Big Media Takes A Few Hits - Democracy On The Offensive

Today we get word of two great developments in the fight to take back our media.

First, the U.S. Senate passed a voice vote to return to the media rules prior to the controversial FCC changes last summer (documented on this blog). Co-sponsor Byron Dorgan has this to say:

"Last June, the FCC performed one of the most complete cave-ins to corporate interests against the public interest in the history of the country," he said. "When the number of people and corporations who control what 293 million Americans see and hear in the media shrinks to just a relative handful, democracy suffers."

The Senate took the action in case a pending court action found in favor of the new rules. No need to worry, however, as today the court tossed out the new rules:

The Federal Communications Commission was ordered by a U.S. appeals court to review its new rules that let companies such as News Corp. and Viacom Inc. buy more television stations and newspapers.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also blocked implementation of the media ownership rules, approved a year ago by the FCC under Chairman Michael Powell, until the agency acts, a copy of the decision shows.

``The Commission falls short of its obligation to justify its decisions to retain, repeal or modify its media ownership regulations with reasoned analysis,'' the appeals court said in its 218-page decision.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who had dissented earlier in regards to the FCC action, sums it up:

``The rush to media consolidation approved by the FCC last June was wrong as a matter of law and policy,'' FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement. ``The Commission has a second chance to do the right thing.'' Copps voted against the new rules last year.

Excess In Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Thought

I hope you get that here. Lawrence Lessig has the story of Microsoft suing a Brazilian government official for excessive freedom of speech and thought.

God forbid.

Happy Memorial Day

We owe much to our fighting men and women throughout history. They have made great sacrifices for us that leave America as it is today - free. Even today, we have soldiers in the field doing their duty to our nation, and doing it valiantly. Whether we agree with the particular mission or not, whether we believe that all military missions are not created equal, bears no qualification upon our brave fellow citizens carrying these missions out.

God bless them, and give them this day.

The Problem With Catholic Church Interference With Politics

The Catholic Church needs to back off from free democracy. By not outright condemning the actions of some bishops in refusing communion to American politicians, for political positions, the Catholic Church creates a wedge it should not create between those who share loyalties to both representative democracy and to the church.

First, John Kerry is a politician. He is a representative of the people. Whether or not his personal belief is aligned with the church position, this doesn't mean that he should let his personal belief override or control his duty as a democratic representative. It's not John Kerry's job or duty to command his constituents on what their position ought to be on a matter. His role is to gauge the feelings, thoughts, and beliefs of his constituents and serve and honor them.

This may go against the hierarchical command structure of the Catholic Church, but so be it. The Pope claims he is the most special representative of God and in a privileged position to interpret God's will and Word and dictate that to those less worthy and privileged to do so. That's fine (I guess). But free democratic peoples don't work that way, in this kind of organizational top-down manner, and the Catholic Church ought to respect and honor that.

Further, the Catholic Church really needs to be more consistent, and the Pope needs to take a strong stand to save his credibility amongst those of us who are more than worthy to evaluate these kinds of things. If the issue is life, why focus solely on abortion, and not the death penalty? I'm told the Pope has left open that some capital punishment may be necessary. This position is absurd and ridiculous. There is never any compelling reason to kill anyone. There is always another option. The lesson of Jesus' execution ought to be clear - we are fallible, and our communities and mobs are fallible, and therefore we ought not to pass judgement on who should live and who should die.

Free principles have a related rule and lesson - habeas corpus. This great principle is the bedrock of our system of justice, and allows for human fallibility, among other things. It does not mean habeas corpse. If new evidence were to emerge in a capital case, or another stepped forward to claim responsibility for the deed in question, and you already killed the man who had been convicted earlier, how can this man's family claim him? Move to have his case reviewed and exonerated? You can't, at least not for the benefit and freedom of this man, because you already killed him, and it's willful negligence to assert that no innocent party has not been executed by the free American republic, or that there is any excuse or justification for it. This also begs the question of responsibility, since how will God pass judgment on this murder - against the mob, or community, or against each one of the individuals who went along?

Still, I digress. The bottom line is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but respect the views of others, especially women, who may feel differently, and who have differing ultimate responsibilities on the matter. Should I not get communion (aside from my bashing of the Pope, which ought to at least merit the possiblity of excommunication)? Of course not. And this scenario of me being personally opposed, but respecting the views of others, is much further away then the case of a politician personally opposing abortion, but not imposing that belief on the free citizens he is in the service of and accountable to.

The Catholic Church ought only be concerned with the souls of its constituents, and not what kind of missionary fervor they choose to share this state with their fellows. It is the church's job to make the best case for its principled positions, and win over the hearts, minds, and souls of its constituents. If it does so well enough, then John Kerry will himself reject the act of abortion, and the church may be happy for his soul and salvation. But that is where the church stops, and politics begins, and John Kerry is under no obligation to dictate to others his beliefs or to refuse political participation with those he who most agrees with (overall), either by not participating in politics at all or being forced to vote Republican over a single issue when he disagrees with almost everything else.

If any of you have access, forward this to the Pope. I formally request an audience with him to make an appeal for reason and compassion, not to mention good sense. The church invites great danger with this issue, and it should act at the earliest possible moment to clarify its position on communion.

I Haven't Completely Disappeared

I'm not retired. Just relaxing, in this medium, and going full tilt in another to complete a new software product. Pressure's on, and I have to respond.

Of course, I'm maintaining my connections, staying in tune with the news and memes, checking in occasionally at my regular haunts, and researching and studying every chance I get, honing the message, exploring new avenues of rhetoric and exposition.

Many say the blogosphere is a waste, just a bunch of self-absorption, but if you hit some of the right spots, maybe even this one, you get a little more than that. The expanded Freedom Century site is upcoming, and when it does we'll be expanding this message even further - into literary areas, and consciousness research.

Also, I'm reviewing all available literature right now in regards to propaganda, social influence, persuasion, (some) rhetoric, and memetics.

Why?

To put up a defenitive guide - for rhetorical and argumentative self-defense, and for expanding these elemental skills into a more common understanding around the blogosphere.

Celebrating Freedom - Frederick Douglass and Thurgood Marshall

Much of our history is devastatingly shameful and ignorant, if not hateful, as regards the treatment of our brothers and sisters of African heritage (let alone other ethnicities and minorities). At one time, Frederick Douglass was motivated to state:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?

I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.

To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Indeed, Americans proudly and happily celebrated the 4th of July in those days, but it wasn't about the Declaration of Independence or universal enfranchisement, but a selfish independence borne of ignorance and malice.

To our credit, we've kept our eyes on the prize, and especially those black Americans denied the American Dream kept their eyes on the prize, so that today we may celebrate the anniversary of a great court ruling declaring that all Americans are equal members of our popular sovereignty and community. That separate is not equal. This only happened through perseverance and struggle, however, and in acknowledgement that our mission as a free nation is evolving, and not set in stone at our founding.

So, on this day, I defer to the great Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court, in his own words speaking on America's Bicentennial, both as a counterpoint to our common illusions and myths of our history, and to Frederick Douglass' criticism and dissent a century and a half earlier:

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. We the People no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality," and who strived to better them.

And so we must be careful, when focusing on the events which took place in Philadelphia two centuries ago, that we not overlook the momentous events which followed, and thereby lose our proper sense of perspective. Otherwise, the odds are that for many Americans the bicentennial celebration will be little more than a blind pilgrimage to the shrine of the original document now stored in a vault in the National Archives. If we seek, instead, a sensitive understanding of the Constitution's inherent defects, and its promising evolution through 200 years of history, the celebration of the "Miracle at Philadelphia" will, in my view, be a far more meaningful and humbling experience. We will see that the true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making, and a life embodying much good fortune that was not.

Thus, in this bicentennial year, we may not all participate in the festivities with flagwaving fervor. Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.

God Bless and may all enjoy the fruits of freedom and equality before the law.

Word To The Wise - Sex, Torture & Videotape

We shouldn't be distracted so much by the revelations of sex, torture and videotape in Iraq that we ignore or forget that prisoners were beaten and killed there. We also shouldn't be distracted enough to ignore or forget that these allegations of beatings, torture, and murder have arisen elsewhere - in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

Though we shouldn't be distracted, we also ought not be too myopic when we do focus our view on the events in Iraq. If, as Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker, this kind of interrogation has been designed and approved for use against prisoners of the Islamic faith in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, by our own civilian leadership and military command, then we have to question whether poorly trained reservists with little knowledge of Arab or Islamic culture would independently come up with similarly "effective" tactics in Iraq.

As we begin to get answers for these questions, we have to wake up to a sobering reality. These are war crimes, and the perpetrators ought to be prosecuted. Since the buck starts at the top, start with Rumsfeld, and work your way down. Sooner or later, someone will rat out someone above them, whether Rumsfeld or someone below him, down to the actual perpetrators of the acts in question, in order to avoid a lengthy prison sentence.

We must not bury our heads or the truth in the sands of Iraq. If there were systematic abuses of human rights and dignity, acts of torture and war crimes, then the system needs to be held to account along with the human beings who furthered it.

Also, if it's not a crime for American personnel, military or civilian, to use torture and sexual humiliation against prisoners in Guantamano, there is hardly cause to charge American personnel in Iraq for the same offenses, if under orders. Especially in the vacuum of clear leadership or language by our leadership, as well as training, such a double standard serves to undermine the dignity, at least what's left, of our own men and women in uniform who stand accused, not to mention undermines the cause of justice, which must be equally applied or not at all.

We don't need fall guys (or gals) - we need stand up individuals. Our name and honor are at stake.

World Press Freedom Day - Come And Gone

The Carroll County Star-Tribune reminds us of the importance of World Press Freedom Day in an inspiring editorial.

Today is World Press Freedom Day, a time to honor those nations that embrace one of democracys most essential rights.

Few in the United States are familiar with this important commemoration, which marks the May 3 anniversary of the 1991 signing of the Windhoek Declaration in Africa that calls for free, independent and pluralist media in every country.

Perhaps that is because we Americans take our First Amendment rights as a given. But sadly, these basic freedoms do not exist throughout much of the world, where media repression is the norm. Around the globe, in places like Cuba and China and parts of the Middle East, journalists routinely face censorship, imprisonment and assault. Many have given their lives - 36 in 2003, at least 17 more this year - in pursuit of truth. According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, another 136 were jailed in each of the past two years as a direct result of their work.

(snip)

And, it can serve as a reminder for all Americans to vigorously oppose those including some in our own government whose policies and actions threaten our status as the most open nation in history.

Recently, that climate of openness has been threatened as national security concerns have been used as a pretense to close the door on the people's right to know.

Certainly, there is justification for classifying information that could clearly endanger our fellow citizens.

But increasingly, champions of open government - Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals - are warning that national security is being used by government officials and clever corporations as a pretense to withhold information that might prove embarrassing or reveal illegalities.

As literally tens of millions of previously public documents have been stamped secret, it has become more difficult for the press to perform its historic watchdog role. And, average citizens cannot acquire information essential for their own well-being. In the past, that information has been used to expose hazardous waste dumps, rogue police officers, dangerous chemical accidents, aviation safety records, or even whether your next door neighbor has been injured in a train or plane crash.

(snip)

Freedom of information is healthy for society. It encourages public debate, reveals wrongdoing and holds government officials accountable. It has made us the great nation we are.

But when public information slips from sunlight into darkness, ignorance and tyranny quickly follow. And the United States ceases to be the model to which repressive nations should aspire.

Hear, hear.

Hearts And Minds Lost?

In regards to our use of torture, shame on us. And I mean US. At least we Americans. Just because images finally come out that cannot be denied doesn't mean that we've seen everything. There have been hints of this kind of thing for months with rumours and strange deaths happening from Guantamano to Afghanistan, as well as just mass imprisonment with little preparation of Iraqis.

I had a haunting and urgent sense before this war started in Iraq that it would bring us great shame. I had hoped that enough of us would spread the word, and gather in the streets, in order to give a reality check to our leaders and representatives before we'd passed the point of no return. To do so, in my mind, would bring "shame to our nation". But I was referring more to our shoddy and horrible case for the war, and the presence of plagiarized, forged, and greatly exaggerated evidence to support it.

Never did I think we would be shamed before the whole world not only for our decadent and self-righteous pretensions but for torture, in who knows how many cases murderously ending in death.

We cannot allow those who have dodged and evaded accountability and responsibility all this time, for the events surrounding this mission in Iraq, when events turn negative, while hoping to bask in the accolades when things seemingly go well, or positive, to pull their latest maneouver and pin this on "6 morons who lost the war".

Though they truly may be described as morons, from the view of the Pentagon, for taking pictures, and somehow letting them be released when they are so incriminating, both to themselves, to the Pentagon, and to us as a nation, we shouldn't lose sight that if they weren't such morons we wouldn't know with certainty and be able to put a stop to institutional torture and murder in our name.

Have we tortured and murdered innocent family men, after having torn them away from their families, these families fearing day and night of the well-being of their loved one? Thank God for these pictures, because this cannot go on in our name, or as a condition of our military endeavors throughout the world. And sooner or later the survivors of these prisons would have been released, and told their stories to their families, friends, and neighbors, where it would spread like wildfire amongst those whom we intend to "win hearts and minds", all the while at home a majority continue to wonder why they resent and hate us.

People at the top need to take ownership. Take responsibility. There better damn well be some resignations among the civilian leadership. President Bush, it's time to break out the big stick. This mission in Iraq has indeed brought "great shame to our nation". Drop the hammer on those responsible, and assure the world we take this to be serious, serious business.

***

Let us also not forget that though a life is priceless, we inevitably will be paying a heavy price to reimburse the victims of torture and murder in Iraq by our hands.

Ethics And The Bush Administration - The Environment

Environmental Media Services and The Unified Forest Defense Campaign have released a media tip sheet on the ethical lapses of the Bush Administration in regards to environmental policy.

There is growing concern that the current Administration has become comfortable operating within a pattern of deception and spin to circumvent laws and environmental protections and exploit the natural resources found on public lands. From keeping confidential files on public meetings, misleading the public through misnamed programs, ignoring scientific and economic facts, to granting sweetheart out-of-court settlements to friends in industry, Administration officials have become increasingly brazen in their intentions toward public lands.

Collectively, these examples illustrate a pattern that—at best—skirts ethics, and—at worst—demonstrates contempt for public involvement and maintaining a healthy balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

They list a number of areas along with supporting information for each. I won't go into detail here, but there are a number of examples for each charge.

1. Withholding Information From The Public

2. Misleading The Public

3. Out of Court Settlements That Favor Industry

4. Ignoring Scientific Information

In other words...deception, double dealing, lying, cheating, profiteering, corruption, cynicism, and fundamentalist irrationalism.

Bush Administration Attempts To Gag FBI Interpreter And Critic Of 9/11 Preparedness

The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.

Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.

But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

(snip)

Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.

The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."

She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want."

That's a day old actually. The judge agreed to hear the case next month.

National Rifle Association Seeks Not Just To Influence, But Become, Big Media

In the spring of 1990, Philip Morris circulated a top-secret proposal suggesting that the nation's biggest cigarette manufacturer acquire a news company such as Knight Ridder in order to "improve the climate for the marketing and use of tobacco products."

Luckily, Big Tobacco never acquired Big Media, and the nation was saved from the prospect of newspapers run by the Marlboro Man. Since then, the threat of special interests' owning news outlets hasn't gone away. In fact, it has come closer to reality.

Earlier this month, at its annual meeting in Pittsburgh, the National Rifle Association (NRA) launched NRANews.com, a private news company that offers a daily Internet talk show and plans to acquire TV and radio stations.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre was candid about the goal: to give the NRA's media arm the same legal recognition as a mainstream news organization, so that it can push pro-gun views and candidates without the pesky constraints of the campaign-finance law's ban on certain donations.

In the U.S., there are few legal restrictions on who can own news outlets. After all, defense contractor General Electric owns NBC. So who's to say Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil — or Philip Morris, for that matter — shouldn't own a national television network or newspaper chain? There's little stopping political advocacy groups, either.

In regards to General Electric, I can see all kinds of conflicts with a defense contractor owning a major network, and most especially because we have such a concentration of media ownership at the moment, so that owners with similar agendas or interests could steer emphasis and coverage a particular direction without worry of competition showing them up.

That's why I'm for strict limits on media ownership, in the sense of shaping laws and regulations in this area to encourage ownership and production diversification, so as to assure a healthy and competitive market that assures that all stories are created equal, in the sense of the owners of the news not having a financial interest in their own content. The mission of news media and organizations, and profit model, ought to be on how well they break stories and report on compelling issues to their customers, and ought not to be muddied by having signifigant financial interests and profit motives elsewhere that would benefit by increased coverage with a particular slant (say coverage of an impending war, while downplaying opposition sentiment, if you are a defense contractor who will profit spectacularly should such a war happen).

The difference would be news, on the one hand, and public relations and marketing, on the other. I'm not saying that this is happening today, but I'm suggesting it could. Since it could, we should assure it won't. The measure of our liberty and democracy is inevitably mediated and communicated through the freedom and integrity of our press. Since it's much easier for a possible conspiracy against our liberty and democracy to occur amongst a handful of conspirators, if even as innocent in motive as financial self-interest, so it is in our best interests, in the grassroots, to advocate that our media be much less concentrated.

Then, rather than ruminating on or debating the existence of conspiracies and elite deviance, we remove the elite from the structure of the equation and also the possibility of a conspiracy at all. Real solutions anticipate problems before they occur. Big Media is a structural problem, in the sense of the inherent potential for deviance and harm that could conceivably result. We should address the structural anomalies that put our democratic and (classical) liberal values at risk by restructuring our media laws and regulations to encourage a diversity of views and healthy competition in the news media marketplace.

***

It's late at night and I'm rambling, so if this doesn't make total sense, bear with me, leave a comment, and I'll fix it up in a more rested condition.

Venture Capital Embraces Eco-Economy

Across the country, venture capitalists are opening their wallets to upstarts that, like Nanosolar, develop "clean" technologies in anticipation of a growing market for products that generate revenue without harming the environment.

In 2003, investment in clean technology ventures rose 8 percent to $1.2 billion while overall venture capital investment fell 14 percent to $18.2 billion, according to the Cleantech Investor Network. The Howell, Mich.-based group defines clean technologies as technologies that allow for more efficient use of natural resources and greatly reduce ecological impact.

Venture capital firms are pouring money into clean technologies related to water purification, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, recycling, air quality and alternative energy such as solar, wind and hydrogen.

the times,
they are
a'changen

How Far Does The Freedom Of Information Act Currently Go?

I found this piece in The Hill to be an interesting perspective in regards to the freedom of information.

Under the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Congress also left a hefty chunk of the government off-limits — yet another reason why the sun doesn’t shine on much of what goes on. The lawmakers exempted the White House staff and “others whose sole function is to advise and assist the president,” the federal courts and themselves.

But the Pentagon didn’t get a blanket pass. The brass can withhold records only when, if disclosed, they “reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.” That exemption has been widely seen as covering military plans, weaponry and certain scientific and technical data.

(snip)

In an hour-long talk before several hundred publishers and editors last week, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that while “government information ultimately belongs to the people … we have been moving in a different direction. The period after Sept. 11 saw the single biggest rollback of FOIA ever.”

His companion on the dais, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), used the session to defend the USA Patriot Act. The Judiciary Committee chairman wants the law to be extended and broadened. But Leahy, the panel’s ranking member, charged the Bush administration with hiding behind the statute to thumb its nose at demands for more openness, not only from the public but also from lawmakers.

In serving here over a span of six presidencies, Leahy charged, “I’ve never seen such a lack of cooperation.”

“In a period when there is so much to be accountable for,” the senator added, “it is the things we don’t want you to know about that you need FOIA for.”

Indeed.

News Flash: Cheney In Bed With Special Interests

Okay, I know that's not really a news flash, since we all know this already, but more disturbing news is coming out about corporate influence on policy, the nexus of special interests lobbyists and government bureaucracy, and Dick Cheney's infamous and very secretive Energy Task Force.

The executive director of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, whose closed-door meetings with industry executives enraged environmentalists and prompted a Supreme Court showdown this week, became an energy lobbyist just months after leaving the White House, records show.

Andrew Lundquist, a native Alaskan who worked on Capitol Hill for both his state's senators, shepherded the development of the administration's energy policy as executive director of the National Energy Policy Development Group, a Cabinet-level task force chosen by President Bush and headed by Cheney.

When the task force completed its work, Lundquist stayed on at the White House as Cheney's energy policy director, leading the vice president's effort to turn the task force's work into law.

Then, a day after leaving government service, he opened a consulting business. Nine months later, Lundquist was a registered lobbyist for companies that stood to benefit from the energy policy he helped craft, according to 2003 lobby disclosure records reviewed by the Globe.

This guy is a classic case of what has gone wrong with our democratic system. Hopefully, some court rulings to come will help clear this up for us and rally public support for reforms.

Lundquist's behind-the-scenes role as policy coordinator, vice presidential aide, and ultimately as a lobbyist for energy companies highlights some of the concerns that have led consumer groups to seek the opening of the task force's records.

Environmental groups contend the task force met with companies seeking benefits under the bill but did not grant equal access to people challenging those positions.

Cheney has refused to release the records. When a federal judge agreed to allow some records to be reviewed in the discovery process, Cheney did not comply, pushing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear it on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, another environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, drew on the fact that Lundquist was paid by the Department of Energy to seek his task force records under the Freedom of Information Act, which covers the department. When a court ordered the records released, the administration again refused, putting Lundquist in the middle of the administration's battle over the secrecy of its energy dealings.

Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act. It's time we expand it to a full constitutional amendment. I'd love to see, for once, some of our most popular bloggers champion this issue. Everyone loves the complaints and spotlight on malfeasance and corruption that our leading bloggers frequently issue. But once in awhile we need to hear about institutional and legal remedies we can take to stop this from happening before it occurs, or have greater remedy to act against it in a speedier fashion once underway. In other words, reform.

Freedom Century On Its Way

The software project I've been working on is finally going production next week, so get ready to see the brand new Project For A New Century of Freedom sometime in the month of May. It will have a whole new design, and some cool new features, including greater indexing and searching (in other words, organization of content).

An Excellent "New" Blog - World Changing

The Internet, and Google, really are a beautiful thing. Just a second ago, while googling for a link to Lester Brown's book, Plan B (posted below), I found this awesome "new" blog. I put new in quotation marks because they've been around for awhile, from the looks of their archives, but there's so many blogs exploding around the globe that it's hard to keep up with even one-half of one percent of the ones that share political and social commentary (which themselves are probably one-half of one percent of new blogs).

Once found, however, never hesitate to include. To integrate. So, with that in mind, I highly encourage everyone to link in to World Changing. It's a group blog, with contributors from around the globe, Trinidad and Tobago to Toronto, Stockholm to Seattle, and places inbetween, and my first impression of the content has been progressive "thinking out of the box". Here's a sample of "why they're here":

WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it's here. We only need to put the pieces together.

I won't argue with that. That's why I'm here.

Care To Learn More About Eco-Economy?

Feel free to go visit the Earth Policy Institute, led by Lester Brown. Also, The World Watch Institute is a great resource for keeping up-to-date on the latest environmental indicators.

Did I say feel free? Well, I won't dispute that notion, but perhaps some urgency is in order as well. Why? Brown explains in Plan B.

Go!

Happy Earth Day - Making Global Warming Personal

In the decade after the first Earth Day 34 years ago, people planted trees to fight smog, picketed toxic dumps, slogged through mud to clean up grungy river banks. Being Earth-friendly meant giving $25 to save the whales - or choosing unleaded gas at the pump.

But in the new millennium, using a trash can to "keep America beautiful" is not enough. One of the planet's most pressing problems - global warming - looks to be one of its most intractable. And that is proving frustrating to would-be activists.

Their challenge: How to get individuals to change their behavior for a problem that looms so large and is unlikely to be solved for generations.

"Environment took off as an issue in the 1970s because you could do something personal about recycling and pollution in neighborhoods," says Dale Jamieson, president of the International Society for Environmental Ethics. "One of the dangers of thinking about the global warming issue today is that it can be extremely impersonal, disempowering for people."

My friends, we need to get way beyond recycling. In order to "deal with the real", we have to acknowledge our overuse of automobiles, and emphasis on energy use for global commerce and transportation. While we use the art and science of economics to make convincing cases for global trade flows, we fail to address externalities and costs associated with the energy use required to sustain these flows. These externalities and costs include war and conflict in the Middle East and Asia.

Are we too spoiled, stubborn, or stupid to see the simple changes we can make to help alleviate the situation? Are we too greedy to care for the common good? Why do we have so many SUV's? Isn't anyone thinking beyond tonight and tomorrow? Why do we have to import so much food from thousands upon thousands of miles away, when we have the ability to grow it closer to home? Why are we forced to buy so much bottled water because everyone acknowledges that the tap water is "at your own risk" (too dangerous for most), but so few of us are willing to invest in water filtration systems?

It's time economists graduate from the naive and childish economic measurement system we currently use and start becoming a force of enlightened change. It's time we citizens do the same in our own forecasting and actions. Nothing in life comes for free, and when we destroy natural resources, we destroy value. Judging by the resilience of the Clean Air Act against steady attacks by special and corporate interests, it's clear there is a demand for the services of nature that isn't being appropriately measured in economic analysis or output calculations (like GNP).

Dare I say it's a structural problem? I will, in part, but there is very clearly a personal element here, and one that begs the question of the nature and extent of our attention. If we do something now, while there is still time, we just might avoid a natural catastrophe that could make 9/11 fade into irrelevance. Are we paying attention?

We can't wait until we are certain that our activities will doom us, or doom others along seacoasts, or radically change our environment and/or perspective on life - this kind of certainty only comes in hindsight after the dreaded potential has already materialized, and has little adaptive fitness.

Intelligence, wisdom, and courage counsel us to act while there is still uncertainty, but where the available information is too compelling to discount and, in that light, exposes potential risks that are too great to ignore.

European Parliament Ministers Overcome Resistance To Put Spotlight On Media Concentration

Silvio Berlusconi’s media empire will come under fire on Thursday despite efforts by the EP’s centre right to sideline the issue.

A report by Dutch MEP Johanna Boogerd-Quaak on media freedom singled out the Italian premier’s grip on the public and private media as a cause for concern

Although it has no legal weight, the report threatens political embarassment for the Italian centre-right in the run-up to the June European elections.

(snip)

Leader of the European Liberals Graham Watson said the report reflected legitimate public concern about freedom of information.

“Freedom of information is not possible without a free media and neither is a functioning democracy,” he said.

“Concentration of ownership is reflected in a narrowing of views.”

But speaking earlier in plenary, Watson stressed that the report was not just about Berlusconi.

Spain is also held to account for “goverment pressure” on public service broadcaster TVE which resulted in “blatant distortion” and “ignoring of the facts” following the Madrid March 11 terrorist attacks.