Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts

Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts

1. Summary of Important Facts about Immigration

Published by the Cato Institute and the National Immigration Forum

These are the most important demographic and economic facts pertaining to policy decisions about the numbers of immigrants that will be admitted by law into the United States:

The Quantities of Immigration

o The total number of immigrants per year (including
illegal immigrants and refugees) nowadays is somewhat less than
it was in the peak years at the beginning of the 20th century
when U.S. population was less than half as large as it now is.

o The rate of immigration relative to population size now
is low rather than high. Immigration as a proportion of
population is about a third of what it was in the peak years.

o The foreign-born population of the United States is 8.5
percent of the total population (as of 1990). The proportions in
the United States during the period from before 1850 to 1940 were
higher--always above 13 percent during the entire period from
1860 to 1930--and the proportions since the 1940s were lower. The
present proportion--8.5 percent--also may be compared to the
1990s' proportions of 22.7 percent in Australia; 16 percent in
Canada; 6.3 percent in France; 7.3 percent in Germany; 3.9
percent in Great Britain; and 5.7 percent in Sweden.

o Though the volume of illegal immigration is inherently
difficult to estimate, a solid body of research, using a variety
of ingenious methods, has now arrived at a consensus: the number
of illegals in the United States is perhaps 3.2 million, pushed
downward by the amnesty of 1987-1988, not very different from a
decade before. Many of these persons are transitory. The
million-plus persons who registered for the amnesty verify that
the total was and is nowhere near the estimates that often have
been given in public discussion.

o The rate of illegal immigration is agreed by all
experts to be about 250,000 to 300,000 per year.

o More than half of illegal aliens enter legally and
overstay their visas and permits. "Less than half of illegal
immigrants cross the nation's borders clandestinely. The majority
enter legally and overstay their visas" (Fix and Passel 1994, 4).


The Economic Characteristics of Immigrants

o New immigrants are more concentrated than are natives
in the youthful labor-force ages when people contribute more to
the public coffer than they draw from it; natives are more
concentrated in the childhood and elderly periods of economic
dependence when the net flows are from the public to the
individual. Of all the facts about immigration relevant to its
economic effects, this is the most important, and the one which
is most consistent in all countries, in all decades and
centuries.

o Taken altogether, immigrants on average have perhaps a
year less education than natives--much the same relationship as
has been observed back to the 19th century.

o The average education of new immigrants has been
increasing with each successive cohort. The proportion of adult
immigrants with 8 or fewer years of education has been trending
downward, and the proportion of adult immigrants with 16 or more
years of education has been trending upward.

o The proportion of adult new immigrants with eight or
fewer years of education is much higher than the proportion of
adult natives.

o The proportion of immigrants with bachelor's or
postgraduate degrees is higher than the proportion of the native
labor force.

o Immigrants have increased markedly as a proportion of
members of the scientific and engineering labor force (especially
at the highest level of education). Immigrants also have
increased rapidly as proportions of the pools of U.S. scientists
and engineers. Scientific professionals are especially valuable
for promoting the increased productivity and growth of the
economy.

o Immigrants, even those from countries that are much
poorer and have lower average life expectancies than the United
States, are healthier than U.S. natives of the same age and sex.
New immigrants have better records with respect to infant
mortality and health than do U.S. natives and immigrants who have
been in the United States longer.

o New immigrants are unusually mobile geographically and
occupationally, in large part because of their youth. Such
mobility increases the flexibility of the economy and mitigates
tight labor markets.

o First- and second-generation immigrant children do
unusually well in school. They win an astonishingly high
proportion of scholastic prizes.


The Effects of Immigrants in the Labor Market

o Immigrants do not cause native unemployment, even among
low-paid or minority groups. A spate of respected recent studies,
using a variety of methods, agrees that "there is no empirical
evidence documenting that the displacement effect [of natives
from jobs] is numerically important" (Borjas 1990, 92). The
explanation is that new entrants not only take jobs, they make
jobs. The jobs they create with their purchasing power, and with
the new businesses which they start, are at least as numerous as
the jobs which immigrants fill.

o Re wage effects, one recent summary concludes,
"Immigration has no discernible effect on wages overall...
Wage growth and decline appear to be unrelated to immigration--a
finding that holds for both unskilled and skilled workers" (Fix
and Passel 1994, 48). My interpretation of the literature is
slightly different: a minor negative effect.


Welfare Use and Taxes Paid

o Immigrants who enter legally through regular quotas are
not permitted to receive public assistance for three years, and
they may be deported if they obtain such assistance (though few
are). Refugees, however, are entitled to such assistance
immediately upon entry, which (together with their needy
circumstances) accounts for their high rate of welfare use soon
after arrival.

o Re the use by immigrants of welfare services including
food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid: these
expenditures are the tail that wags the dog in policy
discussions. Expenditures called "welfare" now comprise about
$404 per person annually for immigrants and about $260 for
natives. Total government social outlays are roughly $3,800 for
natives.

Because of the public interest in the set of welfare
services that includes food stamps, AFDC, SSI, and Medicaid, the
data on this cluster of welfare programs are presented here, but
only for completeness. By themselves they do not provide the
basis for any conclusions about overall transfer-payment receipt
by various cohorts of immigrants and natives, because these
calculations do not include most payments to the native elderly.

o Foreign-born persons taken altogether have perhaps a 10
to 20 percent higher probability of obtaining these welfare
services than do natives. They average perhaps 30 percent higher
average receipts per capita than do natives.

o There may have been a small increase in the use of
these programs from pre-1970 to post-1970 entrants and from
immigrants arriving between 1970 and 1986 to those entering
between 1987 and 1990, but the evidence is mixed.

o If refugees are excluded from the assessment, and only
nonrefugees are considered, the rate of welfare use for new
immigrants who entered between 1980 and 1990 is considerably
below the rate for natives ages 15 and above.

o Among foreign-born persons 65 years of age or more, a
greater (and growing) proportion receive welfare (mainly SSI)
than among natives. This is due to the arrival of many immigrants
too late to accumulate enough work time to earn Social Security
benefits; the welfare is a substitute for Social Security.

Social Security and Medicare are by far the most expensive
transfer payments made by the government. These payments go
almost completely to natives. This is because immigrants
typically arrive when they are young and healthy, and also
because older recent immigrants do not qualify for Social
Security for many years after their arrival.

Social Security and Medicare are by far the most expensive
transfer payments by the government. The cost of supporting
elderly natives is vastly greater than for immigrants. This is
because immigrants typically arrive when they are young and
healthy, and the appropriate lifetime analysis shows that this
provides a large windfall to the national treasury. (Current data
alone also show a similar effect because of the contemporary age
distribution of the immigrant population.) Also, older recent
immigrants do not qualify for Social Security for many years
after arrival.

As of the 1970s, immigrant families in all cohorts within
several decades clearly paid more taxes on average than native
families. However, the mean earnings of all new immigrant men
were smaller relative to adult natives 25 to 64 in the 1980s than
in the previous decade. The mean earnings of immigrant men who
entered in the 1970s were smaller relative to adult natives 25 to
64 in the 1980s than the similar comparison for the previous
decade. This continues a trend from men who entered in the 1960s.
This implies that the size of tax contributions by recent cohorts
of immigrants relative to those of natives has diminished in
recent decades.

o When immigrants are subclassified by legal category of
entrance, the picture is quite different from that for immigrants
taken altogether. In an analysis of the 1990 census, where the
average household income (different from the earnings concept
referred to in the paragraph above) for natives was $37,300,
1980-1990 immigrants from countries from which most of the
immigration is legal received $34,800 (that is, 91 percent of
natives' household income), the average for those from countries
sending mostly refugees to the United States was $27,700, and for
those from countries sending illegals $23,900. (No information is
now available on whether the picture was the same or different in
earlier decades.) These data on recent legal immigrants are the
relevant data for policymaking in legal immigration.

o As of the 1970s, immigrants contributed more to the
public coffers in taxes than they drew out in welfare services.
The most recent available data (for 1975) show that each year, an
average immigrant family put about $2,500 (1995 dollars) into the
pockets of natives from this excess of taxes over public costs.

o The possible changes over time in earnings in the
various immigrant cohorts cast some doubt on the present-value
calculation for earlier years concluding that immigrants make net
contributions to the public coffers; a different sort of
calculation may be needed for which data are not available.

o Illegal aliens contribute about as much to the public
coffers in taxes as they receive in benefits. New data suggest
that the undocumented pay about 46 percent as much in taxes as do
natives, but use about 45 percent as much in services.


Immigrants, the Environment, and Natural Resources

o Natural resources and the environment are not at risk
from immigration; rather, in the long run, resources increase and
the environment improves due to immigration. The long-term trends
show that U.S. air and water are getting cleaner rather than
dirtier, and world supplies of natural resources are becoming
more available rather than exhausted. Immigration increases the
technical knowledge that speeds these benign trends.


Public Opinion about Immigrants and Immigration

o The most recent polls of U.S. residents' opinions show
that most persons want less immigration. This is consistent with
the consensus of all polls since the first such surveys in the
1940s. There does not seem to be a long-run trend in public
opinion opposing immigration.

o A poll of the most respected economists found a
consensus that both legal and illegal immigrants are beneficial
economically.

* * *

No data are presented in this pamphlet concerning racial or ethnic composition or the country of origin of immigrants because these characteristics are not relevant for any policy decisions that are related to the economic consequences of immigration.

(The above post is from the Cato Institute. Webpage link)

Economist's Opinions about Immigration

In America, it seems the citizens usually hold a negative opinion about immigration throughout our history. The current debate, fueled by the corporate media, appears to be magnifying the negative opinion with few scientific facts illuminating the debate.

It's a sad statement on our current corporate media that they are not infusing the current dialogue with FACTS.

Since the economy is a major argument in the case against immigration (Illegal or Legal) then polls soliciting the opinions of economists are a factor that should not be overlooked in the debate about closing our borders and lowering the numbers of immigrants we will allow in.

Survey of Top Economists

   These are the full poll results:

On balance, what effect has 20th-century immigration had on the
nation's economic growth?


Economists     (percent)

Very favorable       80

Slightly favorable   20

Slightly unfavorable --

Very unfavorable     --

Don't know           --


What level of immigration would have the most favorable impact on
the U.S. standard of living?


Economists     (percent)

More           63

Same number    30

Fewer           0

Don't know      7


Do you feel that recent immigrants are qualitatively different in
economic terms than immigrants in past years?


Economists               (percent)

More negative impact     11

About the same impact    76

More positive impact     4

Don't know               9


What impact does illegal immigration in its current magnitude
have on the U.S. economy?


Economists                        (percent)

Illegals have a positive impact    74

Illegals have a neutral impact     11

Illegals have a negative impact    11

Don't know                                    4

(Source)

U.S Navy Ship and Iran Boats Stand-off - Iranian's Video

Here is The Great Confrontation between the Evil Iranian swift boats and the poor little ole' US Navy as fimed from an Iranian boat. Even the US Navy footage just shows the boats approaching and tailing the flotilla for several minutes. The only source of controversy is a separate audio the Navy released where someone is stating that "You will explode after [indecipherable] minutes."

Listen to this video and determine for yourself if this seemed like a threat to world peace and the US Navy, as the Great Demagogue, George Bush, has alleged. It sounds more to me like the only thing missing was some tea and cookies as the Iranian commander and an American radio operator exchanged inane information for several minutes. How does this get transformed into a grave provocation to the US Navy?"

Now the Navy is saying that they are not sure who made the alleged threatening comment. Something is quite askew here. Have we got a little creative audiotaping going on by someone who wants to stir up trouble between the US Navy and Iran? In otherwords, was this more than just a routine incident, but rather a cynical attempt to make something sinister out of nothing?

Were the Exit Polls in New Hampshire Correct?

Brad Blog is raising asking the question....is it possible that Obama won the New Hampshire primary?

Was Democracy Hacked in New Hampshire?

Who knows...the sad truth is that voter verification has not been done in this country. After eight years, our democracatic elections problem has not been corrected. Why not?

We still haven't got an accurate, verifiable way to count or re-count our ballots. So while the major parties concentrate on stuff like picture i.d. cards the fox is left to party hardy in the hen house.

The fact that neither one of our two parties has addressed this issue. Why not?

Nuclear Power Plant Safety

The security guard who took this video had gone up his chain of command to report the sleeping guards problem. His reward--he was fired. But he took this video and exposed the problem. Now a new security firm has taken over and many of the sleeping guards have been rehired under "new management."

The guard who took the video was not rehired. He was labeled "inappropriate" to be a security guard.

Nuclear power plants routinely flunk their security tests even though they are told ahead of time when the test will be. Yet, consistently the plant security is not good enough to capture the intruders.

Watch McCain Lie

According to Think Progress:

In 2006, the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.

In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill to
create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric:

The only problem is the project to acquire more land near the base was not requested by President Bush or fully authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee - two of McCain’s criteria for identifying so-called ‘pork.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), a notorious porker, was overjoyed that McCain had joined his side. “One man’s pork is another man’s alternate white meat,” said Stevens. “If he asked for it, we put it in.”

Mac is not back. The old McCain joined with Senator Feingold to co-sponsor campaign finance reform. McCain is no longer promoting campaign finance reform legislation. The old McCain would have never associated with the swift voters who so vehemently attacked him in his last run for the presidency. McCain now embraces the scoundrels.

It appears McCain is willing to jump through any hoop Bush and his neocon cronies put in front of him.

Buzz...Buzz...

Edwards...Obama....Edwards...Obama

Paul Loeb and I seem to be in the same boat. We are currently supporting two presidential contenders--Obama and Edwards. Both of us are wondering who we will end up voting for. (I may even be in worst straits....my heart continues to cry out for Dennis Kucinich. I know without a doubt that Dennis is the best presidential candidate. (But, at this time, due to factors such as our biased corporate media, I'm not able to see Kucinich as able to dispell the corporate media myths by November 2009.)

On the Obama side is charisma and momentum that reminds me of Robert Kennedy. New voters and independents are filling his tent. He can raise our hopes in a time when our hopes need raising and he might be able to unify this country so we can once again be the UNITED States of America.

But there are valid reasons to support John Edwards. His positions on health care, poverty, and fighting corporate influence are stronger than Obama's. Edwards will not hesitate to fight the "malefactors of great wealth" that currently dominate our government. We have entered a new era where robber barons are on the rampage and Edwards is speaking out strongly against them. We need more folks to fight for the public's interests. Edwards also took a strong stand on the Iraq War before Obama did.

I love Obama's message of hope and how he can inspire us, but Edwards gives us the real, unadulterated picture...of what it means for a country as rich as America to leave so many people without health care, decent jobs, and a future.

According to Paul Loeb:

So I was delighted when Obama and Edwards beat [Cinton] in the Iowa caucuses. But that doesn't mean Edwards should necessarily drop out. His presence pushes Obama to deal with the hard issues of power and wealth in America--ones that, to be honest, Obama has too often skated over in recent years. If voters do develop reservations about Obama, Edwards offers a strong alternative. While Edwards obviously remains a distinct longshot, his numbers are strong enough that voters deserve at least a chance to further weigh his promise--he's more than just a symbolic candidate. And I do want to see Obama tested just at least a bit more before we hand him the nomination.

On a national level a surge has begun for John Edwards. The Rasmussen poll shows Hillary dropping 7 points to 36%, Barack gains one point for 25%, and John Edwards gained 9 points to 23%. Maybe John Edwards is the known commodity so he is in a good position to gain wayward Hillary supporters. Maybe the polls showing Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who can defeat all the Republican contenders is attractive to Hillary's former supporters.

I want John Edwards to stay in the race. Since Edwards, unlike Obama, is not relying on corporate funding for this race it is up to folks like me to help him remain in the race. It's important for many reasons for the Edwards campaign to continue. We need the dialogue to continue on what a rich country like America should be doing for all it's citizens...instead of no dialogue while our treasury continues to be drained by Dick Cheney, George Bush and their "elite" cronies. I hope you will also consider sending a campaign contribution to the John Edwards campaign.

Who knows maybe the Democratic party will end up with a dream ticket of Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket? I just hope their mutual policy platform more closely resembles Edwards current policies stands if they should merge into one ticket.

New John Edwards AD

WOW, New Hampshire is going to be "way interesting...."

I'm betting that Hillary is going down again....so my predicition is Obama will win, Edwards will come in second, and Hillary will lose once again.

Meanwhile, the corporate media, of course will be raking in extra money with the Obama and Clinton camps buying up lots of ad time.....such a fraudulent use of "our" publicly owned airwaves, i.e. a public presidential election is one of the biggest revenue generators for corporate broadcast media. Buzz...Buzz...

Mitt Romney supports the Iraq war so....

Why isn't a single one of his five sons fighting in it? What is it with the modern day chickenhawk politician that they think "others" should be the ones sacrificing and carrying all the burdens? Buzz...Buzz..

The Democratic Dream Ticket?

I'm in such a quandary. On the issues, my first choice is Dennis Kucinich and my second choice is John Edwards. However, the corporate media has done such a fine job of portraying Dennis as a "kook." Until this is remedied, if ever, I'm afraid he's not "electable" until instant run off elections become the norm in this country. (Of course, we know the "status quo" corporate establishment types in both parties will continue to fight the instant run off concept that gives voters greater choices....)

I listened to Michelle Obama speak last night. I don't believe that Obama is correct on some of his issues. A major issue for me is health care. I'm confused that Obama can see that cutting out the middle man in student loans saves the tax payer millions of dollars that can be used by students and yet he doesn't see the logic of cutting out the middle man in health care?

However, that being said...I do believe that Obama is the best candidate for working to unify our country and restoring the United States of America. That would be a plus for our country and after years of being pressured to be fearful and attack each other a refreshing change of course. Plus I do believe the man's values are in the right place so maybe he'll be open to the concept and practicality that universal health care offers for us all.

I saw Michelle Obama speak in New Hampshire last night. I want Michelle Obama for President!! In comparison, Hillary Clinton looks like the status quo, corporate girl she is. Just proves my point that when we do elect a woman for president in this country we can do much better than Hillary Clinton.

Then I think, okay I'm leaning towards Obama now....even though I believe John Edwards is better on my issues...What if....we could get an Obama / Edwards ticket? Now wouldn't that be something? I just hope John Edwards will go for it and strikes a deal (that maybe strengthens that health care issue that Obama is currently lacking....

Now we know the press keeps clamoring about a feud between Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, both good women imo. Maybe Michelle will be able to see that her husband is safer with a VP like Edwards....I doubt vehement opponents would want to "replace" Obama with Edwards....It's probably along the same kind of thinking that matched up Bush with Cheney?

But at least, in this instance we are talking the Luke Skywalker team and not Darth Vader.

Buzz....Buzz

Giuliani Parady

It's so obvious that Giuliani is a chicken hawk....especially if you watched the video in the previous post by the Iraq veteran.

Buzz...Buzz...

Ron Paul vs Mike Huckabee/a GI's Response

A GI who has been there to see the chaos, horror and hypocrisy in Iraq speaks out. Listen carefully. This is the existential reality versus the the ideological litany that serves Machiavellian goals. Thank you, soldier, for speaking truth to power.

Wake Up Everybody....It's not too late

Here We Go Again...So Much for the Imaginary War on Drugs

In America, the "connected" make a fortune importing drugs into our country while the "average" American consumers of these drugs end serving large prison sentences instead of participationg in drug rehabilitation programs (if their health condition merits this.)

In the meantime, the taxpayer gets bilked for this imaginary war on drugs (especially when it comes to prison costs) and now Blackwater wants to get even more of our taxpayer dollars by becoming fighters in our imaginary drug war.

When is enough enough?

We need to put the big villains in prison or at least drive them out of business. The war on drugs needs a serious assessment by the taxpayer who is getting bilked. Many Americans end up behind bars for nonviolent crimes. Let's demand that a task force be set up to study all the options. They may even come to the conclusion that our imaginary drug wars provides a huge funding supply of money for terrorists. Maybe, just maybe, we should at least sell marijuana at ABC stores, where it won't be sold to minors, and the profits could be used to finance government programs, such as drug rehab that is needed in our country.

There's more info and video concerning the CIA drug connections (past and present) courtesy of brasschecktv.

Is anyone surprised that our corporate media is ignoring this story?

BUSH'S OILY ROLE IN IRAN ARMS DEAL

Like Father Like Son--It appears that W comes by "dishonesty" honesty. Tje Bush Sr's foreign policy also drove oil prices higher and they both illegally circumvented the Congress of the United States and defied our constitution checks and balances. So many atrocities have been committed in their pursuit to raise oil prices...(My emphasis is in bold.)


Read it here in a reprint of a Top Ten Censored Story of 1987

Vice President George Bush's acknowledged support for theill-fated secret arms shipments to Iran has been interpreted asevidence of his loyalty to the policies of President Reagan. Now, however, other evidence suggests that Bush, far more than President Reagan, promoted the Iran initiative, took part in key negotiations, and conferred upon Oliver North the secret powers necessary to carry it out.
It also has been charged that Bush actively promoted the Iran
arms sales because of an economic motive the president did not share -- the desire to stabilize the dropping oil prices in 1986.

Peter Dale Scott, co-author of THE IRAN CONTRA CONNECTION and
former senior fellow at the International Center for Development
Policy in Washington, suggests that Bush's primary concern in early
1986 was to stabilize falling crude oil prices by promoting a common
price policy between the United States and the oil producers of the
Persian Gulf, including, above all, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Further, Scott says, the interest in higher oil prices was an
explicit goal in some of Oliver North's secret arms negotiations with the Iranians. The price of oil reflected the concerns of Bush, a former Texas oilman, rather than of Reagan, a free market advocate.

Scott traces Bush's involvement back to the January 17, 1986,
meeting of the president's national security advisers at which the
president signed the controversial finding which authorized the arms
sales. The meeting was attended only by Bush and three other known
supporters of the arms sales intiative -- Chief of Staff Donald
Regan, National Security Adviser John Poindexter, and Poindexter's
deputy Donald Fortier.

As the Iran-Contra Select Committee Report points out, Secretary
of State George Schultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger
were deliberately kept in the dark about the trip North took with
Robert McFarlane to Tehran three months later. Yet Bush not only knew
of the trip but he helped in scheduling it. In a little-noticed
message of Aril 4, 1986, Poindexter told North that, "If we can manage
it, the VP would appreciate it if the Iran trip did not take place
until the VP leaves Saudi Arabia. If that screws up planning too much,
then he will uderstand that we can't do it." The request was honored;
the McFarlane-North trip took place a month after Bush returned from
Saudi Arabia.

Bush's mission to Saudi Arabia was to persuade leaders of that
country to help stabilize oil prices then rapidly falling to under $10
a barrel. His trip was successful; Saudi Arabia King Fahd received
the Iranian petroleum minister in the autumn of l986 and the two
countries agreed to OPEC arrangements for boosting oil prices to $18 a
barrel. The $18 price brought economic relief to oil-producing states like Texas which were the key to Bush's political base.

After the arms sale became public, oil industry sources commented
that McFarlane and Poindexter understood the connection between a
strong domestic oil industry and national security better than most
others in the administration.

SOURCE: PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE, 12/21/87, "Bush had oil policy
interest in promoting Iran arms deals," by Peter Dale Scott, pp 1-4.

Gaming Granny

So do we have any Gaming Grannies in Virginia who are willing to shout out their favorite games?

Universal Support by Public Against FCC Ruling

The Parent's Television Council President testified that there is "Universal Support" by the public against the FCC loosening restrictions on media ownership. Here is Tim Winter's testimony. It's worth reading. Tim Winter, President of The Parents Television Council:

…It is a personal honor for me to be here once again before this committee on whose staff I had the pleasure to serve….My name is Tim Winter, and I’m president of The Parents Television Council, with more than 1.2 million members across the United States. The PTC is a non-partisan, non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to protecting children and families from graphic sex, violence, and profanity in entertainment. At first blush, there would seem to be very little connection between the PTC’s mission and the media ownership issues which bring us here together today. But there is compelling evidence that the consolidation of media outlets has led to a coarsening of television content, a destruction of the concept of community standards of decency, an unresponsive, irresponsible news media that routinely ignores news stories to protect its parent corporation, and a cable television industry that effectively functions as a cartel.

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago the PTC stood shoulder to shoulder with a remarkably diverse group of public policy advocates to decry the loosening of media ownership rules. The National Organization for Women and Concerned Women for America, the Salvation Army and Common Cause, Consumers Union, the National Rifle Association, MoveOn.Org and others. As PTC founder, Brent Bozell, noted at that time, “When all of us are united on an issue then one of two things have happened. Either the earth has spun off its axis and we’ve all lost our minds or there is universal support for a concept.” I believe the FCC’s recent localism hearings across the country have once again demonstrated universal support for a concept. Big media companies have not conducted themselves in a manner which merits them owning even more media outlets. The strongest voices in favor of allowing big media companies to grow even bigger have come from those within those very companies.

Let me explain why the ownership issue is so important to the Parents Television Council. With very few exceptions, network owned television stations do not consider standards of community decency even though the terms of their broadcasting licenses demand it. During the summer of 2003, the FOX broadcasting network aired an episode of a prime show called Keen Eddy. Criminals trying to sell horse semen on the black market hired a prostitute to perform a particular act on the horse in order to extract the semen. Although the act itself was not displayed on the program, the dialogue was so course that I’m uncomfortable mentioning it here to you today. A member of the PTC in Kansas City wrote a letter to the FOX owned and operated television station in his market expressing his concern. And I wish to read aloud the response he received from the station’s general manager. “We forwarded your letter to the FOX network. The network, not the station, decides what ‘goes on the air for the FOX owned and operated stations.’” When station general managers in cities and towns across the country take their orders directly from headquarters in New York or Hollywood it comes as no surprise that they would toe the company line when it comes to program decisions. How does this serve the public interest?

We have heard repeatedly and privately from independent local broadcasters from around the country who are threatened by the major networks that they will lose their affiliates status if they preempt network programming. Fortunately, there are a few notable exceptions of broadcasters pushing back on the networks, including Mr. Goodman here, and others like Abbot Communications. But when local programming decisions are dictated or prohibited by corporations thousands of miles away, the public interest cannot be served.

Media consolidation has led to a self serving news media that seeks to protect interests of their own corporate parent. When a broadcast network recently challenged the FCC’s ability to enforce indecency standards, they convinced two federal judges in New York City that they have the right to air the “F” word anytime of day even when they know millions of children are watching. Although dozens of concerned family groups, including the PTC, were shocked that a federal court could reach such a preposterous conclusion, there has been only limited public outcry over that decision. The reason for this is simple. In large measure the American people don’t know that it has happened. In the wake of that court decision, not a single national news broadcast organization saw fit to cover the story. And even with a host of 24 hour a day news channels on cable there was near zero coverage of a decision that will impact every family in this country as well as the policies determining appropriate use of the airwaves that they themselves own. Why no coverage? We believe that the corporate news divisions knew the public would be incensed by the arrogance of a media conglomerate arguing for the right to air profanity in front of their children early in the day over the airwaves that they own. It should be noted that the Second Circuit “F” word lawsuit, and the now pending Third Circuit lawsuit which alleges that the Janet Jackson Super Bowl strip tease was not indecent, were not brought by local broadcasters like Mr. Goodman here. Rather these lawsuits were filed by the major television networks. Those same corporations who now want an even greater control of America’s media.

If you think media consolidation has stifled the broadcast industry please listen carefully to the following statistics on cable. At my office in Los Angeles, there are 48 cable networks bundled together on the expanded basic cable tier. Of those 48 cable networks, Viacom owns all or part of 8 of them. NBC owns all or part of 8 of them. Disney owns all or part of 8 of them. News Corp owns all or part of 6. Liberty Media owns all or part of 6. And the local cable operator--Time Warner--owns all or part of seven of them. By using the retransmission consent rules these conglomerates are able to use their TV stations broadcast licenses in an extortion like way to force unwanted cable networks onto our cable systems and onto our cable bills. There has been much attention paid recently to the acquisition of The Wall Street Journal by News Corporation. Imagine the outrage if Mr. Murdoch demanded the subscribers of The Journal now take and pay for the The New York Post. But that is precisely what he’s doing with his new FOX business network. News Corporation is able to force his new Fox business network. News corporation is able to force its new business network onto systems across the country, regardless of whether a single consumer wanted another business cable network. Such bundling cable arrangements maybe great for Wall Street, but not for main street. And it does not serve the public interest.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the lack of diversity in the American media landscape as it relates to the ownership of media properties and rightfully so. Most Americans can name one network that caters to African Americans, BET. But can you name a second, or a third? You can’t because they simply don’t exist as an option on most basic cable systems. The Black Family Channel, the only black owned and operated television network for African American families is now only distributed via Internet. Because it is independently owned and cannot apply the same bundling leverage the conglomerates can, the Black Family Channel is effectively shut out from carriage. In an environment dominated by media giants, there has developed no market that would allow additional minority programming to be created and distributed.

Mr. Chairman, how can media conglomerates be afforded the additional public trust to hold even more broadcast licenses when they behave in this manner? This Committee, the Congress, and the FCC must work in concert to protect the interests of the public, the very owners of the airwaves. In the strongest terms, I urge the Congress to consider these issues carefully as it evaluates any appropriate action the issues of localism, diversity, and media ownership. Thank you.

Lobbyists hired by Big Media will be talking with your Senators today. Will you?

Newspaper Publisher Speaks Out Against FCC's Latest Rules

Frank Blethen, the publisher of the Seattle Times newspaper, testified before Congress criticizing the recent FCC rules that would loosen media ownership restrictions. It's refreshing to hear an owner of media stating that it is against the public interest to loosen the restrictions on media ownership.

I'm envious that Seattle has such a fabulous newspaper that has been owned by the same family for approximately three generations. This family takes their journalistic mission very seriously. Unfortunately, our local "family owned" paper--The Virginian Pilot--appears to be much more interested in money than journalism and the quality of this paper's reporting o local and national issues has been poor or negligent for decades. Occasionally the paper will do a decent report--for example, recent reports on Blackwater have been excellent. Unfortunately, this works as the exception to the rule.

...I am Frank Blethen the publisher of the Seattle Times. My family has lived in Seattle for 111 years. My family epitomizes the local connection Lippman so accurately cites as the foundation of our freedoms. We are accountable only to our local community and to our heritage with its paramount stewardship duty of independent journalism and community service. Tragically, the essential localism and ownership diversity Lippman praises has been abandoned by Congress and by the FCC. Throughout America in print and in broadcast concentrated absentee ownership abounds. With it has come a disinvestment in journalism causing serious erosion in America’s public policy, literacy, and civic engagement. The public knows something is wrong. When given the opportunity they vehemently oppose media control. They plead for more localism and multiple voices which are the very oxygen of their community and a healthy democracy.

As we witness the inevitable failure of the publicly traded and absentee ownership model which has come to dominate newspapers and broadcast. America’s at a crossroads. This committee has the opportunity to lead Congress down an enlightened path. You have it in your power to be the public servants Jefferson and Hamilton envisioned when they championed the free press as the essential fourth leg on the democratic stool. You are told conglomerate owners need more consolidation because the business model is broken Nothing is further from the truth. After decades of milking newspapers and TV stations for some of the highest pre-tax profit margins imaginable, often as high as 30% for newspapers and 50% for broadcast, it has become impossible for these financially driven owners to sustain these false margins. We are simply going back to the future when I started in the industry 40 years ago. When newspapers were nice locally owned single digit margin businesses generating good cash flow to operate the business and invest in journalism and community. And there is no reason to believe that local newspapers and local broadcasters can’t continue to sustain successful businesses and fulfill their public mandate going forward. Even today, amidst the false claims you hear that the economic model is broken the publicly traded newspaper sector is reporting 16-18% profit margins. You have the opportunity to save our free and local press to rejuvenate America’s civic engagement and to lay the foundation to preserve our democracy longer than any the world has seen. To do so you must keep all current FCC ownership restrictions and public service mandates in place including the all important local cross ownership ban. You must insist that the egregiously unenforced mandates of minority ownership, female ownership and public service airtime be vigorously enforced. You must craft new FCC mandates to insure Internet freedom. You need to institute a ban on cross ownership of print and national broadcast outlets as a companion to the local cross ownership ban. You must boldly put forth limits on newspaper ownership and create incentives and rewards for owners who invest in journalism. I implore you to look to the future and create public policy which allows our nation’s free and local press to again thrive and thus insure our democracy. This is an historic moment. The American people need your leadership. (Webcast of the 12/18/07 Senate Commerce Committee Oversight Hearing can be found here.)

The Media Conglomerates are continuing to exert heavy influence on the FCC and members of the Senate and the House. A Bi-partisan group of Senators--Senators Dorgan, Lott, Kerry, Obama, Feinstein, Cantwell, Snowe are among the co-sponsors--are considering legislation, The Media Ownership Act to require that the FCC hold public hearings for 90 days before ruling on this issue. (The FCC ruled on this issue prior to Christmas and did not hold public hearings for the standard 90 day period prior to this ruling.)

Never fear, the transnational corporation have plenty of lobbyists and money to donate to candidates for re-election. Their voices will be heard as they insist that it is in the public's interest to allow them to own up to 2 TV stations, 8 radio stations AND the local newspaper in a single city or town is dangerous to our democracy. One corporation could control all the news in a city and market their coverage under 11 different names, disguising the fact that all the news is coming from a single source.

Our Senators need to hear our voices on this issue. Our public airwaves are being used by the corporatons to make huge profits yet they are no longer serving the public interest in exchange for the free use of our airwaves. The major news media are talking to our Senators. We need to tell our Senators that we want them to protect the public's interest and command the FCC to stop acting like corporate lobbyists. The FCC is supposed to be protecting the public interest not selling it out. Loosening the media ownership rules is NOT in the public interest. For more information go to StopBigMedia.com

Contact Senator John Warner
Contact Senator Jim Webb

Saul Williams - Not In Our Name (The Pledge of Resistance)

Check this out. Here is a workable New Year's Resolution for you based on a Spoken Word performance by the dynamic, visionary Hip-Hop poet, Saul Williams, a true Hip-Hop artist who hasn't sold out this original, raw, street-inspired art form for money, drugs, guns and the degrading of women. No, his words are pure, revolutionary, truthful, full of love.

He did this videotaped piece a few years back. It's called Not In Our Name (The Pledge of Resistance). But it's equally poignant right now, if not more so. This is one of my New Year's Resolutions this year.

If you like Saul Williams and want to hear more or know more about him, let me know. This is just a tiny morsel of his artistic abilities.

By the way, there is an actual website where you can sign this pledge at: http://www.notinourname.net/pledge_about.html

MEDIA ALERT: STOP THE CORPORATE MEDIA TAKEOVER

Our FCC, paid for with our tax dollars is NOT doing it's job--regulation and oversight of the monopolized power of the corporate media. Instead it is using our tax dollars to act like corporate lobbyists. The FCC has proposed new rules that grants the corporate media more power and less accountability. In spite of Americans speaking out in an incredibly united voice on this issue...where else will you see organizations such as the Christian Coalition, MoveOn.org, National Rifle Association, and NOW stand side by side and demand that media ownership rules be strengthened not weakened?

Here's an issue that we can unite us all....unfortunately, a rare occurrence these days. It would do all of us some good to join together whenever possible....here's a golden opportunity for us.

The Media is fundamentally a crucial issue. No matter what your political issues are (civil liberties, gun control, immigration reform, anti-war) it is incredibly difficult to get folks activated if the media distorts your message or refuses to cover it. The media is fundamental for a democracy to function...that's why our constitution has an amendment for the "fourth estate." They wanted to protect the press from government censorship. However, our founding forefathers (who had a healthy fear of corporations) did not anticipate that the corporations would end up controlling the media and censoring us.

It's not to late!! Something can be done.....Congress has the power to throw out the FCC's new rules. Here's the FreePress info:

Throw Out the Rules

The FCC approved new rules that will unleash a flood of media consolidation across America. The new rules will further consolidate local media markets -- taking away independent voices in cities already woefully short on local news and investigative journalism.

Congress has the power to throw out these rules -- and if hundreds of thousands of people demand it, they'll have to listen. Sign the open letter to Congress urging them to stop the FCC and stand with the public interest. In addition, you may want to contact your Senator and Representative.

Congressional Contact Numbers

800-828-0498 is the toll free phone number of the Congressional switchboard

TAKE ACTION FOLKS....WE CAN STOP THIS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FCC IF WE ACT RIGHT NOW...IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL AMERICANS....

The 60's Phenomenon

It's amazing to look back at the phenomenal sixties and to see how far trendsetting the youth were. The Beatles started music video before it even had a name....and the passionate youth gathered together, united in such large groups to hear the "visionary" music of our generation and IMAGINED how to make a better world.

No wonder the powers that be decided that our music had to be controlled...in this day and time, with the way the majority of people feel about Iraq and George Bush don't you find it "mind blowing" that the peace songs have been banned from our radio stations? First, Clearwater banned the Dixie Chicks (and then promised Congress they would not abuse their use of OUR airwaves again.) Of course, Clearwater lied. Despite high sales, Clearwater has refused to play Springsteen's latest album....Pink's Dear Mr. President, as you already know, is getting no airplay.

And our FCC, funded by our tax dollars, instead of regulating the corporations, INCREASED their monopolies and the corporations propaganda power last month. The FCC acted against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people AND our Congress.

You know we need a revolution...

The Jerusalem International YMCA-the Child Shall be Father to the Man

By Mac McKinney


We have just celebrated the Birthday of the Prince of Peace, so it would be appropriate to take a look at what an organization strongly dedicated to Christian values is doing in Jerusalem, the Holy City of Judaism during Christ's birth, as well as becoming a Holy City to Christians and Moslems later. Just as a small child came to teach humanity back then of a better way, some very small children can teach us a better way now.

****************************

On September 21, 2007, a global event took place that many of us were not aware of: the sixth annual United Nations International Day of Peace, voted upon and approved in the Fall of 2001 and first celebrated internationally in 2002. In its 2001 resolution, the United Nations declared “that the International Day of Peace shall henceforth be observed as a day of global cease-fire and non-violence, an invitation to all nations and peoples to honour a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the Day…”

Prior to this global and permanent Peace Day being designated, the UN did have a prior incarnation of a peace day dating to 1981, but this was a “floating holiday” of sorts that coincided with the opening of the UN General Assembly in late September, and which had no formal cease-fire declaration. An English actor named Jeremy Gilley, aware of the weakness of this earlier day of peace, launched himself on an amazing odyssey in 1999, one lasting well over a year, that took him around the world to meet with thousands of dignitaries and ordinary people, both in and out of war zones, in an effort to build support for a new Peace Day resolution, which was finally achieved in 2001. Since the September 21st event was inaugurated, millions of people have gotten involved in its celebration.

I was part of a local Virginia celebration of Peace Day this year, and we ended up registering with several international organizations that help to promote this day globally, 1) Jeremy Gilley’s Peace One Day; 2) the International Day of Peace (IDP), in particular its “Vigil” section, which creates webspace for groups to register and promote themselves, as well as communicate with each other; and in like vein, 3) an organization called WiserEarth, which not only registers groups for Peace Day activities, but for peace and justice activities in general. So, now linked to the body politic of the September 21st peace activities, we would eventually begin receiving emails of other organizations’ activities.

When I got home that evening and checked my email, I was already starting to get postings through the IDP Vigil network from around the world, everywhere from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Fiji Islands, to Malaysia and even from climbers who unfurled a huge peace banner on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro.

The Jerusalem International YMCA

I also received an email from Jerusalem, this divided city that has served as a historical center of worship for three great faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In this torn and troubled city, and region, a remarkable social experiment is taking place. The adult leaders on this planet seem to have run out of viable ideas on how to build lasting peace in the Holy Land (how ironic an image), preferring to remain entrenched in enmity, posturing and intrigues. Even the recent Annapolis Peace Conference seemed tainted with the scent of Machiavellianism. So we are now at the point where, it seems, the child must be father to the man.

I have been a member of one YMCA or another off and on through the years. When I was a kid I was a member of the Central YMCA in San Francisco, and, although I was from a card-carrying WASP family with all of their classic prejudices and airs, I found myself, at the Y, being thrown into the sea of humanity, because my fellow kids were of every which persuasion, our counselors and instructors were often Filipino and Hawaiian, and any sort of nationality, child or adult, might walk through the door. I remember, in particular, this old Russian weight-lifter, who although he was so stiff from old age that he could only shuffle around the weight room, could still bench press 500 pounds in between his intriguing tales of life in Russia.

So the YMCA, with its many branches throughout the world, can be a great gathering point for humanity, a great leveler of prejudices and stereotypes, indeed a great unifier when its members work out and team up or compete with each other. Perhaps we should inundate Palestine, Lebanon and Israel with YMCAs instead of the artifacts of war.

The Jerusalem International YMCA Peace Preschool, which consists of 135 Arab, Jewish and Christian children from the ages of 1 to 5 years old sent an email with a Peace Day poster with both photos of the kids and peace salutations and blessings in English, Hebrew and Arabic. This is the social experiment, or, social future, I am talking about, because this is not at all a laboratory test, but rather a realization of our shared humanity.

The social goal of the preschool, as Adena Levine, the director puts it, is to “facilitate coexistence between Arabs and Jews on a daily, ongoing basis, as a normal part of life for children and their families” and to “expose the children to the Other and to the Other’s culture, language and religion, enabling the development of tolerance and understanding, while preserving the distinct characteristics of each child and its cultural identity. This is not modeled after a melting pot, but rather after coexistence of diversities.”



















Christian, Jewish and Moslem Preschoolers at the Jerusalem YMCA. (Note that this and all of the following photos were taken by Adena and her staff.)

The Preschool was founded in 1981 with the central goal of developing “children intellectually, emotionally, socially and physically, in the tradition of the YMCA ideals of balanced spirit, mind, and body.” This translates into learning together, playing together, exercising together, and sharing each other's cultural treasures. For example:



















Two swim buddies



















Group photo at the pool.



















In the pool

To quote Adena further: “In each class- there are two teachers, one Jew, and one Arab, each speaking their own mother tongue. Stories are told alternately in Arabic and Hebrew, songs are sung in both languages, puppet shows are performed with ‘bilingual’ puppets etc. As a result, the children are exposed to both the Hebrew and Arabic language."













Celebrating Peace Day at the Y













More Peace Day Activities


















On a field trip harvesting olives

“All religious festivals and holidays of the three faiths are celebrated together with the children from the mixed classes. The emphasis is placed on strengthening each child’s religious identity while at the same time understanding the significance of the other holidays. In December we had (and will have this year too!) a ‘Three Holiday Party’ for all kids and parents (Hanukkah, Christmas and Id El Adha)"















the school's Hanukkah/Id el Adha parties















At the Hanukkah/Id el Adha parties-now the adults are playing too















Adults and kids in the YMCA breaking through cultural boundaries.



















Celebrating Christmas



















Families are also involved with the Christmas Party

So this is the bottom line at the YMCA Preschool, to develop mutual understanding, acceptance and respect for each other, including each other’s culture, music and art. Once you are experiencing each other’s music, in particular, you are truly beginning to dissolve the boundaries between you as you share each other’s melodies, rhythms and vibrations.

You can see, looking at the photos, that things are flowing along smoothly, as well they should be in a naturally tolerant and loving environment, and even, as you can also see, the adults are getting into the act. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew 18:1-5: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven... ".

This Preschool is what the Path of Peace and Love looks like up close, quite a contrast to the Path of Fear, Violence and Coercion, which benighted national leaders have deluded themselves into thinking can solve the divisions and hatreds of humanity. What is the other adage one hears as one reaches adulthood? Ahh, yes: “It’s time to grow up now and sell out”, sell out your integrity that is. But oh, what a twisted web that weaves, when now we practice to deceive, to paraphrase another timeless adage.

Yet the Buddha taught us the simple truth, millennia ago, that hatred cannot vanquish hatred; only love can vanquish hatred. Jesus taught as much when he implored us to love our enemies and forgive and forgive "Not seven times, but seventy times seven times!

"When are we going to take these teachings to heart in a serious way? So until we adults wise up, the child must be the father to the man.



















With love, The Kids, Staff, Adena and Pazit the dog from the Jerusalem YMCA

If you want to contact Adena, by the way, here is her contact info:

Adena Levine
Peace Preschool Director
Jerusalem International YMCA
26 King David Street
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +(972)2-5692681
E-mail: adena@ymca.org.il

Since we all laugh in the same language…

Corporate Girl--Hillary Clinton--REFUSED to do interview with Michael Moore

H/T to Cliff Garstang at Cobalt 6 for this one. It's worth distributing widely.

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Danny Glover Speaks Out

Danny Glover is simply stating the obvious...LISTEN to what John Edwards is saying, where he has come from and what he's done in his life. He's the most viable presidential contender who has a RECORD of taking on the corporations....unlike Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Obama's record with corporations still has to play out but Hillary Clinton earned the nickname "Corporate Girl" because she know what she needs to do to raise big bucks from her corporate donors.

So at least take the time to give Edwards and his proposals an honest hearing. If you have to work for a living, or have to live a balanced life within a balanced budget to make ends meet...I think you will like what you hear.

Danny Glover is on my very short list of who I'd love to meet over dinner and converse with. I've long admired him as being a true grass roots activist who cares about the average American who has to earn money to support their family.

Lefty Blogs--Anyone else having trouble?

Is anyone else having trouble with Lefty Blogs? We seem to have fallen off their list of posts. I've contacted them about this but haven't received a reply...and we are still MIA. We are still showing up on Blog Net News and Waldo's VA Political Blogs.

If anyone knows of a solution let us know. I'd love to get back on the list. Buzz...Buzz...

Huckabee has anti-war activists arrested

According to Firedoglake:

Eight members of Iowa Occupation Project and Voices for Creative Nonviolence wanted to know how Huckabee rationalized his Christian background with his support for the war in Iraq:

Eight members of the Iowa Occupation Project and Voices for Creative Nonviolence arrived at Huckabee’s Locust St. campaign office early Monday afternoon, waiting for the former Arkansas governor’s reply to a letter delivered two months ago that sought his pledge to completely withdraw from Iraq within 100 days of assuming office; halt all military actions against Iraq and Iran; fund the rebuilding of Iraq as well as health, education and infrastructure needs in the U.S.; and “…the highest quality health care, education and jobs training benefits for veterans of our country’s Armed Services.”

I guess Huckabee wasn't much interested in giving an answer because he had them arrested.

Some folks in Hampton Roads are familiar with one of the anti war activists. Kathy Kelley (who made an appearnace recently at the Naro) was arrested. Kelley, the co-director for VCNV, stated, “We’re very respectful of the Iowa caucus process and the long history behind it but we feel quite strongly that the issues of this war must be inserted into the process of narrowing down the candidates for the presidential election.” (Source)

The people of this country want to know what positions all of the candidates have on the Iraq War and the question of withdrawal. It appears that Dennis Kucinich (D) and Ron Paul (R) are the only candidate who willing to discuss the Iraq War. These are the two candidates that the other contenders (and the corporate interests and their media) are blocking from participating in the debates. The American people deserve more than "public relations and marketing" tv spots that are presented as presidential debates.

Mumia Abu-Jamal, LIVE FROM DEATH ROW -- When Democracy Equals Empire

Mumia Abu-Jamal, on Death Row for several decades, whom many feel was wrongly convicted, continues to speak out from the executioner's shadow. Here is a recording he made on democracy in fantasy and reality. Guilty or not, he has powerful things to say about society, philosophy, politics and history.

Here is his Wikipedia bio as well for your info:

Mumia Abu-Jamal

(born Wesley Cook on April 24, 1954) was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner, and is currently a prisoner at State Correctional Institution - Greene near Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. In December 2001 a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction but quashed his original punishment and ordered resentencing. Both Abu-Jamal and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed. The case was orally argued before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia on May 17, 2007, and is pending.

His case has received international attention. Supporters and human rights campaigners variously assert that he is innocent, that he was setup, that he did not receive a fair trial, and/or oppose the death penalty. Opponents assert that he is guilty, that he received the benefit of due process and was legitimately convicted of murder. Execution proponents among these assert that under Pennsylvania law his eventual judicial execution is warranted and mandated by the nature of his crime.

Prior to his arrest he was a Black Panther Party activist, cab driver, and journalist. During the period of his imprisonment he has courted controversy as an honoree of municipal, educational and civil society organizations, and as a spoken word commentator and published author of several works - most notably Live from Death Row.

Beat the Drums....Progressive Bloggers Head to Floydfest

Progressive Bloggers:

Think about packing up your camping gear and heading to Floydfest 6 July 24-27. If you don't have camping gear post a comment to Star....she'll help you connect with others to get the items you need, and answer questions you may have about the event.

This is the greatest event for progressives to re-charge their batteries. From my experience, you'll have a big smile on your face the entire time you are there.

If you act quickly you could get a souvenir package and arrive in time to do workshops for progressive bloggers throughout Thursday afternoon. It's the perfect place for progressive bloggers from VA and elsewhere to re-charge our batteries, neywork, listen to lots of great music, and have loads of fun.

Most (if not all of us at Mosquito Blog) will be there...

Written by Star Womanspirit (butMosquito is posting due to my computer glitch :)

Attorney General blocking Investigations

Michael Mukasey is just another Alberto Gonzalez, Mukasey behaves like he's the ANTI-Justice Attorney General. Another typical "protect me and my cronies" Bush selection that the Democratic majority Senate went along with. Shame on the Dems for this. No Attorney General would be an improvement over this.

Here’s the report from Democracy Now:

Mukasey Blocks Congressional Probe of Destroyed CIA Tapes

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is coming under intense criticism by Democrats for his handling of the scandal surrounding the CIA’s destruction of hundreds of hours of videotape showing interrogations inside secret CIA prisons. Within a single 24-hour period, the Justice Department warned a federal judge to back-off of his inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, told Congress to delay its own investigation into the matter, and refused to cooperate with congressional inquiries into the Justice Department’s role in the elimination of the tapes. The American Civil Liberties Union called the Justice Department’s actions a stunning rebuke of the constitutional system of checks and balances. (Headlines 12/17/07)