Global
AUSTIN, Texas -- I don't so much mind that newspapers are dying -- it's watching them commit suicide that pisses me off.
Let's use this as a handy exercise in journalism. What is the unexamined assumption here? That the newspaper business is dying. Is it? In 2005, publicly traded U.S. newspaper publishers reported operating profit margins of 19.2 percent, down from 21 percent in 2004, according to The Wall Street Journal. That ain't chopped liver -- it's more than double the average operating profit margin of the Fortune 500.
Let's use this as a handy exercise in journalism. What is the unexamined assumption here? That the newspaper business is dying. Is it? In 2005, publicly traded U.S. newspaper publishers reported operating profit margins of 19.2 percent, down from 21 percent in 2004, according to The Wall Street Journal. That ain't chopped liver -- it's more than double the average operating profit margin of the Fortune 500.
Dear Editor: The New York Times saw fit to assign two reporters to the aftermath of the Belarus election. Their article cites American objections to the official outcome, a landslide victory for incumbent Aleksandr Lukashenko. The Times article cited international observers who disparaged the election as "rigged" and "...held under widespread repression."
But when similar objections were raised in the United States immediately following our own presidential election in 2004, The Times ignored them, except to publish a single front-page article a week later that disparaged "conspiracy theorists." Since 2004, mountains of evidence have surfaced about hackable election machinery and impossible discrepancies between exit poll results and the tabulated vote that favored incumbent George W. Bush. The Times has similarly ignored this unpleasantness.
Evidently, rigged elections are only possible outside the borders of the United States.
But when similar objections were raised in the United States immediately following our own presidential election in 2004, The Times ignored them, except to publish a single front-page article a week later that disparaged "conspiracy theorists." Since 2004, mountains of evidence have surfaced about hackable election machinery and impossible discrepancies between exit poll results and the tabulated vote that favored incumbent George W. Bush. The Times has similarly ignored this unpleasantness.
Evidently, rigged elections are only possible outside the borders of the United States.
"Why We Fight"
Directed by Eugene Jarecki
Running time: 98 mins.
It is mentioned in the film’s tagline that “it is nowhere written that the American empire goes on forever.” One interview subject points out the rise and fall of past empires such as the Roman Empire, Imperial Britain, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, as a warning that the crisis of American capitalism will follow these totalitarian regimes to the grave.
Why We Fight, a documentary detailing the emergence of the military-industrial-complex, opened recently at the Drexel East Theater. The film takes its name from a series of pro-U.S. World War II propaganda films. In doing so, the film’s theme explores the symbiotic relationship involving the weapons industry, the American government, its military, and commerce, as the principal reason for constant war readiness following World War II.
Directed by Eugene Jarecki
Running time: 98 mins.
It is mentioned in the film’s tagline that “it is nowhere written that the American empire goes on forever.” One interview subject points out the rise and fall of past empires such as the Roman Empire, Imperial Britain, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, as a warning that the crisis of American capitalism will follow these totalitarian regimes to the grave.
Why We Fight, a documentary detailing the emergence of the military-industrial-complex, opened recently at the Drexel East Theater. The film takes its name from a series of pro-U.S. World War II propaganda films. In doing so, the film’s theme explores the symbiotic relationship involving the weapons industry, the American government, its military, and commerce, as the principal reason for constant war readiness following World War II.
On March 18, protesters gathered around the world to protest the war in Iraq.
The following is footage from the Columbus, Ohio demonstration, courtsey of Columbus IMC: http://cbusimc.org/node/586/play
The following is footage from the Columbus, Ohio demonstration, courtsey of Columbus IMC: http://cbusimc.org/node/586/play
America has spoken, and for George W. Bush, it's not pretty. Asked to use one-word answers to describe how they felt about the president, an astounding 48%--virtually half the country--said "incompetent," "idiot," and "liar." The Pew Research Center survey released this week shows a stark contrast to how Americans answered the same question three years ago, when positive one-word descriptions of Bush, such as "honest" and "integrity," far outnumbered negative ones. In the current poll, only 28% used positive words. And previously used superlatives like "excellent" or "great" were virtually non-existent.
The survey casts Bush's overall approval rating at a pathetic 33%. With a few more dead soldiers and a civil war in Iraq, combined with a couple of more political blunders like Harriet Miers, the ports deal and illegal NSA wiretappings, the president just might find himself facing single digits in the not-too-distant future.
Other highlights of the survey include:
-Only 42% now approve of Bush's job in handling terrorist threats, an 11-point drop since February.
-Only 73% of Republicans approve of Bush, down from 89% in January 2005.
The survey casts Bush's overall approval rating at a pathetic 33%. With a few more dead soldiers and a civil war in Iraq, combined with a couple of more political blunders like Harriet Miers, the ports deal and illegal NSA wiretappings, the president just might find himself facing single digits in the not-too-distant future.
Other highlights of the survey include:
-Only 42% now approve of Bush's job in handling terrorist threats, an 11-point drop since February.
-Only 73% of Republicans approve of Bush, down from 89% in January 2005.
It is my purpose here to continue our examination of the Executive Branch in relation to the powers of war. I expect to raise a few reasonable doubts about the premises and consequences of currently prevailing war-powers doctrines, which are all too common amongst us as of late. Perhaps, in the end, the ideological structures of absolute power in the Executive, with full presidential sovereignty and endless war powers, are sound. Maybe we should all become believers in this new way of administering a free government. I think, however, on the evidence to be reviewed, that we shall wish to return, at minimum, to the expressly-stated powers of the Constitution; those delegating to the Executive the power to wage war, and to the Legislature, the power to declare war.
According to a report released last week by the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) violated procedures for wiretapping and other methods of obtaining intelligence more than 100 times in the last two years. The department’s inspector general regarded some of the violations as “significant,” including wiretaps that were broader than what a court had approved, and wiretaps that were allowed to go on for weeks, even months, longer than had been authorized. Given the bureau’s history, this shouldn’t be surprising. The F.B.I. was created for partisan political purposes, and has blatantly violated civil liberties since its inception.
Emery County Clerk Bruce Funk has been running elections for 23 years.
He was quite content with his optical scan system. The state of Utah thought
otherwise: On Dec. 27, Funk took delivery on 40 Diebold TSx touch-screen
machines, part of a statewide directive.
"I had concerns about Diebold," says Funk, "but I thought, 'If the state is going to mandate it, then I guess they'll assume responsibility if anything goes wrong.'"
Not so. He soon learned that he will be responsible but the state will decide what election system will count the votes.
"YOU'RE GOING TO HATE MY GUTS ON ELECTION DAY"
Funk's concerns escalated when he heard a particularly unusual statement by Diebold sales rep Dana LaTour.
"Some of you are going to hate my guts on Election Day," she said to the assembly of elections officials. Later, another Diebold representative named Drew was asked what LaTour meant when she said "Some of you are going to hate my guts..."
"We're going to have problems on Election Day, and we're just going to have to work through them," he said.
FAILURES RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE
"I had concerns about Diebold," says Funk, "but I thought, 'If the state is going to mandate it, then I guess they'll assume responsibility if anything goes wrong.'"
Not so. He soon learned that he will be responsible but the state will decide what election system will count the votes.
"YOU'RE GOING TO HATE MY GUTS ON ELECTION DAY"
Funk's concerns escalated when he heard a particularly unusual statement by Diebold sales rep Dana LaTour.
"Some of you are going to hate my guts on Election Day," she said to the assembly of elections officials. Later, another Diebold representative named Drew was asked what LaTour meant when she said "Some of you are going to hate my guts..."
"We're going to have problems on Election Day, and we're just going to have to work through them," he said.
FAILURES RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE
The identity of intelligence officials who are thought to have passed information about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, surfaced in a federal court document filed Friday evening.
Separately, Libby's defense team has once again attempted to engage in a high-stakes gambit to devalue the nature of Plame Wilson's status and work with the CIA. The attorneys claim that Plame Wilson was not a very important figure at the CIA and that therefore no damage was done to national security by unmasking her identity.
"The prosecution has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA," the court filing states.
However, in previous hearings, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has pointed out time and again that Plame Wilson's CIA status is not the issue. Rather it's Libby's repeated lies to the grand jury and the FBI.
Separately, Libby's defense team has once again attempted to engage in a high-stakes gambit to devalue the nature of Plame Wilson's status and work with the CIA. The attorneys claim that Plame Wilson was not a very important figure at the CIA and that therefore no damage was done to national security by unmasking her identity.
"The prosecution has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA," the court filing states.
However, in previous hearings, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has pointed out time and again that Plame Wilson's CIA status is not the issue. Rather it's Libby's repeated lies to the grand jury and the FBI.