Blunt Language From Missouri Senator About Abortion

I fully participated in the recent campaign to prevent the move to cut funding to the the organization that prevents more abortions than any other, Planned Parenthood. Even though Republicans held to that partisan budget pittance to the point of shutting down the government, the health services for poor women provided by Planned Parenthood will continue to get that dollar per citizen for another year. Yay. But along the way, I wrote to my Senator, Roy Blunt. Weeks later, he wrote back. Here (in part) is his response:

"Thank you for contacting me about funding for Planned Parenthood"

"I am deeply opposed to the practice of abortion and do not support federal funding for any organization that performs or promotes abortions, which includes Planned Parenthood. An unborn child is a living human being and abortion ends the life of that child. Throughout my time in the House I worked hard to protect the lives of the unborn.

"I am proud to have the highest possible pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life, and, as I begin my time in the Senate, I will continue to support efforts to make adoption more attractive for parents and prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion."

Either he is ignorant, or tacitly lying. Three percent (3%) of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion related. Of those, none (0%) have ever been taxpayer supported. The prohibition against tax money for abortions is still in effect from the 1976 Hyde Amendment. Only under very rare circumstances does this act allow any federal money to be involved in an abortion. Lawmakers can posture all they want to; it is already illegal for tax money aid poor women who must resort to that tragic choice. I'm not a single-issue voter, nor do necessarily I oppose his position every issue. But his ignorant formula response to my request has cemented my opposition to his reelection.

Continue ReadingBlunt Language From Missouri Senator About Abortion

About Astroturf

What would you like to know about the Koch Brothers and their "astroturf" campaigns? Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear from several panelists on the topic at the National Conference for Media Reform. The panelists included Lee Fang, who is almost a legend among progressives for his detailed investigations regarding the Koch Brothers (his blogs can be found on ThinkProgress - here's one of his more recent posts). Why is it important to study these fake social movements? Fang responded that law makers believe "citizens groups" more than the do corporate groups. Thus, groups of citizens get some instant cred that they don't deserve. Further, news reporters love to cover rallies of "citizens." If corporate movements can be disguised as citizen movements, then they obtain an unfair advantage. It's also important to note that there are various types of astroturf groups out there, including liberal-oriented astroturf groups (former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry was pointed out as being a player). It is the conservatives who have made the most extensive use of such citizen-facades, however. The panelists pointed out that the Koch Brothers are uniquely positioned as able to spread their message through these faux-citizen groups based on their corporate connections and great wealth. If you're looking for the "blueprint" of their movement, consider Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce, "which has served as the blueprint for the past 40 years." Also consider the "Rancho Mirage Memo." Doug Clopp of Common Cause also presented as part of the panel, and I videotaped most of his presentation: Footnote: Conservatives have successfully recruited and even featured Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas to their organizational meetings. It was also noted that, amazingly, the U.S. Judicial Code of conduct does not apply to the U.S. Supreme Court. Representative Murphy has recently sponsored a proposed change in the law to address this issue.

Continue ReadingAbout Astroturf

Craig Newmark’s new connection-venture

Craig Newmark is the well-known founder of Craigslist. At the 2011 National Conference for Media Reform, I had the opportunity to hear him discuss his new project, craigconnects, the stated goal of which is to bridge the gap between concerned citizens and great causes. According to this write-up, craigconnects "spotlights companies doing positive work in categories including Veterans' Issues, Technology for Social Good, Community Building, and Journalism Integrity." At the NCMR, Newmark remarked that craigconnects is going to be a work in progress and that he has made a 20 year commitment to see how far he can take it. Hearing about craigconnects reminds me of an organization a friend recently told me about:  Kiva.  If you would like to help someone out with a micro-loan, Kiva is a great place to get you connected.

We are a non-profit organization with a mission to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty. Leveraging the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions, Kiva lets individuals lend as little as $25 to help create opportunity around the world.

Continue ReadingCraig Newmark’s new connection-venture

Wikileaks in the spotlight at the National Conference for Media Reform

I'm in Boston attending the National Conference for Media Reform - 2011, sponsored by Free Press. I'm one of 2,500 would-be reformers on hand, learning a lot about the state of the media, but there's not enough good news about the news these days. Countless journalists are losing their jobs, newspapers are being shuttered and important stories are thus not getting adequate coverage. On the other hand, the attendees at the conference are, as a group, affable, intelligent and capable people, as are the presenters. Yesterday I attended a panel discussion on Wikileaks, hosted by Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow. I'll offer some of my observations below, before presenting several videos I shot during the discussions.  These videos include of all of the comments by Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, who has made Wikileaks a strong focus of his work over the past year.  I've also included a video of Amy Goodman's opening comments. In addition to Glenn Greenwald, the panel included Greg Mitchell, who has created an ongoing and comprehensive Wikiweaks series of posts, in The Nation. Each day's entry at his blog includes multiple items, and he's up to at least Day 132. Mitchell has just published an excellent book, The Age of Wikileaks: From Collateral Murder to Cablegate (and Beyond) (2011); I bought a copy at the conference and I'm halfway through. Mitchell suggested early in the session that the federal government has been treating Bradley Manning inhumanely to discourage future whistle-blowers.  Why would that be?  Many of the answers are in Mitchell's own book.  For instance, Mitchell reports that prior to the release of the "Collateral Murder" video, Julian Assange predicted:

Continue ReadingWikileaks in the spotlight at the National Conference for Media Reform

Corporations are not people

Free Speech for People is another concerted effort to overturn Citizen's United.   Here's the problem:

A sharply divided Supreme Court decided that the American people are powerless to stop corporations from using corporate funds to influence state and federal elections. The 5-4 decision ruled that the restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections contained in the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known as BCRA or “McCain-Feingold”) violated the First Amendment protections of free speech.

The solution:

The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the Citizens United v. FEC case and return the First Amendment to its longstanding purpose as a guarantee of the fullest rights of a free people and the press. The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the fabrication by activist judges of a “corporate rights doctrine” to defeat democratically enacted laws, and will restore the First Amendment to its meaning and intent for two centuries.  The Amendment will ensure that all people have the most robust freedom of conscience, speech and debate and that a vibrant, diverse press remains free and unfettered, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, democracy.

The Free Speech for People Amendment Campaign will work with others to develop specific language for the Free Speech for People Amendment. Here is one example of language for the Free Speech for People Amendment:

Amendment XXVIII Section 1.  The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, the First Amendment shall not be construed to limit the authority of Congress and the States to define, regulate, and restrict the spending and other activity of any corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation. Section 2.  Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
[Addendum April 11, 2011] I have added a short speech by John Bonifaz, co-founder of Free Speech for People. He warns that Citizens United should not simply be seen as a campaign finance decision, but as announcing a radical new doctrine establishing corporate rights. Corporations should not be seen to have the same rights as people. Because of their powers to aggregate wealth, they should be carefully restrained. Unchecked corporate power is subverting our democracy. The BP disaster and the unrestrained consolidation of the media are examples. The solution is to amend the U.S. Constitution with the 28th Amendment. Bonifaz indicates that seven of the existing Amendments remedied egregious injustices. This effort will take immense energy and organizing, but the wholesomeness of the idea is on our side. Polling shows that 87% of Democrats, 85% of Independents and 68% of Republicans support the idea that corporations should not have the rights of people.

Continue ReadingCorporations are not people