It appears that leaders of both parties in Congress have raised a protest over the search and seizure at the Capitol Office Building in connection with investigations of bribery and corruption by sitting Congressional representatives. Among the targets of the raid was Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, alleged to have taken a bribe of $100k in exchange for legislative assistance and support.
What needs to be put aside, for the moment, is the absurd defense that the search was motivated solely by politics from the GOP to diffuse the current level of scandal by the scores of GOP Congressional representatives. Whether that contention of political timing is partially true or not, and it probably has some veracity in the current climate, misses the point. Two wrongs do not make a right. If there is actual concrete and credible evidence that Jefferson accepted bribes, he should be brought down. The same standard should apply to Cunningham, Delay, Bob Ney, and the entire list. What must be condemned is the culture of corruption that would attempt to shield any member of Congress, of ANY political party, from legal prosecution for malfeasance in office.
The greater problem has been the debilitating willingness of Congress to look the other way and attempt to defer, divert or sabotage legitimate inquiry into misconduct by political leaders based upon their political party affiliation. The attempt to shield Delay failed, but only because his misconduct was so blatant and widespread that no blanket of secrecy could conceal it. In fact, his penchant for riding roughshod over his allies and enemies diminished the number of "troops" willing to back him when the "hammer" fell upon him [rather than being wielded by him].
But legitimate attempts to inquire into misconduct by the White House staff, the Vice President and the President have been consistently thwarted by partisan protectionism. If the underlying "facts" and "evidence" were not damning, why not publicly air the legitimate questions and concerns? To do so in an orderly manner, if the result were to exonerate the White House, would be a healthy housecleaning process for the psyche of this country. At present, most people believe that the President has broken the law. A stalwart 30% are immune and will never believe that Bush has done wrong, no matter what facts or evidence are established. But the rest of us labor under a cloud of shame and doubt, believing that our President has held himself above the law and disgraced our country, but also knowing that the institution of government has been so thoroughly corrupted that he will never be held accountable for his actions and decisions, no matter what loss of life and damage to the country he has inflicted.
The country required a process of healing and psychological reconciliation after the Viet Nam War and the Nixon Watergate Scandal. To a limited degree, the country began to believe that government could have a valid and salutary purpose. Playing upon the latent scars of doubt, however, the Reagan Revolution cast the government as "bad" and "wasteful" and led to the GOP ascendancy. The Newt Gingrich led PR revolution used psycholinguistics to label almost any beneficial public function of government as "liberal" which he cast as a pejorative term.
During the Clinton Administration, the country saw proof that the government could function in a supportive and somewhat healthy manner, even when the Commander in Chief may have been vain and venal. In other words, the "institution" of government could function for the benefit of the people, even when the individual political leader faltered. Clinton left office with the economy in good condition, a budget surplus and no impending foreign policy crisis.
Since that time, however, the budget deficit has grown to levels unseen in the entire history of the nation, we have been deliberately embroiled in an unnecessary foreign conflict that has cost tens of thousands of lives, the government has grown in size by a substantial percentage, the public "till" has been left open for large corporations favored by the White House to dip from without competitive bidding or accountability for fraud and mismanagement, and the list of decline goes on. The functioning of the current national government appears to be focused upon how the wealthy elite can loot the public coffers, with little regard for the public welfare functions for which the government was founded. Public safety, disaster relief, public education, public health are all at the bottom of the list of priorities. Attention is diverted to the Bogeyman of "terrorism" that is used to exploit racist and xenophobic fears of the uneducated and unthinking populace.
Our nation, once respected as a true world leader, is now viewed as a paper tiger with an unpredictable fool at the reins. Beyond our borders, the US is feared more for what misguided and foolish act it might undertake, than for its ability to marshal universal support for a just policy or initiative. The world and global markets are reacting to the US policy respecting Iran with nervousness, not because of the rectitude and wisdom of the Bush administration position, but because Bush might just be foolish enough to launch an attack on Iran [perhaps even a nuclear attack].
Good government stems from respect for the institutions of government, respect for the positions held by the public servants in those positions, and a resulting respect for the actions and policies that grow out of the functioning of a government led by respectful leaders who understand the importance of their role as public servants and stewards. We have strayed so far from those principles, that we may not recover in more than a generation. And there still remain many months during which more damage can be done. The first step toward recovery must be an unflinching commitment to remove from office those who have disgraced their office and their role as public servant. Whatever their political party affiliation, whatever the level of their office, no quarter and no excuse must be given.
That commitment must not be trivialized by "investigations" into transgressions like filing a report a few days late, when the required report was actually filed. Public servants are human beings. But if we allow embattled politicians to equate such minor oversights with the selling of ones vote in exchange for a bribe, or deliberately disclosing highly sensitive classified information for the purposes of retaliation against a political foe, or ordering the surveillance and intrusion into domestic communications without following the prescribed procedures to assure due process, then we have lost our moral compass and the experiment that we call Democracy is over.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Bush refuses to watch Gore documentary movie on Global Warming
There is an old saw that defines the difference between ignorance and stupidity. "Ignorance is an accidental condition that can be cured by acquiring the necessary information and knowledge. Stupidity is a chronic and voluntary condition based upon a choice to remain ignorant."
That adage is borne out by the public statement by Bush that he will refuse to watch the documentary by Al Gore that is reputed to be one of the most thoughtful, balanced and educational films available on the current scientific analysis of global warming. The curt response from the White house suggests that Bush already knows as much as he needs to know about global warming. He rejected the Tokyo Protocol and has supported legislation to weaken restrictions on air pollution and other initiatives that might help alleviate greenhouse emission contributions to the impending global warming crisis.
Of course, the response by Bush is not unexpected. His character in office has been to make a decision and then cobble together the "facts" and group of sycophants that tend to support his prejudgment, then refuse to listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with his decision. His argument for "staying the course" in Iraq, despite the reality of a country descended into chaos and civil war during Bush's "strategic mission" to topple Saddam Hussein, is that he made the decision to invade and that therefore it must be the right decision. Any action that suggests that he was wrong, misguided or misinformed is just plain nonsense. No additional information, changed circumstances, evidence of failure or other "discouraging word" is going to change his mind.
Unfortunately, history is replete with stories of many campaigns gone to ruin in the wake of such hard-headed and foolish "leaders." No matter how "epic" the tales, the end result has always been ruin, death and destruction in massive proportions and unnecessary loss of lives. From Nero's Rome to the Charge of the Light Brigade to Custer to the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor to Viet Nam to Iraq, they all bear the same stamp of wasted lives caused by the foolish and willful ignorance of the commander in chief. In each case, the so called "leader" held fast to a delusional reality that was so far detached from the real world that the only possible result was destruction when their folly collided with reality.
In the case of Global Warming, the stakes are not just the victory or loss of a battle or a war, but planetary in scope. Can we afford to be "led" by a commander in chief who prides himself on ignoring factual information that could inform an intelligent decision on policies of such monumental importance to mankind?
That adage is borne out by the public statement by Bush that he will refuse to watch the documentary by Al Gore that is reputed to be one of the most thoughtful, balanced and educational films available on the current scientific analysis of global warming. The curt response from the White house suggests that Bush already knows as much as he needs to know about global warming. He rejected the Tokyo Protocol and has supported legislation to weaken restrictions on air pollution and other initiatives that might help alleviate greenhouse emission contributions to the impending global warming crisis.
Of course, the response by Bush is not unexpected. His character in office has been to make a decision and then cobble together the "facts" and group of sycophants that tend to support his prejudgment, then refuse to listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with his decision. His argument for "staying the course" in Iraq, despite the reality of a country descended into chaos and civil war during Bush's "strategic mission" to topple Saddam Hussein, is that he made the decision to invade and that therefore it must be the right decision. Any action that suggests that he was wrong, misguided or misinformed is just plain nonsense. No additional information, changed circumstances, evidence of failure or other "discouraging word" is going to change his mind.
Unfortunately, history is replete with stories of many campaigns gone to ruin in the wake of such hard-headed and foolish "leaders." No matter how "epic" the tales, the end result has always been ruin, death and destruction in massive proportions and unnecessary loss of lives. From Nero's Rome to the Charge of the Light Brigade to Custer to the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor to Viet Nam to Iraq, they all bear the same stamp of wasted lives caused by the foolish and willful ignorance of the commander in chief. In each case, the so called "leader" held fast to a delusional reality that was so far detached from the real world that the only possible result was destruction when their folly collided with reality.
In the case of Global Warming, the stakes are not just the victory or loss of a battle or a war, but planetary in scope. Can we afford to be "led" by a commander in chief who prides himself on ignoring factual information that could inform an intelligent decision on policies of such monumental importance to mankind?
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Hayden: Concerns about CIA and spying a "political football"
The confirmation hearings for General Hayden are not deserving of extended commentary. Hayden, a Military careerist, tells the US senators that issues such as kidnapping and torture of detainees without any semblance of due process, and the spying and intrusion on millions of innocent US civilians without any attempt to establish probable cause or obtain statutorily and Constitutionally mandated court supervision are part of a "political game of football." It is hard to imagine what aspect of the US Constitution that Hayden understands and respects enough to "protect and defend" as he must swear to do if confirmed. Aside from his conflicting allegiance and subservience to the Defense Department, Hayden is simply not the right man for so important a job.
However, it shows a lack of courage on the part of Congress to relegate the examination of a program that involves a major breach of the Constitution and statutes through the device of a confirmation hearing. Surely an issue as important as the fundament of our democracy deserves separate and thorough examination in its own right. It should not be muddled with the question of Hayden's fitness for the post as CIA director. If he is confirmed, does that mean that the Congress approves of the domestic spying program? Will Karl Rove and the White House claim that the issue is "old news" after the hearings in an attempt to avoid any further scrutiny?
However, it shows a lack of courage on the part of Congress to relegate the examination of a program that involves a major breach of the Constitution and statutes through the device of a confirmation hearing. Surely an issue as important as the fundament of our democracy deserves separate and thorough examination in its own right. It should not be muddled with the question of Hayden's fitness for the post as CIA director. If he is confirmed, does that mean that the Congress approves of the domestic spying program? Will Karl Rove and the White House claim that the issue is "old news" after the hearings in an attempt to avoid any further scrutiny?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Currency Devaluation - What are Words Worth to B96?
The developments over the past five years have raised, in my mind at least, a serious question of the declining value of "integrity" and "commitment." High minded philosophers would speak of fidelity to principles and of honor. But on the street, it simply comes down to how good is your "word?" In the case of B-96, the FM station in the Twin Cities now owned and operated by the publicly traded media conglomerate Radio One, the value of that "word" is virtually worthless. Five years ago, Kandu Communications teamed with Ross Love, Chairman & CEO of Blue Chip Communications to acquire a full power commercial FM station, the first to be owned by people of color in the State of Minnesota. Ross Love publicly promised to establish and build a strong relationship between the new station and the African American and other communities of color in the Twin Cities. He promised a substantial contribution to the Urban League and a dialogue with school and community leaders to address concerns, failures and successes of the communities that were underserved by the mainstream white owned and controlled media. To be sure, every promise cannot be kept. But commitment and integrity is demonstrated by at least good faith attempts to honor a promise freely given.
Ross Love went on to sell the 15+ radio stations of Blue Chip to Radio One, a publicly traded communications corporation headed by Black Media leader Katherine Hughes. He sits on the Board of Directors of Radio One. When B-96 was set up, Love chose Steve Woodbury to run the station. Woodbury, a white radio professional manager, had experience with sports and talk radio stations, but no discernible experience whatsoever with a music based station that was connected to a community of color. Kandu Communication principals raised concerns to Love at the time, which he acknowledged as a "potential problem." The role of Kandu Communications, after the acquisition was primarily to advise and assist the station management in developing and strengthening a relationship with the communities whose support had allowed the station to be acquired in the first place.
In the intervening five years, the track record of B-96 and Radio One has been dismal with respect to any relationship with the Black Communities of the Twin Cities. Kandu Communications principals were brushed aside and ignored. Indeed, Woodbury refused to even meet with them to discuss concerns. In five years, Woodbury has never once met with Al MacFarlane, the Publisher and Editor of Insight and a public leader in the Black community for decades. The same holds true for the radio station's relationship with the Spokesman/Recorder, the other respected newspaper organization of the Black community in the Twin Cities. Ross Love publicly promised active collaboration with KMOJ, the non-profit community radio station which represented the sole voice of the community on the airwaves prior to B-96, but whose broadcast range does not cover the Twin Cities area because of its limited power. None of that collaboration has materialized.
Were the words of honor and the promises and commitments by Ross Love regarding the ownership and operation of the new B-96 station of any real value? Ross Love, a former Proctor & Gamble Executive may have simply been selling the Twin Cities communities of color more "soap." Of course, there is always a risk with the change of ownership that a dilution of power and diminished ability to deliver on a promise can occur. In that case, it would have been reasonable for Love to have communicated to Kandu Communications and the Twin Cities communities that he tried but was unable to gain Radio One's approval of the commitments he had made when Blue Chip acquired the station. But despite numerous communications with Love, he never once suggested that he had made the effort and failed. In fact, Love has not confirmed that he communicated to the Radio One Senior Management that he had made public promises and representations when B-96 was acquired.
One need only listen to the station these days to assess the level of B-96's fidelity to the declared "principles" of barring profanity and gratuitous degradation of women and youth in the Black Community. Just because the record companies promote such destructive messages in "hit records" they push to the radio stations does not mean that Program Directors of principle need to broadcast them. We all know about sewage too, but that does not oblige us to pump it into our livingrooms. And we are not talking about censorship, but rather civic responsibility. We all know about the existence of profanity, prostitution, gratuitous violence and the destruction of young Black men and women in our communities. But we each make a choice in how we discuss those realities. Do we glorify them? Or do we discuss them in a rational perspective that educates as well as entertains the audience? It is not a question of genre, as there is Rap and Hip Hop music with a message. What is involved is an intelligent, creative, disciplined and principled Program Director. The stated vision of B-96 was to adhere to the latter positive image. But 20 minutes of listening to the B-96 current playlist demonstrates how far the actual practice has strayed from the promise. I listen to B-96 periodically for professional reasons. My teenage children, who looked forward to the station with anticipation when it was acquired, no longer even put the station on their preset station roster in their cars. No, it is not the demographics, it is the content and character of the broadcast that keep the station from rising in the Arbitron ratings.
Kandu Communications has continued to monitor B-96, sometimes with solemn regret that the project that took ten years to bring to fruition has strayed so far from the initial goals. Yet there is a station, and there is at least a chance that Radio One will hear the message from the Twin Cities communities of color and re-evaluate its course. To that end, Kandu Communications continues the struggle of honoring its commitment to bring a responsible and responsive broadcast media voice to the communities of color in the Twin Cities.
Ross Love went on to sell the 15+ radio stations of Blue Chip to Radio One, a publicly traded communications corporation headed by Black Media leader Katherine Hughes. He sits on the Board of Directors of Radio One. When B-96 was set up, Love chose Steve Woodbury to run the station. Woodbury, a white radio professional manager, had experience with sports and talk radio stations, but no discernible experience whatsoever with a music based station that was connected to a community of color. Kandu Communication principals raised concerns to Love at the time, which he acknowledged as a "potential problem." The role of Kandu Communications, after the acquisition was primarily to advise and assist the station management in developing and strengthening a relationship with the communities whose support had allowed the station to be acquired in the first place.
In the intervening five years, the track record of B-96 and Radio One has been dismal with respect to any relationship with the Black Communities of the Twin Cities. Kandu Communications principals were brushed aside and ignored. Indeed, Woodbury refused to even meet with them to discuss concerns. In five years, Woodbury has never once met with Al MacFarlane, the Publisher and Editor of Insight and a public leader in the Black community for decades. The same holds true for the radio station's relationship with the Spokesman/Recorder, the other respected newspaper organization of the Black community in the Twin Cities. Ross Love publicly promised active collaboration with KMOJ, the non-profit community radio station which represented the sole voice of the community on the airwaves prior to B-96, but whose broadcast range does not cover the Twin Cities area because of its limited power. None of that collaboration has materialized.
Were the words of honor and the promises and commitments by Ross Love regarding the ownership and operation of the new B-96 station of any real value? Ross Love, a former Proctor & Gamble Executive may have simply been selling the Twin Cities communities of color more "soap." Of course, there is always a risk with the change of ownership that a dilution of power and diminished ability to deliver on a promise can occur. In that case, it would have been reasonable for Love to have communicated to Kandu Communications and the Twin Cities communities that he tried but was unable to gain Radio One's approval of the commitments he had made when Blue Chip acquired the station. But despite numerous communications with Love, he never once suggested that he had made the effort and failed. In fact, Love has not confirmed that he communicated to the Radio One Senior Management that he had made public promises and representations when B-96 was acquired.
One need only listen to the station these days to assess the level of B-96's fidelity to the declared "principles" of barring profanity and gratuitous degradation of women and youth in the Black Community. Just because the record companies promote such destructive messages in "hit records" they push to the radio stations does not mean that Program Directors of principle need to broadcast them. We all know about sewage too, but that does not oblige us to pump it into our livingrooms. And we are not talking about censorship, but rather civic responsibility. We all know about the existence of profanity, prostitution, gratuitous violence and the destruction of young Black men and women in our communities. But we each make a choice in how we discuss those realities. Do we glorify them? Or do we discuss them in a rational perspective that educates as well as entertains the audience? It is not a question of genre, as there is Rap and Hip Hop music with a message. What is involved is an intelligent, creative, disciplined and principled Program Director. The stated vision of B-96 was to adhere to the latter positive image. But 20 minutes of listening to the B-96 current playlist demonstrates how far the actual practice has strayed from the promise. I listen to B-96 periodically for professional reasons. My teenage children, who looked forward to the station with anticipation when it was acquired, no longer even put the station on their preset station roster in their cars. No, it is not the demographics, it is the content and character of the broadcast that keep the station from rising in the Arbitron ratings.
Kandu Communications has continued to monitor B-96, sometimes with solemn regret that the project that took ten years to bring to fruition has strayed so far from the initial goals. Yet there is a station, and there is at least a chance that Radio One will hear the message from the Twin Cities communities of color and re-evaluate its course. To that end, Kandu Communications continues the struggle of honoring its commitment to bring a responsible and responsive broadcast media voice to the communities of color in the Twin Cities.
Chavez Chides Bush Administration Arms Embargo
In the "war of words" between Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush, or more accurately the Bush Administration, the exchanges have taken on a decided flavor of a playground squabble. Chavez is both volatile and prone to provocative statements. As often as not, his remarks contain far more than simply a grain of truth and wit. Two things resonate from his remarks, however, that highlight the incompetence of the Bush Administration. The first is that Chavez is responding to provocation from the US. The second is that his remarks demonstrate a nearly complete loss of moral authority and respect that the US once held in the international community.
The US can attempt to impose an “arms embargo” upon Venezuela. There is no credible evidence that Venezuela is attempting to purchase or amass any extraordinary cache of arms. In light of its track record over the past few years, it is as likely as not that any such “evidence” advanced by the Bush Administration would be fabricated or based upon dubious information sources. There are probably more arms and munitions brought into New York City, Philadelphia and Boston each month than are being acquired by Chavez. Moreover, Chavez has no need to acquire weapons from US manufacturers, as there clearly is a global market for such goods. In the past, French and Israeli arms manufacturers have been more than willing to step into the void left by such US embargoes.
Yet the Bush Administration apparently sees some political advantage in demonizing and attacking Chavez. Truth be told, there is far more evidence of corruption, disregard of human rights, interference with free speech and democratic principles and imperialist behavior on the part of the Bush Administration than has been evidenced by Chavez. Chavez is no choirboy, but he is the duly and democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. No claims here to being a professional psychologist, but could it be that the allegations against Chavez are merely projecting upon Chavez the types of improper behavior of the accusers, and an attempt to deflect attention from the true source of the problem?
Another interesting development is that more recent comments by Chavez are marked more by mockery than by aggression. They are simply derisive and sometimes sarcastic. He responds publicly to actions by the Bush Administration that represent attacks upon Chavez and his government. In other words, Chavez seems to regard the US without any great fear and without much respect. He has also learned that a majority of US citizens do not approve of the Bush Administration handling of US foreign policy. Thus Chavez carefully directs his comments to the US government and not the US people generally. To the contrary, he has taken steps to lessen the harsh burden of prices for heating oil in New England families, just as he has used oil for diplomatic and humanitarian purposes in the Caribbean and in other South American countries.
The Bush Administration seems to hold as a key tenet of its "foreign policy" the subversion of existing regimes with which it cannot seem to get along diplomatically, which seems to be virtually every foreign government that stands up to Bush Administration attempts to bully and intimidate. The apparent belief that Bush could curry significant support among the Venezuelan people is not only mistaken, it is foolish. Whatever dissatisfaction there may be with Chavez and his government is clearly overborne by the sense of outrage and anger against the Bush Administration.
As my Grandpa used to tell me: "if you wish to be respected, you must first act respectably, treat others with respect and thereby earn respect. You cannot demand and expect to receive genuine respect by using your fists or a gun." My Grandpa barely had a high school education, but I believe that he was smarter and more learned than the President of the United States. I would no longer wish to be or wish my children to be President, but I certainly would want them to emulate my Grandpa. He was a man to be respected and admired, rather than one to be subjected to justifiable public ridicule.
The US can attempt to impose an “arms embargo” upon Venezuela. There is no credible evidence that Venezuela is attempting to purchase or amass any extraordinary cache of arms. In light of its track record over the past few years, it is as likely as not that any such “evidence” advanced by the Bush Administration would be fabricated or based upon dubious information sources. There are probably more arms and munitions brought into New York City, Philadelphia and Boston each month than are being acquired by Chavez. Moreover, Chavez has no need to acquire weapons from US manufacturers, as there clearly is a global market for such goods. In the past, French and Israeli arms manufacturers have been more than willing to step into the void left by such US embargoes.
Yet the Bush Administration apparently sees some political advantage in demonizing and attacking Chavez. Truth be told, there is far more evidence of corruption, disregard of human rights, interference with free speech and democratic principles and imperialist behavior on the part of the Bush Administration than has been evidenced by Chavez. Chavez is no choirboy, but he is the duly and democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. No claims here to being a professional psychologist, but could it be that the allegations against Chavez are merely projecting upon Chavez the types of improper behavior of the accusers, and an attempt to deflect attention from the true source of the problem?
Another interesting development is that more recent comments by Chavez are marked more by mockery than by aggression. They are simply derisive and sometimes sarcastic. He responds publicly to actions by the Bush Administration that represent attacks upon Chavez and his government. In other words, Chavez seems to regard the US without any great fear and without much respect. He has also learned that a majority of US citizens do not approve of the Bush Administration handling of US foreign policy. Thus Chavez carefully directs his comments to the US government and not the US people generally. To the contrary, he has taken steps to lessen the harsh burden of prices for heating oil in New England families, just as he has used oil for diplomatic and humanitarian purposes in the Caribbean and in other South American countries.
The Bush Administration seems to hold as a key tenet of its "foreign policy" the subversion of existing regimes with which it cannot seem to get along diplomatically, which seems to be virtually every foreign government that stands up to Bush Administration attempts to bully and intimidate. The apparent belief that Bush could curry significant support among the Venezuelan people is not only mistaken, it is foolish. Whatever dissatisfaction there may be with Chavez and his government is clearly overborne by the sense of outrage and anger against the Bush Administration.
As my Grandpa used to tell me: "if you wish to be respected, you must first act respectably, treat others with respect and thereby earn respect. You cannot demand and expect to receive genuine respect by using your fists or a gun." My Grandpa barely had a high school education, but I believe that he was smarter and more learned than the President of the United States. I would no longer wish to be or wish my children to be President, but I certainly would want them to emulate my Grandpa. He was a man to be respected and admired, rather than one to be subjected to justifiable public ridicule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)