Op-Ed
Kathleen Rumpf of Syracuse, N.Y., is part of the Catholic Workers movement, probably the most formidable people of conscience in this country. She has been arrested more than 100 times during a lifetime of activism for peace and justice.
Rumpf also ran a prison ministry in Syracuse, where she exposed a hideous local practice: "the Jesus Christ" -- stretching out naked prisoners and shackling them to the bars, a la Christ on the cross. "60 Minutes" did a piece about it, and a lawsuit ended the practice. Suffice it to say that Rumpf knows about prisons.
"I am used to abuse," she said last week. "I am used to roaches and rats; I've seen guards who are buffoons and guards who are mean. I have never seen anything like the corruption and cruelty at Carswell Women's Prison Hospital.
"I couldn't believe it as I lived it. The mind control is amazing -- they keep repeating, 'You're getting the best medical care available in any community.'"
Implicit and largely unspoken, the virtual Ten Commandments of Dot-Comity are now widespread:
The Washington Post broke a fascinating story last week about the utility industry's funneling millions of dollars into two phony grass-roots organizations in order to stop Congress from deregulating utilities. Congress may be up for sale, as we have seen time and again, but the utilities prefer to be deregulated in state capitols, where they get so much more bang for their campaign-contribution buck. Part-time legislators from Pierre, S.D., to Austin (the Texans meet for 140 days once every two years), are so much less likely to understand the arcane details of fair rate-setting than the full-timers in D.C.
Post reporter John Mintz got a stack of files about "the Project," the secret, industry-funded effort. According to the memos, the Project was "discreet, guarded and highly confidential. ... Fear of congressional reprisals conditioned this style. ... It would be prudent to avoid rash openness." Yes, that rash openness needs to be avoided every time, doesn't it?
Seventeen acres of this pleasing expanse are available to off-leash dogs, an incredible achievement of Berkeley dog lovers who spent about seven years of delicate political maneuvering to secure, last year, "pilot project status" for the off-leash area. To win it, they had to surmount fierce opposition from the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and the Citizens for an East Shore State Park, eager to seize the acreage of Cesar Chavez Park and add it to their domain. State parks in California have never yet held off-leash areas.
Slogan of the march: Enough Is Enough.
Legislative goals of the marchers:
- Licensing and registration of handguns.
- Background checks for gun buyers.
- Requiring manufacturers to put trigger locks on guns.
- A one-per-month limit on handgun purchases.
The 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country are not a consequence of our lack of common sense; they are a failure of our political system. The system does not work on this (and most other issues) -- and not because the anti-gun-control forces are stronger than the pro-gun-control forces, or because the anti-control people are more passionate about the issue, or because they are single-issue voters. It doesn't work because of money.
Reporting on the worst virus attack in PC history, Time blamed "the perils of living in a monoculture." The newsmagazine explained: "Security experts have long warned that Microsoft software is so widely used and so genetically interconnected that it qualifies as a monoculture -- that is, the sort of homogeneous ecosystem that makes as little sense in the business world as it does in the biological."
The practical benefits of diversity suggest a question that's long overdue: What's the sense of monoculture in mass media?
What's really sickening is when it's a choice involving our health, our air or our water, and the special interests still win because they make bigger contributions than we do. When lawmakers (Our Elected Representatives) are perfectly willing to sacrifice us -- literally our bodies -- in favor of campaign contributions, it's enough to gag a maggot.
Unfortunately, such cases are rarely crystal clear; and the clearer the case is, the more high-paid lobbyists you get wandering around making it as unclear as possible. Here's an interesting example of a fight between clean air and clean water and the ethanol lobby.
Violent crime keeps dropping, but the National White Collar Crime Center says that one in three households is now victimized by white-collar crime. This genteel robbery has increased 10 percent to 20 percent in the last five years. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which goes after investment fraud, reports a 20 percent jump in complaints from 1995 to 1999.
The Internet is an especially rich source of rip-offs, so you cutting-edge netizens need to follow the oldest rule in the book: If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
But of course what interests me most is legal crime, the rip-offs about which absolutely nothing can be done -- often because Our Elected Representatives have been bought off by the system of legalized bribery that runs American politics.
And I must say it seems to me this is an area that calls for a becoming tentativeness. I have yet to find any evidence that anyone knows what all the consequences of "permanent normalization" of trade with China will be.
In some ways, this is a political no-brainer -- American business positively salivates at the prospect of Chinese markets, and the Clinton administration is siding with business, arguing that it's a bonanza. Most Republicans, responding to the siren call of their campaign contributors, favor the deal. Labor, religious, environmental and consumer groups are pressuring Democrats to vote "no."
It's hardly surprising that few national media outlets have reviewed the book or interviewed the author. Kilbourne's work is a publicist's nightmare. Imagine trying to get an articulate critic of ads onto TV networks that rely on commercials for their big profits.
"If you're like most people, you think that advertising has no influence on you," Kilbourne writes. "This is what advertisers want you to believe. But, if that were true, why would companies spend over $200 billion a year on advertising?"