From jhminshall at comcast.net Thu Jun 3 14:56:07 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:56:07 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Corporations and Climate Change Message-ID: Dear Friends, this message is relevant to the testimonies of Truth and Simplicity. It was prompted by reading the new Net Impact Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Weekly, a publication which supports and highlights what corporations can do and should do for the good of all. Following up on a recent message wherin I suggested that Friends might do better to become stockholders and shareholder activists in companies they want to change rather than demand that the governmnent take action (every action the government takes seems to make the issues we care about worse, not better). The message below describes the high positive response from corporations when polled about their concerns about global climate change and the environment. Also mentioned are the companies actually doing something about those issues. In addition,I am aware of a non-profit group of major corporations organized by the Pew Charitable Trust (one of the major funders of PBS in the past) which is setting emissions targets and holding one another to those targets at a higher level of social responsibility than would have the Kyoto Accords which the US government failed to sign. Recent info on the outcome of the Kyoto Accords, by the way, shows that none of the European governments who were so incensed about the issue of global warming have followed through on their commitments to reduce levels of pollution made at Kyoto and reinforced in later rounds of discussion. They made a lot of noise, but did nothing. Janet Minshall > >Survey: 45 Percent of Firms Believe Climate >Change Has Meaningful Business Impact >According to The New York Times , the Carbon >Disclosure Project (CDP) – a U.K.-based group of >95 institutional investors with over $10 >trillion in assets – reports that it received >higher participation and more detailed >information from a broader range of companies >for its second survey on corporate response to >climate change. Reuters reports that 45 percent >of respondents believe climate change presents >their company with both financial and >reputational risks and opportunities. The survey >also finds that firms have quadrupled their >investments in “clean technology” over the last >two years to $2.5 billion. CDP chairman James >Cameron says the increased response and detail >from companies “helps make the case that there >is emerging leadership on this issue [of climate >change].” According to SocialFunds, 59 percent >of the firms listed on the Financial Times 500 >Global Index responded to the latest CDP survey >– an increase from 47 percent in 2003. The new >CDP report – which was compiled by the >U.S.-based global sustainability research firm >Innovest Strategic Value Advisors – includes an >index of the top 50 firms that best handle >climate change issues ranging from emissions >management and reporting to setting emissions >reduction targets. Among the leadership >companies named on the Climate Leadership Index >are: American Electric Power Co., Inc., BHP >Billiton , BP plc, Citigroup Inc., The Dow >Chemical Co., Ford Motor Co., International >Paper Co., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Unilever and >United Parcel Service , Inc. The new CDP report >can be found at >www.cdproject.net. >-- BSR News Monitor Summary of articles from The >New York Times, May 19, 2004, >www.nytimes.com, >Reuters, May 18, 2004, >www.reuters.com >and SocialFunds, May 19, 2004, >www.socialfunds.com >Governance >Net Impact CSR Weekly is an electronic >newsletter excerpted from the BSR News Monitor >published weekly by Business for Social >Responsibility (BSR). Contact Net Impact at 111 >Sutter Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, >California 94104 USA, Phone: +1 415.984.3300, >Fax: +1 415.984.3301. Visit Net Impact's website >at >www.net-impact.org >for information on the features and benefits of >membership in Net Impact. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Thu Jun 3 15:04:53 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:04:53 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Corporations and Climate Change Message-ID: Dear Friends, this message is relevant to the testimonies of Truth and Simplicity. It was prompted by reading the new Net Impact Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Weekly, a publication which supports and highlights what corporations can do and should do for the good of all. Following up on a recent message wherin I suggested that Friends might do better to become stockholders and shareholder activists in companies they want to change rather than demand that the government take action (every action the government takes seems to make the issues we care about worse, not better). The message below describes the high positive response from corporations when polled about their concerns about global climate change and the environment. Also mentioned are the companies actually doing something about those issues. In addition,I am aware of a non-profit group of major corporations organized by the Pew Charitable Trust (one of the major funders of PBS in the past) which is setting emissions targets and holding one another to those targets at a higher level of social responsibility than would have the Kyoto Accords which the US government failed to sign. Recent info on the outcome of the Kyoto Accords, by the way, shows that none of the European governments who were so incensed about the issue of global warming have followed through on their commitments to reduce levels of pollution made at Kyoto and reinforced in later rounds of discussion. They made a lot of noise, but did nothing. Janet Minshall > >Survey: 45 Percent of Firms Believe Climate >Change Has Meaningful Business Impact >According to The New York Times , the Carbon >Disclosure Project (CDP) – a U.K.-based group of >95 institutional investors with over $10 >trillion in assets – reports that it received >higher participation and more detailed >information from a broader range of companies >for its second survey on corporate response to >climate change. Reuters reports that 45 percent >of respondents believe climate change presents >their company with both financial and >reputational risks and opportunities. The survey >also finds that firms have quadrupled their >investments in “clean technology” over the last >two years to $2.5 billion. CDP chairman James >Cameron says the increased response and detail >from companies “helps make the case that there >is emerging leadership on this issue [of climate >change].” According to SocialFunds, 59 percent >of the firms listed on the Financial Times 500 >Global Index responded to the latest CDP survey >– an increase from 47 percent in 2003. The new >CDP report – which was compiled by the >U.S.-based global sustainability research firm >Innovest Strategic Value Advisors – includes an >index of the top 50 firms that best handle >climate change issues ranging from emissions >management and reporting to setting emissions >reduction targets. Among the leadership >companies named on the Climate Leadership Index >are: American Electric Power Co., Inc., BHP >Billiton , BP plc, Citigroup Inc., The Dow >Chemical Co., Ford Motor Co., International >Paper Co., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Unilever and >United Parcel Service , Inc. The new CDP report >can be found at >www.cdproject.net. >-- BSR News Monitor Summary of articles from The >New York Times, May 19, 2004, >www.nytimes.com, >Reuters, May 18, 2004, >www.reuters.com >and SocialFunds, May 19, 2004, >www.socialfunds.com >Governance >Net Impact CSR Weekly is an electronic >newsletter excerpted from the BSR News Monitor >published weekly by Business for Social >Responsibility (BSR). Contact Net Impact at 111 >Sutter Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, >California 94104 USA, Phone: +1 415.984.3300, >Fax: +1 415.984.3301. Visit Net Impact's website >at >www.net-impact.org >for information on the features and benefits of >membership in Net Impact. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From freepolazzo at comcast.net Mon Jun 7 11:23:45 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:23:45 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] How independent is the Corporaton for Public Broadcasting? Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040607111113.02bbba80@mail.comcast.net> Dear SAYMA and AFM lists, Friends who listen to Public Broadcasting do so to get a less biased slant on the news of the day. We need to know how the stations we listen and watch are being effected by the current administration in Washingon D. C. The information presented should not surprise anyone, but it is good to know what is going on. Here is a story about how Public Broadcasting is being moved to the right wing column, little by little. The author of the press release is, Chellie Pingree, who is President and CEO of Common Cause, a national citizens lobby based in Washington, D.C. and with 38 state organizations across the country. Free >176537ed.jpg > >176537fd.jpg > > >Public Television's 'Heat Shield' Withers Under White House Pressure > >By Chellie Pingree >http://www.mediachannel.org>MediaChannel.org >WASHINGTON, June 2, 2004 -- Public broadcasting has found itself in the >crosshairs of a partisan firing squad. New and intensifying ideological >pressures from the Bush Administration have forced the public broadcaster >to add new programs and alter others, in an attempt to be "more balanced" >in the view of the current leadership. > >At a time when Americans are finding it more and more difficult to get >past the clutter and partisanship on commercial TV and radio to find >truthful sources of information about their government, this ideological >pressure may gag one of the few sources of independent, substantive news >and commentary that Americans can count on. > >The fact that members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), >which provides federal funds to public radio and TV, should play politics >with its program content should disturb us all, whatever our political views. > >The visionaries who created public broadcasting set up the CPB as the >nonprofit corporation providing federal funds to public radio and TV. >CPB's primary mission has always been to serve as a "heat shield" between >government and public broadcasting, protecting programming from government >interference. > >But instead of serving as a "heat shield," CPB now is the agent of >ideological interference. And public broadcasting's news and public >affairs programs in particular will be harmed if conservative members of >the CPB have their way. > >In a New Yorker's expose published on Monday, media writer Ken Auletta >documents several disturbing trends. > >The CPB recently decided to fund two programs -- one hosted by Tucker >Carlson, who speaks for conservatives on CNN's "Crossfire," and one >moderated by Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal. >At the same time that these programming additions were being made, "NOW >with Bill Moyers," which receives no CPB funds, was cut from an hour to 30 >minutes. Earlier in 2004, Moyers announced that he will be leaving the >program by the end of the year. > >Moreover, according to Auletta's article, the Bush Administration appears >to be conducting a litmus test for choosing CPB board members. The White >House asked CPB board candidate Chon Noriega, a UCLA media professor and >co-founder of the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, >whether the Corporation should intervene in programming "deemed >politically biased." When Noriega replied that intervention should be used >in only extraordinary circumstances, the appointment process ground to a >halt. The White House has since asked Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle >(D-SD) to put forward another candidate. > >Bill Moyers told Auletta: "This is the first time in my 32 years of public >broadcasting that CPB has ordered up programs for ideological instead of >journalistic reasons." > >There is a problem with the CPB. Whether it is a Democratic or Republican >President who appoints them, CPB board members tend to be big political >donors who often come with specific ideological agendas. > >This seems particularly true of the current board. > >President George W. Bush's most recent CPB appointees, Gay Hart Gaines and >Cheryl Halpern, and their families, have given more than $800,000 to the >Republican Party and candidates since 1995. Both these appointees have >backgrounds that raise questions about their suitability to serve on the >CPB board. > >During her confirmation hearing last fall, Halpern indicated that she >would welcome giving CPB members the authority to intervene in program >content when they felt a program was biased. Gaines chaired Newt >Gingrich's political committee GOPAC. Gingrich as House Speaker proposed >cutting all federal assistance to public TV. > >Board chairman Kenneth Tomlinson has given $7,700 to Republicans since >1995, and has been active in Republican politics. A friend of Karl Rove, >he is quoted in The New Yorker as saying that "It is absolutely critical >for people on the right to feel they have the same ownership stake in >public television as people on the left have," and he objected to Moyers' >including commentary in his programs. > >We cannot let partisans drive an ideological stake in the heart of public >broadcasting. At a time when media consolidation makes it more and more >difficult for Americans to hear diverse points of view and to be exposed >to substantive, challenging journalism, we must save public broadcasting >from these attempts to meddle with its editorial independence. > "In times of change, learners inherit the world, while the learned remain beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" (Philosopher and author Eric Hoffer) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 176537ed.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 637 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 176537fd.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4624 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Mon Jun 7 13:05:09 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:05:09 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP Message-ID: Dear Friends, Another fascinating forward from Friend Tom Coyner of Seoul Monthly Meeting in South Korea. It is relevant and necessary to the understanding of our testimony on TRUTH as it functions in the world today. I am NOT advocating this perspective at all but I find this discussion really useful in understanding what often seem to be totally irrational comments and actions by the present US Administration. Janet >From: Tom Coyner >Subject: THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP > > >> >> Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Articles and Books >> ~ a future worth creating >> Home >> >>Articles >>/ Books >>Projects >>Weblog >> >> >> >>The Pentagon's New Map >> >> >> >> >> >>IT EXPLAINS WHY WE’RE GOING TO WAR, >>AND WHY WE’LL KEEP GOING TO WAR. >> >>BY >> >> >>THOMAS P.M. BARNETT, U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE >> >> >>[MAPS BY WILLIAM MCNULTY] >> >> >>Read >>the May letters to the editor >>Read >>the June letters to the editor >> >>Esquire, March 2003 issue >> >> >>Since the end of the cold war, the United >>States has been trying to come up with an >>operating theory of the world—and a military >>strategy to accompany it. Now there’s a >>leading contender. It involves identifying the >>problem parts of the world and aggressively >>shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the >>author, a professor of warfare analysis, has >>been advising the Office of the Secretary of >>Defense and giving this briefing continually at >>the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. >>Now he gives it to you. >> >>LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with >>Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only >>necessary and inevitable, but good. >> >>When the United States finally goes to war >>again in the Persian Gulf, it will not >>constitute a settling of old scores, or just an >>enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a >>distraction in the war on terror. Our next war >>in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping >>point—the moment when Washington takes real >>ownership of strategic security in the age of >>globalization. >> >>That is why the public debate about this war >>has been so important: It forces Americans to >>come to terms with I believe is the new >>security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, >>Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam >>Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously >>disconnected from the globalizing world, from >>its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that >>bind countries together in mutually assured >>dependence. >> >>The problem with most discussion of >>globalization is that too many experts treat it >>as a binary outcome: Either it is great and >>sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and >>failing humanity everywhere. Neither view >>really works, because globalization as a >>historical process is simply too big and too >>complex for such summary judgments. Instead, >>this new world must be defined by where >>globalization has truly taken root and where it >>has not. >> >>Show me where globalization is thick with >>network connectivity, financial transactions, >>liberal media flows, and collective security, >>and I will show you regions featuring stable >>governments, rising standards of living, and >>more deaths by suicide than murder. These >>parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, >>or Core. But show me where globalization is >>thinning or just plain absent, and I will show >>you regions plagued by politically repressive >>regimes, widespread poverty and disease, >>routine mass murder, and—most important—the >>chronic conflicts that incubate the next >>generation of global terrorists. These parts >>of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or >>Gap. >> >>Globalization’s “ozone hole” may have been out >>of sight and out of mind prior to September 11, >>2001, but it has been hard to miss ever since. >>And measuring the reach of globalization is not >>an academic exercise to an eighteen-year-old >>marine sinking tent poles on its far side. So >>where do we schedule the U.S. military’s next >>round of away games? The pattern that has >>emerged since the end of the cold war suggests >>a simple answer: in the Gap. >> >>The reason I support going to war in Iraq is >>not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat Stalinist >>willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor >>because that regime has clearly supported >>terrorist networks over the years. The real >>reason I support a war like this is that the >>resulting long-term military commitment will >>finally force America to deal with the entire >>Gap as a strategic threat environment. >> >>FOR MOST COUNTRIES, accommodating the emerging >>global rule set of democracy, transparency, and >>free trade is no mean feat, which is something >>most Americans find hard to understand. We >>tend to forget just how hard it has been to >>keep the United States together all these >>years, harmonizing our own, competing internal >>rule sets along the way—through a Civil War, a >>Great Depression, and the long struggles for >>racial and sexual equality that continue to >>this day. As far as most states are concerned, >>we are quite unrealistic in our expectation >>that they should adapt themselves quickly to >>globalization’s very American-looking rule set. >> >>But you have to be careful with that Darwinian >>pessimism, because it is a short jump from >>apologizing for >>globalization-as-forced-Americanization to >>insinuating—along racial or civilization >>lines—that “those people will simply never be >>like us.” Just ten years ago, most experts >>were willing to write off poor Russia, >>declaring Slavs, in effect, genetically unfit >>for democracy and capitalism. Similar >>arguments resonated in most China-bashing >>during the 1990’s, and you hear them today in >>the debates about the feasibility of imposing >>democracy on a post-Saddam Iraq—a sort of >>Muslims-are-from-Mars argument. >> >>So how do we distinguish between who is really >>making it in globalization’s Core and who >>remains trapped in the Gap? And how permanent >>is this dividing line? >> >>Understanding that the line between the Core >>and Gap is constantly shifting, let me suggest >>that the direction of change is more critical >>than the degree. So, yes, Beijing is still >>ruled by a “Communist party” whose ideological >>formula is 30 percent Marxist-Leninist and 70 >>percent Sopranos, but China just signed on to >>the World Trade Organization, and over the long >>run, that is far more important in securing the >>country’s permanent Core status. Why? Because >>it forces China to harmonize its internal rule >>set with that of globalization—banking, >>tariffs, copyright protection, environmental >>standards. Of course, working to adjust your >>internal rule sets to globalization’s evolving >>rule set offers no guarantee of success. As >>Argentina and Brazil have recently found out, >>following the rules (in Argentina’s case, sort >>of following) does not mean you are panicproof, >>or bubbleproof, or even recessionproof. Trying >>to adapt to globalization does not mean bad >>things will never happen to you. Nor does it >>mean all your poor will immediately morph into >>stable middle class. It just means your >>standard of living gets better over time. >> >>In sum, it is always possible to fall off this >>bandwagon called globalization. And when you >>do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, >>so will American troops. >> >> >>DISCONNECTEDNESS DEFINES DANGER Problem areas >>requiring American attention (outlined) are, in >>the author's analysis, called the Gap. >>Shrinking the Gap is possible only by stopping >>the ability of terrorist networks to access the >>Core via the "seam states" that lie along the >>Gap's bloody boundaries. In this war on >>terrorism, the U.S. will place a special >>emphasis on cooperation with these states. What >>are the classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, >>South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, >>Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Phillipines, >>Indonesia. >> >>SO WHAT PARTS OF THE WORLD can be considered >>functioning right now? North America, much of >>South America, the European Union, Putin’s >>Russia, Japan and Asia’s emerging economies >>(most notably China and India), Australia and >>New Zealand, and South Africa, which accounts >>for roughly four billion out of a global >>population of six billion. >> >>Whom does that leave in the Gap? It would be >>easy to say “everyone else,” but I want to >>offer you more proof than that and, by doing >>so, argue why I think the Gap is a long-term >>threat to more than just your pocketbook or >>conscience. >> >>If we map out U.S. military responses since the >>end of the cold war, (see below), we find an >>overwhelming concentration of activity in the >>regions of the world that are excluded from >>globalization’s growing Core—namely the >>Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the >>Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle >>East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast >>Asia. That is roughly the remaining two billion >>of the world’s population. Most have >>demographics skewed very young, and most are >>labeled, “low income” or “low middle income” by >>the World Bank (i.e., less than $3,000 annual >>per capita). >> >>If we draw a line around the majority of those >>military interventions, we have basically >>mapped the Non-Integrating Gap. Obviously, >>there are outliers excluded geographically by >>this simple approach, such as an Israel >>isolated in the Gap, a North Korea adrift >>within the Core, or a Philippines straddling >>the line. But looking at the data, it is hard >>to deny the essential logic of the picture: If >>a country is either losing out to globalization >>or rejecting much of the content flows >>associated with its advance, there is a far >>greater chance that the U.S. will end up >>sending forces at some point. Conversely, if a >>country is largely functioning within >>globalization, we tend not to have to send our >>forces there to restore order to eradicate >>threats. >> >>Now, that may seem like a tautology—in effect >>defining any place that has not attracted U.S. >>military intervention in the last decade or so >>as “functioning within globalization” (and vice >>versa). But think about this larger point: Ever >>since the end of World War II, this country has >>assumed that the real threats to its security >>resided in countries of roughly similar size, >>development, and wealth—in other words, other >>great powers like ourselves. During the cold >>war, that other great power was the Soviet >>Union. When the big Red machine evaporated in >>the early 1990’s, we flirted with concerns >>about a united Europe, a powerhouse Japan, >>and—most recently—a rising China. >> >>What was interesting about all those scenarios >>is the assumption that only an advanced state >>can truly threaten us. The rest of the world? >>Those less-developed parts of the world have >>long been referred to in military plans as the >>“Lesser Includeds,” meaning that if we built a >>military capable of handling a great power’s >>military threat, it would always be sufficient >>for any minor scenarios we might have to engage >>in the less advanced world. >> >>That assumption was shattered by September 11. >>After all, we were not attacked by a nation or >>even an army but by a group of—in Thomas >>Friedman’s vernacular—Super Empowered >>Individuals willing to die for their cause. >>September 11 triggered a system perturbation >>that continues to reshape our government (the >>new Department of Homeland Security), our >>economy (the de facto security tax we all pay), >>and even our society (Wave to the camera!). >>Moreover, it launched the global war on >>terrorism, the prism through which our >>government now views every bilateral security >>relationship we have across the world. >> >>In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the >>U.S. national-security establishment a huge >>favor by pulling us back from the abstract >>planning of future high-tech wars against “near >>peers” into the here-and-now threats to global >>order. By doing so, the dividing lines between >>Core and Gap were highlighted, and more >>important, the nature of the threat environment >>was thrown into stark relief. >> >>Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure >>products of the Gap—in effect, its most violent >>feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are >>doing in exporting security to these lawless >>areas (not very well) and which states they >>would like to take “off line” from >>globalization and return to some >>seventh-century definition of the good life >>(any Gap state with a sizable Muslim >>population, especially Saudi Arabia). >> >>If you take this message from Osama and combine >>it with our military-intervention record of the >>last decade, a simple security rule set >>emerges: A country’s potential to warrant a >>U.S. military response is inversely related to >>its globalization connectivity. There is a good >>reason why Al Qaeda was based first in Sudan >>and then later in Afghanistan: These are two of >>the most disconnected countries in the world. >>Look at the other places U.S. Special >>Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on: >>northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are >>talking about the ends of the earth as far as >>globalization is concerned. >> >>But just as important as “getting them where >>they live” is stopping the ability of these >>terrorist networks to access the Core via the >>“seam states” that lie along the Gap’s bloody >>boundaries. It is along this seam that the Core >>will seek to suppress bad things coming out of >>the Gap. Which are some of these classic seam >>states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, >>Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, >>Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia come >>readily to mind. But the U.S. will not be the >>only Core state working this issue. For >>example, Russia has its own war on terrorism in >>the Caucasus, China is working its western >>border with more vigor, and Australia was >>recently energized (or was it cowed?) by the >>Bali bombing. >> >>IF WE STEP BACK for a minute and consider the >>broader implications of this new global map, >>then U.S. national-security strategy would seem >>to be: 1) Increase the Core’s immune system >>capabilities for responding to September >>11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam >>states to firewall the Core from the Gap’s >>worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and >>pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the >>Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap. >>The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to >>September 11 is to say, “Let’s get off our >>dependency on foreign oil, and then we won’t >>have to deal with those people.” The most naïve >>assumption underlying that dream is that >>reducing what little connectivity the Gap has >>with the Core will render it less dangerous to >>us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East >>into Central Africa will not build a better >>world for my kids. We cannot simply will those >>people away. >> >>The Middle East is the perfect place to start. >>Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the >>biggest sources of insecurity lie not between >>states but within them. What is most wrong >>about the Middle East is the lack of personal >>freedom and how that translates into dead-end >>lives for most of the population—especially for >>the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan >>are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better >>political futures, thanks to younger leaders >>who see the inevitability of such change. Iran >>is likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to >>come along—if he has not already. >> >>What stands in the path of this change? Fear. >>Fear of tradition unraveling. Fear of the >>mullah’s disapproval. Fear of being labeled a >>“bad” or “traitorous” Muslim state. Fear of >>becoming a target of radical groups and >>terrorist networks. But most of all, fear of >>being attacked from all sides for being >>different—the fear of becoming Israel. >> >>The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of >>bullies eager to pick on the weak. Israel is >>still around because it has become—sadly—one of >>the toughest bullies on the block. The only >>thing that will change that nasty environment >>and open the floodgates for change is if some >>external power steps in and plays Leviathan >>full-time. Taking down Saddam, the region’s >>bully-in-chief, will force the U.S. into >>playing that role far more fully than it has >>over the past several decades, primarily >>because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle >>East—a crossroads of civilizations that has >>historically required a dictatorship to keep >>the peace. As baby-sitting jobs go, this one >>will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in >>postwar Germany and Japan look simple in >>retrospect. >> >>But it is the right thing to do, and now is the >>right time to do it, and we are the only >>country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the >>Middle East without security, and security is >>this country’s most influential public-sector >>export. By that I do not mean arms exports, but >>basically the attention paid by our military >>forces to any region’s potential for mass >>violence. We are the only nation on earth >>capable of exporting security in a sustained >>fashion, and we have a very good track record >>of doing it. >> >>Show me a part of the world that is secure in >>its peace and I will show you a strong or >>growing ties between local militaries and the >>U.S. military. Show me regions where major war >>is inconceivable and I will show you permanent >>U.S. military bases and long-term security >>alliances. Show me the strongest investment >>relationships in the global economy and I will >>show you two postwar military occupations that >>remade Europe and Japan following World War II. >> >>This country has successfully exported security >>to globalization’s Old Core (Western Europe, >>Northeast Asia) for half a century and to its >>emerging New Core (Developing Asia) for a solid >>quarter century following our mishandling of >>Vietnam. But our efforts in the Middle Ease >>have been inconsistent—in Africa, almost >>nonexistent. Until we begin the systematic, >>long-term export of security to the Gap, it >>will increasingly export its pain to the Core >>in the form of terrorism and other >>instabilities. >> >>Naturally, it will take a whole lot more than >>the U.S. exporting security to shrink the Gap. >>Africa, for example, will need far more aid >>than the Core has offered in the past, and the >>integration of the Gap will ultimately depend >>more on private investment than anything the >>Core’s public sector can offer. But it all has >>to begin with security, because free markets >>and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic >>conflict. >> >>Making this effort means reshaping our military >>establishment to mirror-image the challenge >>that we face. Think about it. Global war is not >>in the offing, primarily because our huge >>nuclear stockpile renders such war >>unthinkable—for anyone. Meanwhile, classic >>state-on-state wars are becoming fairly rare. >>So if the United States is in the process of >>“transforming” its military to meet the threats >>of tomorrow, what should it end up looking >>like? In my mind, we fight fire with fire. If >>we live in a world increasingly populated by >>Super-Empowered Individuals, we field a >>military of Super-Empowered-Individuals. >> >>This may sound like additional responsibility >>for an already overburdened military, but that >>is the wrong way of looking at it, for what we >>are dealing with here are problems of >>success—not failure. It is America’s continued >>success in deterring global war and obsolescing >>state-on-state war that allows us to stick our >>noses into the far more difficult subnational >>conflicts and the dangerous transnational >>actors they spawn. I know most Americans do not >>want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds >>in the global war on terrorism are still over >>there. If gated communities and rent-a-cops >>were enough, September 11 never would have >>happened. >> >>History is full of turning points like that >>terrible day, but no turning-back-points. We >>ignore the Gap’s existence at our own peril, >>because it will not go away until we as a >>nation respond to the challenge of making >>globalization truly global. >> >> >>Western Hemisphere Map Eastern Hemisphere Map >> >> >> >> >>HANDICAPPING THE GAP >> >> >>My list of real trouble for the world in the 1990s, today, >>and tomorrow, starting in our own backyard: >> >> >>1) HAITI Efforts to build a nation in 1990s >>were disappointing • We have been going into >>Haiti for about a century, and we will go back >>when boat people start flowing in during the >>next crisis—without fail. >> >>2) COLOMBIA Country is broken into several >>lawless chunks, with private armies, rebels, >>narcos, and legit government all working the >>place over. • Drugs still flow. • Ties between >>drug cartels and rebels grew over decade, and >>now we know of links to international terror, >>too. • We get involved, keep promising more, >>and keep getting nowhere. Piecemeal, >>incremental approach is clearly not working. >> >>3) BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA Both on the bubble >>between the Gap and the Functioning Core. Both >>played the globalization game to hilt in >>nineties and both feel abused now. The danger >>of falling off the wagon and going >>self-destructively leftist or rightist is very >>real. • No military threats to speak of, except >>against their own democracies (the return of >>the generals). • South American alliance >>MERCOSUR tries to carve out its own reality >>while Washington pushes Free Trade of Americas, >>but we may have to settle for agreements with >>Chile or for pulling only Chile into bigger >>NAFTA. Will Brazil and Argentina force >>themselves to be left out and then resent it? • >>Amazon a large ungovernable area for Brazil, >>plus all that environmental damage continues to >>pile up. Will the world eventually care enough >>to step in? >> >>4) FORMER YUGOSLAVIA For most of the past >>decade, served as shorthand for Europe's >>inability to get its act together even in its >>own backyard. • Will be long-term baby-sitting >>job for the West. >> >>5) CONGO AND RWANDA/BURUNDI Two to three >>million dead in central Africa from all the >>fighting across the decade. How much worse can >>it get before we try to do something, anything? >>Three million more dead? • Congo is a carrion >>state—not quite dead or alive, and everyone is >>feeding off it. • And then there's AIDS. >> >>6) ANGOLA Never really has solved its ongoing >>civil war (1.5 million dead in past quarter >>century). • Basically at conflict with self >>since mid-seventies, when Portuguese "empire" >>fell. • Life expectancy right now is under >>forty! >> >>7) SOUTH AFRICA The only functioning Core >>country in Africa, but it's on the bubble. Lots >>of concerns that South Africa is a gateway >>country for terror networks trying to access >>Core through back door. • Endemic crime is >>biggest security threat. • And then there's >>AIDS. >> >>8) ISRAEL-PALESTINE Terror will not >>abate—there is no next generation in the West >>Bank that wants anything but more violence. • >>Wall going up right now will be the Berlin Wall >>of twenty-first century. Eventually, outside >>powers will end up providing security to keep >>the two sides apart (this divorce is going to >>be very painful). • There is always the chance >>of somebody (Saddam in desperation?) trying to >>light up Israel with weapons of mass >>destruction (WMD) and triggering the >>counterpunch we all fear Israel is capable of. >> >>9) SAUDI ARABIA The let-them-eat-cake >>mentality of royal mafia will eventually >>trigger violent instability from within. • >>Paying terrorists protection money to stay away >>will likewise eventually fail, so danger will >>come from outside, too. • Huge young population >>with little prospects for future, and a ruling >>elite whose main source of income is a >>declining long-term asset. And yet the oil >>will matter to enough of the world far enough >>into the future that the United States will >>never let this place really tank, no matter >>what it takes. >> >>10) IRAQ Question of when and how, not if. • >>Then there's the huge rehab job. We will have >>to build a security regime for the whole region. >> >>11) SOMALIA Chronic lack of governance. • >>Chronic food problems. • Chronic problem of >>terrorist-network infiltration. • We went in >>with Marines and Special Forces and left >>disillusioned—a poor man's Vietnam for the >>1990s. Will be hard-pressed not to return. >> >>12) IRAN Counterrevolution has already begun: >>This time the students want to throw the >>mullahs out. • Iran wants to be friends with >>U.S., but resurgence of fundamentalists may be >>the price we pay to invade Iraq. • The mullahs >>support terror, and their push for WMD is real: >>Does this make them inevitable target once Iraq >>and North Korea are settled? >> >>13) AFGHANISTAN Lawless, violent place even >>before the Taliban stepped onstage and started >>pulling it back toward seventh century (short >>trip) • Government sold to Al Qaeda for pennies >>on the dollar. • Big source of narcotics >>(heroin). • Now U.S. stuck there for long haul, >>rooting out hardcore terrorists/rebels who've >>chosen to stay. >> >>14) PAKISTAN There is always the real danger >>of their having the bomb and using it out of >>weakness in conflict with India (very close >>call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi >>bombing). • Out of fear that Pakistan may fall >>to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line >>military types we don't really trust. • Clearly >>infested with Al Qaeda. • Was on its way to >>being declared a rogue state by U.S. until >>September 11 forced us to cooperate again. >>Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control >>much of its own territory. >> >>15) NORTH KOREA Marching toward WMD. • Bizarre >>recent behavior of Pyongyang (admitting >>kidnappings, breaking promises on nukes, >>shipping weapons to places we disapprove of and >>getting caught, signing agreements with Japan >>that seem to signal new era, talking up new >>economic zone next to China) suggests it is >>intent (like some mental patient) on provoking >>crises. • We live in fear of Kim's >>Götterdämmerung scenario (he is nuts). • >>Population deteriorating—how much more can they >>stand? • After Iraq, may be next. >> >>16) INDONESIA Usual fears about breakup and >>"world's largest Muslim population." • Casualty >>of Asian economic crisis (really got wiped >>out). • Hot spot for terror networks, as we >>have discovered. >> >>New/integrating members of Core I worry may be >>lost in coming year: >> >> >>17) CHINA Running lots of races against itself >>in terms of reducing the unprofitable state-run >>enterprises while not triggering too much >>unemployment, plus dealing with all that growth >>in energy demand and accompanying pollution, >>plus coming pension crisis as population ages. >>• New generation of leaders looks suspiciously >>like unimaginative technocrats—big question if >>they are up to task. • If none of those macro >>pressures trigger internal instability, there >>is always the fear that the Communist party >>won't go quietly into the night in terms of >>allowing more political freedoms and that at >>some point, economic freedom won't be enough >>for the masses. Right now the CCP is very >>corrupt and mostly a parasite on the country, >>but it still calls the big shots in Beijing. • >>Army seems to be getting more disassociated >>from society and reality, focusing ever more >>myopically on countering U.S. threat to their >>ability to threaten Taiwan, which remains the >>one flash point that could matter. • And then >>there's AIDS. >> >>18) RUSSIA Putin has long way to go in his >>dictatorship of the law; the mafia and robber >>barons still have too much power. • Chechnya >>and the near-abroad in general will drag Moscow >>into violence, but it will be kept within the >>federation by and large. • U.S. moving into >>Central Asia is a testy thing—a relationship >>that can sour if not handled just right. • >>Russia has so many internal problems (financial >>weakness, environmental damage, et cetera) and >>depends too much on energy exports to feel safe >>(does bringing Iraq back online after invasion >>kill their golden goose?). • And then there's >>AIDS. >> >>19) INDIA First, there's always the danger of >>nuking it out with Pakistan. • Short of that, >>Kashmir pulls them into conflict with Pak, and >>that involves U.S. now in way it never did >>before due to war on terror. • India is >>microcosm of globalization: the high tech, the >>massive poverty, the islands of development, >>the tensions between >>cultures/civilizations/religions/et cetera. It >>is too big to succeed, and too big to let fail. >>• Wants to be big responsible military player >>in region, wants to be strong friend of U.S., >>and also wants desperately to catch up with >>China in development (the self-imposed pressure >>to succeed is enormous). • And then there's >>AIDS. >> >> >> >> >> >>FROM THE CONTRIBUTORS' PAGE (p. 56): >> >>Shortly after we wrote about military >>strategist THOMAS BARNETT in last December's >>Best and Brightest issue, he gave the Esquire >>staff a presentation on his theory of war and >>globalization, just as he regularly does for >>government leaders as an adviser to the >>Department of Defense. We'll never read the >>news the same way again. This month, Barnett >>delivers the same briefing to you in "The >>Pentagon's New Map (page 174), in which he maps >>out America's recent military encounters and >>predicts future ones based on patterns of >>global economic development. "We're at a time >>period not unlike after World War II," says >>Barnett, who is also a professor at the Naval >>War College in Newport, Rhode Island. "We're >>trying to ask the same great questions, like: >>How can a superpower today influence history >>for the better? We established this >>overarching ideology for so long that allowed >>us to justify anything, and that ideology was >>containment. In some ways, what I'm trying to >>argue is a new sort of containment—a >>containment of the new bad places and the >>desire to shrink them." >> >>FROM THE EDITOR'S LETTER (p. 58): >> >>[excerpted] >>But there is one truly special story in this >>issue—one that you'll find in no other >>magazine. If you remember our December issue, >>the one we called the Best and Brightest, which >>was about people on the cutting edge, doing >>work that will improve our country and our >>world, you might remember Thomas Barnett. Tom >>Barnett is a war strategist. He puts the >>world—especially the parts of the world where >>terrorism and unrest are brewing—into context. >>He does this for the Secretary of Defense, and >>he draws conclusions about how best to avert or >>engage conflicts—and thus how to keep our >>country secure. >> >>On page 174, Barnett has annotated the world. >>More specifically, the world's hot spots and >>the likelihood of war in each of those places. >>For the first time, someone with a position in >>the government explains what we're really >>undertaking when we go to war in Iraq. It's >>not just about disarmament. Rather, the United >>States is redrawing the map of the region, we >>are shrinking the Gap (to use Barnett's term), >>we are changing the course of history by >>adopting a good-offense-is-the-best-defense >>strategy. >> >>This is an entirely unprecedented look inside >>the thinking that will guide our defense >>strategy over the next five to ten years. It's >>a fantastic and challenging story. In >>November, Barnett came and presented his >>philosophy of global conflict to our staff. It >>was amazing and kind of breathtaking. It made >>each of us feel as though we had a slightly >>better grip on some of the most frightening >>issues ever to face our country and the world. >>I hope it has the same effect on you, making >>your life a little better. >> >>—David Granger >> >> >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Tom Coyner > Home Tel: 82-2-764-8387; Fax: 82-2-747-7653 > Home Email: coyner at gol.com > Work Tel: 82-2-2198-2230; Mobile 82-11-9099-6195 > Home Web: http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a >democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist >dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to >the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell >them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of >patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same >in every country." - Hermann Goering just prior to his suicide >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 397ac8.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7419 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 397b16.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 62187 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 397b55.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6438 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 397b83.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Wed Jun 9 20:45:57 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:45:57 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Reagan's legacy Message-ID: >Dear Friends, This is by far the most truthful >memorial to Ronald Reagan I have seen and since >Friends are committed to testifying for the >Truth, this will serve. Janet Minshall > > >Planet Reagan > By William Rivers Pitt > t r u t h o u t | Perspective > > Monday 07 June 2004 > > Buffalo Bill's > defunct > who used to > ride a watersmooth-silver > stallion > and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat > Jesus > he was a handsome man > and what i want to know is > how do you like your blueeyed boy > Mister Death > > - e.e. cummings, "Buffalo Bill's Defunct" > > Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is >being nice to him. In every aspect, this is >appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a >beloved member of a family, and he will be >missed by those he was close to. His death was >long, slow and agonizing because of the >Alzheimer's Disease which ruined him, one drop >of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died ten >years ago almost to the day because of this >disease, and this disease took ten years to do >its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her. > > The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell >letter to the American people was as magnificent >a departure from public life as any that has >been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of >his illness was that he lived on, and on, and >on. His family and friends watched as he faded >from the world of the real, as the simple >dignity afforded to all life collapsed like >loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. >Only those who have seen Alzheimer's Disease >invade a mind can know the truth of this. It is >a cursed way to die. > > In this mourning space, however, there must be >room made for the truth. Writer Edward Abbey >once said, "The sneakiest form of literary >subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the >plain truth. The critics will not understand >you; the public will not believe you; your >fellow writers will shake their heads." > > The truth is straightforward: Virtually every >significant problem facing the American people >today can be traced back to the policies and >people that came from the Reagan administration. >It is a laundry list of ills, woes and disasters >that has all of us, once again, staring >apocalypse in the eye. > > How can this be? The television says Ronald >Reagan was one of the most beloved Presidents of >the 20th century. He won two national elections, >the second by a margin so overwhelming that all >future landslides will be judged by the >high-water mark he achieved against Walter >Mondale. How can a man so universally respected >have played a hand in the evils which corrupt >our days? > > The answer lies in the reality of the corrupt >society Abbey spoke of. Our corruption is the >absolute triumph of image over reality, of flash >over substance, of the pervasive need within >most Americans to believe in a happy-face >version of the nation they call home, and to >spurn the reality of our estate as unpatriotic. >Ronald Reagan was, and will always be, the >undisputed heavyweight champion of salesmen in >this regard. > > Reagan was able, by virtue of his towering >talents in this arena, to sell to the American >people a flood of poisonous policies. He made >Americans feel good about acting against their >own best interests. He sold the American people >a lemon, and they drive it to this day as if it >was a Cadillac. It isn't the lies that kill us, >but the myths, and Ronald Reagan was the >greatest myth-maker we are ever likely to see. > > Mainstream media journalism today is a >shameful joke because of Reagan's deregulation >policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness >Doctrine ensured that the information we receive >- information vital to the ability of the people >to govern in the manner intended - came from a >wide variety of sources and perspectives. >Reagan's policies annihilated the Fairness >Doctrine, opening the door for a few >mega-corporations to gather journalism unto >themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at >General Electric own three of the most-watched >news channels. This company profits from every >war we fight, but somehow is trusted to tell the >truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us. > > The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan >did not just deliver journalism to these massive >corporations, but handed virtually every facet >of our lives into the hands of this privileged >few. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the >food we eat are all tainted because Reagan >battered down every environmental regulation he >came across so corporations could improve their >bottom line. Our leaders are wholly-owned >subsidiaries of the corporations that were made >all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze. The >Savings and Loan scandal of Reagan's time, which >cost the American people hundreds of billions of >dollars, is but one example of Reagan's decision >that the foxes would be fine guards in the >henhouse. > > Ronald Reagan believed in small government, >despite the fact that he grew government >massively during his time. Social programs which >protected the weakest of our citizens were >gutted by Reagan's policies, delivering millions >into despair. Reagan was able to do this by >caricaturing the "welfare queen," who punched >out babies by the barnload, who drove the flashy >car bought with your tax dollars, who refused to >work because she didn't have to. This was a >vicious, racist lie, one result of which was the >decimation of a generation by crack cocaine. The >urban poor were left to rot because Ronald >Reagan believed in 'self-sufficiency.' > > Because Ronald Reagan could not be bothered >to fund research into 'gay cancer,' the AIDS >virus was allowed to carve out a comfortable >home in America. The aftershocks from this >callous disregard for people whose homosexuality >was deemed evil by religious conservatives >cannot be overstated. Beyond the graves of those >who died from a disease which was allowed to >burn unchecked, there are generations of >Americans today living with the subconscious >idea that sex equals death. > > The veneer of honor and respect painted >across the legacy of Ronald Reagan is itself a >myth of biblical proportions. The coverage >proffered today of the Reagan legacy seldom >mentions impropriety until the Iran/Contra >scandal appears on the administration timeline. >This sin of omission is vast. By the end of his >term in office, some 138 Reagan administration >officials had been convicted, indicted or >investigated for misconduct and/or criminal >activities. > > Some of the names on this disgraceful >roll-call: Oliver North, John Poindexter, >Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott >Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. >Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D. Fiers, Clair >George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh >Burford, Rita Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard >Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida, Edwin Gray, >Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur >Hayes, J. Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, >Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro, Thomas C. Reed, >Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names >are lost to history, but more than a few of them >are still with us today, 'rehabilitated' by the >administration of George W. Bush. > > Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes >of the worst people ever to walk the earth. >Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and >Duvalier reek of blood and corruption, yet were >embraced by the Reagan administration with >passionate intensity. The ground of many nations >is salted with the bones of those murdered by >brutal rulers who called Reagan a friend. Who >can forget his support of those in South Africa >who believed apartheid was the proper way to run >a civilized society? > > One dictator in particular looms large across >our landscape. Saddam Hussein was a creation of >Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration >supported the Hussein regime despite his >incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan >administration gave Hussein intelligence >information which helped the Iraqi military use >their chemical weapons on the battlefield >against Iran to great effect. The deadly >bacterial agents sent to Iraq during the Reagan >administration are a laundry list of horrors. >http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm > > The Reagan administration sent an emissary >named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam >Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite >public American condemnation of the use of those >chemical weapons, the Reagan administration >still considered him a welcome friend and ally. >This happened while the Reagan administration >was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious >for its support of international terrorism, in >secret and in violation of scores of laws. > > Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is >that of Osama bin Laden. The Reagan >administration believed it a bully idea to >organize an army of Islamic fundamentalists in >Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. bin Laden >became the spiritual leader of this action. >Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin >Laden and his people were armed, funded and >trained by the United States. Reagan helped >teach Osama bin Laden the lesson he lives by >today, that it is possible to bring a superpower >to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he >has done it once before, thanks to the dedicated >help of Ronald Reagan. > > In 1998, two American embassies in Africa >were blasted into rubble by Osama bin Laden, who >used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the >Reagan administration to do the job. In 2001, >Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger into the heart >of the United States, using men who became >skilled at the art of terrorism with the help of >Ronald Reagan. Today, there are 827 American >soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died >in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war >that came to be because Reagan helped >manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin >Laden. > > How much of this can be truthfully laid at >the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you >ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man >in charge, the man who defeated Soviet >communism, the man whose vision and charisma >made Americans feel good about themselves after >Vietnam and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who >despise Reagan see him as nothing more than a >pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who >allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who >smiled vapidly while allowing his officials to >run the government for him. > > In the final analysis, however, the legacy of >Ronald Reagan - whether he had an active hand in >its formulation, or was merely along for the >ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, >"Are you better off now than you were four years >ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off >than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, >or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged >state, ruled today by a man who subsists off >Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It >is the image that matters, and be damned to the >truth. > >------- > >Monday June 7, 2004 >© Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/04 > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/04 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bonningtons at apsu.edu Fri Jun 11 10:00:43 2004 From: bonningtons at apsu.edu (Bonnington, Stuart) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:00:43 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] indictments, etc during reagan era Message-ID: <2B123AD3FDBDF248B7F8DA9A8064F30EBD035B@exchange2.apsu.edu> Janet's post on the Reagan legacy was quite profound. I have forwarded it to a number of people off the list. I have one question about it though. In part it states that "some 138 Reagan administration > >officials had been convicted, indicted or > >investigated for misconduct and/or criminal > >activities." Is there a documented source for this?. I looked up "indictments during Regan administration" on Google and saw one figure that said there were 32 convictions. Lumping investigations together with indictments and convictions does not give a clear picture. I would like to have a substantive source for these figures if possible. Stuart Bonnington -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Mon Jun 14 09:40:04 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:40:04 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Yearly Meeting Feedback Message-ID: Dear Friends, I was happily surprised to have a dozen or so Friends come up to me during the yearly meeting and say that they really enjoy getting my postings to these lists. If you know anything about tabulating responses to mailings, for example, this is a really high positive response rate. I am always glad to have feedback and suggestions. My purpose in writing is to stimulate discussion and offer different "takes" on issues and concerns. Another Friend asked me to state clearly that I am not issuing pronouncements on "the truth" but simply sharing a piece of my truth at any given time. I am always open to updates and changes as a result of new information (really). Recently I responded off line to some questions about Friends' messages and thought I would include that response here in case any of you are wondering about the same things: "Dear Friends, I appreciate your comments....I have received off line messages from a variety of Friends -- some older and known to me in other contexts who are extremely well-educated but have never really studied economics, political economics, or history. They thank me for writing, especially for providing overviews that fill in gaps in their knowledge of history and economics and even political economics -- my area of training. (BTW there are yawning gaps in my knowledge of history, too, so feel free to disagree or counter what I say with contradictory facts). Please be specific to me if I am saying lots of things that you already know. And be specific about what you want me to do about it. Apparently, there are lots of Friends who don't already know much about the issues I'm addressing. What I want most is to stimulate discussion. Other younger Friends have written thanking me for telling them about issues in ways that differ markedly from what their parents have told them. They say I have helped them make sense of conflicting "takes" on issues. We had two young people stay with us over this past weekend, both having just graduated from Earlham, who were actually interested in hearing about my experiences working and living in other countries and working with people from other cultures -- something they are both very much interested in doing. Finally, let me tell you a little about me. I am disabled and cannot get out much or make it to the lengthy meetings I spent years and years of my life attending. For me, getting to Yearly Meeting is a big deal, as is the FGC Gathering, and it actually take me a couple of months to recover when I do that much at once. On the other hand, I have lots of time to read and have focused for the past few years on journal articles in the areas I find most interesting. I have a lot more time to read such things for example, than do folks who are currently in academia and have huge amounts of teaching and related daily work to do. I was married to an academic and lived near institutions of higher learning for many years and know first hand how far behind people can get outside of their areas of specialization. My main method of communication with the world, of getting outside my house to keep in touch with Friends, is through my e-mail messages. This is meant as a sincere request for feedback. Please respond. Best Regards to both of you, Janet Minshall" Bill Reynolds of Chattanooga Meeting spoke to me about a committee of SAYMA which is currently discussing proper use of the Kitenet list. I already interacted with Friends in Atlanta Meeting about use of the AFM Discussion List when I first began to post to it. If you have an opinion to share with the SAYMA Committee or with AFM you could post it to the appropriate list. I have tried to be responsive to the suggestion that I always say in my subject line how the messages I send are relevant to Friends, Friends' testimonies and/or Friends' social concerns. Janet nb: A Friend from West Virginia has suggested that you might wish to consider investing in Socially Responsible Mutual Funds as one way of becoming a shareholder activist. The managers of such funds tend to be very responsible about taking their investors' concerns to shareholder meetings. Another way would be to buy a few shares of the stock of a corporation you want to see changed and then attend the shareholder's meetings and speak up yourself. Vanguard, the largest and least expensive fund family in the US, has a Calvert Socially Responsible Index Fund in which you may invest, but returns are not that good -- -8.1% over the past three years. A much better return has been had from Parnassus Equity Income Fund, on the other hand. That fund has returned +17.8% over the past three years. That is a very good number as the past three years have decimated many mutual funds with losses of 20% TO 60% depending on the kind of fund in question. I have been investing for many years and sharing information on investing with Friends since 1995 when I published "The Money Tree". A bout with cancer ended the run of that publication, but I would be happy to respond to questions about investing and investments or send free copies of past issues of "The Money Tree". Janet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From freepolazzo at comcast.net Mon Jun 14 13:21:45 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:21:45 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] More on our recently deceased X president Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040614131854.02d9bbc0@mail.comcast.net> Hello Friends, The Villiage Voice is a NYC paper that often says things that other papers won't. (even NPR!). So to balance off all the praise President Regan is receiving for his work in Governemnt, I offer this other piece of the truth. Free >Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:35:58 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Just Posted: Sutton Impact >From: The Village Voice > >Posted June 14th, 2004 12:23 PM EST > >Sutton Impact - by Ward Sutton >Mourning in America >Is the Entire Nation Suddering from a Collective Case of Alzheimer's? > > >http://villagevoice.com/alertrd.php3?article=54305 From freepolazzo at comcast.net Tue Jun 15 14:41:31 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:41:31 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] New FactCheck.org Document: Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20040615143917.02e33eb8@mail.comcast.net> Hi Friends, For those who don't already subscribe to FactCheck.org here is their take on the likelihood of a draft being reinstated. I hope they are correct. Free >Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails > >A scare story spreads electronically, but it gets facts wrong. > >06.15.2004 > >Summary > > > >Several FactCheck subscribers have asked about an e-mailed rumor that is >causing a lot of anxiety. It claims that steps are being taken to resume >military conscription next year. But the message abounds with >misinformation and half-truths. And some experts say conscription is the >last thing the military wants or needs, despite being stretched thin in Iraq. > > >Analysis > > > >We can't say whether this one is deliberate misinformation or just sloppy >reporting, but it sure is generating a lot of needless anxiety. It amounts >to another "lying e-mail" of the kind we've warned about before (check the >links to "related articles" at the end of this one.) > >Draft? Wrong! > >(Excerpts from misleading e-mail) > >The possibility of mandatory drafting for boys and girls (age 18-26) >starting June 15, 2005, is something, I believe, everyone should know . >This literally affects EVERYONE since we all have or know children that >will have to go if this bill passes. If there are children in your family, >READ this. >There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and >HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at >early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The >administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the >public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed >immediately. >. . Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all >the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents . . . . And let your >children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for >change! >. . $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss) >budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June >15, 2005. . . . The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill >all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots >nationwide. . . . >Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. >College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the >U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep >would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, >John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the >declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, >a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. >Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class >lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would >only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. >Seniors would have until the end of the academic year. > >Basic Facts About Draft > >Let's start with a few essential facts. Military conscription ended in the >US in 1973. Males aged 18 through 25 still are required to register with >the Selective Service System, but it would >take an act of Congress to resume actual conscription into military service. > >That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of >June 14 (emphasis added): > >Selective Service System: Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the >Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for >the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. > >Both the White House and the Pentagon have denied repeatedly that they're >planning any return to military conscription. Here's what Secretary of >Defense Donald Rumsfeld said May 17, addressing the conservative Heritage >Foundation (emphasis added): > >Rumsfeld: I can't imagine our country going back to a draft. We don't need >it. We're able to attract and retain wonderful people the way we're doing >it as long as we provide the appropriate incentives. And certainly this is >a country that's wealthy enough to do that. > >The Scare Story > >A different -- and misleading -- story is being circulated by e-mail and >posted on any number of mostly left-leaning websites, claiming that the >Bush administration is "quietly trying" to pass legislation to reactivate >the draft, and that $28 million has been added to the Selective Service >budget this year to prepare for a military draft that could start "as >early as June 15, 2005." > >The message is false or misleading on several counts. > >--The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills >mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a >two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either >military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by >Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush >administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise. > >One bill is HR 163 , >whose principle sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It >has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by >Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee >with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected. > >In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that >even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added): > >Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come >to me when he needs it. > >The identical Senate bill, >S. 89 , introduced by >Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator >has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or >expected. > >Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly >to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic >objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He >wrote >, "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily >feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the >front lines if their children were there, too." > >The Selective Service Budget has not been increased. The scare story also >gets it wrong when it claims the budget for the Selective Service is being >increased by $28 million in 2004. In fact, the Selective Service System's >budget >is flat. Its total operating budget was $26 million in fiscal year 2003 >(which ended last Sept. 30), and is $26 million for fiscal 2004 as well. >Furthermore, the President is asking for $26 million again for fiscal year >2005, and the Office of Management and Budget actually projects that the >agency will shrink in size from 161 employees to 156 next year. That's >hardly gearing up for a draft. > >Military experts say a draft doesn't make sense. Numerous news accounts >have quoted military experts as saying a draft would cause more problems >for the military than it would solve. Here's one example, from an >excellent story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month (emphasis added): > >Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," >said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. >Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army >because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really >a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession." > >The Selective Service System figures it would take 183 days from the the >time an order comes down to begin a draft until the first conscript >reports for training. Training conscripts and forming them into military >units would take many months more to meet the requirements of today's >high-tech military. If more trained uniformed men and women are needed, >it would be much faster to mobilize additional National Guard units. The >Post-Gazette reports that of 38 Army National Guard combat brigades only >three have been called to active service and four others were mobilizing, >leaving 31 upon which to draw. > >Other Dubious Claims > >The e-mail ominously states that "the Pentagon has quietly begun a public >campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions." But it turns out >that's nothing new: the Selective Service has been trying to fill >vacancies on local boards for several years, and the Selective Service >isn't part of the Pentagon anyway -- it's an independent agency. > >It's true that a notice appeared briefly last year on a Department of >Defense website urging anyone who might be willing to serve as an unpaid >volunteer on a local draft board to contact the Selective Service System >in Washington. The notice touched off a flurry of news reports speculating >that a renewed draft might be in the works, after which the notice quickly >disappeared. (A copy of the notice was preserved >here. The >spot on the DOD website from which it disappeared is >here.) > >As an Associated Press story later explained, however, the search for >volunteer board members has been on since 1999 when many original board >members started hitting their 20-year term limits. The current board >system was established in 1979. > >The e-mail also notes -- correctly -- that student deferments wouldn't be >a ticket to avoid military service in any renewed draft, the way they were >during the Vietnam war. Back then, anyone with the means and inclination >could stay in college and graduate school and keep pursuing degrees until >too old to be drafted. That couldn't happen today. Should a draft resume, >deferments would only allow a draftee to delay induction to finish high >school or, if in college, to finish the current semester. But that's >nothing new, either. Congress reformed student deferments more than 30 >years ago, as the Vietnam era draft was winding down. > >Finally, the e-mail speculates that a US-Canadian agreement reached in >December, 2001 would make it harder for draft evaders to flee to Canada, >as many American men did to avoid service in Vietnam. However, the >"smart border >declaration " makes no mention of US draft laws. Whether Canadian >officials would be any more inclined to run down US draft evaders in the >future than they were 30 years ago is a matter for conjecture. > > >Sources > >Federal Document Clearing House, Inc., FDCH Political Transcripts, >"Secretary Of Defense Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks To The Heritage >Foundation," 17 May 2004. > >US Government Printing Office, "Budget of the United States Government, > >Fiscal Year 2005 -- Appendix," >(Other >Defense - Civil Programs ), Jan 2004; 933. > >Jack Kelly, "Rumor Aside, Draft's Return Most Unlikely," Pittsburgh >Post-Gazette , 24 May 2004: A1. > >Pauline Jelinek, "Pentagon Can't Seem to Kill Idea of Draft," The >Associated Press , 1 June 2004. > >Scott Canon, "Fear of draft's renewal exists in spite of political, social >obstacles," Kansas City Star, 25 May 2004. > >Associated Press, >"Selective >Service notice creates flurry of press reports suggesting return of >draft," USA Today.com, 11 Nov 2003. > >Selective Service System, "DIFFERENCES >BETWEEN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE TODAY AND DURING VIETNAM," agency website >accessed 14 June 2004. > >Canadian Embassy, Washington DC, " >The Smart Border >Declaration ," 12 Dec 2001. > >Please visit >http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=200 >to view this FactCheck article in full. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Wed Jun 16 13:28:07 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:28:07 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Just Funnies (no redeeming social or spiritual value to speak of) Message-ID: From: free polazzo Subject: Scientific breakthrough Scientific breakthrough: >A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of >the heaviest chemical element yet known to science. The new element >has been tentatively named Governmentium. Governmentium has one >neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant >deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 >particles are held together by forces called morons, which are >surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. >Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can >be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into >contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to >take over four-days to complete when it would normally take less >than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of four-years; >it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a >portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange >places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over >time since each reorganization will cause more morons to become >neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion >leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed >whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This >hypocritical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass, You will >know it when you see it. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium >becomes Administratium an element which radiates just as much energy >since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. >>Subject: Remembering Reagan >>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:42:21 -0400 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 41f72f52.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 118760 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Mon Jun 21 09:54:32 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:54:32 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: [afmdiscussion] Fw: [ECAPC] Pacifist Declarations Against Terror Message-ID: Thanks for sending this Joe.! I heard discussions of this very topic at Yearly Meeting, and so am sending it on to them as well J. >X-Originating-IP: [66.218.66.85] >X-eGroups-Return: >sentto-3803668-1767-1087764001-jhminshall=comcast.net at returns.groups.yahoo.com >X-Sender: parkoj at bellsouth.net >X-Apparently-To: afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com >To: "afmdiscussion" >X-Priority: 3 >X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 205.152.59.72 >From: "Joe Parko" >Mailing-List: list afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com; contact >afmdiscussion-owner at yahoogroups.com >Delivered-To: mailing list afmdiscussion at yahoogroups.com >List-Unsubscribe: >Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:45:24 -0400 >Subject: [afmdiscussion] Fw: [ECAPC] Pacifist Declarations Against Terror > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Michael Westmoreland-White" >To: "ECAPC List Server" >Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:51 AM >Subject: [ECAPC] Pacifist Declarations Against Terror? > > >> On Friday, 18 June 2004, Mark Engler published the following excellent >> piece on /CommonDreams.org/ . He calls it a "Progressive Declaration >> Against Terror," and uses it as an example of an alternative approach to >> terrorism from the conservative "war against terror" declared by G.W. >> Bush and supported even by most Democrats. (Even most Democrats that >> were/are strongly against the invasion and occupation of Iraq emphasize >> that it was a /distraction/ from the war against terror and led to more >> terrorism. They do not repudiate the war against terror itself.) But >> as excellent an alternative as Mr. Engler's declaration is (which I >> encourage you all to study closely), it still sees a role for military >> engagement in struggling against terrorism, though a much smaller one >> than the "war against terror" approach. >> So, all this leads me to ask, "What would a specifically >> pacifist/nonviolent struggle against terrorism look like?" Could we at >> /Every Church a Peace Church/ develop a specifically CHRISTIAN pacifist >> declaration against terror? Could we propose that such a declaration be >> adopted by the World Council of Churches' Decade to Overcome Violence? >> With interfaith partners like the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the >> Muslim Peace Fellowship(Ansar al-Salaam), the Jewish Peace Fellowship, >> etc., could we work to construct an interfaith religiously-based >> nonviolent declaration against terror? >> I have a bumper sticker from Witness for Peace (the organization >> where I first began my 20 years of peace activism) that says, >> "Nonviolence: Anti-terrorism that Works!" I have a T-shirt from the >> Fellowship of Reconciliation which displays a peace sign and labels it >> "Our latest weapon in the war against terror." But I don't think most >> of us committed to gospel nonviolence have thought enough about what >> nonviolent approaches to terrorism would mean. I challenge us to >> struggle for at least as much concrete specificity as Mark Engler does >> in his "progressive declaration." >> Enjoy the article and use it as a catalyst for thought. I look forward >> to your replies. >> >> Michael Westmoreland-White >> Outreach Coordinator >> Every Church a Peace Church >> mlw-w at insightbb.com >> >> "Nonviolence is really tough. You don't practice nonviolence at >> conferences; you practice it on picket lines." Cesar Chavez. >> >> > /Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org / >> > *A Progressive Declaration Against Terror * >> > *by Mark Engler* >> > >> > >> > One of the ideas to come out of Attorney General John Ashcroft's >> > recent warnings about terrorism is that al Qaeda, by plotting a >> > high-profile attack on American soil, hopes to affect the outcome of >> > the US presidential election. For conservatives, the implications of >> > this notion are clear. Republican pundits suggest that any move to > > > oppose President Bush and his war in Iraq constitutes an effort to >> > appease the terrorists. >> > >> > It is a perverse notion, and one that demands a response from American >> > progressives. Those of us who oppose the disastrous foreign policy of >> > the current administration must make a strong statement both to >> > terrorists who think they would be better off without President Bush >> > and to conservatives trying to manipulate this situation for political >> > gain. >> > >> > A declaration for a progressive fight against terror would go >> > something like this: >> > >> > To Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and allied terrorists, >> > >> > Progressives in the US and around the world abhor you. We will defeat >> > you. >> > >> > We will defeat you by uniting the world against you rather than >> > alienating our allies with unilateral arrogance. We will defeat you by >> > maintaining a focused, cooperative hunt for criminals who have >> > committed crimes against humanity. We will make stopping your >> > operations an unrelenting preoccupation, and will not divert attention >> > to preeemptive wars in pursuit of long pent-up political goals. >> > >> > We will defeat you by ending the invasions that stoke anti-American >> > hatred and provide you with fresh sources of new recruits. We will >> > defeat you by finding a just resolution to the Palestinian conflict >> > rather than endorsing the extremist policies of Ariel Sharon and his >> > militaristic wing of the Israeli government. And we will defeat you by >> > not forgetting our pledge of aid for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. >> > >> > We will defeat you by running a fact-based intelligence program, >> > rather than a faith-based one, and by telling the truth to our own >> > people and to the international community. We will not exact revenge >> > against those who expose our lies by outing CIA agents engaged in >> > stopping illicit weapons transfers. >> > >> > We will defeat you by reversing past neglect of the nuclear stockpiles >> > built up by the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, which present >> > your greatest opportunity to acquire nuclear implements. We will >> > invest the funds and the effort required to secure and dispose of this >> > material, placing it out of your reach forever. >> > >> > We will defeat you by opposing all dictators and not allying with them >> > when convenient. We will support movements for human rights throughout >> > the world. We will stand in solidarity with those building local >> > resistance to oppression. We will aid their efforts to create lasting, >> > participatory democracy in their countries. >> > >> > We will defeat you by standing up to weapons manufacturers and >> > outlawing the sale of arms to tyrants. We will unequivocally back the >> > principles of the Geneva Convention and will steadfastly work to end >> > all torture. We will reaffirm the mechanisms of international law. We >> > will end US opposition to the International Criminal Court, the Land >> > Mine Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We will >> > recommit the US to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and support a >> > strong UN Small Arms Agreement. We will live up to our commitments >> > under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to take honest steps toward nuclear >> > disarmament, rather than building new and more powerful nuclear weapons. >> > >> > We will defeat you by eliminating the conditions of inequality and >> > desperation that aid your operations. We will provide real foreign aid >> > to countries in need without demanding that they privatize their >> > economies or allow our corporations to enter. We will create a system >> > of trade based on fair labor standards and strong environmental >> > protections, one that honors diversity and is responsive to human >> > need. We will defeat you by fighting for a world without empire. >> > >> > We will oppose what you believe in by promoting women's rights across >> > the globe. We will offer assistance to local women's organizations and >> > support active networks of civil society. We will respect reproductive >> > freedom and lift the global gag rule that denies US aid to foreign > > > health organizations that provide abortion counseling or referrals. We >> > will promote societies that respect religious pluralism and will not >> > advance theocratic crusades. We will stand for freedom of speech; we >> > will oppose the criminalization of dissent; and we will not impugn the >> > patriotism of those who would criticize our policies. >> > >> > We will do all of this not for revenge, nor for power. We will not do >> > this in the name of God, although it will be motivated by our deepest >> > faith. We will do this simply for justice and peace, and for a safer >> > world. >> > >> > -/- Mark Engler, a writer based in New York City, can be reached via >> > the web site http://www.DemocracyUprising.com. Research assistance for >> > this article provided by Jason Rowe. / >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> You are subscribed to the outreach, discussion, and community-building >email list of Every Church A Peace Church (ECAPC). Our web site is at: >> >> http://www.ECAPC.org >> --^---------------------------------------------------------------- >> This email was sent to: parkoj at bellsouth.net >> >> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84JEE.beLMKH.cGFya29q >> Or send an email to: ECAPC-unsubscribe at topica.com >> >> For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: >> http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER >> --^---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> >Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 >http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM >--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afmdiscussion/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > afmdiscussion-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > From freepolazzo at comcast.net Tue Jun 22 08:08:39 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:08:39 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] new radio show on Faith on National Public Radio and Web Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040622080352.02c1e238@mail.comcast.net> Hi Friends, The NPR radio program "Speaking of Faith, is broadcast each Wedensday at 7 PM EDT and is also available on the web. http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ There is a list of stations that broadcast this show at: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/stations/ It covers many topics of interest to Friends and I recommend it to you. What makes this different is the tone of the show. It has a refreshing and Friendly approach. The host, Krista Tippett, uses a first person approach which makes listening much more enlightening. She ask, "what sayest thou" of her interviewees. Krista explains her approach on line: Why the First-Person Approach? A note from the host Updated April 2004 http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/about/why.shtml A list of stations is available at: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/stations Enjoy, Free -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kcarlyle at main.nc.us Thu Jun 24 19:19:40 2004 From: kcarlyle at main.nc.us (Kim Carlyle) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:19:40 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Don't wait until the last minute Message-ID: <006e01c45a41$ba3ab440$966dc0d1@qew> Hello Friends, It's that time again! What time? Time to submit stuff to SAF (your yearly meeting newsletter). We'd appreciate your stuff by 07/01. Please send to SAFeditor at sayma.org Thanks. -- KC From kcarlyle at main.nc.us Fri Jun 25 07:04:24 2004 From: kcarlyle at main.nc.us (Kim Carlyle) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:04:24 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Newsletter submission for SAF July 2004 edition Message-ID: <001301c45aa4$2de2ef40$926dc0d1@qew> Friends, Here's a great idea from Atlanta. Would Friends from all MMs consider submitting to SAF a paragraph or two about YM? Let's extend the invitation beyond "what you liked best" to also include constructive suggestions for improvement. Send to SAFeditor at sayma.org Thanks. --KC ----- Original Message ----- From: free polazzo To: Kim Carlyle Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:45 PM Subject: Newsletter submission for SAF July 2004 edition Hi Kim, The Atlanta Meeting newsletter editor had a great idea. She asked for submissions of 100 words or less from attendees of YM to describe what they liked best being there.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Fri Jun 25 11:27:33 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:27:33 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Truth Message-ID: I thought Friends might be interested in seeing specifics of how the current administration mislead the public in the buildup to the war in Iraq. Janet Minshall How the Press was Manipulated By Vincent Jauvert Le Nouvel Observateur Hebdomadaire Week of 24 July 2004 Beginning in October 2001, several Iraqi renegades offered their revelations to the media. They only wanted to talk to the most prestigious journalists, however. The first was a certain Sabh Alami, a former captain in Saddam Hussein's army. Ahmed Chalabi introduced him to "Washington Post" editorialist, Jim Hoagland. The former soldier offers a scoop to the talented reporter. "You see," he tells Hoagland, "Iraq is training Islamic terrorists to hijack airplanes in a camp near Baghdad, called Salman Park. I even believe," he adds, "that the cockpits they use look like the Boeing's, you know, like the planes that crashed September 11, you know what I mean?" Jim Hoagland walks into the trap and reports the fascinating story. The next day, the White House rushes to broadcast the devastating testimony without any risk: its guarantee is the illustrious "Washington Post". Three weeks later, Chalabi contacts the other influential United States daily paper, the "New York Times". He says that a certain Major Harith has just shown up in Turkey. He would have much to say. The great paper sends its star terrorism reporter, Judith Miller, to Ankara. Incredible coincidence: Major Harith has also been to the terrible Salman Park camp. He worked there several years. At what? Training Islamic terrorists, by God, fanatics ready for anything, "even suicide". But there's still more. The indefatigable Major Harith has been charged with secret missions. The first was to buy eight Renault trucks. What for? For mobile biological weapons labs, obviously! His second mission: nothing less than finding material to make an atomic bomb. Should she believe him? The journalist Judith Miller is in a state. American officials reassure her: Harith, whose real name is Abu Zeinab, is "the most important secret service officer to have fled Iraq". So, then! Confident, on November 8, 2001, the "New York Times" publishes in their entirety the so-called master spy's inventions. All the media relay the information guaranteed by the totally trustworthy Judith Miller. And, in mid-November, 74% of Americans declare themselves in favor of military action against Saddam Hussein. However, the war clan wants to keep up the pressure. Preparations for an invasion will last several months. Public opinion might recoil. It must continue to be watered with frightening testimony about the Iraqi regime and weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi will see to it. From October 2001 to May 2002, Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) will generate over 100 articles in the Anglo-Saxon press (and the AFP): 108 precisely! How do we know this? Through an indiscretion on the part of Ahmed Chalabi's Washington confidence man, Francis Brooke. In a June 26, 2002 letter to the United States Senate, the preposterous Brooke boasts of his beloved boss' exploits. The proof: he hands over as an appendix the detailed list of 108 "inspired" articles. The objective of this unbelievable letter: to show the American legislature that the INC, entirely financed by Washington, is an effective organization that doesn't waste the taxpayers' money. Indeed, it is effective. Too much so, with regard to American legislation. One diplomat explains: "The money was supposed to be used to inform Iraqis living in Iraq and abroad only, not to make propaganda in American newspapers. There was an absolute prohibition against that." But that doesn't bother Ahmed Chalabi. Last February, he declared to the "Daily Telegraph": "We have totally succeeded: the tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. Whatever was said before is not important!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Fri Jun 25 12:09:00 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:09:00 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fwd: Re: ECN Connections Message-ID: Hi Kim and Susan, Since you have not yet published an earlier draft of this message, I thought Friends might wish to see my response. This is a reply to the last ECN Connections, specifically to a section written by Geeta McGahey quoted below (please modify my earlier message to reflect the changes I have made here), Thanks, Janet >Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 13:47:46 -0400 >To: "Susan Carlyle" >From: Janet Minshall >Subject: Re: ECN Connections Quote from Geeta McGahey: >"* Frequency with which a new McDonald's opens somewhere in the world: once >every 5 hours >* Africa's biggest employer: Coca-Cola >* Increase in U.S. population during the 20th century: threefold >* Increase in U.S. consumption of raw materials during the 20th century: >seventeenfold" > > >Hi Susan, I think the statements from Geeta on population growth in >the US (reproduced above from the last issue of ECN Connections) are >misleading as they stand. Most of the population increase in THIS >century is expected to be due to immigration and refugee movement, >not births. Immigration and refugee admissions (and foreign >adoptions) do not impact global population numbers as those births >are already counted in the country of origin. The births above >replacement which are expected in the US will primarily be due to >the recently arrived refugee and immigrant (legal and illegal) >populations. Those rates will go down quickly once the economic >impact of living in the US and having access to good birth control >is felt. (A fact well documented by those who have done long-term >studies of refugee and immigrant populations. I served for ten years >as Regional Director (Consultant) for Lutheran Immigration and >Refugee Services and we were given ample in-service training on the >long term effects of living in the US on refugee and immigrant >populations.) The other related point is that the amount of >consumption for newly arrived refugees and poorer immigrants and >their families is significantly lower than the average in the US >population. It isn't until the second or third generation in the US >that refugees and poorer immigrant families tend to catch up with >the rest of us in the area of consumption. > >The White population in the US is already reproducing at or below >replacement so this comment would tend to mislead most Quakers into >thinking that it would be good for them not to have children. To >maintain current population ratios they could safely have one or two >children. This being the case, if we in ECN are seriously trying to >impact population growth, is it the people in the US of non-European >descent that we are trying to control? Do we really want to open >ourselves up to accusations on that racially charged and explosive >issue? > >I don't like McDonalds myself but Geeta needs to mention, when she >criticizes US corporations doing business overseas, how many local >people are employed by those corporations and how the wages paid >compare with the average wages in that country. She will find, if >she looks closely, that the standard of living for ordinary people >in that country improves markedly as US corporations open factories >and stores there and hire local workers to staff outsourced >production and services. > >Janet Minshall, Anneewakee Creek Friends Worship Group From nc_stereoman at charter.net Fri Jun 25 13:32:48 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:32:48 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] truth and irony Message-ID: <40DC2980.3170.6229650@localhost> Friends, I may have missed some implications in Geeta's posting that Janet and others picked up more readily, but I did not read a criticism of McDonald's in the report of the frequency of new stores opening, nor did I see a criticism of Coca-Cola in the report that they are Africa's largest employer. At the same time, I found Janet's explanation of population trends to be very illuminating, particularly the point about consumption rates. It seems to me that Geeta's point was more about unhealthy consumption patterns than about unhealthy population growth, and Janet's offering underlined that point. How may we Quakers reflect on our contributions to this interesting statistic? An example would be this: imagine Friends discerning, a hundred years ago, that a certain location would be appropriate for a regional Gathering based on the lodgings being air-conditioned. Now imagine discerning that a location would NOT be appropriate, based on the same criterion. Are we willing to sacrifice our creature comforts? Is it imperative, in our stewardship of our planet, to do so? Are there bigger fish to fry? Or should we look to our own air conditioners before we start telling other people how many babies to have? The question of population control is a thorny one, but I believe it is possible, with education and access to choices, to affect change without being too aggressive. I subscribe to the notion that the current Administration's blatant war against family planning is intended to maintain an overwhelming population of willing peons to compete for jobs with multinational corporations - like Coca-Cola or McDonald's - and keep costs as low as possible. It appeals to my sense of irony, which I find requires more frequent subsistence since 9-11. Oh yes! 9-11! See you at the movies! Steve From jhminshall at comcast.net Sat Jun 26 11:27:05 2004 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:27:05 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] truth and irony In-Reply-To: <40DC2980.3170.6229650@localhost> References: <40DC2980.3170.6229650@localhost> Message-ID: Hi Steve, Thanks for the feedback. Point taken. Free has a serious lung disease which has caused him to lose the use of more than half of his right lung. I have a problem with my internal thermostat from the disability I have had for thirteen years. The only way we can be sure of adequate air filtration for Free and cool enough temperatures for me to sleep when we travel is by asking for air conditioned rooms. We have always considered ourselves to be two of the "canaries in the mineshaft"-- birds that were used before adequate monitoring equipment was available to tell the miners when there was a dangerous level of gas in the mineshaft. Once people are damaged it takes more resources to keep them alive. If SAYMA moves to a place where no air-conditioned rooms are available we may not be able to come anymore. Free and I and one of our sons saw Farenheit 911 yesterday. I thought it was an excellent piece of counter propaganda (meaning that what we hear and see on the news everyday, is propaganda, not news). That point is made clearly in/by the film. Best Regards, Janet Minshall >Friends, > >I may have missed some implications in Geeta's posting that Janet and others >picked up more readily, but I did not read a criticism of McDonald's >in the report of >the frequency of new stores opening, nor did I see a criticism of >Coca-Cola in the >report that they are Africa's largest employer. > >At the same time, I found Janet's explanation of population trends to be very >illuminating, particularly the point about consumption rates. It >seems to me that >Geeta's point was more about unhealthy consumption patterns than >about unhealthy >population growth, and Janet's offering underlined that point. > >How may we Quakers reflect on our contributions to this interesting >statistic? An >example would be this: imagine Friends discerning, a hundred years ago, that a >certain location would be appropriate for a regional Gathering based >on the lodgings >being air-conditioned. Now imagine discerning that a location would NOT be >appropriate, based on the same criterion. Are we willing to >sacrifice our creature >comforts? Is it imperative, in our stewardship of our planet, to do >so? Are there >bigger fish to fry? Or should we look to our own air conditioners >before we start >telling other people how many babies to have? > >The question of population control is a thorny one, but I believe it >is possible, with >education and access to choices, to affect change without being too >aggressive. I >subscribe to the notion that the current Administration's blatant >war against family >planning is intended to maintain an overwhelming population of >willing peons to >compete for jobs with multinational corporations - like Coca-Cola or >McDonald's - >and keep costs as low as possible. It appeals to my sense of irony, >which I find >requires more frequent subsistence since 9-11. > >Oh yes! 9-11! See you at the movies! > >Steve > >_______________________________________________ >Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >posting address: sayma at kitenet.net >subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma From freepolazzo at comcast.net Sun Jun 27 18:10:24 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:10:24 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] New space for Anneewakee Creek Friends Worship Group Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040627180410.02c5c7b8@mail.comcast.net> Dear SAYMA Friends, We have just posted our new website which announces the change in our meeting place from our home to a space in a retail store (I am Wonderful) in Douglas County, beginning July 18th on Sunday at 11:00 AM. All it took was 6 years before way opened for us. The website has a link to a map (Mapquest) and the other information a seeker may need to decide whether to attend or not. http://www.acfwg.org Please feel free to let your acquaintances who live West of Atanta, to know about our worship group and our new website. We are happy to make it easier for Friends to gather outside the perimeter in the part of Atlanta that is closest to Alabama. All of us our worship group want to thank the Atlanta Friends Meetiing for their assistance. We especially thank Roland Heath and Bert Skellie whose encouragement and care helped to make this move possible. Blessings, Free Polazzo, Clerk Anneewakee Creek Friends Worship Goup PS: If anyone has trouble seeing the website on their browser, please inform me of 1. which brand of computer you are using, (PC/MAC/?) 2. whom you internet provider is (bellsouth.net, comcast.net, msn.com, netzero.net, etc.) 3. what kind of connection you use: (28K modem, 56K Modem, cable modem, etc.) This will help us to improve our website. From bright_crow at mindspring.com Tue Jun 29 09:46:22 2004 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (Mike Shell) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:46:22 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: Alert: US military calling up Ready Reservists (~11:15 PM EDST 6/28/04 ) Message-ID: <33154759.1088516783682.JavaMail.root@wamui03.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Friends, Please share this troubling news. Blessed Be, Michael. -----Forwarded Message----- From: Warren Hoskins Sent: Jun 29, 2004 12:49 AM To: quakercenter at miamifriends.org, antiwarbroward at yahoogroups.com, pbpeace at yahoogroups.com, miamiforpeace at yahoogroups.com Subject: Alert: US military calling up Ready Reservists (~11:15 PM EDST 6/28/04 ) Maybe it is cynical of me, but it looks as though the Pentagon waited until after the East Coast late news broadcasts had all gotten under way to release this story. Let me know if you saw or heard it anywhere on the 28th, please. This is bad news on so many levels, I do not know where to begin. It means that the bridges are being burned, to me--that is, recruiting has not kept pace with the "need"-- so people who have been in the military are being called back. That will hurt recruiting more, obviously, and forces the decision to resume the draft to come much closer, suddenly. Unless, of course, the people force the other decision--to end the war and remove the pressure to have so many people in the military. Peace, Warren Army Plans Involuntary Call-Up of Thousands [about 11:10 PM EDST 6/28/04] By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday. The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries. Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity. A senior defense official said, "These individuals are being called back to fill specific shortages for specific jobs." The official said the last time the Individual Ready Reserve, mainly made up of soldiers who have completed their active duty obligations, was mobilized in any significant numbers was during the 1991 Gulf War. Army officials are in the process of briefing members of Congress on the mobilization and plan a formal announcement on Wednesday. The Army official said the mobilization "will be through the rest of the year. Some could be within a month." "It would be an involuntary measure, an involuntary mobilization," the Army official said. "It's approximately 5,600." "We're not calling up units, we're just using all the existing assets in theater and we're augmenting those assets with these individuals -- various occupational specialties, various different types of officers running the whole gamut," the Army official said. The official said military police and civil affairs personnel were among the specialties involved. The defense official said that while soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve have served their voluntary obligation in the Army they still can be mobilized involuntarily for several years after returning to civilian life. "Sometimes there's a misperception by some of the individuals ... that 'I've done my obligation, I've been in the Army, thank you very much, and I'm done'. But you're not done," the official said. The Pentagon had originally planned to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq to approximately 110,000 by now, but continuing security problems compelled officials to maintain a level of about 138,000 troops. Officials have said they planned to maintain that number through the end of 2005. The United Sates has another 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. This spring, the Pentagon delayed by about three months the scheduled departure from Iraq of roughly 20,000 U.S. troops. # # # From freepolazzo at comcast.net Tue Jun 29 10:07:22 2004 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:07:22 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] On BuzzFlash: The Founding Fathers Meet George Bush - Maureen Farrell at BuzzFlash.com Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040629095528.02ba40f8@mail.comcast.net> Hello SAYMA Friends, Ths article is a good one to read for Independence Day. It's long, but can be skimmed. Maureen does a wonderful job of mixing and matching quotes from many people. A quote I would have like to include was one by Martin Luther King, Jr. "No one is free until all are free" What quote would you want added? Blessings, Free I found this on BuzzFlash.com. http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/06/far04021.html From nc_stereoman at charter.net Tue Jun 29 14:06:14 2004 From: nc_stereoman at charter.net (Steve Livingston) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:06:14 -0400 Subject: [saymaListserv] re: Farrell's imaginary panel discussion Message-ID: <40E17756.5866.1ADAA1B3@localhost> Friends, Wow! What a great read that was! Maureen Farrell put a lot of effort into collecting dozens of quotations from some leading contemporary political figures and "pundits" as well as our nation's Founders and skillfully arranged them to create a smoothly flowing "discussion". Among her introductory remarks, this statement caught my eye: "...the divide between patriotic Americans who ache to preserve what’s left of our republic and nationalistic Americans who unwittingly embrace empire is more explosive than a beachside fireworks display. Confusingly, however, those in the latter group often shamelessly back any draconian measure..." The red flags went up: is she saying that only Americans who oppose the Administration's "draconian measures" are patriotic? Are those who embrace a strong sense of nationalism any less anxious to "preserve what's left of our republic"? And, just on the question of semantics, how can a "divide" be "explosive"? I often find our media commentators either exacerbate ill will among citizens with different points of view, or in some cases seem to create schisms where none were previously perceptible. This doesn't surprise me: confrontation and controversy sell more copy than peace and harmony. But it does provide yet another example, in my opinion, of just how unlikely our Quaker vision of a Peaceable Kingdom is: our media, driven by the necessity of profit, will almost certainly choose to encourage controversy, if in no other way than favoring the reporting of it. This assessment may appear harsh, but it comes from one who struggles, every day as I read the news, with barely suppressable feelings of hope that things will continue going badly in America and the world, at least for a few more months, to help assure the outcome of a political election. How crass of me, I scold myself, to be wishing ill upon the innocent, at the expense of holding the powerful in the Light! Steve From jewen at bellsouth.net Mon Jun 7 11:58:25 2004 From: jewen at bellsouth.net (jewen at bellsouth.net) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:58:25 -0000 Subject: Fw: [saymaListserv] How independent is the Corporaton for PublicBroadcasting? Message-ID: <004501c44ca8$7156b0e0$6101a8c0@amd1gig> OOps my program added a digit to a number. It is 20, not 209!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: jewen at bellsouth.net To: free polazzo Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] How independent is the Corporaton for PublicBroadcasting? Something else is happening simultaneously, which is, if possible, even more insideous. Politcally created entities can have their membership change when the people naming people to them changes. We can go to the polls and change who those people are. However, the more insideous change in the Public Broadcasting environment is one that once begun is probably impossible to reverse. Like rust underneath a car. No matter how you treat it, the corrosion once started eventually eats the whole frame and the vehicle falls apart even though the engine may still be chugging... The Public stations and network are now running actual ads and have been for some time. The most obvious ones are the luxury automobile ads. We know who that industry has supported in Washington. Not much of that money goes to the Green Party or to the Libertarians, does it? and rather more ends up in Republican pockets than Democratic...(The Democratic Party has moved right of center in an effort to compete for Congressional seats between Presidential campaigns and it is having a diffcult time moving back to its more liberal center again..) Over 209 years ago, the most "advertising" a corporation got was a discreet announcement at the end of the credits or on the opening titles...usually low key white letters on black screen. And the money had to come from a foundation funded by the corporation, not directly from the corporation. I suspect that along with accepting actual ads, the barriers to acceptance of money from corporate advertising budgets has also gone by the boards. We will not be able to get this genie back in the bottle no matter who gets into the White House or how many "liberal" politicians we get into Congress...The stations will opt out of being Public stations at all rather than give up the revenue represented by the corporate advertising. For the New Right it is a win-win. Control the broadcasting content by withholding government funds or control it by threatening to cancel the advertising that I'm sure the stations intended to liberate them from dependence on an increasingly domineering government funding system. We may need to go to direct subscription, which people have come to accept in the form of Cable TV Services--the "pay TV" that early broadcasters said the public would never buy! It will mean rather fewer public stations, but those that do manage to survive would have their programming determined by the people who provide the money. One would have to be careful to construct the charter or bylaws so that those who donate more money do not get to dominate the programming--one person, one vote, irrespective of donation, or to limit the amount that anyone could donate, have it be the same amount per person and swallow the bitter pill of having to recruit numbers of people... Perhaps it is time to become really what it was intended, a system owned by the viewers. The transistion will be though, but it might be worth it. Julia Parker Ewen AFM (SAYMA) ----- Original Message ----- From: free polazzo To: Atlanta Friends Meeting ; sayma at kitenet.net Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:23 AM Subject: [saymaListserv] How independent is the Corporaton for PublicBroadcasting? Dear SAYMA and AFM lists, Friends who listen to Public Broadcasting do so to get a less biased slant on the news of the day. We need to know how the stations we listen and watch are being effected by the current administration in Washingon D. C. The information presented should not surprise anyone, but it is good to know what is going on. Here is a story about how Public Broadcasting is being moved to the right wing column, little by little. The author of the press release is, Chellie Pingree, who is President and CEO of Common Cause, a national citizens lobby based in Washington, D.C. and with 38 state organizations across the country. Free Public Television's 'Heat Shield' Withers Under White House Pressure By Chellie Pingree MediaChannel.org WASHINGTON, June 2, 2004 -- Public broadcasting has found itself in the crosshairs of a partisan firing squad. New and intensifying ideological pressures from the Bush Administration have forced the public broadcaster to add new programs and alter others, in an attempt to be "more balanced" in the view of the current leadership. At a time when Americans are finding it more and more difficult to get past the clutter and partisanship on commercial TV and radio to find truthful sources of information about their government, this ideological pressure may gag one of the few sources of independent, substantive news and commentary that Americans can count on. The fact that members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides federal funds to public radio and TV, should play politics with its program content should disturb us all, whatever our political views. The visionaries who created public broadcasting set up the CPB as the nonprofit corporation providing federal funds to public radio and TV. CPB's primary mission has always been to serve as a "heat shield" between government and public broadcasting, protecting programming from government interference. But instead of serving as a "heat shield," CPB now is the agent of ideological interference. And public broadcasting's news and public affairs programs in particular will be harmed if conservative members of the CPB have their way. In a New Yorker's expose published on Monday, media writer Ken Auletta documents several disturbing trends. The CPB recently decided to fund two programs -- one hosted by Tucker Carlson, who speaks for conservatives on CNN's "Crossfire," and one moderated by Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal. At the same time that these programming additions were being made, "NOW with Bill Moyers," which receives no CPB funds, was cut from an hour to 30 minutes. Earlier in 2004, Moyers announced that he will be leaving the program by the end of the year. Moreover, according to Auletta's article, the Bush Administration appears to be conducting a litmus test for choosing CPB board members. The White House asked CPB board candidate Chon Noriega, a UCLA media professor and co-founder of the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, whether the Corporation should intervene in programming "deemed politically biased." When Noriega replied that intervention should be used in only extraordinary circumstances, the appointment process ground to a halt. The White House has since asked Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) to put forward another candidate. Bill Moyers told Auletta: "This is the first time in my 32 years of public broadcasting that CPB has ordered up programs for ideological instead of journalistic reasons." There is a problem with the CPB. Whether it is a Democratic or Republican President who appoints them, CPB board members tend to be big political donors who often come with specific ideological agendas. This seems particularly true of the current board. President George W. Bush's most recent CPB appointees, Gay Hart Gaines and Cheryl Halpern, and their families, have given more than $800,000 to the Republican Party and candidates since 1995. Both these appointees have backgrounds that raise questions about their suitability to serve on the CPB board. During her confirmation hearing last fall, Halpern indicated that she would welcome giving CPB members the authority to intervene in program content when they felt a program was biased. Gaines chaired Newt Gingrich's political committee GOPAC. Gingrich as House Speaker proposed cutting all federal assistance to public TV. Board chairman Kenneth Tomlinson has given $7,700 to Republicans since 1995, and has been active in Republican politics. A friend of Karl Rove, he is quoted in The New Yorker as saying that "It is absolutely critical for people on the right to feel they have the same ownership stake in public television as people on the left have," and he objected to Moyers' including commentary in his programs. We cannot let partisans drive an ideological stake in the heart of public broadcasting. At a time when media consolidation makes it more and more difficult for Americans to hear diverse points of view and to be exposed to substantive, challenging journalism, we must save public broadcasting from these attempts to meddle with its editorial independence. "In times of change, learners inherit the world, while the learned remain beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" (Philosopher and author Eric Hoffer) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list posting address: sayma at kitenet.net subscribe/unsubscribe: http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 176537ed.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 637 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 176537fd.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4624 bytes Desc: not available URL: