Center for Media and Democracy Release 2008 Falsies Award Winners

The Center for Media and Democracy released their annual "Falsies" Award winners today. The awards are their "attempt to shine an unflattering light on those responsible for polluting the information environment over the past year."

Vote "NO" for Nuclear Power at Change.org

Go here to vote for No new nuclear power on Change.org.

Nuclear power is far from renewable and far from clean. On May 5th, 2008 ("A Grand Canyon Rush For Uranium") the Los Angeles Times reported that all this talk of new Nuclear power plants has sparked an uranium mining boom, and thousands of the new uranium mine claims are in one of our nation's natural wonders: the Grand Canyon. Uranium mining is highly toxic. The article describes the remains of a former uranium mine in the park "Elevated radiation has been detected in Horn Creek below, and signs have been posted warning visitors not to drink the water.” Additionally, according to "Atomic Dreams" by Jason Mark, "uranium mining and enrichment require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy."

Somehow the nuclear PR machine has been successful at poo-pooing what is the most toxic and depraved consequence of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Waste. We have no way to dispose of it, it will last thousands of years, and it's highly radioactive.

With so many people handling the day to day operations of each plant, can anyone honestly guarantee that not one worker will ever make a potentially fatal mistake? Just a few months ago security personal at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in PA were caught sleeping on the job. If terrorists picked that time and place to attack, we would not be protected by Wackenhut. Thousands of people work at these plants and are responsible for their safety. Chernobyl has thoroughly illustrated the full potential dangers these plants pose.

And the least talked about danger posed by an increased use of nuclear power is nuclear proliferation. Nuclear power plants are intrinsically linked to nuclear weapons. On March 6, 1969 Edward Teller wrote then New York Governor Rockefeller that almost any country in "possession of these fissionable materials... is likely to be able to produce fission explosives without too much difficulty.... If as much as 10% of the fissionable material can be surreptitiously extracted from the reactors, each 1,000 megawatt reactor would still be able to produce several nuclear explosives per year..... It is also claimed that the reactors will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. Unfortunately, the distinction between weapons-grade plutonium and reactor-grade plutonium has been mistakenly overemphasized…."(Rockefeller Archive Center, NY). This is the real reason protests fly from Washington when our enemies develop "safe" atomic energy--because it doesn’t exist.

Finally, the only reason nuclear power is affordable is because of the generous subsidies the tax payers provide the industry. The Price-Anderson Act, for example, provides nuclear power operators with federal insurance. Think about it--the potential liability of these monsters is so huge it’s impossible for a company to insure them privately and still make a profit. This means that if a plant melts down and kills thousands, or if it causes any other small or large disaster, you, me, and all other tax payers pay for the clean up. This is privatizing the benefits and socializing the consequences of business at it's most sick and twisted.

Nuclear Power should be taken off President Obama's table. In fact he should be working to slowly faze out all Nuclear Power plants. Nuclear Power is not safe, renewable, affordable, or clean.

Rahm Emanuel: The New Cheney in the Whitehouse?

ProPublica has a great series on Rahmbo (much of which is based on various investigative reports in other sources). His relationship to Wallstreet is eerily similar to that of Cheney and Halliburton. The comparison to Cheney may be jaring to some, but consider the facts. According to these articles he was in the top 3-5% highest paid investment bankers in the nation druing his brief time with Wasserstein Perella, an investment bank (now defunct). Cheney made a killing at Halliburton with wonderful stock options. Emanuel has deep connections in Wallstreet that he keeps in contact with still. Investment bankers and members of the securities were his biggest backers when he ran for congress. He was able to use some of the Wasserstein loot he made to back his own campaign during some financial difficulties. He owes Wallstreet and he is a veracious fighter. Cheney too has been a varacious fighter in the Whitehouse, who by most accounts has used his dogged determinism to push for outrageous contracts for Halliburton (and it's former subsideriary, KBR). They are both the rabbid dogs of their respective parties with deep ties to the biggest robber barons of our time. These are not reassuring attributes in a Commander in Chief Chief of Staff. I see not the Change.

To read the reports click the links below:

Rahmbo’s Revolving Door

Rahmbo’s Revolving Door Revisited

Rahmbo’s Revolving Door: Take 3

Obama Future Target of White Supremacists?

This is a great and frightening investigative report concerning the election of Obama and the White Power Movement.



When will these idiots learn that race is a social construct? Many white and black people have more genetically in common with people of the opposite "race" than they do to people of there own "race." In fact genetics are far more complicated than our classifications of race suggest (read this article for instance). White supremacists: it's time to face the fact that you are ignorant, half-brained toads. Start blaming your parents, poor education, and bad psychology for your problems.

Universal Health Care Action

Go to Congressman John Conyers' site and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor for single-payer universal health care--the only true form of universal health care. You can also share any horror stories from your personal experience with the private system of health care in the United States. Please help demand government support for non-private based health care.

http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare

Scahill On Obama: Change looks the Same

"U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots.... But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good." (Jeremy Scahill, "This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House")

If I wait long enough, Jeremy Scahill will write down my thoughts better than I can. Scahill provided readers today with a vast guide to foreign policy advisers of the Obama transition team and administration. He makes a damning case that Obama is currently leading us down the same foreign policy path we've been on for the past 2 administrations.

I especially like his critique of the mainstream press coverage of Hillary Clinton:

"For all the buzz and speculation about the possibility that Sen. Clinton may be named Secretary of State, most media coverage has focused on her rivalry with Obama during the primary, along with the prospect of her husband having to face the intense personal, financial and political vetting process required to secure a job in the new administration. But the question of how Clinton would lead the operations at Foggy Bottom calls for scrutiny of her positions vis-a-vis Obama's stated foreign-policy goals."

And I never thought I would be imressed with Maureen Dowd until today. She used the New York Times to criticize Obama for considering Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

"The man who vowed to deliver us from 28 years of Bushes and Clintons has been stocking up on Clintonites," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently wrote. "How, one may ask, can he put Hillary -- who voted to authorize the Iraq war without even reading the intelligence assessment -- in charge of patching up a foreign policy and a world riven by that war?"

Progressives wake up. The honeymoon is over. Obama needs to be pushed in the right direction.

photo from yumpickles

Truthout

I discovered truthout.org today, a news site superior to almost any I've found on the internet to date. Their articles are thorough, well researched, and insightful. They cut out all the partisan bullshit and deliver the facts void of think-tank talking points. They also feature hard hitting news stories from various sources from around the media world. I'm an avid user of NewsTrust, a social networking site dedicated to filtering out the good journalism from the bad, and truthout articles have often been featured with good to excellent ratings. I highly recommend subscribing to their RSS feed.

Thomas Friedman Resigns!

Thomas Friedman Resigns From the New York Times!

"But to have been so completely and fundamentally wrong about so huge a disaster as what we have done to Iraq — and ourselves — is outrageous enough to prove that people like me have no business posing as wise men, and, more importantly, that The New York Times has no business continuing to provide me with a national platform."

This didn't really happen. The Yes Men, my favorite political practical joke squad, handed out free New York Times parodies in New York City yesterday, and created this faux NY Times website to match. The Friedman article was my favorite. If only it were true.....

Reason 500 to fear and loath Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel

Today Democracy Now reported that in an interview with the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, Benjamin Emanuel, father of Rahm, said, "Obviously, he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House."

He sounds like the anti-Arab version of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic father. Maybe sometime soon Rahm will get real drunk and go on a belligerent rampage through the Whitehouse maintenance staff quarters, cursing and verbally abusing the staff with accusations of plans to take over the country through a vast conspiracy of a united Arab janitorial staff. That may be the only hope for getting rid of the jerk.

For more info as to why I fear and loath Obama's appointment of Rahm, see the links below:

Is Obama Screwing His Base with Rahm Emanuel Selection?

Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats

The Enforcer: Rep. Rahm Emanuel is leading the Democratic charge to retake the House next year. Will his old-school combativeness rub off on his more timid colleagues?

The Brothers Emanuel

Image above from Wonkette.com

Pentagon Considers Clandestine Blogger War

From today's Democracy Now:

Military Considers Recruiting & Hiring Bloggers

In media news, new questions are being raised over the relationship between the Pentagon and bloggers. Wired.com has uncovered a 2006 study written for the US Special Operations Command that suggests the military should clandestinely recruit or hire prominent bloggers. The report stated, “Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering.” The report also suggested the Pentagon hack blogs that promote messages that are antithetical to US interests. The report went on to say, “Hacking the site and subtly changing the messages and data—merely a few words or phrases—may be sufficient to begin destroying the blogger’s credibility with the audience.”

Republicans Vote for Hillary in order to Destroy the Democrats

The Boston Globe reported today that an awful lot of Republicans came out to vote for Hillary Clinton in the last few elections: "About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show."

According to the Globe, most of these Clinton voting Republicans have not found a new love for Hillary in their profit pumping little hearts--they want the democrats to continue tearing each other apart, and they feel that McCain can beat Clinton easier than Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Exit polls from Mississippi back these theories up. The Daily Kos posted the exit poll below on their website last week.





As the poll shows, a suspiciously large percentage (15) of Clinton voters would be unsatisfied if she won the nomination. In contrast, 4 percent of Obama supporters said they would be unsatisfied if he were to win the nomination. Obviously, if people are casting votes for Clinton, but don't want her to win, they hope to further the damage already inflicted on the democratic candidates by artificially extending the life of the democratic primaries.

Republicans are now the life support for Clinton's carcass of a campaign. She goes on, zombie like, sucking and leaching the unity, excitement and good will that existed in the democratic campaign just a few short months ago. Will those of you in Pennsylvania and in the remaining primary states, please look at the race objectively? Don't let the blood sucking Zombie put another Republican in the white house: unify behind Obama in order to end the general election bleeding. And if Hillary Clinton really cares about the Dems' chances this November, she will take the gracious step of exiting the race as soon as possible. Please Hillary, step down.

Women for Spitzer!

This campaign memento's comedic value just increased exponentially.

ABC uncovers Clinton's Walmart past

Hillary Clinton: 35 years of fighting for what?



There is something fundamentally wrong with the unions that have endorsed Clinton.

Spitzer Keeps Falling.

Ummm.... I don't know if Eliot's going to dig his way out of this one....

NY governor linked to prostitution ring

Big Pharma Spiked the Drinking Water

There's free Prozac in our drinking water and we didn't even know it!

AP probe finds drugs in drinking water



I think mine's been spiked with a little Viagra, too...

Hey, ladies.

Why did Power Call Clinton a Monster?

Since most of the media has failed to explain the most important question in the Power "Monster" controversy: Why did she call Clinton a monster? I will post a link to a great story that does:

http://www.alternet.org/story/79019/

Power wrote extensively about the Clinton administration's neglect of the Rwandan genocide. 800,000 people died and the Clinton administration let it happen. They knew it was going on and chose to do nothing. The subject is an emotional one, and in this context it is easy to understand why Power would use the term "monster."

Canadian Karl Rove/Clinton NAFTA Bomb

Remember last week when Hillary Clinton and the press jumped on a story about Obama staffers promising the Canadian government that Obama wasn't going to touch NAFTA despite his campaign promises to reform the trade deal? Remember how it hurt him during Tuesday's election? It looks like it was all fabricated by either the conservitive Canadian administration or Clinton's campaign or both (but no fear, the Mounties are investigating!). In fact, it seems that Clinton's campaign was the one telling the Canadians to take her NAFTA criticism with a "grain of salt." Now I really hope Obama beats Clinton.

Check out the stories below:

Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/06/7528/

Story in the Globe and Mail
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/06/7526/

Hillary "Karl Rove" Clinton

Despite Clinton's labor friendly base, she works her damnedest to disenfranchise members of unions who support other candidates. For instance, the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, Nevada's largest union, last week chose to support Obama. So how did Clinton's campaign react? According to Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation:

“Two days later, the Nevada State Education Association – with ties to the Clinton campaign in its leadership – filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to shutdown nine casino caucus at-large sites created to allow both union and non-union shift workers to vote during the workday. (On any given day, it would be difficult for these workers to participate without these caucus sites. It will be even more difficult during the busy Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend.)”

This tactic smells of Karl Rove, or some other scoundrel. It's the kind of dirty trick only some bored, coked-up rich fucker would pull on his emotionally retarded children.

But these are the same swine who brought us the “Obama may not be pro-choice” e-mails in New Hampshire—which may have been the true secret to Clinton's win (despite blatantly concocted not-quite teary “Moment”). RJ Escow reported on Alternet:

“Her campaign spread flyers around the state containing a lie about Obama's record -- one they already knew was a lie. Their claim that Obama had abandoned the pro-choice cause by voting "present" had already been disproved. NOW's Chicago director, a Clinton supporter, described the flyers as "offensive" and added: 'I'm very disgusted at this tactic being used by the Clinton campaign.'”

Hillary's actions are divisive and deceptive. Clinton, who finds herself in a tighter than expected race, is clawing and biting her way through this election. The problem is, she's clawing and biting her fellow democrats. If she wins the primary, how many of these democrats, maimed and disfigured from her crooked teeth, are going to come to the polls to support her on election day?

Things Edwards needs to do to Improve his Campaign

1.Stop joining forces with Obama to Attack Hillary during the debates: The image of the two leading men beating up on the one woman in the race is disconcerting to all viewers. You win support for Hillary by doing this. Besides, Obama with his large amount of corporate contributors is just as deserving of your criticism. You need to remain consistent in your criticism, and right now you are not. Even I sometimes rethink my support for you when I see what appears to be your hypocrisy—they are both entrenched in the same old Washington corporate game (aka propped up and financed by corporate supporters and lobbyists who they will need to repay when in office).


2.Be more inclusive in you speech: please read Steven Rosenfeld’s article on Alternet “’Yes We Can’—the Secret Behind Obama’s Message” (http://www.alternet.org/story/73014/). He writes: “Basically, the other candidates are all saying, ‘I will do this,’ ‘I will do that,’ ‘I will be there in this way for you,’ as they recite the fine print of issues to show what they would do as president.” Meanwhile Obama “is not emphasizing the ‘I’ pronoun. He is all about we and you. ‘We can do this.’ ‘We can do that.’ ‘If we come together, we can achieve ...’ The former grass-roots organizer is making his candidacy inclusive.” The media is having a field day calling you the “angry” candidate (although, like the saying goes, If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.... or you’re the corporate media lulling us to sleep). If you use the language above, I believe it may transform your speeches enough to reduce this perception.

3.Learn form Kucinich: This may be counterintuitive, but recently Bill Moyer mentioned on his show that post-debate polls often favor Kucinich as being strongest in the debates. You’ve said you’re against corporate greed, but your arguments lack substance. Kucinich does represent the ideas of a good portion of America—he’s just a bit too wacky (seeing flying saucers and all) to have a chance. You have the poise and ability to take his message and give it more credibility. I predict it will help your standing in the polls as well.

4.Attack Obama’s claim for “Change”: Obama has aligned himself largely with the corporate friendly Democratic Leadership Council wing of the party. Despite his claims of being anti-war, he supported the candidacy of pro-war Joseph Lieberman over the anti-war democratic candidate, Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. He voted for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. He supports Nuclear Power (largely due to one of his largest contributors and supporters, Exelon—jump on that). He avoided voting against the resolution that declared Iran’s revolutionary guard a terrorist organization. He’s received the second most money form the health care industry of any presidential candidate. He has corporate lobbyists on his campaign staff. He does not represent any real change to the presidency other than race. (for more fodder see Paul Street’s article, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14612).

Obama is not 'the Change"

Obama is not "the change". Obama has received more corporate money than any other candidate except Hillary Clinton. He is also second to Clinton in money received from the health industry. As Michael Moore wrote this morning: "...[Obama] tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates." It is no wonder he refuses to call for mandatory universal health care (which I can't really be universal if its not mandatory--I still don't understand why pundits keep calling it universal). If the wealthy don't have to buy into it, they won't and without their money it won't work. It is wonderful that a black man has won in an all white state. It is monumental for our country, but Obama, unfortunately, has yet to speak strongly against racism. He has not taken a strong stand on the Jena Six case (see : http://www.alternet.org/democracy/72713/ for more on Obama and race). Also, when most progressives were backing the anti-war candicacy of Ned Lamont against the hawk Lieberman, Obama was giving money to Lieberman. He said publicly that he did not know if he would have voted against the war if he was in the Senate at the time of the vote. He continues to vote to fund the war. How's that for your anti-war candiate. For more reasons why Obama does not represent real change in Washington please see:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14612

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/3/91942/42408/515/429670

For those who want real change, please vote Edwards. Kucinich fans--I used to be one of you--Kucinch lost my support when he asked his supporters to chose Obama as second choice in Iowa. For a more complete and eloquent argument to abandon Kucinich (and Obama) see Normon Solomon's article: http://www.alternet.org/election08/72560/