Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Wal-Mart PR Drive:
And: Don’t forget it’s been chronicled by the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-walmart-sg.storygallery
Wal-Mart stung by criticism of its labor practices, expansion plans and other business tactics, is turning to public radio, public television and even journalists in training to try to improve its image.
So far this year, the company has become a sponsor on National Public Radio, where recorded messages promote its stores. It has underwritten a popular talk show, "Tavis Smiley," accompanied by similar promotional messages, on a public television station in California.
And earlier this month, Wal-Mart announced plans to award $500,000 in scholarships to minority students at journalism programs around the country, including Howard University, University of Southern California and Columbia University. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/business/16walmart.html
Chavez:
Jimmy Carter confirms that there was no fraud in the Venezuelan elections; the opposition and the Bush Administration made the predictable claims anyway.
Vietnam Update on Agent Orange
100 Vietnamese citizens have joined in a class-action lawsuit against more than 30 chemical companies, seeking compensation for exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
The suit, originally filed by only three plaintiffs in a New York federal court on January 30, is the first time Vietnamese citizens have ever sought legal compensation for the use of the defoliant by U.S. forces during the conflict. The majority of the plaintiffs joined in the lawsuit over the past week.
As many as 2 million Vietnamese are thought to be suffering from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange, according to Kenneth Herrmann, director of the Vietnam Program at the State University of New York at Brockport. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/15/agent.orange.suit/index.html
Bushies Rolling Back Regulations:
April 21 was an unusually violent day in Iraq; 68 people died in a car bombing in Basra, among them 23 children. As the news went from bad to worse, President Bush took a tough line, vowing to a group of journalists, "We're not going to cut and run while I'm in the Oval Office."
On the same day, deep within the turgid pages of the Federal Register, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a regulation that would forbid the public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying that publicizing the information would cause "substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers.
As soon as the rule was published, consumer groups yelped in complaint, while the government responded that it was trying to balance the interests of consumers with the competitive needs of business. But hardly anyone else noticed, and that was hardly an isolated case.
Allies and critics of the Bush administration agree that the Sept. 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have preoccupied the public, overshadowing an important element of the president's agenda: new regulatory initiatives. Health rules, environmental regulations, energy initiatives, worker-safety standards and product-safety disclosure policies have been modified in ways that often please business and industry leaders while dismaying interest groups representing consumers, workers, drivers, medical patients, the elderly and many others. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html?ei=1&en=776dcfa93b261d6b&ex=1093493927&pagewanted=print&position=
One example- TB:
Tuberculosis had sneaked up again, reappearing with alarming frequency across the United States. The government began writing rules to protect 5 million people whose jobs put them in special danger. Hospitals and homeless shelters, prisons and drug treatment centers -- all would be required to test their employees for TB, hand out breathing masks and quarantine those with the disease. These steps, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration predicted, could prevent 25,000 infections a year and 135 deaths.
By the time President Bush moved into the White House, the tuberculosis rules, first envisioned in 1993, were nearly complete. But the new administration did nothing on the issue for the next three years.
Then, on the last day of 2003, in an action so obscure it was not mentioned in any major newspaper in the country, the administration canceled the rules. Voluntary measures, federal officials said, were effective enough to make regulation unnecessary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1315-2004Aug14?language=printer
Reverse the Rolls: What should Kerry ask of Bush?
Aside from hypothetical debate questions, the fact that the Bushies challenge Kerry, pose yes or no’ questions such as ‘Would you support the war if you had known that no WMD existed?’ The rolls CAN be switched.
One idea, for example: “Mr. Bush, our 41st president (GHW Bush) had been widely quoted as saying that to invade Iraq would alienate our allies and would leave us with horrendous security problems. Was he correct?”
Have fun; make one up.
The Case for Progressive Hope/Support for Kerry:
As this blog, like many before it, is so focused on the Election, I thought this essay was fitting. Some of us worry that if Kerry wins, progressives will lose their ardor/focus and, as in the Clinton years, too much will worsen. But Naomi Klein makes the opposite case, that we need a Kerry win to get rid of Bush, our “distraction-in-chief”, and again focus on the issues.
We know this, yet there is something about George W. Bush's combination of ignorance, piety and swagger that triggers a condition in progressives I've come to think of as Bush Blindness. When it strikes, it causes us to lose sight of everything we know about politics, economics and history and to focus exclusively on the admittedly odd personalities of the people in the White House. Other side effects include delighting in psychologists' diagnoses of Bush's warped relationship with his father and brisk sales of Bush "dum gum"--$1.25.
This madness has to stop, and the fastest way of doing that is to elect John Kerry, not because he will be different but because in most key areas--Iraq, the "war on drugs," Israel/Palestine, free trade, corporate taxes--he will be just as bad. The main difference will be that as Kerry pursues these brutal policies, he will come off as intelligent, sane and blissfully dull. That's why I've joined the Anybody But Bush camp: Only with a bore like Kerry at the helm will we finally be able to put an end to the presidential pathologizing and focus on the issues again. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=klein
The Media:
The wonderful resource and former WBCN News Dissector Danny Schechter looks at the media. He fears that they’re performing mea culpas as to their 2003 Iraqi coverage, but making no essential changes.
In short, most of our media, with the exception, perhaps, of excellent reporting by Knight Ridder and some exemplary dissenting journalists, still largely support the war including the government's rationalizations and narrative. ("Support" can be measured in what is covered and what is not, what experts we hear from and which we do not, and how many thoughtful Iraqi's themselves make it into our news.)
These larger media failures have still not been admitted, much less debated. That's why the term "weapons of mass deception" still applies to our media coverage of a war that is at war with the truth. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=6050%20
NY Repub Convention Demonstrations: Wise? Intimidation
Two separate issues here. Undoubtedly either some elements of the protesters will be deemed “violent”; they could be planted provocateurs. I fear a replication of Chicago, 1968, where the reaction against the protests likely swelled Nixon’s vote. And, the FBI has been traveling the country “interviewing” potential protesters. The Times editorialized against it today, and noted yesterday, The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.
Florida…again: Krugman
Listing possible actions to counter possible/probable fraud in Florida, the columnist reinforces our concern that democracy is threatened.
It's horrifying to think that the credibility of our democracy - a democracy bought through the courage and sacrifice of many brave men and women - is now in danger. It's so horrifying that many prefer not to think about it. But closing our eyes won't make the threat go away. On the contrary, denial will only increase the chances of a disastrously suspect election. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?hp
-R
And: Don’t forget it’s been chronicled by the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-walmart-sg.storygallery
Wal-Mart stung by criticism of its labor practices, expansion plans and other business tactics, is turning to public radio, public television and even journalists in training to try to improve its image.
So far this year, the company has become a sponsor on National Public Radio, where recorded messages promote its stores. It has underwritten a popular talk show, "Tavis Smiley," accompanied by similar promotional messages, on a public television station in California.
And earlier this month, Wal-Mart announced plans to award $500,000 in scholarships to minority students at journalism programs around the country, including Howard University, University of Southern California and Columbia University. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/business/16walmart.html
Chavez:
Jimmy Carter confirms that there was no fraud in the Venezuelan elections; the opposition and the Bush Administration made the predictable claims anyway.
Vietnam Update on Agent Orange
100 Vietnamese citizens have joined in a class-action lawsuit against more than 30 chemical companies, seeking compensation for exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
The suit, originally filed by only three plaintiffs in a New York federal court on January 30, is the first time Vietnamese citizens have ever sought legal compensation for the use of the defoliant by U.S. forces during the conflict. The majority of the plaintiffs joined in the lawsuit over the past week.
As many as 2 million Vietnamese are thought to be suffering from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange, according to Kenneth Herrmann, director of the Vietnam Program at the State University of New York at Brockport. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/15/agent.orange.suit/index.html
Bushies Rolling Back Regulations:
April 21 was an unusually violent day in Iraq; 68 people died in a car bombing in Basra, among them 23 children. As the news went from bad to worse, President Bush took a tough line, vowing to a group of journalists, "We're not going to cut and run while I'm in the Oval Office."
On the same day, deep within the turgid pages of the Federal Register, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a regulation that would forbid the public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying that publicizing the information would cause "substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers.
As soon as the rule was published, consumer groups yelped in complaint, while the government responded that it was trying to balance the interests of consumers with the competitive needs of business. But hardly anyone else noticed, and that was hardly an isolated case.
Allies and critics of the Bush administration agree that the Sept. 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have preoccupied the public, overshadowing an important element of the president's agenda: new regulatory initiatives. Health rules, environmental regulations, energy initiatives, worker-safety standards and product-safety disclosure policies have been modified in ways that often please business and industry leaders while dismaying interest groups representing consumers, workers, drivers, medical patients, the elderly and many others. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html?ei=1&en=776dcfa93b261d6b&ex=1093493927&pagewanted=print&position=
One example- TB:
Tuberculosis had sneaked up again, reappearing with alarming frequency across the United States. The government began writing rules to protect 5 million people whose jobs put them in special danger. Hospitals and homeless shelters, prisons and drug treatment centers -- all would be required to test their employees for TB, hand out breathing masks and quarantine those with the disease. These steps, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration predicted, could prevent 25,000 infections a year and 135 deaths.
By the time President Bush moved into the White House, the tuberculosis rules, first envisioned in 1993, were nearly complete. But the new administration did nothing on the issue for the next three years.
Then, on the last day of 2003, in an action so obscure it was not mentioned in any major newspaper in the country, the administration canceled the rules. Voluntary measures, federal officials said, were effective enough to make regulation unnecessary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1315-2004Aug14?language=printer
Reverse the Rolls: What should Kerry ask of Bush?
Aside from hypothetical debate questions, the fact that the Bushies challenge Kerry, pose yes or no’ questions such as ‘Would you support the war if you had known that no WMD existed?’ The rolls CAN be switched.
One idea, for example: “Mr. Bush, our 41st president (GHW Bush) had been widely quoted as saying that to invade Iraq would alienate our allies and would leave us with horrendous security problems. Was he correct?”
Have fun; make one up.
The Case for Progressive Hope/Support for Kerry:
As this blog, like many before it, is so focused on the Election, I thought this essay was fitting. Some of us worry that if Kerry wins, progressives will lose their ardor/focus and, as in the Clinton years, too much will worsen. But Naomi Klein makes the opposite case, that we need a Kerry win to get rid of Bush, our “distraction-in-chief”, and again focus on the issues.
We know this, yet there is something about George W. Bush's combination of ignorance, piety and swagger that triggers a condition in progressives I've come to think of as Bush Blindness. When it strikes, it causes us to lose sight of everything we know about politics, economics and history and to focus exclusively on the admittedly odd personalities of the people in the White House. Other side effects include delighting in psychologists' diagnoses of Bush's warped relationship with his father and brisk sales of Bush "dum gum"--$1.25.
This madness has to stop, and the fastest way of doing that is to elect John Kerry, not because he will be different but because in most key areas--Iraq, the "war on drugs," Israel/Palestine, free trade, corporate taxes--he will be just as bad. The main difference will be that as Kerry pursues these brutal policies, he will come off as intelligent, sane and blissfully dull. That's why I've joined the Anybody But Bush camp: Only with a bore like Kerry at the helm will we finally be able to put an end to the presidential pathologizing and focus on the issues again. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=klein
The Media:
The wonderful resource and former WBCN News Dissector Danny Schechter looks at the media. He fears that they’re performing mea culpas as to their 2003 Iraqi coverage, but making no essential changes.
In short, most of our media, with the exception, perhaps, of excellent reporting by Knight Ridder and some exemplary dissenting journalists, still largely support the war including the government's rationalizations and narrative. ("Support" can be measured in what is covered and what is not, what experts we hear from and which we do not, and how many thoughtful Iraqi's themselves make it into our news.)
These larger media failures have still not been admitted, much less debated. That's why the term "weapons of mass deception" still applies to our media coverage of a war that is at war with the truth. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=6050%20
NY Repub Convention Demonstrations: Wise? Intimidation
Two separate issues here. Undoubtedly either some elements of the protesters will be deemed “violent”; they could be planted provocateurs. I fear a replication of Chicago, 1968, where the reaction against the protests likely swelled Nixon’s vote. And, the FBI has been traveling the country “interviewing” potential protesters. The Times editorialized against it today, and noted yesterday, The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.
Florida…again: Krugman
Listing possible actions to counter possible/probable fraud in Florida, the columnist reinforces our concern that democracy is threatened.
It's horrifying to think that the credibility of our democracy - a democracy bought through the courage and sacrifice of many brave men and women - is now in danger. It's so horrifying that many prefer not to think about it. But closing our eyes won't make the threat go away. On the contrary, denial will only increase the chances of a disastrously suspect election. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?hp
-R
