting officials said Mr. Tomlinson was instrumental in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and pressing PBS to distribute it.
Public television executives noted that Mr. Gigot's show by design features the members of the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, while Mr. Moyers's guests included many conservatives, like Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition; Richard Viguerie, a conservative political strategist; and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Mr. Tomlinson said that it was his concerns about "objectivity and balance" that led to the creation of a new office of the ombudsman at the corporation to issue reports about public television and radio broadcasts. But the role of a White House official in setting up the office has raised questions among some public broadcasting executives about its independence. In March, after she had been hired by the corporation but was still at the White House as director of the Office of Global Communications, Mary Catherine Andrews helped draft the office's guiding principles, set up a Web page and prepare a news release about the appointment of the new ombudsmen, officials said.
Ms. Andrews said she undertook the work at the instruction of top officials at the corporation. "I was careful not to work on this project during office hours during my last days at the White House," she said.
Mr. Tomlinson has also occasionally worked with other White House officials on public broadcasting issues. Last year he enlisted the presidential adviser Karl Rove to help kill a legislative proposal that would change the composition of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board by requiring the president to fill about half the seats with people who had experience in local radio and television. The proposal was dropped after Mr. Rove and the White House criticized it.
Mr. Tomlinson said he understood the need to reassure liberals that the traditions of public broadcasting, including public affairs programs, were not changing, "that we're not trying to put a wet blanket on this type of programming."
But his efforts to sow goodwill have shown that what he says he tries to project is sometimes read in a different way. Last November, members of the Association of Public Television Stations met in Baltimore along with officials from the corporation and PBS. Mr. Tomlinson told them they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate.
Mr. Tomlinson said that his comment was in jest and that he couldn't imagine how remarks at "a fun occasion" were taken the wrong way. Others, though, were not amused.
"I was in that room," said Ms. Mitchell. "I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate."
Stephen Labaton reported from Washington for this article, Lorne Manly from New York and Elizabeth Jensen from Columbus, Ohio.
02 May 2005
13 April 2005
Stop Bolton!
Please please please for the sake of this world call Senator Chafee (202) 224-2921 and tell him to vote AGAINST Bolton. Here is our chance! There is hope.
Keep this in mind as you consider this option:
Bolton has come out opposing the ICC and the UN, yet we are appointing him as our representative.
When Clinton was president and there was a representative more willing to negotiate with other nations we still used our veto to oppose action in Rwanda. 800,000+ people died.
Bolton will use his veto power more expansively.
As globalization increases we need to have working relationships with other nations. Do something to sustain this! Please, for the sake of the future.
Peace, krissy
Senate Committee Delays Vote on Bolton
By Barry Schweid
The Associated Press
Wednesday 13 April 2005
Washington - President Bush's drive to make John R. Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations got sidetracked Wednesday as Senate Democrats forced a delay until next week of an important confirmation vote.
In buying time, they hoped to win over a pivotal Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, by amassing evidence that Bolton harassed U.S. officials who challenged his judgment on weapons issues.
Chafee said Wednesday he is leaning toward supporting Bolton, which would all but assure Bolton's confirmation.
Bolton, currently the undersecretary of state, has rejected the accusations.
A committee vote, tentatively planned for Thursday, was scrubbed after Democrats objected, said Andy Fisher, spokesman for the chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Under Senate rules, at least one Democratic senator has to attend a meeting for a vote to occur.
Democrats want further questioning of Bolton in writing and they are seeking testimony by three U.S. officials on what lawmakers said were Bolton's efforts to remove the dissenting analysts.
Fisher said the three officials already had been interviewed by committee aides and their statements were made public.
"There is no need for an additional hearing," he said.
The postponement was agreed to by Lugar and the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said Norm Kurz, an aide to Biden.
"A nomination of this importance deserves providing each and every senator with ample time," Kurz said.
Republicans hold a 10-8 committee majority. Unanimous GOP support would send Bolton's nomination to the GOP-controlled Senate, where approval is considered likely.
The committee, in two days of hearings this week, heard from two witnesses, Bolton and Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research.
Ford denounced Bolton as a bully and a "serial abuser" of lower-level officials who challenged his assessments of the weapons potential of Cuba and other nations.
In a letter to Lugar, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., requested an additional hearing in which three officials would testify on Bolton's dealings with intelligence analysts. Dodd described Bolton as "evasive."
The three officials Dodd wants questioned are Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for intelligence; Neil Silver, director of the strategic proliferation office; and Stuart Cohen, a former acting chief of the National Intelligence Council.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took issue with Ford's characterization of Bolton as a bully.
"John Bolton has been a very effective manager and diplomat," she said. She added, "It would be very useful if we could get this nomination done."
Rice said she believed strongly in the "role of debate, the role of the open and free exchange of ideas."
But, she said, when decisions are taken, "I fully expect that people will support those decisions because there is only one president of the United States and that's President Bush."
Keep this in mind as you consider this option:
Bolton has come out opposing the ICC and the UN, yet we are appointing him as our representative.
When Clinton was president and there was a representative more willing to negotiate with other nations we still used our veto to oppose action in Rwanda. 800,000+ people died.
Bolton will use his veto power more expansively.
As globalization increases we need to have working relationships with other nations. Do something to sustain this! Please, for the sake of the future.
Peace, krissy
Senate Committee Delays Vote on Bolton
By Barry Schweid
The Associated Press
Wednesday 13 April 2005
Washington - President Bush's drive to make John R. Bolton the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations got sidetracked Wednesday as Senate Democrats forced a delay until next week of an important confirmation vote.
In buying time, they hoped to win over a pivotal Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, by amassing evidence that Bolton harassed U.S. officials who challenged his judgment on weapons issues.
Chafee said Wednesday he is leaning toward supporting Bolton, which would all but assure Bolton's confirmation.
Bolton, currently the undersecretary of state, has rejected the accusations.
A committee vote, tentatively planned for Thursday, was scrubbed after Democrats objected, said Andy Fisher, spokesman for the chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Under Senate rules, at least one Democratic senator has to attend a meeting for a vote to occur.
Democrats want further questioning of Bolton in writing and they are seeking testimony by three U.S. officials on what lawmakers said were Bolton's efforts to remove the dissenting analysts.
Fisher said the three officials already had been interviewed by committee aides and their statements were made public.
"There is no need for an additional hearing," he said.
The postponement was agreed to by Lugar and the committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said Norm Kurz, an aide to Biden.
"A nomination of this importance deserves providing each and every senator with ample time," Kurz said.
Republicans hold a 10-8 committee majority. Unanimous GOP support would send Bolton's nomination to the GOP-controlled Senate, where approval is considered likely.
The committee, in two days of hearings this week, heard from two witnesses, Bolton and Carl Ford Jr., a former chief at the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research.
Ford denounced Bolton as a bully and a "serial abuser" of lower-level officials who challenged his assessments of the weapons potential of Cuba and other nations.
In a letter to Lugar, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., requested an additional hearing in which three officials would testify on Bolton's dealings with intelligence analysts. Dodd described Bolton as "evasive."
The three officials Dodd wants questioned are Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for intelligence; Neil Silver, director of the strategic proliferation office; and Stuart Cohen, a former acting chief of the National Intelligence Council.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took issue with Ford's characterization of Bolton as a bully.
"John Bolton has been a very effective manager and diplomat," she said. She added, "It would be very useful if we could get this nomination done."
Rice said she believed strongly in the "role of debate, the role of the open and free exchange of ideas."
But, she said, when decisions are taken, "I fully expect that people will support those decisions because there is only one president of the United States and that's President Bush."
17 March 2005
If you aren't outraged...
…you must not be paying attention.
What are people’s thoughts on the ‘nomination’ of Paul Wolfowitz (who, I’m sorry to tell you Pat and Jill, was raised in Ithica N.Y.) as president of the World Bank right after the appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN. (He has spent the last several years talking about how much he hated the UN (not to mention the fact that he looks like he walked out of a text book on white colonialism in Africa)). I’m not putting links in here because every paper and news source is covering this in many ways.
And this is happening at the same time that we have decided to drill in Alaska: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?th or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html and yes, if you are wondering, this is the same president who said a few weeks ago he was going to work on using alternative fuels and preserving the environment. Perhaps he forgot.
Also the republican party is attempting to make it so that they can unilaterally appoint judges. What a great, truly democratic idea, eh? What, again, is the point of having more than one party? What again is the reason we even have elections? Seriously… my heart hurts. I can’t find the article I read it in right now, but this one is related… interesting that only 10 of the 214 judges nominated have had problems getting through the Senate yet the Democrats are being blamed for the delay – perhaps these few judges just shouldn’t be nominated! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16filibuster.html
But, it gets better, because it is also ok for the government to broadcast fake news. I’m sure you have heard about this, but here is the most recent article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17video.html?th To me this sounds like Nazi propaganda and fascism… but, you can make your own call. Seriously, if you aren’t pissed off by now – you must not be paying attention.
So, what do we do? How can we fix it?
People are still dying in Sudan by the way, in fact the UN left many parts of Darfur last week. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4357021.stm Reminds you a bit about Rwanda. However, there is a bill to do something about this, so call your senator. Here is info on the bill (The Darfur Accountability Act). http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s495.html Call your senators and get them to sign on. There is also a hunger strike (one day between the 16th and 20th) here is info about that: http://talacon.com/rp/PointMapper/USA/MarchStrike/display.cfm (may not change policy, but may help you think about things). I urge everyone in the DC metro area to visit the Holocaust museum. There is an exhibit on Darfur, and an important exhibit on Eugenics and ‘Deadly Medicine’.
Good thing Bono just came out with a new sweatshop free clothing line, or I would think that everyone in this country was nuts. Who knew the ‘rock stars’ would be the one with souls?
Do something.
What are people’s thoughts on the ‘nomination’ of Paul Wolfowitz (who, I’m sorry to tell you Pat and Jill, was raised in Ithica N.Y.) as president of the World Bank right after the appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN. (He has spent the last several years talking about how much he hated the UN (not to mention the fact that he looks like he walked out of a text book on white colonialism in Africa)). I’m not putting links in here because every paper and news source is covering this in many ways.
And this is happening at the same time that we have decided to drill in Alaska: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17arctic.html?th or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2005Mar16.html and yes, if you are wondering, this is the same president who said a few weeks ago he was going to work on using alternative fuels and preserving the environment. Perhaps he forgot.
Also the republican party is attempting to make it so that they can unilaterally appoint judges. What a great, truly democratic idea, eh? What, again, is the point of having more than one party? What again is the reason we even have elections? Seriously… my heart hurts. I can’t find the article I read it in right now, but this one is related… interesting that only 10 of the 214 judges nominated have had problems getting through the Senate yet the Democrats are being blamed for the delay – perhaps these few judges just shouldn’t be nominated! http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16filibuster.html
But, it gets better, because it is also ok for the government to broadcast fake news. I’m sure you have heard about this, but here is the most recent article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/politics/17video.html?th To me this sounds like Nazi propaganda and fascism… but, you can make your own call. Seriously, if you aren’t pissed off by now – you must not be paying attention.
So, what do we do? How can we fix it?
People are still dying in Sudan by the way, in fact the UN left many parts of Darfur last week. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4357021.stm Reminds you a bit about Rwanda. However, there is a bill to do something about this, so call your senator. Here is info on the bill (The Darfur Accountability Act). http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s495.html Call your senators and get them to sign on. There is also a hunger strike (one day between the 16th and 20th) here is info about that: http://talacon.com/rp/PointMapper/USA/MarchStrike/display.cfm (may not change policy, but may help you think about things). I urge everyone in the DC metro area to visit the Holocaust museum. There is an exhibit on Darfur, and an important exhibit on Eugenics and ‘Deadly Medicine’.
Good thing Bono just came out with a new sweatshop free clothing line, or I would think that everyone in this country was nuts. Who knew the ‘rock stars’ would be the one with souls?
Do something.
17 February 2005
News and Comments, 17 Feb 05
This isn’t nearly enough, but perhaps a start on corporate responsibility? “Conn. to Probe Wal-Mart on Child Labor” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31047-2005Feb16.html
“D.C. Has A 'Deal' To Build Hospital Howard U. to Run SE Medical Center” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30281-2005Feb16.html – In regards to this. I heard that the closing of DC General was bogus. There was an article last week talking about how it wasn’t really “taking money from the city” but instead was doing fine. The article alleged that 500,000 had been essentially stolen from the hospital by the city leading to its closing. It was in that new free DC paper, the Examiner. All I know is, it wouldn’t have happened had this hospital been in Northwest.
Borrow Cautiously, Greenspan Advises Bush May Agree to Raise Social Security Tax Ceiling http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27890-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email – so, if they are agreeing to raise the tax ceiling, why couldn’t that extra money be used to maintain the system as it is? Especially if it is the most effective anti-poverty program we have? Why ruin a (mostly) good thing? Are we that masochistic? (also found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/business/17fed.html?th and here: http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/16/news/economy/fed_greenspan_testimony/index.htm)
I’ve been waiting for this. I don’t know about all of the folks who said that Bush was a “fiscal conservative”. That wasn’t the president I saw. Critical Republicans Look to Cut Bush's $82 Billion War Request http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30679-2005Feb16.html
Now, related to that… Secretary On the Offensive “Two dozen members of the House Armed Services Committee had not yet had their turn to question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at yesterday's hearings when he decided he had had enough.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30800-2005Feb16.html You would think that someone who’s decisions affect not only the lives of thousands of US soldiers, millions of Iraqi citizens, but also all of the rest of the US and really the world wouldn’t be allowed to act like this. Our ‘decision makers’ have no information on which to base their ‘decisions’. (Maybe that’s why corporate lobbying is so successful, does money speak louder than words?)
War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email Who wants to be the first to say ‘duh’?! Throughout history oppressed peoples have reacted to massive brutality in the way that appears most effective. The greater the brutality the greater the resistance. I took a class on terrorism and democracy – the books had interesting insight on this (I can’t say I always agreed). I wrote a paper for it about non-violent ways to resist terrorism… maybe I’ll send it to Rummy.
Sure, act “quickly” two years after this all started (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4268733.stm)… Maybe they went to see Hotel Rwanda. Human Rights Chief Urges U.N. to Act Quickly on Sudan http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2005/02/17/international/africa/17nations.html&tntemail0 Speaking of Rwanda, the French are in trouble: Rwanda lawsuit for French troops Six Rwandan citizens have filed a lawsuit in France accusing French soldiers of complicity in genocide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4272437.stm
And, we’ll end with an op-ed piece. The Gay Child Left Behind http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17savage.html?th
“D.C. Has A 'Deal' To Build Hospital Howard U. to Run SE Medical Center” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30281-2005Feb16.html – In regards to this. I heard that the closing of DC General was bogus. There was an article last week talking about how it wasn’t really “taking money from the city” but instead was doing fine. The article alleged that 500,000 had been essentially stolen from the hospital by the city leading to its closing. It was in that new free DC paper, the Examiner. All I know is, it wouldn’t have happened had this hospital been in Northwest.
Borrow Cautiously, Greenspan Advises Bush May Agree to Raise Social Security Tax Ceiling http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27890-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email – so, if they are agreeing to raise the tax ceiling, why couldn’t that extra money be used to maintain the system as it is? Especially if it is the most effective anti-poverty program we have? Why ruin a (mostly) good thing? Are we that masochistic? (also found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/business/17fed.html?th and here: http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/16/news/economy/fed_greenspan_testimony/index.htm)
I’ve been waiting for this. I don’t know about all of the folks who said that Bush was a “fiscal conservative”. That wasn’t the president I saw. Critical Republicans Look to Cut Bush's $82 Billion War Request http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30679-2005Feb16.html
Now, related to that… Secretary On the Offensive “Two dozen members of the House Armed Services Committee had not yet had their turn to question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at yesterday's hearings when he decided he had had enough.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30800-2005Feb16.html You would think that someone who’s decisions affect not only the lives of thousands of US soldiers, millions of Iraqi citizens, but also all of the rest of the US and really the world wouldn’t be allowed to act like this. Our ‘decision makers’ have no information on which to base their ‘decisions’. (Maybe that’s why corporate lobbying is so successful, does money speak louder than words?)
War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html?referrer=email Who wants to be the first to say ‘duh’?! Throughout history oppressed peoples have reacted to massive brutality in the way that appears most effective. The greater the brutality the greater the resistance. I took a class on terrorism and democracy – the books had interesting insight on this (I can’t say I always agreed). I wrote a paper for it about non-violent ways to resist terrorism… maybe I’ll send it to Rummy.
Sure, act “quickly” two years after this all started (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4268733.stm)… Maybe they went to see Hotel Rwanda. Human Rights Chief Urges U.N. to Act Quickly on Sudan http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2005/02/17/international/africa/17nations.html&tntemail0 Speaking of Rwanda, the French are in trouble: Rwanda lawsuit for French troops Six Rwandan citizens have filed a lawsuit in France accusing French soldiers of complicity in genocide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4272437.stm
And, we’ll end with an op-ed piece. The Gay Child Left Behind http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17savage.html?th
Real Events on Inauguration Day
I got this from my theory professors; I urge you to read it. I know I send a lot of things, but you’ve had a long break (and I always say I’m willing to stop sending this stuff to you).
Peace, krissy
Published on Friday, January 28, 2005 by the National Catholic Reporter
What the Rest of the World Watched on Inauguration Day
by Joan Chittister
Dublin, on U.S. Inauguration Day, didn't seem to notice. Oh, they played a few clips that night of the American president saying, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."
But that was not their lead story.
The picture on the front page of The Irish Times was a large four-color picture of a small Iraqi girl. Her little body was a coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering, screaming madly into the dark night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small tight face were blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father and mother, shot through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers while she sat beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in the back seat.
A series of pictures of the incident played on the inside page, as well. A 12-year-old brother, wounded in the fray, falls face down out of the car when the car door opens, the pictures show. In another, a soldier decked out in battle gear, holds a large automatic weapon on the four children, all potential enemies, all possible suicide bombers, apparently, as they cling traumatized to one another in the back seat and the child on the ground goes on screaming in her parent's blood.
No promise of "freedom" rings in the cutline on this picture. No joy of liberty underlies the terror on these faces here.
I found myself closing my eyes over and over again as I stared at the story, maybe to crush the tears forming there, maybe in the hope that the whole scene would simply disappear.
But no, like the photo of a naked little girl bathed in napalm and running down a road in Vietnam served to crystallize the situation there for the rest of the world, I knew that this picture of a screaming, angry, helpless, orphaned child could do the same.
The soldiers standing in the dusk had called "halt," the story said, but no one did. Maybe the soldiers' accents were bad. Maybe the car motor was unduly noisy. Maybe the children were laughing loudly -- the way children do on family trips. Whatever the case, the car did not stop, the soldiers shot with deadly accuracy, seven lives changed in an instant: two died in body, five died in soul.
BBC news announced that the picture was spreading across Europe like a brushfire that morning, featured from one major newspaper to another, served with coffee and Danish from kitchen table to kitchen table in one country after another. I watched, while Inauguration Day dawned across the Atlantic, as the Irish up and down the aisle on the train from Killarney to Dublin, narrowed their eyes at the picture, shook their heads silently and slowly over it, and then sat back heavily in their seats, too stunned into reality to go back to business as usual -- the real estate section, the sports section, the life-style section of the paper.
Here was the other side of the inauguration story. No military bands played for this one. No bulletproof viewing stands could stop the impact of this insight into the glory of force. Here was an America they could no longer understand. The contrast rang cruelly everywhere.
I sat back and looked out the train window myself. Would anybody in the United States be seeing this picture today? Would the United States ever see it, in fact? And if it is printed in the United States, will it also cross the country like wildfire and would people hear the unwritten story under it?
There are 54 million people in Iraq. Over half of them are under the age of 15. Of the over 100,000 civilians dead in this war, then, over half of them are children. We are killing children. The children are our enemy. And we are defeating them.
"I'll tell you why I voted for George Bush," a friend of mine said. "I voted for George Bush because he had the courage to do what Al Gore and John Kerry would never have done."
I've been thinking about that one.
Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Sadam Hussein is still alive. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is still alive. Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah are burning. But my government has the courage to kill children or their parents. And I'm supposed to be impressed.
That's an unfair assessment, of course. A lot of young soldiers have died, too. A lot of weekend soldiers are maimed for life. A lot of our kids went into the military only to get a college education and are now shattered in soul by what they had to do to other bodies.
A lot of adult civilians have been blasted out of their homes and their neighborhoods and their cars. More and more every day. According to U.N. Development Fund for Women, 15 percent of wartime casualties in World War I were civilians. In World War II, 65 percent were civilians. By the mid '90s, over 75 percent of wartime casualties were civilians.
In Iraq, for every dead U.S. soldier, there are 14 other deaths, 93 percent of them are civilian. But those things happen in war, the story says. It's all for a greater good, we have to remember. It's all to free them. It's all being done to spread "liberty."
From where I stand, the only question now is who or what will free us from the 21st century's new definition of bravery. Who will free us from the notion that killing children or their civilian parents takes courage?
A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Sister Joan is a best-selling author and well-known international lecturer. She is founder and executive director of Benetvision: A Resource and Research Center for Contemporary Spirituality, and past president of the Conference of American Benedictine Prioresses and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister Joan has been recognized by universities and national organizations for her work for justice, peace and equality for women in the Church and society. She is an active member of the International Peace Council.
© 2005 The National Catholic Reporter
Peace, krissy
Published on Friday, January 28, 2005 by the National Catholic Reporter
What the Rest of the World Watched on Inauguration Day
by Joan Chittister
Dublin, on U.S. Inauguration Day, didn't seem to notice. Oh, they played a few clips that night of the American president saying, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."
But that was not their lead story.
The picture on the front page of The Irish Times was a large four-color picture of a small Iraqi girl. Her little body was a coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering, screaming madly into the dark night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small tight face were blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father and mother, shot through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers while she sat beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in the back seat.
A series of pictures of the incident played on the inside page, as well. A 12-year-old brother, wounded in the fray, falls face down out of the car when the car door opens, the pictures show. In another, a soldier decked out in battle gear, holds a large automatic weapon on the four children, all potential enemies, all possible suicide bombers, apparently, as they cling traumatized to one another in the back seat and the child on the ground goes on screaming in her parent's blood.
No promise of "freedom" rings in the cutline on this picture. No joy of liberty underlies the terror on these faces here.
I found myself closing my eyes over and over again as I stared at the story, maybe to crush the tears forming there, maybe in the hope that the whole scene would simply disappear.
But no, like the photo of a naked little girl bathed in napalm and running down a road in Vietnam served to crystallize the situation there for the rest of the world, I knew that this picture of a screaming, angry, helpless, orphaned child could do the same.
The soldiers standing in the dusk had called "halt," the story said, but no one did. Maybe the soldiers' accents were bad. Maybe the car motor was unduly noisy. Maybe the children were laughing loudly -- the way children do on family trips. Whatever the case, the car did not stop, the soldiers shot with deadly accuracy, seven lives changed in an instant: two died in body, five died in soul.
BBC news announced that the picture was spreading across Europe like a brushfire that morning, featured from one major newspaper to another, served with coffee and Danish from kitchen table to kitchen table in one country after another. I watched, while Inauguration Day dawned across the Atlantic, as the Irish up and down the aisle on the train from Killarney to Dublin, narrowed their eyes at the picture, shook their heads silently and slowly over it, and then sat back heavily in their seats, too stunned into reality to go back to business as usual -- the real estate section, the sports section, the life-style section of the paper.
Here was the other side of the inauguration story. No military bands played for this one. No bulletproof viewing stands could stop the impact of this insight into the glory of force. Here was an America they could no longer understand. The contrast rang cruelly everywhere.
I sat back and looked out the train window myself. Would anybody in the United States be seeing this picture today? Would the United States ever see it, in fact? And if it is printed in the United States, will it also cross the country like wildfire and would people hear the unwritten story under it?
There are 54 million people in Iraq. Over half of them are under the age of 15. Of the over 100,000 civilians dead in this war, then, over half of them are children. We are killing children. The children are our enemy. And we are defeating them.
"I'll tell you why I voted for George Bush," a friend of mine said. "I voted for George Bush because he had the courage to do what Al Gore and John Kerry would never have done."
I've been thinking about that one.
Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Sadam Hussein is still alive. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is still alive. Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah are burning. But my government has the courage to kill children or their parents. And I'm supposed to be impressed.
That's an unfair assessment, of course. A lot of young soldiers have died, too. A lot of weekend soldiers are maimed for life. A lot of our kids went into the military only to get a college education and are now shattered in soul by what they had to do to other bodies.
A lot of adult civilians have been blasted out of their homes and their neighborhoods and their cars. More and more every day. According to U.N. Development Fund for Women, 15 percent of wartime casualties in World War I were civilians. In World War II, 65 percent were civilians. By the mid '90s, over 75 percent of wartime casualties were civilians.
In Iraq, for every dead U.S. soldier, there are 14 other deaths, 93 percent of them are civilian. But those things happen in war, the story says. It's all for a greater good, we have to remember. It's all to free them. It's all being done to spread "liberty."
From where I stand, the only question now is who or what will free us from the 21st century's new definition of bravery. Who will free us from the notion that killing children or their civilian parents takes courage?
A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Sister Joan is a best-selling author and well-known international lecturer. She is founder and executive director of Benetvision: A Resource and Research Center for Contemporary Spirituality, and past president of the Conference of American Benedictine Prioresses and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister Joan has been recognized by universities and national organizations for her work for justice, peace and equality for women in the Church and society. She is an active member of the International Peace Council.
© 2005 The National Catholic Reporter
24 January 2005
Robo-Soldiers
The following is a rather fragmented reflection on recent events, but I am not sure how to collect all of my thoughts on this.
Today the Washington Post published an article entitled “Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31968-2005Jan24.html) (the BBC did a similar article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm) discussing the deployment of machine-gun laden remote control robots to Iraq this spring. This development brings the inhumanity of war to a new level.
By developing these remote control killing machines, the act of taking one’s life becomes a more distant and less meaningful act. War becomes a virtual-reality video game in which the value of human life is disregarded; soldiers are able to operate deadly machinery as they would a remote control car.
The discussion of the autonomy of these ‘soldiers’ is even more frightening. The Pentagon’s goal of creating robots that are able to “navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own” is devastatingly frightening. For now Perceptek Inc, the developers of robotic systems for military use, claim that “there always will be a person in the loop” but this “problem” of autonomy discussed in yesterday’s article brings up questions as to the possibility of mistaking allies for enemies, and, equally important, demonstrates the disregard this war has for human life. By allowing machines to cause mass destruction and death we wipe the guilt from our hands, and become absent destroyers.
War is supposed to be hard: a last resort following extensive diplomacy and negotiation. Weapons that allow war to be performed through the actions of adolescent video games will allow decisions to enter war more likely and easy. The death of Iraqi citizens has already been unreported; their lives ignored. The enactment of video-game warfare further disregards the humanity of those we kill. I want my friends to be safe and to come home, but this is not the way to expedite the war.
The argument behind the development of SWORDS is that they will save both money and time: “They don’t need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle”. These comments completely disrespect the work of soldiers currently serving in the armed forces.
I know that these robots could save US lives, and perhaps I'm being horribly insensitive. It just seems to be that 1) avoiding war, 2) funding domestic social service programs (preventing people from having to enlist to pay for school, etc), and 3) taking care of veterans is a better way to do this. Why can't the killing just stop?
Today the Washington Post published an article entitled “Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31968-2005Jan24.html) (the BBC did a similar article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm) discussing the deployment of machine-gun laden remote control robots to Iraq this spring. This development brings the inhumanity of war to a new level.
By developing these remote control killing machines, the act of taking one’s life becomes a more distant and less meaningful act. War becomes a virtual-reality video game in which the value of human life is disregarded; soldiers are able to operate deadly machinery as they would a remote control car.
The discussion of the autonomy of these ‘soldiers’ is even more frightening. The Pentagon’s goal of creating robots that are able to “navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own” is devastatingly frightening. For now Perceptek Inc, the developers of robotic systems for military use, claim that “there always will be a person in the loop” but this “problem” of autonomy discussed in yesterday’s article brings up questions as to the possibility of mistaking allies for enemies, and, equally important, demonstrates the disregard this war has for human life. By allowing machines to cause mass destruction and death we wipe the guilt from our hands, and become absent destroyers.
War is supposed to be hard: a last resort following extensive diplomacy and negotiation. Weapons that allow war to be performed through the actions of adolescent video games will allow decisions to enter war more likely and easy. The death of Iraqi citizens has already been unreported; their lives ignored. The enactment of video-game warfare further disregards the humanity of those we kill. I want my friends to be safe and to come home, but this is not the way to expedite the war.
The argument behind the development of SWORDS is that they will save both money and time: “They don’t need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle”. These comments completely disrespect the work of soldiers currently serving in the armed forces.
I know that these robots could save US lives, and perhaps I'm being horribly insensitive. It just seems to be that 1) avoiding war, 2) funding domestic social service programs (preventing people from having to enlist to pay for school, etc), and 3) taking care of veterans is a better way to do this. Why can't the killing just stop?
02 January 2005
Request from Iraq
This is part of an email from my dear friend Nick who is currently in Iraq. I thought that you may be interested in helping him out... I'm going to be sending him some items and doing a minidrive, so, if you want to help out I'd be happy to add anythings you can donate to my load. (I may do a drive at AU after the tsunami relief work is winding down).
Sounds like it could be a project for SDAC or some of your churches???
I'd be happy to help if you are feeling inspired to do something. Contact me: I will either send your items to Nick, or give you his contact info.
peace, krissy
__________________________________________________________
Merry Christmas! I guess it's Christmas. It doesn't really seem like it.
I am in Iraq. That's about it.
The people here are friendly and people just like everyone else across the world. Sorry to be generalizing. They live the lives they have and are content with it. Many here want better lives for their children.
This is actually a more serious note. There is great need here, but more importantly, there are a lot of kids. The only way to keep our kids from fighting their kids is to reach out to the children. It'll take a generation here and this is my goal. I'd like you to attempt to gain the support of local community organizations and churches if you can. Send everything to me and I will personally ensure it is put into the hands of someone who needs it. I will take pictures and give feed back to any organizations/chruches that are involved. I have a list of things that would be preferred.
1) Tons of cheap candy. Don't get the good stuff. They don't care.
2) School supplies, especially pens and notepads.
That's a big one. The kids like to learn and write english.
3) Shoes for kids are another big item here.
4) Soccer balls and other general round balls are great. They want those everytime we go into town. Don't send basketballs or normal footballs, but smaller footballs work.
I am going to focus this stuff on the farm community because the city kids are supplied pretty regularly by our Civil affairs representative. You do not have to do this, but I think it's a good idea. DO NOT SEND MONEY.
Thank you for your support if you give it this way, but otherwise thanks for it in thought. Please go through organizations. Don't spend a lot of money buying stuff or anything like that. Use other resources. It might take up your time. I thank you for that! Take care again and enjoy your vacations if you have them!
Nick
Sounds like it could be a project for SDAC or some of your churches???
I'd be happy to help if you are feeling inspired to do something. Contact me: I will either send your items to Nick, or give you his contact info.
peace, krissy
__________________________________________________________
Merry Christmas! I guess it's Christmas. It doesn't really seem like it.
I am in Iraq. That's about it.
The people here are friendly and people just like everyone else across the world. Sorry to be generalizing. They live the lives they have and are content with it. Many here want better lives for their children.
This is actually a more serious note. There is great need here, but more importantly, there are a lot of kids. The only way to keep our kids from fighting their kids is to reach out to the children. It'll take a generation here and this is my goal. I'd like you to attempt to gain the support of local community organizations and churches if you can. Send everything to me and I will personally ensure it is put into the hands of someone who needs it. I will take pictures and give feed back to any organizations/chruches that are involved. I have a list of things that would be preferred.
1) Tons of cheap candy. Don't get the good stuff. They don't care.
2) School supplies, especially pens and notepads.
That's a big one. The kids like to learn and write english.
3) Shoes for kids are another big item here.
4) Soccer balls and other general round balls are great. They want those everytime we go into town. Don't send basketballs or normal footballs, but smaller footballs work.
I am going to focus this stuff on the farm community because the city kids are supplied pretty regularly by our Civil affairs representative. You do not have to do this, but I think it's a good idea. DO NOT SEND MONEY.
Thank you for your support if you give it this way, but otherwise thanks for it in thought. Please go through organizations. Don't spend a lot of money buying stuff or anything like that. Use other resources. It might take up your time. I thank you for that! Take care again and enjoy your vacations if you have them!
Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)