The basic ideology of "the market" and "consumer power" holds that the choices we make as individuals hold the power to change the world. It is an ideology that that is particularly serviceable to the business interests who run the country, because it downplays the basic reality that in order for ordinary people to change a world in which power is very highly concentrated, the need to work TOGETHER.

Businessmen understand that collective action on the part of the people CAN challenge their power. My point: the business pages of  almost any newspaper reflect this understanding, and the 95% of us who DON'T play a significant part in influencing national politics should read them with care.

To cite a specific case: the NY Times on Friday had a story about a report issued by a consulting firm that contained powerful suggestions to reduce US carbon emissions - without new technology, and without "cutting back" on our standard of living. Below is an excerpt:

The United States could shave as much as 28 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations,

A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries and individual consumers, the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change. But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm.

The task might also require emissions limits and other government mandates, as well as incentives like tax breaks to promote efficient buildings, cars and appliances, the study said. The McKinsey report said “lifestyle changes” by Americans could play a role in improved efficiency, even though they were not a major factor in the potential gains the report cited.

In other words, what is MOST important in reducing carbon emissions are the regulatory decisions of the federal government - which is crushed under the lobbying power of big business. If we as citizens wanted to reduce carbon emissions, our individual choices might have a small impact, but the main effort should be to join together in order fight (and, unltimately, vanquish) the corporatocracy that runs the government.

There's a reason why this didn't make it onto the front page...

A CBS news poll, conducted in September of 2007, found that 55% of the electorate supports national, single-payer health care. The question was:

"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"

In February, the number of people who supported it was 47% - less, but still close to a majority. I wonder to what extent Michael Moore's movie Sicko had an impact on the numbers - which are nonetheless high, given the almost complete lack of articulate support in the media for the idea. The NY Times had an editorial on Nov 25th about health care, in which they discuss Single-Payer as follows:

[Single-Payer] would let the government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs.

Sounds Great, Right? so, what's the problem?

But a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.

Too bad that according to a NYTimes poll from March,

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

So what they mean is that politicians - in the health insurance companies' pockets - don't support it, against the wishes of the majority of the population. How's that for journalistic double-speak?

SUPPORT HR 676!

I've said it many times: read the business pages of the New York Times. it's where the REAL news is:

Next spring, for the first time, [farmers in the US] intends to plant beets genetically engineered to withstand Monsanto’s powerful Roundup herbicide. The Roundup will destroy the weeds but leave his crop unscathed, potentially saving him thousands of dollars in tractor fuel and labor.

Seven years ago, beet breeders were on the verge of introducing Roundup-resistant seeds. But they had to pull back after sugar-using food companies like Hershey and Mars, fearing consumer resistance, balked at the idea of biotech beets. Now, though, sensing that those concerns have subsided, many processors have cleared their growers to plant the Roundup-resistant beets next spring.

It would be the first new type of genetically engineered food crop widely grown since the 1990s, when biotech soybeans, corn and a few other crops entered the market.

“Basically, we have not run into resistance,” said David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar, the nation’s largest sugar beet processor. “We really think that consumer attitudes have come to accept food from biotechnology.”

A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Charles, said her company “would not have any issues” buying such sugar for products sold in the United States, where she said “most consumers are not concerned about biotech.”

Really? Consumers in the US aren't worried about bio-engineered frankenfoods? or is it just that corporations like Monsanto have such a stranglehold on public discourse (and the USDA) that people don't have a way to become informed and make their voice heard?

Well, a suggestion: visit the Organic Consumers Association's website, and tell American Crystal Sugar, Hershey, Mars, and Kellogg that you DO oppose introducing genetically modified foods into our environment and food chain - not to mention that you oppose the use of gallons upon gallons of pesticide being sprayed on the food you eat and being released into the enviroment.

SAMPLE LETTER: I read in today's NY Times (Nov. 27th) that your company has dropped its reservations to the use of genetically modfied sugar beets in its products.
As a consumer of your company's goods, i have serious concerns about the long-term health effects of introducing more 'Roundup Ready' foods into the food chain, as well as the environmental effects of a greatly increased use of Roundup.

I will seriously consider ending any purchase of your company's goods if the decision to allow the use of Roundup Ready sugar beets is not reversed.

This was on the NYTimes' own website, and is good news for me, since i like to look up their archives, as well as read their columnists - particularly Paul Krugman.

The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight Tuesday night, reflecting a growing view in the industry that subscription fees cannot outweigh the potential ad revenue from increased traffic on a free site.

The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or $7.95 a month, for online access to its columnists’ work and to the newspaper’s archives. TimesSelect has been free to print subscribers to The Times, and to some students and educators.

In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain.

there can be no doubt that the united states is a major source of instability in the Middle East: our government is the prime supplier of weapons to nearly all the states in the region. It is last week's news that the US is preparing an arms sals deal to the Gulf States (primarily Saudi Arabia) for around $20 BILLION.

In the same deal, Israel will receive $30 billion in U.S. military aid over the next decade, averaging $3 billion a year.

Where to begin? Perhaps with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "We understand the United States' need to assist the moderate Arab states, which are standing in one front with the United States and us in the struggle against Iran,"

Ahhh, the irony of it all. Saudi Arabia is a moderate Arab State? Let us never forget that Saudi Arabia is the most extreme islamist theocracy in the world, with an atrocious human rights record. It is particularly useful to remember this fact when we hear the fearmorngers talk about the "clash of civilizations." The United States sells billions of dollars of weapons to the most fundamentalist islamic state in the world.

Then we ought to talk about the "special relationship" between the US and Israel. Let's forget about everything else for a moment and discuss Israel's settlement policy. Israel - eveyone agrees - is occupying the West Bank, and is therefore subject to the Fourth Geneva convention (section III, article 49), which states unambiguously that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

And yet Israel has been undertaking a MASSIVE settlement operation in the West Bank. The construction of their "separation wall" is in large part intended to protect the settlements - and was thus judged unlawful by the Interational Court of Justice.

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem does a fantastic job of documenting the awful impact of Israel's colonial plans - as does the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which ought to be read carefully by any US citizen who wishes to gain a clearer perspective on the issue.

These two news items prove my point:

1) the Israeli Supreme court rejected petitions against the route of the West Bank separation fence in the area of Efrat, saying the route of the fence was determined to defend the settlement, located in Gush Etzion. (in other words, the Israeli Supreme court has decided that it is imperative to defend the illegal settlement despite the ICJs decision, international law be damned)

2) some of the people who live in the settlements routinely commit barbaric acts of violence against Palestinians, which very rarely get reported in the US press, but occasionally they also attack United Nations employees.

Now, if only the New York Times and the other papers had a headline that said:

US SUPPORTS RADICAL ISLAMIC THEOCRACY AND IMPLICITLY ENDORSES ISRAEL'S VIOLATIONS OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS, CREATING INSTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Il manifesto sta facendo un interessantissimo sondaggio tra i militanti di base di rifondazione. Quanto segue e' l'inizio dell'articolo di martedi.

«Ma chi l'ha detto che gli operai sono di sinistra? Forse in passato, adesso in fabbrica va tutto bene se parli di condizioni di lavoro, anche gli scioperi si fanno e riescono bene. Ma come il discorso finisce sulla politica, la musica cambia». Giovanni Prisco è degato Fiom alla Ip Cleaning dove 190 dipendenti costruiscono macchine per le pulizie industriali. Tessera di Rifondazione comunista, passione politica, scelta convinta ma tanta delusione per l'esperienza di governo. Delusione e incazzatura sono sentimenti ampiamente condivisi tra i militanti del Prc che lavorano in fabbrica. Non si tratta tanto di posizioni ideologiche legate alle numerose componenti che affollano il Prc, quanto piuttosto del portato dell'impegno quotidiano tra gli operai. La nostra inchiesta sugli umori e le aspettative dei rifondaroli di fabbrica ci porta nel cuore dell'Emilia per la seconda puntata.

April 23 - 29

I don't have a TV, but I do watch TV shows on the internet. in fact, i am a bit of an nternet news junkie. So, next week, no youtube, no google videos, no daily show, no wasting time reading the news from ten different sources.

Once again, the business section of the New York Times contains some of the most insightful reportingon crucial issues. Specifically, the military industrial complex.

The topic of the article is a company called General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, which manufactures the unmanned Predator Drone (used for aerial surveillance and assassination).

Some important information is mentioned only in passing, but merits a good deal of reflection about the way in which decisions are actually made in this country:

-Neal Blue, now the chairman of the company, said that both brothers have top-secret clearance with the United States government - General Atomics has also hired scores of former military commanders - In 2006, a study conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity and other watchdog groups said that General Atomics had spent $660,000, more than any other company, sending Congressional staff members on trips.

Another thing that's worth remembering is that the high-tech gadgets almost never work as advertised:

The Predator itself has offered critics some ammunition. One analyst estimates that 20 percent of all Predators sold to the United States military have crashed, because of errors by pilots controlling them from the ground. Another analyst, who has flown the aircraft but asked not to be identified to maintain his relationship with General Atomics, says they offer significantly less maneuverability than manned jets.

Another analyst who has studied the history of U.A.V.’s says the Predator has failed at some crucial tests.

“It has never done everything the military originally wanted it to do,” said Tom P. Ehrhard, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan research organization. “It still fails on flight reliability, flight worthiness, the camera’s accuracy, the ability to fly through clouds. There are a whole series of operational limitations that normally would prevent a device like this from getting military adoption.”

"It is unclear if this plane will ever meet some of the key suitability tests the Air Force applies to most aircraft,” said Mr. Ehrhard, the military analyst. “But no one seems to care that much.”

There's an article in the NY Times today about the expanding crisis for middle class people who are forced to go without any kind of health insurance.

And here's this quote:Since the Clinton plan collapsed in 1994, the politics of health care have changed because of the steady rise in health costs, the increase in the number of uninsured and the erosion of employer-sponsored insurance. Politicians are once again speaking about universal coverage as a goal, though opinion polls show that many voters still oppose the idea of a government-run health care system.

Really?

By almost a 2-1 margin in this poll, 62 percent to 32 percent, Americans said they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to the current employer-based system. [USA Today Poll from 2003]

Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance — and a similar number says providing health insurance for all is a more serious problem than keeping health care costs down. [NY Times/CBS Poll from 2007]

So i Quickly wrote to the Times:

Re: Without Health Benefits, a Good Life Turns Fragile

I was surprised when I read that "opinion polls show that many voters still oppose the idea of a government-run health care system."

I was surprised because a NY Times / CBS News poll conducted in February of 2007 reported that "two-thirds [of voters] say it is the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee that all Americans have health insurance."

Is this comment just an example of poor research, or a cover for politicians who listen more to lobbysists from the insurance companies than their own consituents?

Let me conclude with a reminder to support HR 676

Apparently, legendary journalist I.F. Stone said that he always read the Washington Post from beginning to end, because he couldn't know on what page a front page story would appear.

Well, the same is decidely true of the NY Times. I try to read the business pages, because they always have surprising stories. Among them:

• The story about the alternative uses to which the money spent on the War on Iraq could be put
• A story about how Wal-Mart and the head of SEIU had a joint press conference calling for universal health care
• A story about how the biggest pork processing company in the world (Smithfield Foods) is going to start to use "more humane" slaughtering process - but NOT because of popular protest and organizing (yeah, right)
• Today, an editorial praising Universal, Single-Payer health care (European Style)
• A description of a Universal Childcare system in Oklahoma
• Yesterday, the juiciest one of all. In the hysteria about Iran, a refrain I've heard has been: there can be NO legitimate Iranian civilian nuclear program. They have all that oil - what do they need nuclear power for? Well, the story Yesterday described how Iran's outdated drilling equipment is forcing them to RATION oil consumption in Teheran in the near future.

I should also add that today's Times neglected to mention the latest report on child welfare released by UNICEF, which places the US and UK squarely at the BOTTOM of a ranking of "rich" countries. It WAS covered (buried in page 15) in the Star Ledger.

The moral? Let's just apply one of the lessons of the book Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman, which cautions us that important information CAN be found in the establishment media, but we have to be careful and understand that the emphasis given to a story has little to do with its importance and a lot to do with the dominant ideological climate.

Mi hanno risposto! L'autore dell'editoriale della Nazione che ho criticato stamattina mi ha risposto. Qui sotto c'è la mia risposta interposta alla sua.

Signor Canè:

apprezzo la sua risposta. Ho scritto più volte alla redazione della Nazione e lei è il primo a rispondermi personalmente.

Il tono polemico era voluto proprio perché non mi aspettavo una risposta, ma immaginavo che l’unico esito della mia lettera sarebbe stata una eventuale pubblicazione.

Nel merito:

> Gentile signor Tamburini,  non so se questa risposta le arriverà perchè

non sono certo dell'indirizzo elettronico che mi ha girato al segreteria.

Comunque,le volevo chiarire che una più attenta lettura del mio breve

pezzo le avrebbe consentito di evitare alcune osservazioni inesatte

1)Delle migliaia di vittime irachene paralo ancora prima di quelle

occidentali alla terzultima riga del breve commento

Ho controllato, e ha ragione. Mi scuso per questo.

> 2) ho scritto senza mezzi termini che ritengo la guerra all'Iraq <una

drammatica sciocchezza> ( riga 9 delle 15 totali)

non sono sicuro che ‘una drammatica sciocchezza’ sia il giudizio più pertinente che si possa dare alla Guerra all’Iraq. In ogni caso, la mia risposta non ruota intorno a un giudizio della guerra in se, ma della sua asserzione che essa “nasce non dalla follia di Bush, ma dal delirio di Osama” Di cui sotto.

> 3) Lei pensa che ci sia lo zampino di Bush nell'attentato alle torri gemelle per avere la scusa buona per attaccare l'Iraq? Credo che tutta l'umanità fornita di buon senso ritenga questa idea una visione patologica della realtà.

Ritengo che riguardo all’11 settembre al massimo si possa accusare l’amministrazione Bush di scarsa attenzione al rischio posto dal terrorismo, e di una tendenza perniciosa alla segretezza – peggiore di tutte le altre recenti amministrazioni statunitensi.

Concordo che coloro che cercano a tutti i costi di incriminare Bush per l’attentato abbiano una visione ‘patologica’ della realtà, come dice lei.

Ma che persone nell’amministrazione Bush volessero invadere l’Iraq da anni, non credo sia in discussione. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

È inoltre fuori discussione che immediatamente dopo l’11 settembre Rumsfeld in particolare, e tutta l’amministrazione in generale fossero concentrati su una possibile invasione dell’Iraq (basti a questo proposito la testimonianza dell’ex capo dell’antiterrorismo di entrambi i Bush e di Clinton, Richard Clarke nel suo libro, Against All Enemies).

Infine, una delle false pretese con le quali la guerra all’Iraq è stata giustificata era un presunto – e completamente fasullo – collegamento tra Saddam e Osama.

Quindi direi che chiamare gli attentati dell’11 settembre un “pretesto” mi sembra abbastanza accurato.

> Detto questo, libero ovviamente di giudicare il mio articolo come vuole.

Ma credo che 15 modeste righe possano essere lette con maggiore, serena

attenzione.

un caro saluto

> gabriele canè

In conclusione: ho scritto la mia risposta al suo commento in qualità di cittadino italiano e statunitense. Credo nell’elementare principio morale che sono responsabile delle mie azioni e delle azioni dei miei governi, e che dare le responsabilità agli altri prima di assumermi le mie è la definizione di ipocrisia. Incidentalmente, è la definizione di ipocrisia che dà anche Gesù, con la parabola della pagliuzza e della trave.

Alla prossima,

Matteo Tamburini

Editor,

Jimmy Carter says that there is a 'reluctance to criticize policies of the Israeli government' among politicians and the media. We can all put his words to the test.

The administration insists on the story of a (currently non-existing) Iranian military nuclear program as a cause of grave concern. Until recently, I had never read or heard it expressed publicly that one reason why the Iranians might want the bomb is as a deterrent against the vast nuclear arsenal possessed by
Israel (and our own).

In the past week, both our new Secretary of Defense and (apparently) the Israeli Prime Minister have brought that issue out into the open.

Let's therefore compare how many times the words "Israeli nuclear weapons" and "Iranian nuclear weapons" appear in our public discourse, and measure the reluctance described by Carter.

C'e' oggi un articolo sulla pagina degli affari del New York Times che discute la "partita a tre" che si sta giocando sulla televisione italiana: RAI (lo stato), Mediaset (Berlusconi) e SKY (Murdoch).

Sembra che la legge proposta da Prodi riguardo al "conflitto di interessi" possa finire semplicemente con l'indebolire Berlusconi (diretto avversario politico dell'attuale governo) solo per favorire Murdoch, ultramiliardario che negli Stati Uniti e' responsabile di una "televisione di notizie 24 ore su 24" a dir poco raccapricciante, che si e' (giustamente, a mio parere) meritata l'immagine satirica qui di fianco.

Sara' mai possibile che un governo (cosi' dicono) di sinistra non sia capace di una svolta che favorisca l'interesse comune piuttosto che un freddo calcolo politico di breve termine?

Com'e' possibile che Prodi e Compagnia bella non si rendano conto della trappola posta da Murdoch? Lui detesta tutto cio' per il quale loro si battono (o perlomeno dicono di battersi, o perlomeno ho l'impressione che almeno dicano di battersi).

Negli Stati Uniti c'e' un movimento per la riforma dei media (di cui e' esponente di spicco il neoeletto senatore Bernie Sanders): in Italia c'e'?

mi trovo nuovamente a pensare che una attivita' utile per la cittadinanza di Pistoia sia la creazione di fonti mediatiche alternative a quelle padronali e statali...

Continuo ad espandere ed aggiornare il mio sito. In particolare la sezione Italia.

E grazie a Samuele per avermi indicato il sito internet dove si reperiscono tutti i video della trasmissione di giornalismo investigativo Report.

Riguardo alle elezioni qua negli stati uniti (che a quanto pare ha stimolato i commenti! meno male, credevo di scrivere le cose per me stesso...):

Ascoltando e leggendo nella sinistra mediatica (e marginale) sento ripetere che, contrariamente a quanto mi immaginavo, a quanto si sente dire nei mass media, e a quanto hanno scritto nel manifesto, in realta' il nuovo schieramento democratico e' progressista - o quantomeno il piu' progressista che ci sia mai stato da oltre un decennio. In particolare, mi sento in dovere di difendere le credenziali progressiste di Jon Tester, il nuovo senatore (democratico) del Montana.

Vorrei segnalare l'elezione al senato di Bernie Sanders del Vermont, un indipendente che si proclama un socialista. Conduce le sue campagne elettorali, vincendo il sostegno anche di elettori repubblicani, parlando sempre con chiarezza di questioni economiche, come la mancanza di un sistema sanitario nazionale, della perdita di posti di lavoro, di costi universitari che aumentano, della pochezza del salario minimo, eccetera. Sanders e' anche un deciso sostenitore della regolamentazione dei media, ed uno strenuo oppositore della concentrazione di potere in poche compagnie.

(quindi, a partire dal 3 gennaio, nel senato degli stati uniti ci sarano: UN nero, UN socialista, e quattordici donne, su cento)

Inoltre, sembra che il primo obbiettivo effettivamente ed immediatamente realizzabile dei neo-eletti democratici sia alzare il salario orario minimo (che adesso e' miseramente $5.15)

Insomma, qualcosa ci danno da sperare - e comunque rimane l'imperativo per noi cittadini di monitorare i nostri rappresentanti.

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

What can I do to help?

Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.

Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected.

Encourage groups you're part of to join the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.

Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog.

Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late.

Check this out, and write a comment to the people at the FCC who want to help the consolidation of media ownership into the hands of mega-corporations:

http://www.stopbigmedia.com