NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label corporate media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate media. Show all posts

21 January 2012

What South Carolina Didn't See (the pathetic lack of real election reporting) from FREEPRESS 21JAN12

THIS is a serious issue that the FCC needs to address. Corporate media may avoid in-depth reporting on political candidates to protect their profits from campaign advertising. Sadly, most mainstream media political reporting is fluff, and reporters are afraid to ask to candidates the hard questions for fear of being described as partisan. The question posed to newt gingrich(k) in last Thursday's debate about his 2nd wife's accusation that he wanted an open marriage is a perfect example. He wasn't asked about his hypocrisy of leading the impeachment of Pres Clinton over the monica lewinsky affair while having an affair himself while married or the hypocrisy of him giving speeches about family values while having an affair while married or about the hypocrisy of his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions because that is a threat to traditional marriage while he has had multiple extra-marital affairs and is twice divorced. No, after outlining the charge from his 2nd wife he was asked if he wanted to respond to it. That is not reporting, that is pandering, and the CNN reporter to cowardly to address the real question deserved the public humiliation he received. This is why we need the FCC to establish a public database documenting local, civic and election reporting aired by all stations. Please click the link and sign on to support FreePress's support of this database.
freepress.net

The average TV viewer in South Carolina’s capital saw 182 political ads before today’s primary. But how much election coverage did local stations provide? Broadcasters don’t want to say.
TV stations in South Carolina pocketed $11.3 million in political-ad money — and subjected viewers to an unrelenting barrage of attack ads. Media corporations profited while using our public airwaves — for free — and we have a right to know what we are getting in return. But broadcasters are fighting hard against a Federal Communications Commission proposal to create a publicly searchable database documenting all of the electoral, local and civic programming our stations air.
Why? Maybe because they don’t want the public and the FCC to know what they’re up to. After nearly two decades of rampant media consolidation, stations are interested only in the bottom line. Real election reporting costs money, so stations tend to favor cheap, easy-to-produce segments (like coverage of sports and celebrity gossip) instead.
After today, the political-money machine will leave South Carolina and head to Florida for the next primary. By the summer, everyone in the country will have experienced a heavy dose of political attack ads.
The question is, will we also get the election news we need to make informed choices at the polls?
Sincerely,
Libby Reinish
Free Press
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Learn more at www.freepress.net
 

23 June 2011

MISSING: Your local news, thanks to covert consolidation from FREEPRESS 23JUN11

THE covert consolidation of local news broadcast in the Washington D.C. area (WTTG, WRC AND WUSA) is why I stopped watching the local news about 2 years ago, and I don't feel any less informed. They have nothing to offer but milk toast reporting and stories that belong on one of those trashy Hollywood reporting broadcast. Check this out from FreePress to see if the news broadcasters are participating in covert consolidation.
SaveTheNews.org
Change the Channels

Take Action Now: Fight Covert Consolidation
A dangerous new trend has taken hold across America, threatening local journalism and the future of news itself.
Its name? Covert consolidation.
Today, we’re launching a campaign to fight this new form of media consolidation. It's called “Change the Channels.” 
Check out our new Change the Channels site and learn how you can stop covert consolidation in your community.
Covert consolidation is what happens when broadcasters collude to cut costs and reduce competition. In many places, several TV stations are even airing the exact same story – from one viewpoint, by one reporter, from one camera angle. (Watch our video to see these deals in action).
Our new Change the Channels site uses an interactive map to make it easy to find out which stations are consolidating in your area, and what you can do about it. Go here to find out if your town is affected.
This phenomenon is now so widespread that, according to the FCC, "nearly one-third of TV stations say they are running news produced by another station."1 We found that covert consolidation is taking place in nearly 80 markets, involving more than 200 stations.
The FCC is now reconsidering its media ownership rules, so this is a perfect chance for us to shine a spotlight on this issue and force the agency to get tough with stations that have failed the communities they are licensed to serve.
Click here to sign our letter urging the FCC to put an end to covert consolidation.
Covert consolidation takes many forms, but the results are the same: Media companies pad their bottom line by sacrificing local journalism, competition and diversity. This practice must be stopped.
Together, we can build a case for better local news that the FCC won’t be able to ignore. Check out our new site and help us change the channels today.
Thank you,
Libby Reinish
Program Coordinator
Free Press
www.freepress.net
P.S. Want to support our work? We don't take a dime from businesses, political parties or the government. We are funded by people like you. Please donate today.
1. "The Information Needs of Communities" Federal Communications Commission, June 2011: http://act2.freepress.net/go/4723?akid=2600.9767049.yTJz8o&t=11

23 December 2010

FCC AND THE END OF NET NEUTRALITY 21DEZ10

NEW FCC rules on the net do not do enough to keep the internet the free flowing source of information so many of us rely on and enjoy......this from the PCCC
Progressive Change Campaign Committee

BREAKING: Minutes ago, the FCC passed new rules -- written by corporations -- that will end Net Neutrality. For the first time in history, the U.S. government approved corporate censorship of the Internet, putting the future of online free speech at risk. Unbelievably, the person leading the charge was Obama appointee Julius Genachowski.
This violates President Obama's campaign promise to protect Net Neutrality, but some media are reporting the corporate spin that this is a "Net Neutrality compromise." It's not -- there's no such thing as half a First Amendment. We need to set the record straight.
If you're on Facebook, click here to spread the word.
By sharing, you can help us spread the top 3 reasons the rules passed today are a giveaway to big corporations and break Obama's promise:
  1. They enshrine different rules for wired and wireless Internet -- allowing big corporations to censor on your mobile phone
  2. They allow corporations to set up tollbooths online, stifling new innovators like the next YouTube who can't pay the fees the old, crusty corporations can pay
  3. For the first time, they embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it
A more detailed explanation is here. Please pass this email to your friends so they know not to believe the corporate spin.
And click here to share on Twitter and here to share on Facebook.
Thanks for being a bold progressive,
Jason Rosenbaum, Adam Green, Stephanie Taylor, and the PCCC team

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. We've received over 60,246 small-dollar donations. Can you help us hit 65,000?
Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

04 December 2010

TSA's Naked Power Grab, FBI and Internet Wiretapping and More from the ACLU 22NOV10

INCLUDED in this e mail newsletter from the ACLU (I am a proud member) is a piece about the new TSA security measures. I do not agree with the ACLU on this issue. I feel the scanners and alternative to being scanned, the pat-down, are the best we have to offer right now to provide air travel safety and security. At least everyone is subject to the same security measures, people are not being profiled and singled out for enhanced security screening, and if someone refuses to be screened then they do not fly, their loss, not mine. I think the ACLU is choosing the wrong battle here, I do not feel the screening or pat down is not a violation of my civil rights as long as everyone else is subject to the same. The question of civil rights violations comes into play if the TSA adopts profiling as the method to determine who is subjected to enhanced screening. FYI, I do know something about being profiled....I am white, but with long (below my shoulders) hair, full beard, wear ear rings in both ears, have 2 tats and often wear tie-dye and beads. Cops and airport security often select me as the druggie and I have had some very unpleasant experiences with cops until they find out I am clean. They are judging me by my looks, and that is wrong. So I am fine with the current TSA procedures to keep us safe in the air. 
ACLU Online

In This Issue

Traveling this Holiday Season? Some Things Have Changed.

FBI Wants Expanded Internet Wiretapping Capabilities

Defense of Marriage Act Challenged in Lawsuit

Don't Let Big Telecoms Trade Your Free Speech for Their Own Profit

Civil Liberties Minute: Net Neutrality

Walgreens Continues Gender Discrimination at the Pharmacy

Civil Liberties Minute: Net Neutrality

Might you turn on your computer and find that the Internet as you've known it, has vanished?

>> Listen to the podcast.

Walgreens Continues Gender Discrimination at the Pharmacy

Couples who work together to make healthy decisions about contraception should be supported. So, why is it that local Walgreens stores in Texas have repeatedly refused to sell contraception to men, despite corporate headquarters policy and federal guidelines to the contrary?

That is exactly what happened to Adam Drake, who tried to purchase emergency contraception from a Walgreens in Houston. He was shocked when the pharmacy unequivocally denied him the product because he is a man. When he complained to the store manager, she stood by the pharmacist's decision.

What happened to Mr. Drake is very troubling: no one should face gender discrimination at the pharmacy. But the incident is even more troubling given that the ACLU had already asked Walgreens earlier this year to ensure that its stores sell emergency contraception to men after we learned that men in Texas and Mississippi were prohibited from buying the product.

In June, we received an encouraging response from Walgreens headquarters saying that it distributed a bulletin to all its stores telling them that emergency contraception can be sold to men. It further stated that a male customer who asks to purchase emergency contraception does not need to be "accompanied by a female and does not need to identify the individual for whom he is purchasing the product." Apparently, the Walgreens that Mr. Drake went to did not get that message.

It's time for Walgreens to do more. The ACLU asked Walgreens last week to train its pharmacists and store managers — and send secret shoppers to its stores to ensure that corporate policy is followed.

Luckily, Mr. Drake was able to purchase emergency contraception from a competitor — a pharmacy that doesn't discriminate based on gender and that knows that the Federal Drug Administration has approved emergency contraception for sale behind the pharmacy counter for men and women ages seventeen and older.

Time is of the essence when accessing emergency contraception. Experts stress that emergency contraception is most effective the sooner a woman takes it, and its effectiveness decreases every 12 hours. It is therefore crucial that a customer can get access to emergency contraception as soon as it is needed.

>> Sign the petition. Tell Walgreens that they must sell emergency contraception to men.

back to top

Help fund us with just a click. Vote now at CREDO

Send to a friend
Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.
November 22, 2010

Traveling this Holiday Season? Some Things Have Changed.



You've likely heard that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has rolled out a new screening policy. As a result, many airline passengers are being forced to undergo an extremely intrusive and humiliating "pat down" search that is unlike anything most Americans have ever experienced while traveling.

In the few weeks since the policy came into effect, the ACLU has received hundreds of complaints from travelers who have been subjected to these invasive and suspicionless searches. These complaints have come from men, women and children who reported feeling humiliated and traumatized by these searches and, in some cases, compared their psychological impact to that of sexual assault.

Are you — or someone you know — traveling this week? Here are some important resources for travelers:

>> The ACLU compiled a list of practices that you are likely to encounter when undergoing a new TSA pat-down, based on reports we've received. Share this with your friends on Facebook.

>> If you think your rights have been violated while you're traveling, please let us know about it by filling out our complaint form.

>> Take action: Tell the Department of Homeland Security to respect passengers' privacy rights.

back to top

FBI Wants Expanded Internet Wiretapping Capabilities



The FBI is lobbying tech companies including Google and Facebook to win support for an Obama administration proposal to expand its Internet wiretapping capabilities, according to a report in the New York Times. The administration is urging Congress to revise the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), claiming that law enforcement needs to keep pace with technological changes. The original law, passed in 1994, compels telecommunications and broadband companies to make their services wiretap-ready.

The report states that the administration is hoping to submit proposed legislation to Congress early next year to overhaul CALEA in order to ensure that telecommunications companies' networks can be wiretapped as soon as they receive a government order. According to the report, the proposal could also mandate that any communications service based overseas ensure its communications are routed through an American server so that the government is able to collect and wiretap those communications.

The administration's proposal could grant the government the means for extensive surveillance and is urging Congress to reject any proposal that does not protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

"It is important to realize that this proposal isn't simply applying the same sort of wiretap system we have for phones to the Internet; it would require reconfiguring and changing the nature of the Internet," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

The ACLU remains very concerned that this proposal is a clear recipe for abuse and will make it that much easier for the government to gain access to our most personal information. Americans should not simply surrender their privacy and other fundamental values in the name of national security. We strongly encourage Congress to not rubberstamp this proposal that will grant the government the ability to conduct broad surveillance on innocent Americans.

back to top

Defense of Marriage Act Challenged in Lawsuit



Photographs courtesy of Edie Windsor and the creators of the documentary, "Thea and Edie: A Very Long Engagement," distributed by Breaking Glass Pictures.

Watch a video to learn more about Edie and Thea's story.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit last week on behalf of Edie Windsor. The lawsuit aims to strike at one of the underpinning efforts to deny LGBT Americans their constitutional rights — the "Defense of Marriage Act."

At the heart of our lawsuit is a beautiful story of love and commitment of a couple that was together for 44 years. And there is no one who can tell that story better than Edie herself.

>> Take action: Watch a video to learn more about Edie and Thea's story and the challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act."

back to top

Don't Let Big Telecoms Trade Your Free Speech for Their Own Profit



The Internet has become so much a part of the lives of most Americans that it is easy to imagine that it is immune to change — that it will always remain the free and open medium that it is now. But there are no such guarantees.

If the telecommunication companies have their way, "Net Neutrality" could be a thing of the past; profits and corporate objectives could determine what you see and how you see it. Some of the strongest supporters of Net Neutrality lost their seats in the recent election; so unfortunately, telecom lobbyists will have more power than ever.

>> Take action: Tell the FCC that you want them to act strongly to protect Internet freedom and Net Neutrality.

>> Learn more about Net Neutrality and get the tools you need to help us fight to keep a free and open Internet.

back to top

Join us on...

   Facebook    Twitter    YouTube
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
Lisa Sock and Joe McLaughlin,
Editors

Privacy Statement
This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.

Click here to forward this message.

02 December 2010

Tell Pres. Obama: Don't sell us out on net neutrality 2DEZ10

URGENT CALL TO ACTION TO PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY, CLICK ON THE HEADER OR THE LINKS TO PARTICIPATE......SHARE WITH ALL...

This is one campaign promise Obama can keep.
Take action!
Clicking here will add your name to this petition:
Click to sign.
This is a do or die moment for a free and open Internet, and President Obama needs to decide which side he is on — ours or the side of the giant telecommunications corporations.
On Wednesday, Obama appointee and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced plans to issue weak, industry-friendly regulations when the FCC meets on Dec. 21st. And in a cynical ploy Genachowski is calling the regulations "net neutrality," when they're nothing of the sort.
President Obama, who promised on the campaign trail to be an advocate for net neutrality, can stand up now and call for stronger rules to protect American consumers, or he can sell us out to the narrow interests of the telecoms.
While the White House initially praised Genachowski's cynical ploy, there is still time to get President Obama to change course and do the right thing.
There is no question — this is one campaign promise President Obama is fully capable of delivering on.
He doesn't have to worry about overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate or navigating the inevitable backstabbing and backbiting by the Blue Dogs.
Yet what Genachowski is proposing fails the smell test. For example, it effectively fails to ensure net neutrality when the Internet is accessed wirelessly. And the regulations Genachowski is proposing rest upon the FCC's Title I authority, which the courts have already ruled do not give the FCC authority to enforce net neutrality regulations. So the proposed rules are not only weak, they're ultimately unenforceable.
Let's remember that we're only talking about Title I authority because of a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband. The FCC has all the authority it needs to reclassify broadband under Title II to give itself the legal footing to enact strong net neutrality regulations. And a majority of commissioners have gone on the record in support of net neutrality.
There is only one Internet, and consumers should be allowed to access any legal website, service or application on any device of their choosing (whether they're accessing the Internet wirelessly or not). Furthermore, broadband providers cannot be allowed to employ paid prioritization schemes to give favored network access to some websites or services over others. And finally, an FCC standing up for us would issue rules resting on a strong legal foundation (i.e. the FCC's Title II authority) with the terms defined in a way that avoids the huge loopholes favored by industry.
President Obama can make sure the FCC takes action to protect American consumers and ensure we don't lose the free and open Internet.
But if he allows his FCC Chairman to cave to the narrow corporate interests of the telecommunications giants, Obama will be doing so out of choice and not necessity.
Thank you for working for a better world.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Why Exactly Is President Obama Acting Like George McFly? 1DEZ10

BRAVO Bob Cesca, I agree 100%! President Obama has to stop being the WIMP OF WASHINGTON and stand up to the gop and tea-baggers for the good of the country. NO EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, NO CUTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NOR RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE (AFTER ALL SOCIAL SECURITY IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEFICIT), AND GET UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS EXTENDED! The right-wing fanatics and their corporate masters don't take over the House until January 2011, until then the Democrats are in charge and they, along with the President, need to stand up to the gop and tea-baggers and do what is right for the nation. PRESIDENT OBAMA, MAJORITY LEADERS REID AND PELOSI, LEAD!!! LEAD THE NATION, LEAD THE PARTY, LEAD CONGRESS AND FIGHT LIKE HELL FOR US!!!

More often than not, I've attempted to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, both in terms of policy and politics. That's not to say I've embraced every idea -- I most certainly haven't. But even when I've vocally disagreed with a policy position, I've attempted to see the wisdom and pragmatism behind the president's choices.
But this week I have no blessed clue what the hell he's up to. I've tried to look at this from every angle and each one leads me back to weak, weak, weak.
He's following rules that no longer exist, pandering to voter attitudes that will have zero consequence in terms of both his approval numbers and his reelection chances. He's completely off the rails -- well beyond any notion of post-partisanship. In fact, if his intention has been to "change the way Washington does business," he's currently and epically failing because I simply can't believe that the new and improved way is this way.
Within roughly 24 hours, President Obama preemptively capitulated to the Republicans and proposed an unabridged GOP idea -- freezing federal worker salaries, then, almost as if on cue, the Senate Republicans put their unflinching childish obstructionism in writing and pledged to block everything unless the president extends the deficit-ballooning Bush tax rates. And in that mix, the Republicans blocked extensions of unemployment benefits. Twice.
The upshot? The president looks extraordinarily weak. Weaker than at any other time in his presidency. It probably didn't help that he was literally beaten and bloodied when he announced the pay freeze, due to his weekend basketball fracas.
Of course the intention isn't to appear weak. The intention is to appear magnanimous. The intention is to secure support from voters who buy into the ridiculous "both sides are the same" meme and who tell pollsters that they want more bipartisan cooperation, while incongruously voting for total gridlock and the potential of a government shutdown. During his pay freeze address, the president said the American people didn't vote for gridlock. Really?
Unfortunately, however, bipartisan cooperation in this era has been entirely redefined to the point of virtual extinction. There's no such thing as mutual cooperation between both parties. Modern bipartisanship is all about one party, the Democrats, flailing around and desperately struggling to appease the Republicans who return the favor by smacking the textbooks out of the president's hands then kicking him in the ass while he picks up his crap off the floor -- embarrassed and chuckling while muttering, "Oh, you guys."
That character doesn't look cooperative at all. He looks like a very smart and very serious... wimp.
He looks like he's unable to handle negotiations. He looks like George McFly. He looks like he's capitulating to a fraternity of hooples who are wrong about everything; who deny basic economics; who deny basic math; who exist for no other reason than to, as DougJ at Balloon Juice described, win elections "by fighting hard over imaginary issues."
In other words, the Republicans have constructed a political and media machine that allows them to function with impunity. All of cable news is packed wall-to-wall with Republicans who robotically repeat the same false, fact-free ideas over and over -- and they're given complete latitude because of the press's self-flagellation over the "liberal media" myth. They've managed to guilt the press into supporting and repeating unvarnished bullshit like "tax cuts stimulate the economy and unemployment benefits don't" and "allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will hurt jobs" and "the stimulus didn't work" and "the Democrats are spending us into oblivion." None of that is true. The Bush tax rates for the wealthy don't stimulate the economy, but unemployment benefits do. The Bush tax cuts haven't created any jobs in ten years, and middle class wages have stagnated. The stimulus worked (not well enough, but it worked). And the Democrats slashed the budget deficit by record numbers.
You'd never know it, though, because whenever a Democrat -- say, Bernie Sanders or Anthony Weiner or the outgoing Alan Grayson, for example -- steps up and forcefully tells the truth, they're assaulted by political hipsters who harrumph and bitch about "both sides" acting insane and shrill and why can't we all just be nice! You know, nice like the glorious olden days when there weren't witch hunts or duels or beatings or civil wars. Meanwhile, the Republicans line up in lockstep on television and repeat the same lines over and over and over. The media repeats and validates during Sunday morning "smackdown" often featuring John McCain. The Democrats concede. And the Republicans win the debate -- usually by grinding it into the ground with nonstop crazy and by filibustering everything.
The Republicans are on television every day admitting that their entire goal is simply to screw the president by sabotaging the economic recovery. This is unbelievable. Eight years ago, these were the same people who insisted that merely criticizing the commander-in-chief during wartime would endanger the troops. Now these same bastards are not just criticizing the president, but they're questioning his religion, his citizenship, his loyalty to America -- and they're endeavoring, as their primary goal, to make him fail by dragging the economy down. They're doing this by filibustering policies that stimulate economic growth (unemployment benefits, for example), while promoting ideas that don't stimulate economic growth at all (Bush tax rates, for example).
The president, meanwhile, appears to be operating under the frustratingly obvious misapprehension that the Republicans will reciprocate his generosity, and, if they don't, the American people will punish the Republicans accordingly. The Republicans won't reciprocate at all, of course, and the American people won't notice their grabassery. And the ones who do will get caught up in the Fox News, AM radio tsunami and somehow end up blaming the president for being overly partisan.
At this point, I'd really like to see how the White House intends for their calculus to unfold. If they've figured out a path around the Republican filibusters and their disassociation with reality without unilaterally giving away the store, then it might be nice to have a hint about the plan. And I'm not suggesting they reveal their strategy, but maybe just show us some results. Show us that this is process of appearing wimpy in the face of Republican intransigence will actually work to undermine the Republicans and pass the president's agenda. If not, we can only assume that they're just giving up their principles and letting the Republicans drive. I can't imagine anything more destructive. Especially now.
Listen to the Bob & Elvis Show, with Bob Cesca and Elvis Dingeldein, on iTunes.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Related News On Huffington Post:
MoveOn Calls On Obama To Stiffen Spine On Tax Cuts In National Ad

WASHINGTON -- In a last-ditch effort to persuade the White House to hold its line on the expiring Bush tax cuts, the progressive advocacy group...

07 October 2010

7 STEPS TO CIVILITY THIS ELECTION SEASON from SOJO 7OKT10

I KNOW this applies to me as much as to anyone else, and I will try to do better.....
 
Last week, I asked you all to tell FOX News that when it comes to truth and civility, they can do better. Thousands of you did. You aren't the only ones who see things getting worse than ever before. This week, a group of more than 130 former legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, released a letter urging for civility and encouraging candidates, once elected, to focus on cooperation to face our country's greatest challenges.The letter said:
None of us shrank from partisan debates while in Congress or from the partisan contests getting there. During our time in Congress, partisans on the other side may have been our opponents on some bills and our adversaries on some issues. They were not, however, the enemy.
They point the finger at both parties for this breakdown; how legislators hold on to "wedge issues" to run on, as opposed to finding common-ground solutions. The letter also recognized the outside forces at work:
The divisive and mean-spirited way debate often occurs inside Congress is encouraged and repeated outside: on cable news shows, in blogs, and in rallies. Members who far exceed the bounds of normal and respectful discourse are not viewed with shame but are lionized, treated as celebrities, rewarded with cable television appearances, and enlisted as magnets for campaign fund-raisers.
These public servants are no longer in office but do us all a great public service. They are sounding the alarm about the direction of our public discourse.
This past spring, a diverse group of more than 100 religious leaders signed their names and committed to a "Civility Covenant." We joined together recognizing that too often we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. We came together to urge those who claim the name of Christ to "put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:31-32).
We made seven biblically based commitments that I believe are seven steps we all need to take for truth and civility today. These are seven commitments that Christians should carry with them as a reminder for themselves and a challenge to others. Candidates need to know that voters do not just care about who wins, but how they win. The Civility Covenant states:
  1. We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the scriptures, where our posture toward each other is to be "quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (James 1:19).
  2. We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in the image of God. The respect we owe to God should be reflected in the honor and respect we show to each other in our common humanity, particularly in how we speak to each other. "With the tongue we bless the Lord and [God], and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God ... this ought not to be so" (James 3:9-10).
  3. We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without falsely impugning the other's motives, attacking the other's character, or questioning the other's faith, and recognizing in humility that in our limited, human opinions, "we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will therefore "be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2).
  4. We will ever be mindful of the language we use in expressing our disagreements, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs: "Before destruction one's heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor" (Proverbs 18:12).
  5. We recognize that we cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other in pursuit of the common good, in the common life we share together. Each of us must therefore "put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body" (Ephesians 4:25).
  6. We commit to pray for our political leaders -- those with whom we may agree, as well as those with whom we may disagree. "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made -- for kings and all who are in high positions" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
  7. We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even our adversaries and our enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we may disagree, so that together we may strive to be faithful witnesses to our Lord, who prayed "that they may be one" (John 17:22).
We need to push back against the fear-mongering and name-calling and lead with our values.
Here are some ideas:
Send this covenant to all the candidates running for Congress, Senate, and governorship in your districts and states. Submit the covenant to their websites. Take it to their forums, debates, and rallies and publicly challenge candidates to sign it.
Send letters to the editors of your local newspapers calling for civility and lifting up this covenant. Contact your TV and radio stations to tell them you expect more from them.
Finally, take the covenant to church. Give it to the members of your congregation. Give it to your pastor. Ask your pastor to preach on the need for civility in this election season. It's up to us now.

Former Legislators Sound a Warning, Call for Civility

by Jim Wallis 10-05-2010
banner-truth-and-civility

Yesterday, a group of more than 130 former legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, released a letter urging for civility and encouraging candidates, once elected, to focus on cooperation to face our country’s greatest challenges. The letter said:
None of us shrank from partisan debates while in Congress or from the partisan contests getting there. During our time in Congress, partisans on the other side may have been our opponents on some bills and our adversaries on some issues. They were not, however, the enemy.
Indeed, when did the other side of the aisle go from “honorable adversary” to the enemy?  I’ve spoken to many of these political leaders over the years. They all tell me that heavy partisanship is not new, but an overt hostility toward the other side is clearly increasing and is a disturbing trend. Senators of different parties rarely have meals or drinks together anymore, which used to be common. Especially over the past few decades, the chance for Senators of different parties to get to know each other personally, or even their colleagues’ families, has steadily dwindled. They now normally eat their lunches with their caucus or donors.
The letter goes on:
Congress appears gripped by zero-sum game partisanship. The goal often seems to be more to devastate the other side (the enemy, no longer the honorable adversary) than to find common ground to solve problems, much less to have a spirited but civil debate about how to do so.
They point the finger at both parties for this breakdown. How legislators hold on to “wedge issues” to run on as opposed to finding common ground solutions. The letter also recognized the outside forces at work:
The divisive and mean-spirited way debate often occurs inside Congress is encouraged and repeated outside: on cable news shows, in blogs, and in rallies. Members who far exceed the bounds of normal and respectful discourse are not viewed with shame but are lionized, treated as celebrities, rewarded with cable television appearances, and enlisted as magnets for campaign fund-raisers.
These public servants are no longer in office but do us all a great public service. They are sounding the alarm about the direction of our public discourse.
But, since their press conference on Monday, there has been scant coverage of their warning bell, even though the letter was signed by a large and thoroughly bipartisan group of our most distinguished former members of the Senate and the House. Makes you wonder if a big part of the problem is the media itself who seems to love the combat and confrontation and does all it can to exacerbate it. The media doesn’t really believe that civility is sexy. But conflict truly is. While it sometimes decrys the poisonous political debate. (This morning a commentator said of the mid-term election campaign, “It’s getting really rough out there,” with a big smile on his face.)
The fact that the media is helping to lead us off the cliff into the politics of fear and the politics of blame is not a story that it is likely to cover. But the one it should be covering is how the blame and fear politics that is now so prevalent will deny us the politics that we most need — the politics of solutions.
Civility may not be sexy, but it is now key to our political salvation. Read the letter from the former legislators carefully, read all the signatures, and compare their wisdom to the words of the people who want your vote this fall.
portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

04 September 2010

Found: BP's Missing Oil 26AUG10

Remember when the media, and then the government, announced that all the oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill was gone, and then we all rejoiced because the troubles of those sad weathered Cajun dudes Anderson Cooper kept confronting us with were finally over, and then Pegasus came to my house and asked me if I wanted to make out and made me a batch of hummus that was too refreshing and light yet robust to be believed?
Well, some cleanup workers in Pensacola, Florida—which is not anywhere near as wrecked as any of the shores in Louisiana—are determined to ruin everyone's fairy-tale ending by talking about how they picked up 4,000 pounds of oil the other night (h/t @LibrlSandlapper). Nevertheless, their crews are being massively scaled down, which should definitely take care of this sort of thing being reported in the future.
Big cleanup cutbacks have also happened in Grand Isle, Louisiana. Sounds like the crisis there is over! Although Drew Wheelan of the American Birding Association sent me these pictures he's taken there over the last 10 days. What a jerk.
Oil all over the beach:


Oil under the water:



Oil in the shoals:

Oil beneath "clean" sand:


Stay tuned for more photos like that: This morning a contractor told me BP has informed cleanup supervisors that a 200-foot-by-2-mile swath of oil is going to make landfall on Grand Isle in the next couple of days.

03 September 2010

CALL THE FCC:SAVE THE INTERNET from MOVEON.ORG


I CALLED, and I hope you will too, and then report your call to MoveOn.org
The Google-Verizon plan to kill the open Internet has sparked a huge grassroots backlash.
Over 350,000 petition signatures were delivered at an unprecedented rally in front of Google headquarters in Silicon Valley, and the controversy has been covered everywhere from The Wall Street Journal to Jon Stewart.1
Now, it's up to the Federal Communications Commission to save the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski says he supports net neutrality, but, under pressure from big corporate lobbyists, he hasn't done anything about it.2
The Google-Verizon deal has really increased public concern about this issue, and we now have a great chance to convince the FCC to stand up to the corporate lobbyists and save the Internet.
Can you take a moment and call the FCC? Tell them to say no to the Google-Verizon proposal and protect net neutrality. Here's where to call:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (pronounced "jenna-cow-ski")
202-418-1000
Then, click here to report the results of your call:
If the FCC doesn't act, it will mean the end of the Internet as we know it. The Google-Verizon deal confirms that, without government action, corporations will create two separate, unequal sections of the Internet—one fast Internet for big business and an inferior, slow "public Internet" for you and me.3
The Google-Verizon proposal is just the latest example of giant corporations trying to write the very regulations that govern their behavior. BP shouldn't decide the rules for offshore drilling, Goldman Sachs shouldn't write regulations for Wall Street, and we must not let Google or Verizon decide how we can use the Internet.
The FCC has all the power it needs to make net neutrality the law of the land. The FCC simply must reverse a terrible Bush administration decision to deregulate broadband Internet service.4
Take a minute to call FCC Chairman Genachowski and tell him to stop delaying and immediately enact strong net neutrality regulations. Here's where to call:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (pronounced "jenna-cow-ski")
202-418-1000
Then, click here to report the results of your call:
Thanks for all you do.
–Steven, Joan, Jeff, Duncan, and the rest of the team

Sources:
1. "Google Defends Its 'Net Neutrality' Plan," The Wall Street Journal, August 12, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89947&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=5
"Internet Exploiter," The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, August 17, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90063&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=6
2. "Chairman Genachowski. Can You Hear Us Now?" Save the Internet, August 19, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90064&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=7
3. "Free Press Urges Policymakers to Reject Google-Verizon Pact," press release, August 9, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89934&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=8
4. "Will the FCC reclassify broadband so it can do its job? So far, we don't know," Firedoglake, April 15, 2010
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/41227
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

09 August 2010

CAMPAIGN TO SAVE THE INTERNET, PRESERVE NET NEUTRALITY from MOVEON.ORG

GOOGLE'S motto used to be "Don't be evil" but it seems they are turning to the Dark Side and with Verizon will be the driving force to end Net Neutrality......watch the video from MoveOn.org and participate in the public campaign to save Net Neutrality! Click the header to sign the petition!

Google and Verizon just announced a horrifying proposal that could literally kill the Internet as we know it. Their plan? To create two separate, unequal sections of the Internet—one for big business that would be high-speed and exclusive, and then the inferior, slow "public Internet" that would be available to you and me.1
We created this video to demonstrate what it's all about. Just click below or go to http://vimeo.com/14013996.
Source:
1. "Google Goes 'Evil,'" The Huffington Post, August 9, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89919&id=22449-17549061-zzJjiCx&t=1
"Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It," The Huffington Post, August 9, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89918&id=22449-17549061-zzJjiCx&t=


Google: Don't Be Evil from MoveOn.org Official Channel on Vimeo.

07 August 2010

Mainstream Media Helps BP Pretend There's No Oil 28JUL10 & BP Fires 10,000 Cleanup Workers 6AUG10 from MOJO

| Wed Jul. 28, 2010 11:07 AM PDT
"WASHINGTON (AFP) – With BP's broken well in the Gulf of Mexico finally capped, the focus shifts to the surface clean-up and the question on everyone's lips is: where is all the oil?"
NEW ORLEANS (Mother Jones) – I don't know who the fuck these everyones are, but I'm happy to help out them, and ABC, and this AFP reporter writing that due to BP's stunningly successful skimming and burning efforts, "the real difficulty now is finding any oil to clean up."
I sent one text message to Bloomberg's Lizzie O'Leary, who's standing on Grand Isle, Louisiana, right now, asking how the beach looks. "Lower part past the barrier untouched with globs of oil that washed up last night," she said. By "untouched," she means by cleanup crews, and that "barrier" she's talking about is the one the press isn't allowed past. I sent another text to Drew Wheelan, who's also in Southwestern Louisiana, doing bird surveys for the American Birding Association, asking him how big the biggest tar mat on Grand Terre—the scene of those now famous horrifying oiled-bird photos—is. "20 feet by 15," he said. "But bigger ones submerged slightly."
If I managed to find that much oil with my BlackBerry without getting dressed or leaving the house, let's hope Thad Allen, who is quoted in the article as saying, "What we're trying to figure out is where is all the oil at and what can we do about it," can locate some more with the staff and craft of the United States Coast Guard at his disposal. As for the reporter's alarmingly unsubstantiated claim that "The beaches should be relatively painless to mop up," I can't even count the number of correspondents down here who've pointed out that digging a finger under the surface of supposedly clean sand turns up crude, or the number of cleanup workers who've said cleanup efforts are strictly cosmetic, or that no matter what they do the contamination just keeps bubbling up.
It's BP's job to whitewash this story and make it easier to indulge the desire to forget about the scope of the devastation, guys. Not the media's.

06 August 2010

Is Google a Little Bit Evil? 6AUG10 from MOJO

| Fri Aug. 6, 2010 2:00 AM PDT
"Net neutrality" is a principle that's guided internet development for decades. Put simply, it means that everyone has equal access to the net. If you send an email to Aunt Martha, it has the same priority as my Google search for Lady Gaga videos or Rupert Murdoch's latest multibillion dollar internet television startup. Data is data, and it all goes over the net equally quickly.
But net neutrality has been under attack from years. The battle lines shift, and sometimes get a little too complex to follow in detail, but the outline is pretty simple. Companies in the content business generally support net neutrality. They want their data delivered as fast as anyone else's without having to pay any special fees. Conversely, companies like Verizon or AT&T, who supply the pipes, want it to go away. They love the idea of being able to charge higher fees for better service.
During the Bush era, the FCC began to back off on net neutrality but still issued a set of "principles" that it expected service providers to adhere to. Then, last April, a court ruled that the FCC had no authority to regulate net neutrality at all. A month later, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he would try to reclassify internet providers in order to re-impose net neutrality rules on them, but this is a regulatory process that will take, at a minimum, months to complete.
In the meantime, net neutrality may be on the verge of unraveling completely. Google, once a fierce advocate of net neutrality and a company whose informal motto is "Don't be evil," has apparently decided that maybe just a little bit of evil is OK after all:
Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.
....Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.
Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April.
The problem here is obvious: once Google does this, they set off an arms race. Can Yahoo or Microsoft really afford to be second class citizens? Or Disney or Fox? Not likely. Before long, pretty much every deep-pocketed content provider has signed a deal for special treatment and we officially have a two-tier internet. On one tier are the companies with money. On the other tier are all the rest of us. And make no mistake: if the major content providers get guarantees of better service, every other content provider will almost certainly end up with worse service than they have now.
I have a vested interest in this, of course, since Mother Jones isn't big enough or deep-pocketed enough to pay for top tier service, and that means that in two or three years delivery of this blog could end up pretty molasses-like. In a less parochial vein, I think the lesson of history is pretty clear: when common carriers are allowed to discriminate, the result is disastrous for everyone except the folks who currently dominate their market. If you have a startup search company that outperforms Google, but only if it's as fast as Google, well, what are the odds that Google won't pay to make sure that its service is always faster than yours? After all, ad revenue depends on getting eyeballs by hook or by crook, and it turns out they aren't quite as committed to not being evil as we once thought.
I'm not a net neutrality purist. I can see the case for offering tiered service for things like on-demand video streaming, which simply can't work commercially unless providers can guarantee reliable delivery. Beyond that, though, a free and open internet has worked pretty well and we abandon it at our peril. Time is running out on the FCC, and in any case, the FCC was never the right place for this anyway. Congress is. If we want to keep net neutrality in anything like its current form, Congress needs to get off its duff and set the rules of the road once and for all. Markey-Eshoo is a pretty good place to start.

THE END OF THE INTERNET AS YOU KNOW IT....HELP SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!

IT IS CRUCIAL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE JOIN THIS STRUGGLE (1.7 MILLION HAVE JOINED SO FAR) TO PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY. BELOW IS THE E MAIL FROM FREE PRESS AND OPEN LEFT OF THE LATEST PHASE OF THIS BATTLE. EVEN IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ACTION BEFORE THE FCC AND YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. WATCH THE VIDEO AND TO JOIN IN THE ACTION CLICK THE HEADER OF THIS POST.

   The fight for Net Neutrality has reached a crucial moment. The
    FCC Chairman just called for new Net Neutrality rules, and he is being
    supported by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and numerous
    congressional leaders. Now we need a powerful, public show of support.
    More than 1.7 million people have already called for Congress and the
    FCC to support Net Neutrality. If we can reach 2 million, we'll send a message that Washington won't be able to ignore. Please join
    the campaign to save the Internet now:
    https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?id=356






Net neutrality is about to go under, and your urgent help is needed to save it.


The New York Times is reporting that Verizon and Google have cut a deal to be announced next week that "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation's leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users."

That would mean the end of the Internet as we currently know it.

For months, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has had the ability to enact strong net neutrality protections. But he sat on his hands. Meanwhile, President Obama, who as Candidate Obama promised to "take a back seat to no one" on net neutrality, has remained silent.

It's time to join the fight by signing up with Free Press, the organization leading this fight, to tell the FCC and your member of Congress to enact strong net neutrality protections.

This deal between Verizon and Google would make the Internet the way corporations want it. It would allow the wealthiest, most powerful corporations to have the best channels of production and distribution, while everyone else gets crumbs or worse. It could even mean the end of blogs like OpenLeft, as it becomes nearly impossible for you to load the blog the way you do now.


Solidarity,
The Open Left Team