Freedom Of The Press

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

--Justice Black. NYT v. US. 403 US 713


Over the last few years, but more vocally in the last few weeks, the Bush administration has been working to eliminate one of the most important aspects of what makes America a free country. Instead of admitting obvious shortcomings in their pre-war planning, as well as blatant attempts to obscure the truth regarding the existance of weapons of mass destruction, they have decided to blame their failures on the negative press that has been the unavoidable result.

They would like us to believe that if only more people supported their illegal and immoral war, and if the media were to switch from printing news regarding continued Iraqi and US troop deaths, continuing violence and chaos, an emerging civil war, and the fact that there is no end in sight, that we would suddenly start winning. This is what someone recently dubbed the 'tinkerbell approach' where if only we believed hard enough, we could magically change reality.

At the same time as more and more media outlets are being consolidated, and run by large corporations that only allow those outlets to report what they want to hear, lies regarding the existance of a 'liberal media' are repeated over and over. There may be some liberal media outlets, however labeling one 'ultra-liberal' simply because they report the truth regarding the illegal activities of the president of the United States is the result of right-wing spin, and nothing more. Former republican president Theodore Roosevelt, once said "To announce that there must be NO criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President Right or Wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and SERVILE, but is Morally TREASONABLE to the American Public." (did I mention that Teddy was a republican? It kind of shows you how far these neo-conservatives have grown apart from their republican roots).

What has changed since then? Dubya & Co. would have you believe that things have changed in the 'post 9/11 world' as they like to call it. I call that exactly what it is--BULLSHIT!
This constant state of war that they have attempted to create, in order to advance the unilateral powers of their puppet president is more of the same, as are their attempts to pretend as if they care about the rights and freedom of American citizens. If allowed to continue, they will most likely pass legislation making it crime to point out that the president is breaking the law. Whistleblowers that have responsible for heroic acts of exposing illegal activity within government are now being turned into criminals, as are the journalists who dare to report the information that is given to them.

This administration has heaped blame on the media, liberals, democrats, anti-war protestors, peace activists, and anyone else that dares to question it's motives and actions. They refuse to accept responsibility for their failures, and instead revert to the same tactics used by dictators and imperialists throughout history. They attack the patriotism of anyone who stands up to them, claiming that they are 'giving comfort to the enemy'. The fact that they don't seem to realize how much this sounds like pre-WWII Nazi propaganda, and that Americans fail to take them to task for it, is just more evidence that entirely too many people are more than willing to ignore history, and are definitely doomed to repeat it.

Next time: The Origin of God

The Global Economy and Corporate Greed

"There is only one thing in this world, and that is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless."

--Napoleon Bonaparte


There has been a massive shift over the last half century towards a global economy. Corporations in wealthy countries have many reasons for moving towards this kind of system. It is much easier to hide money, decrease or duck taxes, and bypass laws regarding wages and working conditions. Under the guise of 'free trade' these corporations have been guilty of outsourcing jobs that are the mainstay of individuals within their countries, and instead getting their labor from underdeveloped countries. They will pretend on the surface to be helping out the less fortunate countries, but instead set up 'sweat shops' and combine forced labor--often including children, ridiculously low pay, and unhealthy working conditions. All to increase profit.

Many American corporations base their operations outside of the US, even though they do most of their business, or sell their goods and services within the continental united states. They will set up shop in places like the Mariana Islands (a commonwealth in political union with the US) , and can actually put 'Made In USA' on products made there. Corporations will also often have multiple 'multi-national' companies that they have a controlling interest in that allow them to create tax shelters, hide debt, and create the illusion of growth or profit.

International banks have made it simpler for corporations to keep transactions off the books, and hide large amounts of money, as well as making it easier to continue their corruption. There have been attempts to try to regulate these banks, but all have met with failure. The insatiable greed, and complete lack of morals that the CEO's of these large corporate entities seem quite impossible to overcome.

Aside from the immediate effects on workers in foreign countries, they also face serious future problems in the form of air and water pollution. Since most of these underdeveloped countries do not have laws banning pollution, the corporations have yet another incentive to move their industrial facilities out of the US, and even after including the cost of shipping their goods, they can still make massive profits due to not having anyone monitoring the effects that production has on the environment.

US Corporations also take advantage of the instability of foreign countries, and will combine their own efforts, along with the US government in the form of lobbying, to make sure that the leaders of these countries do not stand in the way of their profits. This includes, but is not limited to: installing dictators who will allow the corporations to run unfettered, influencing the outcome of elections to make sure that the outcome works in their favor, and assasinating political figures who attempt to stand up to them.

The only solution that I see to curb these abuses by corporations would be to implement some form of regulation that takes all of these items into account. The first step would have to be the willingness of individuals within the US and other wealthy countries to forego their cheap shiny new toys and pay the real cost for things that they actually need. Since this isn't going to happen anytime soon, at least not voluntarily, it will need to be enforced. The current administration is too beholden to these corporations (especially oil) to be of any use in attempting to rectify the situation, and even after it is replaced, it is going to take hard work on the part of Americans, as well as those in other countries, both developed and not, to make a difference.

Next time: Freedom of the Press?

Building a Religion

"We are building a religion, we are buliding it bigger, we are widening the corridors and adding more lanes..."

--Cake, "Building a Religion" from the album "Comfort Eagle"


In my previous posts, I have repeatedly railed against the evils of organized religion, specifically Christianity. While I despise all organized religions equally, it should not be inferred that I despise all followers of these religions. I have met people who are able to leave room in their belief systems for alternate explanations, and this is all I would ever ask of someone. If someone wants to believe in Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, or Krishna, then more power to them, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, or trying to force feed it to me. Of course, if they have children, or are in positions of power, and are feeding questionable information to those around them, then in my opinion, they are hurting people. Teaching a child to believe in God or Jesus, for example, isn't bad--only when you use fear tactics to keep them from questioning it.

It is mind boggling to me to consider the sheer numbers of people, who live seemingly totally normal lives, and yet prescribe to what I consider to be totally ridiculous belief systems. They will use technology that would not exist without science, and then turn around and claim that science is useless, and that only what they have faith in is real. I believe that you can have faith, without it blocking out the rest of reality. Some people can compartmentalize their beliefs, so they can have it both ways--believing in a 'God' without eliminating their ability to question. Realization that organized religions are self-propagating entities, and questioning the 'truth' contained within them, is detrimental to their continued existence. Regardless of their claims to exist in the best interests of mankind, it is obvious that they have a massive amount of power, large amounts of wealth, and are not afraid to exercise influence or control over those around them.

The hypocrisy of some people is almost unbelievable, as they take their views on something like having an abortion, which almost noone would ever 'want' to have, and force them on everyone. Their claims to 'moral' superiority are brought seriously into question when they support bombing abortion clinics, advocate killing abortion doctors, and especially forcing a woman who is raped or a girl who is molested to give birth to that child. Over the last decade or so, the religious right in America has been able to insert these 'moral' issues into political debate, attempting to take the high ground, although there are repeated cases of the biggest champions of the cause being guilty of moral quandaries.

Personally, if asked what I believe, I leave room for the possibility of a 'God', or a 'creator'. I can even understand where the 'Intelligent Design' argument originates. Anyone who sees the complexity and extents of the universe would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility. Anyone who has seen their own child brought into the world, and watched them grow cannot deny that it is nothing short of miraculous. However, it does 'God' a disservice to try to put him (or her, or it) into a box, and impose limitations (even if you still claim to believe that he is all-powerful). From what I see, religions, and their followers, take some of the best and worst attributes of humanity and attempt to imprint them upon their concept of God. They will use circular reasoning to 'prove' that there is evidence to back up their claims, quoting out of their own literature (often inaccurately). To me, a belief (or lack of belief) in God is a very personal thing, which I try to respect, unless confronted directly with what I consider to be false, misleading, or blatantly incorrect information. Arguing with someone who bases their beliefs on faith, as I have said before, is a losing battle since they usually do not leave room for the possibility that they might be wrong.

Despite how hard it is to admit to being wrong, I try to leave room for considering it. I have definitely been wrong about some things in the past, might very well be wrong about some things right now, and will doubtless be wrong about some things in the future. It is a constant source of amazement as to how many things that were obviously wrong were impossible to see when they were right in front of me. Sometimes all it takes is to listen to other points of view, or to perform research--even after you believe you have found the correct answer. Questioning what you believe to be true can sometimes be disheartening, sometimes reinforcing, but it can almost always lead to a better understanding of it. If only more people would consider the validity of their beliefs, especially based on their previous errors, it would lead to a much more enlightened world.

Next Time: The Global Economy