Who Cares About Michael Jackson?

I do not have cable nor do I have access to network TV. I read a few different newspapers and blogs online. I listen primarily to public radio and CBC and, as such, I am less bombarded with diversionary tripe than the average American but the media circus surrounding the death of a celebrity (even one so tragically weird as Michael Jackson) still finds its way in to my circle no matter how hard I try to shut it out.

We do not stop often enough to contemplate the damage it must do to our ability to reason to have our heads filled with such useless information day and night even when we do nothing whatsoever to seek it out. While I have never actually seen a program with Paris Hilton in it, I know that she is blond, that she has a sister named Nicole, that she made an “accidental” porn video, that she is heir to the Hilton hotel throne, and that she has done several reality shows. I don’t want to know any of this but it is pervasive. Our media, as our culture, seems to revel in such irrelevant gossip.

A few days ago a friend sent me the following quote from one of Noam Chomsky’s books.

“Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns.”

I have read a few of Chomsky’s books, most notably “Manufacturing Consent”, and I have always appreciated his wisdom but I was particularly impressed by this statement. The man has such a keen ability to identify truths about the systems used to control us and is able to articulate them with such precision and economy of language it is truly awe-inspiring.

Understanding that meaningful debate is simply not happening in our corporate media and that we are only having the “debate” it allows us to have is absolutely crucial to understanding how the status quo machine functions. With far too many topics, it seems that the media controversy generated is just such a framed diversion and that the substantive matter is left unexplored. I thought it might be beneficial to share some examples of items the media is buzzing about, how the discussion or debate has been framed and what I actually wish was being discussed instead.

The Deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett & Ed McMahon - I’m very sorry to be so callous about all three of them but … who cares? A million Iraqi children were starved to death and denied treatment under Bill Clinton and the United Nations. Then, Bush killed a million more Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers as well. Now, Obama will accelerate these wars and employ more mercenaries to carry out the killing. The media debate should not be about how we should properly mourn three celebrities and what their accomplishments were. Instead, we might better explore why we are so damned shallow as to publicly grieve for pop stars while millions of regular folk die specifically because we are so apathetic about the conditions of their lives (and their deaths).

The Senate Coup - Framed as a war between Republicans and Democrats. Was the “coup” warranted? Who is to blame ? With perhaps the most dysfunctional state senate in the country on a paid leave, shouldn’t the media focus instead on how that inaction actually impacts the electorate? Lets talk about whether or not we still feel like employing these “servants”. Can we manage without them? Should we clean house and start all over again? Lets talk about that!

Iran - The discussion is about America’s stance with Iran. Is it “tough” enough? Is the Iranian government in the right unleashing lethal force on its “protesters”? This looks an awful lot like a revolution by a civilian populace against a theocracy that refuses to obey the will of its people (and not a riot or a protest as it is often portrayed on TV). With our invasion of Iraq revealing us as “democracy-bringers extraordinaire”, shouldn’t the media be discussing why we stand idly by in some instances (like this one)? Perhaps we should be helping those who are actually fighting and dying to be free instead of trying to force “democracy” on people who have have shown no desire to have it? What should our role be in the world? Should our warriors be used to aid in our own organized theft or should we use them instead to help civilians throw off the shackles of oppression?

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor - While the media would debate her appointment on a narrow ideological scale, pitting Rush Limbaugh ideology against Al Franken ideology, I just don’t see it. They argue amongst themselves that she is a “reverse racist” or a “minority feminist” but, as usual, they are totally missing the boat. Sotomayor served as a corporate lawyer for almost a full decade before becoming a judge and can the peoples’ interests ever really be served by yet one more corporate-thinking justice on our Supreme Court? I’m sure the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto and Halliburton are all happy but what about their victims?

President Obama - The debate rages. The fake right argues that he is a socialist. The fake left says he is a patient progressive tactician who is using incremental strategy to win small political battles. The real debate should be about whether or not it is even possible any longer to run actual human beings for office in our republic! This new president is beholden to the coal lobbies and big corn and the HMO’s and the banksters. They all have their hooks in him. Is it even possible for a president to have his own ideology and thought process in this day and age or is Obama proof that we are finally doomed to just having puppets and puppet-masters from here on in?

The War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - The question always seems to be whether or not we are fighting these wars “intelligently”? The question we should really be asking (of course) is who the heck are we actually fighting and why are we doing it at all?

Torture - Corporate media debate is framed thusly, “Does water-boarding constitute torture? Should we close Guantanamo Bay?” How about we discuss instead whether we are okay with improper confinement, beatings, kidnappings and the suspension of Habeus Corpus anywhere, at any time, in any place?! Is this really acceptable to the electorate? Is it Constitutional? Is this really what America has become?

9/11 - The corporate debate was, “Which country should we destroy now that we’ve been attacked?” The debate should have been over who really did it and why the government has consistently lied to us about pretty much everything that occurred on that day. Who blew up Tower 7? Why are we not investigating the Put Options placed on United and American Airlines that clearly indicate foreknowledge? If the towers weren’t a planned demolition, then why were there incredibly high concentrations of thermite found in all independent dust samples taken at Ground Zero? How could an airliner have flown into the Pentagon (and completely disappeared) leaving a hole far too small to fit such a plane?

Bailouts and Stimulus - Will our corporate welfare programs work? That’s what’s being debated by most media outlets. Lets talk instead about why we would even think, in a capitalist economy, about adding over $3 TRILLION to our national debt by shoveling money towards Wall Street’s gaping maw? Don’t we live in a capitalist system where dog eats dog and only the strong survive? Why all the aid for these vultures? Do we really want a federal government that feels duty bound to run our economic systems instead of sticking to the paving of roads and delivering of mail? Is it their job to economically indenture our grandchildren to China?

Lastly, what about the “debate” over what (nowadays) passes for political debate? The corporate media chats on endlessly about who “won” each televised photo-op while spending nary a moment on those excluded from both corporate campaign coverage and the corporate “debates”. Shouldn’t our media instead be discussing the fact that we are all being denied any other choice but Democrat or Republican in every single election cycle at every single level!? We are consistently presented with two terrible choices for almost every open office. Instead of revolution, we are acclimating ourselves to accepting the “lesser evil” every time (a choice that seems less relevant or intelligent with each passing cycle). How about a discussion of whether or not it is possible to have a true debate when both sides are in basic agreement about everything?

I could go on and on but I bet that you guys have plenty of other framed or boundaried discussions to add to my litany and I look forward to hearing about them.

Union Schmunion

Michael Douglas’ infamous character in the movie “Wall Street” (Gordon Gekko) said, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Then, I was pretty sure that this was empty-headed, bovine, fecal matter. Twenty years later, I am that much more certain. It is wonderful that more and more of us are beginning to see endless growth and non-sustainable business practices for what they are … a lie.

I know the people I work with and they know me. We live under a system of shared misery. I work for a living under circumstances remarkably similar to those of a worker. I do not own a house. I do not have a retirement fund. I am not rich. I do not take six-week ski vacations in the Alps. In fact, I rarely take vacations of any sort at all nor do I have time to ski.

I cannot afford many of the “finer things” in life nor do I wish to. I live simply. Like the majority of my workers, I do not have health insurance nor any other reasonable safety net. We are all in the same boat together and there is a mutual respect in that which helps us all to weather whatever conditions the world may throw at us. People often casually label me a “businessman” but I tell them that the term “empowered worker” is a far more accurate description of who I am.

The Times Union’s management undoubtedly has many decent people in it who truly care about the people who work under them but there’s a very important distinction to be made between having someone work under you and working with someone. The corporate “ladder” is used as a motivational tool to maintain healthy profit margins. What happens when the business model changes and the corporate template fails to deliver elevation of the few at the expense of the many is something we are all beginning to understand (some of us firsthand).

There are very few major daily newspapers that do not see themselves, first and foremost, as businesses. The corporate structure allows them to create, print, market and distribute massive quantities of newsprint that smaller media outlets could not even begin to contemplate. While efficiencies of production allow a relatively small number of workers to elevate themselves solidly into our dwindling middle class, the process of big volume and centralization of resource necessarily excludes many workers from said elevation.

In fact, in order to maintain profitability at margins acceptable to the ever-hungry shareholder, the corporate business model has to shake the tree on a fairly regular basis. It has to grind up and spit out a few workers every now and then in order to cut expenses and motivate those who are retained to even higher levels of efficiency and productivity. This creates an “us versus them” culture of loss and competition in the workplace. Our society has steeled itself to these losses and often turns a blind eye to those who are cast away.

It is strange to me, given this cycle of loss that so many workers seem to resent unions and union workers. Basically, unions are the only mechanism that has ever protected workers or attempted to limit the whims of corporations that seek to purge, grind and squeeze us. Why would we, their fellow workers, ever begrudge our fellow workers the right to organize and fight for things like a safe workplace, seniority, a living wage, health insurance, and paid vacations? We all must know that we all benefit by having that bar set higher. Every single one of us.

How any worker could be upset that some of their fellow workers have decided to stand up for their rights and demand a better share of the immodest proceeds of the corporate model (which, in its essence, seems designed specifically to get rid of as many of us as it can)? Why are union workers viewed with scorn by so many? Jealousy is perhaps the answer, but I think it runs even deeper than that. I think the mainstream media has given us all a terribly false picture of unions and the workers who have endured through a struggle that is, ultimately, the very history of our country.

The Time Union, for all intents and purposes, just canceled its union contract in April. It looks like this was a pretty purposeful move to rid itself of The Newspaper Guild once and for all. Everyone is saying that the changing “newspaper model” and the Internet are to blame but is this really what’s going on?

Knowing that the Hearst Corporation just finished construction of a $500 million dollar corporate headquarters in 2006 might lead a critical thinker to believe that the privately-held company is not doing so poorly after all but, without access to the books, we just don’t know. We are simply asked to take George Hearst III’s word for it that layoffs and the end of the Guild are necessary. This is, we are told, what every good media company has to do to survive.

When George’s great, great, grandfather was around, he was no doubt a hard man. He did not likely place a whole lot of importance on the plight of those outside his immediate circle. From what I have read, this amazing Hearst was kind of like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” (except that he was a miner, not an oil man). He was a self-made millionaire at a time when that was an awful lot of money. He was also seen by many as nothing short of ruthless in his pursuit of both money and power. He died a U.S. Senator.

In settling a gambling debt, Hearst ended up owning the San Francisco Examiner and he turned it over to his son, William Randolph, who became a media mogul. William is arguably the most famous of the Hearst clan mostly for turning the acquisition of that one newspaper into a large, privately-held, media empire that still exists to this day.

Forbes estimates that the current incarnation of the Hearst Corp. grossed about 4.4 billion dollars in 2007 and had about 17,000 employees. To hear Steven Swartz tell it (now President of Hearst Newspapers), you’d think that Hearst and its subsidiaries were rolling in the dough. More specifically, in the piece cited above, he says that “targeted distribution” in 2008 saved the Times Union about $750,000 with no adverse impact on its advertising revenue. Does that sound to you like the kind of financial doom and gloom that signals imminent financial disaster?

Now, we all know we are in a recession and we’ve all heard the newspapers’ talk about the web-related “changing business model” and how it negatively impacts them all but we are at a severe disadvantage. Without examining Hearst’s books, how can we determine whether George III’s actions in trying to kill the Guild are self preservation or just greed? Lets explore those changing conditions a little bit.

Statistically, papers make about 15-20% of their gross revenue from actual subscribers. The rest is actually ad revenue. So, if the T.U. lost even half of its paid subscribers to its free internet site, it wouldn’t even lose 10% of its gross revenue. While that’s not a good thing, it’s also not the end of the world. While there might well be a corresponding loss of ad revenue, there would also be a massive savings, I have to imagine, in not having to print or deliver half of the physical papers which were delivered previous.

And, lets not forget that newspaper advertisers really have nowhere else to go in this market except the web (and who is selling that ad space?). When you are the area’s paper of record, I find it awfully hard to believe that the negative impact of lost subscribers or advertisers could really be anywhere near as terrible for you as it’s made out to be. The Times Union has not lost half its subscribers and, like every other paper, it now sells tons of additional ad space on the web (just look at this site). It doesn’t take much imagination to see that this new model should actually be a boon for newspapers, not their death knell.

For most papers, I have to imagine that the enhanced revenue stream has quickly offset the slight loss of revenue from decreasing subscriptions. This should yield the T.U. at least as healthy a bottom line as it has for many other papers, our town’s little corporate daily included. The Glens Falls Post-Star is certainly not doing well because it is a great paper. It is doing well because it is the only daily paper in town. They claim to be the most profitable paper in the Lee Enterprises chain (with more than 50 dailies across the country). Much of this “success” has been attributed to their web advertising and the ads they sell in the many little weeklies and magazines they also print.

While I am constantly amazed at how much smaller and more centralized my “local” newspaper becomes every year, it’s never enough for them. They regularly use outside sources to trim local expense. They killed their union decades ago so that they could lay off good people and great writers. This is a huge mistake in my view. While it is not, in any way, sustainable, it seems to be their actual business model. It is all about short-term gain simply because a company has a monopoly and the public has nowhere else to turn for its “news product”. My question to these titans of industry is what happens when the media consumer just turns you “off”? What happens when you devalue your product to the point that the “consumer” simply stops looking to you as a viable media source? The corporate media seems to really believe that people will just continue to read their papers no matter how bad they get. I don’t share their “optimism”.

Maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture but it seems to me that the Times Union’s refusal to settle with the Newspaper Guild is not indicative of the maneuvering of an industry that is struggling to survive but is simply the squeezing of workers by an entity that, by all rights, should be doing just fine.

I am very interested to know what others think about this dispute and I very much appreciate, in advance, the Times Union being principled enough to allow me, and others, to voice our opinion on this matter.

The Post-Star Censors Me, Then Tells Me Why ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Tingley
To: mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
Sent: 2/12/2009 9:27:30 AM
Subject:

Mr. Funicello,
I swore I would never email you again, but I will take one more shot. When you write insulting things about me and the newspaper that are patently not true, I will not allow it on my blog. That is my call. You repeatedly talk of some corporate conspiracy against third-part candidate - which is ridiculous - it is hard to take you seriously. The reality is that we make decisions each day over where to spend our resources and what the most important stories are. You may not agree with those calls because you believe third-party candidates are a big issue. It is a subjective decision.We constantly editorialize about change and for you to say we are for the status quo is pretty big leap. I also find it insulting for you to comment on Maury's blog that we will not let Maury do certain stories on third-party candidates. which is also not true. Maury makes his own calls on what stories he does and does not do as do all our reporters. When you stop making accusations that are not true, then I will consider posting them on my blog.

Ken Tingley
Editor
The Post-Star



** MY RESPONSE **

Ken,

I appreciate that you have broken your silence (however briefly) where I am concerned. I accept that many of your readers do not see independent or third party candidates as "big news". I think that, if we're honest, much of what is printed in the paper on any given day is of little interest to the average reader. Its really circular logic, anyway. How do we know people aren't interested in real candidates and instead are interested in daily anecdotes about the blank slates who are just waiting for their corporate donors to fill in the blanks?

Its like a bad song. If you play the Tedisco/Murphy "song" every day on your "radio", I may well find myself humming along whether I am engaged by that song or not. This is how mainstream media influences the American voter and helps retain the status quo. It is low-level brainwashing. Its pervasive and makes most people hesitant to have an independent thought. Its really important that you understand I don't see poorly made choices in media as a corporate conspiracy. I see them as a result of mainstream media CULTURE. It is well-established, long-term patterns of behavior and decision-making that reflect almost no curiosity about anything outside of the box or the mainstream. Historically, substantive change is almost always instigated by those who think "outside the box".

The problem I have with your paper is the total lack of response when your readership shows interest. As evidenced by activity on your forum, we were all quite interested in third party and independent candidates during this past election and we wwrree given excuse after excuse about why there was almost no coverage at all. We were told repeatedly that our candidates don't deserve it or haven't earned it ... etcetera. Why? because a bunch of rich power brokers in a room somewhere else didn't appoint our candidates, they are somehow less important or less credible than rich corporate lawyers who have been chosen for us? You had far greater activity and debate on your forum during the past presidential campaign whenever mention was made of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader than when you reprinted tired old AP stories about Obama and McCain. Thats because most truly engaged political activists are opposed to the mainstream and we are a larger group (independents and 3rd party and non-voters) than the two parties are in this county. We are starving for a media that will cover everyone "comparably" (to use Mahoney's own term) and
comparable does not mean a blog entry or two when the balance is 20 stories prominently printed in the actual paper.

I am used to this. It is the norm for the media not to cover my candidates. It is the norm for the media to not include them in debates. It is the norm for the media to marginalize and/or ridicule my candidates and my issues (ones that actually matter to real people). It is the norm for those journalists with conscience to make feeble excuses that never hold water about why they behave in a biased manner. Those of us who fight so hard for political change are very tired of the media's tacit support of the status quo (and I do believe, regardless of your intent, that this is exactly the result of only covering the corporate candidates). I understand fully that, as a newspaper editor, like most American citizens, you have probably never worked on a municipal or state or national campaign and have no idea how terribly biased the whole process is and how undemocratic it has become. That, in itself, should be your paper's job. To uncover the bias and the tyranny evident in this two-party system. All Americans of good conscience can't help but be outraged when they get involved and find out how terribly corrupt the "democratic" process has become. Will you spend your entire career doing nothing to change that or will you alter course and become an engaged citizen/editor? Will you attack this corruption with a similar zeal to that which you apply to teen drinking?

Being shut out of the media is one of the principle reasons why it is so difficult for real human beings to run for office and most papers don't ever cover these battles. I wish that instead of seeing me as your enemy, we could return to a gentler period of time when I was quite civil to you all and was merely asking questions about bias and the selection processes that kept the Post-Star from being the best paper it could be. Failing that, I want you to know that I appreciate the dialogue, however brief it may be.

Peace,
Matt

Martin Luther King - Activist or Preacher?

Every year, argument breaks out in community rooms and meeting halls and cafes and bars as small groups of people get together to decide what the legacy of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. is from their perspective and how their community should mark the day.

There is usually a real push and pull between those who wish to use MLK Day as a way to tame Martin's message and those who wish to fully explore the entire message that Martin tried to convey (the fight against the "giant triplets" of poverty racism and militarism).

In many places, numerous different celebrations occur running the full gamut when it comes to perspectives. I think that this would please Martin because it denotes a real attempt to both co-opt and protect his message. This demonstrates that his legacy and his message have roots that are deep and relevant.

This year, I took some heat from a few friends who felt that the Glens Falls event this year was not "activist" enough. We had our usual short march to Christ Church and listened to music and sang and listened to remarks by a woman, Dr. Glorya Askew, who is a Head Chaplain with the N.Y.S. Department of Corrections. I really let the newly formed NAACP and the Democrats amongst us take the lead. Obamamania is in the air and I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade. I knew he would be an important part of the day's remarks. As such, I took a backseat this year as far as the organizing went.

The Post-Star did its usual advance story on Thursday consisting of an interview with Roy Thomas about the resurgence of the local NAACP (of which I am a member). It included his plans for the NAACP locally and made mention of his involvement in this year's MLK organizing (with no mention of any of the others involved). They made only brief reference to the keynote speaker choosing to focus instead on the two white local politicians whose 90 second remarks would see us off from City Hall on to the march.

Now, understand, I do not hate either of these dignitaries and am, in fact, pleased that they wish to celebrate with us each year. That said, Martin was an enemy of the status quo and those who defended it. He was a preacher, a thinker and an activist. Dr. Askew deserved to be recognized as the primary speaker and someone of note and she wasn't.

When the PS did its actual story on the event, they did the same thing, giving preferential treatment to the white politicians and virtually ignoring the African American woman we had all chosen to speak to us on this day. She was fantastic, too, so its even more shameful.

This type of institutional racism is a good reason for us to stop celebrating the "end of racism" the media keeps crowing about. Its far from over when a bunch of white reporters and editors get together and write about white people of power who attended the event and not the African American woman we were there to listen to.

Third-Party Blind Spot - John F. Kirch

Democracy suffers when the news media ignore long-shot candidates and the
ideas they espouse

While the news media did an effective job this year of covering the
presidential campaign between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John
McCain, the press still has a major blind spot when it comes to writing
about third-party contenders.

According to a basic LexisNexis database search of election coverage
from Aug. 5 to Nov. 5, The Washington Post and The New York Times
published a combined 3,576 news stories, editorials, op-eds,
photographs and letters to the editor about Mr. Obama and 3,205 items
about Mr. McCain. By contrast, the two dailies published only 36 items
about independent Ralph Nader, 22 about Libertarian Bob Barr, five
about Green Cynthia McKinney and three about the Constitution Party's
Chuck Baldwin.

The Baltimore Sun was not much better, publishing 384 news items about
Mr. Obama, 327 about Mr. McCain, eight about Mr. Nader, four on Mr.
Barr and two each for Ms. McKinney and Mr. Baldwin.

None of these candidates garnered more than 2 percent of the popular
vote on Election Day. But how third-party candidates are covered by the
news media is an important issue that should be taken more seriously,
given that we live in a democratic society that proclaims deference to
the First Amendment and honors the notion that we are all better off
when a wide range of proposals are aired.

The news media are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Democrats
and Republicans into viewing campaigns solely through the prism of the
two-party system. This means that the major parties control which
issues are permitted into the debate, thus denying the public a chance
to hear proposals that might seem extreme today but could gain traction
in the future if only voters had an opportunity to consider them more
seriously. Remember, third parties have been the catalyst for many
reforms throughout American history, including the abolition of
slavery, tough child-labor laws, free public education, strong business
regulations, direct election of senators and women's suffrage.

By including more substantive coverage of third-party candidates, the
press could help open the door to innovative alternatives to old
issues. It might force the two major candidates to come off message
more often and eventually adopt the new ideas pushed by otherwise
marginalized candidates, much like the Republican Party did when it
absorbed some of Ross Perot's proposals after the 1992 election.

Part of the reason that the news media ignore most third-party
candidates is that most journalists tend to view campaigns almost
exclusively as a contest of winners and losers. The criteria by which
journalists judge candidates play to the strengths of the major parties
and set up a no-win situation for all other contenders: Third-party
candidates are not covered because they do not demonstrate public
support, but they cannot gain public support because they are not
covered by the news media.

In addition, viewing campaigns mostly as a "contest" is a mistake,
because numerous political science studies conducted over the past 50
years strongly suggest that campaigns actually have little impact on
election results.

Where campaigns really matter is in their ability to educate the public
about new ideas. Studies have shown that while voters don't always
remember the specific policy proposals of each candidate when they go
to the ballot box, they nevertheless learn enough during the course of
a campaign to make sound judgments about which path the country should
take.

What this tells us is that campaigns are about more than just the horse
race. They are a time in the nation's political life cycle when voters
consider the problems facing the country and look for a wide range of
solutions. Including minor-party candidates in this debate could infuse
new ways of looking at old issues, challenge basic political
assumptions and create avenues for new movements to challenge the
hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.

John F. Kirch is an adjunct professor of journalism at Towson
University and the University of Maryland. His e-mail is
jfk909us@aol.com

New York Times (like you've NEVER seen before)

This beautiful issue of the NY Times says it all to those who voted Obama and chose to "believe" that he will be markedly different than the death merchants from the other side of the aisle.

http://www.nytimes-se.com/

A million copies of this paper were printed and handed out on the streets of New York. It is believed to be the work of the Yes Men (from RPI, the people behind WhirlMart and some great pranks and hoaxes on mainstream media).

Warning: Reading this might make some people wish that instead of a visit to the "Church" of Obama to practice their faith, they had instead made a trip to the "Library" of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul in an attempt to practice their analytical skills!

What I Really Want To Know

I consider myself a third party activist. I only support independents and Greens and Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever. As such, I am often asked my opinion by those who play the two party game. I try to be civil and decent. I try to help them understand my viewpoint and I sincerely try to understand theirs.

Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?

I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.

There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;

1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?

2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.

A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.

I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.

I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;

"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"

"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.

This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?

He's not on TV! He's not in your local paper! See Ralph Nader live in Albany this Thursday!

Come see Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader live in Albany this coming Thursday!

Did you know there are SIX candidates on the NYS ballot November?

Lets not just accept the two choices corporate America is comfortable feeding us.

Nader was against the bailouts and is against corporate welfare!

He is absolutely in favor of Single Payer Health Care!

He will get us out of Iraq immediately!

He is for alternative and sustainable energy (like solar and wind)!

He's on the ballot in 45 states and is being virtually ignored by all corporate media (Fox, Clearchannel, NPR & the N.Y. Times alike)!

Nader has been shut out of the debates!

Celebrate democracy by coming to see the people's candidate speak live in Albany! See you there!

Thurs. Oct. 16th, 7:30pm
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg
Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students

More info:

Matt Funiciello

518-793-0075

mattfuniciello@earthlink.net

518-463-8653
Albanygreens@yahoo.com

The ComPost-Star Defends Its Two-Party Bias

Our "local" corporate paper is the Glens Falls Post-Star. Its owned by the publishing empire known as Lee Enterprises who currently own 51 dailies across the country. As with many small corporate papers, the Post-Star doesn't do a terrible job with local news and many good people (including some friends) work there. However, they have a monopoly in our little town and are widely hated for their bias and lack of integrity by most people I come across (regardless of their individual politics).

The P-S buried their recent advance story on Ralph Nader's April 26th visit to our little town. It was carefully placed on page B7 in Saturday's paper (which few people read). When I got them an actual interview with Ralph, hoping they would do something front page or at least, more substantive, they did do a tiny bit better, giving him a small right hand sidebar story on page B1 with a tiny photo. As for coverage of the actual event, they only came to the fundraising dinner and not to the public Wood Theater event. We had about 225 people come out to see him. There was a lengthy standing ovation and there were four TV stations there (the local Time Warner and NBC affiliates covered it). There were three other videographers and six print journalists there from different papers (indie and otherwise). The Post-Star printed a little story on the visit on Sunday and had their anonymous an cowardly sniper, Don Coyote ("Dumb Coyote"), tell us all on the front page, "No wonder way more people went to see Rachael Ray than Ralph Nader. He didn't even have an ice sculpture." (Rachael Ray was in Lake George, her hometown, that same night, at a annual fundraiser she holds at at her alma mater, Lake George High School.)

What would it be like if Ralph made a living hawking Dunkin Donuts on TV instead of working tirelessly on our behalf? Would he then warrant some substantive coverage in the Post-Star's

precious little pages? Is that what it really takes to get on their "radar" and to earn their respect? You've got to be on TV selling crap? I can easily imagine that Miley Cyrus is the editorial staff's favorite singer (they've likely never heard of KD Lang or Lyle Lovett or Blue Rodeo, those people aren't on TV often enough to be "relevant" singers). I bet McDonald's is their favorite restaurant ("Aw shucks, them burgers is on the tube all the time, dude!). These are not people one could accuse of being too bright and they control the mainstream's access to information!

Apparently, they have never heard of journalism or substance or truth. They are so caught up in their bullshit TV world, they have lost the ability to focus on things that actually matter.

Since then, their lack of coverage has caused the story on the dinner to be the "Most Commented" on their website. Check it out.

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/04/27/news/local/13551380.txt

The editorial staff have also regularly responded to online criticisms of their biased coverage (or non-coverage in many cases) by attacking me or the others who make note of their criminal behavior. John Thomas had a great letter to the editor published about the Post Star's pathetic behavior (I've copied it below). They responded (as always, using anonymity) with an "Editor's Note" saying that they had given "ample" coverage to Ralph. They also said this to me in an anonymous editor's note ... "Just declaring yourself a presidential candidate doesn't automatically make you equal to the others. If McCain, Clinton or Obama came to Glens Falls, our readers would be expecting, and we would be giving them, much more coverage than Nader. That has nothing to do with the "corporate media" junk you keep throwing out. It's common sense. Any other paper, big or small, corporate or privately owned, would do the exact same thing."

Amazing! All I can think of is that old adage we have all heard many times over the millennia, "If little Mikey jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it, too?"

Apparently the Post Star management will follow their corporate media "leaders" right off the bridge. Their God, the mighty Boob Tube, can do no wrong. Sad little people ... all of them. If the many other media mechanisms we often think of as more "credible" didn't also cheer lead the war, water down the issues, ignore and marginalize candidates, promote big business and parrot wire stories, I would think the Post-Star was a truly evil mechanism. Knowing that they are just following the lead of NBC and PBS and Disney and the NY Times and the Washington Post makes me feel better. If they are just stupid and easily-led ... that means there is hope for them yet! ;-)

I know that some of you have been waiting for me to write something up about Ralph Nader's visit this past weekend. I'm too tired to do it any real justice but it was great. We sold out our fund raising dinner and we had about 225 people come out to the Wood Theater to hear him speak. Media coverage was, as always, a mixed bag. One of the things Ralph said that stuck with me as both amusing and inspirational ... he was asked how he manages to be so persistent in fighting the good fight and he remarked that "My closet does not contain a white flag. I have looked for one before and there just isn't one in there!"

I think its safe to say that a good time was had by all and that we were all greatly energized by his visit and his speaking truth to power. Many thanks are due to this tireless champion for democracy and regular folk! If you are one of those crazy people who might actually want more information, check out the links that I've posted below.

The Glens Falls Post-Star covered it. Check out the comments! His visit made the "Most Commented Story" on their online forum. Not bad for an "irrelevant old guy", huh!?
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2008/04/27/news/local/13551380.txt

WNYT (Albany's NBC): http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S425804.shtml

Time Warner News 9: http://capitalnews9.com/Default.aspx?ArID=114971

Mountain Lake PBS from Plattsburgh is doing a half hour show. I'll send it out when it's up on their site. Glens Falls TV 8 covered the event as well.

This is a podcast of Ralph and Matt Gonzalez on WAMC's Roundtable:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1247783

This is a wonderful Vox Pop that Brian Shields did with Ralph for WAMC. http://www.wamc.org/prog-voxpop-archive.html

Me on the Libertarian Show "Capitol Outsider" talking about Ralph, the Greens and activism.

http://capitaloutsider.org/2008/04/show-26-matt-funiciello.html

For information directly from the man himself, check out:

www.votenader.org and www.essential.org

Hudson-Mohawk Independent Media Center filmed the whole thing. Expect a DVD of the event in the near future, I'm sure. The Glens Falls Chronicle did a great advance piece but are not available on line. The Hill Country Observer will also cover it in May's edition. Watch for it.

If you're in the mood for a good laugh, check these articles out about Hillary running as an independent ("Hillary Is the New Ralph Nader").
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=461158

http://www.allvoices.com/userevents/365329-ralph-nader?gclid=CL-BstvUg5MCFRGYggodjnSkFw

The New York Times Rears Its Ugly Pro-War Head (Yet Again)

I can only hope that we will all eventually learn that corporate media mechanisms (even those revered by the perceived left) are inherently evil and incapable of simply reporting the truth as they are tasked to do. What they ignore is waht REALLY matters. If they aren't covering it, it's REALLY important. Always!

Here, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) shares with us the answer handed to them by the "mighty" New York Times as to why they completely ignored the"Winter Soldier" hearings, a series of testimonies given by combat vets who have returned from Iraq and are willing to share their stories with the media and the public.

I asked the Post-Star on their forums (and every single message is throughly read before it is posted) why they weren't covering WinterSoldier about a week before it happened. They never responded. They also receive AP stories on the wire and there were several about Winter Soldier they could have lazily buried on page 7 but .... they CHOSE to completely ignore these young veterans. I guess I have to give them a small amount of credit for correctly posting our showing of the original documentary of "Winter Soldier" (1972) at my cafe. I was at the vigil at City Park to honor those murdered in the 5 year occupation of Iraq and Mark Mulholland was there from

WNYT-13. He is their News Director. I told him about Winter Soldier. WNYT totally ignored it and did nothing to cover it.

If this does not prove once and for all that ALL corporate media sucks, I really can't imagine what would constitute evidence! Corporate media is rife with agenda. Its pro-war and anti-
soldier and ALL OF IT IS, not just "right wing media". If its owned by a big corporation, we can't
trust it at all to tell the truth. It's lying and manipulating the public by diverting focus away from things that truly matter.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3340

New York Times Explains Winter Soldier Blackout - Public editor responds to concerns raised by FAIR 4/8/08

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt has offered a response to media activists who wrote to the paper about its non-coverage of last month's Winter Soldier hearings. Hoyt's explanation is that reporters at the Times had "not been aware of the group or its meeting," but likely wouldn't have covered it if they had been aware of the event.

The idea that the Times was unaware of Winter Soldier is remarkable; the paper's D.C. reporters were repeatedly sent press releases about the events, the same ones that other media outlets received that did manage to cover the event, ranging from Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! to the New York Times' corporate sibling the Boston Globe.

Hoyt's letter in full:

***
Dear Reader,

Thank you for writing about the Winter Soldier event in Maryland last month and its lack of coverage by the Times.

My assistant checked with various editors at the Times to see if there was any discussion about covering the Winter Soldier meeting. The editor in the Washington bureau who oversees national security coverage said he had not been aware of the group or its meeting. The Times normally has three Pentagon reporters. The meeting fell within their area of coverage, and one of them probably would have been assigned had editors chosen to staff the event. But one is on book leave, one was traveling with the secretary of defense, and one was in Iraq covering the war. The Times also did not cover an announcement the following day by Vets for Freedom, a group supporting the war and claiming more than 13 times the membership of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the group which organized Winter Soldier.

One group was emphasizing what it charged were war crimes, war profiteering and war mismanagement. The other group was protesting what it charged was the failure of the media to report more fully on signs of progress in Iraq, such as rebuilt schools and infrastructure.

News organizations like the Times, with its own substantial investment in independent reporting from Iraq tend to prefer their own on-scene accounts of the war, rather than relying on charges and counter-charges at home by organizations with strongly held political viewpoints about the war.

Sincerely,
Clark Hoyt
****

The Times’ D.C. bureau editor’s claim to have not heard of the hearings is remarkable, given that the AP newswire carried a story on the hearings, and IVAW has confirmed to FAIR that the D.C. bureau had been sent three separate rounds of different IVAW press releases. In addition, at least 150 Times staffers were sent press releases about Winter Soldier by the Institute for Public Accuracy, a group that encourages inclusion of overlooked facts and progressive perspectives in media coverage. Given that media organizations operating on a small fraction of the Times' budget were aware of and able to find the resources to cover these hearings, the Times’ D.C. bureau’s plea to ignorance about the hearings is all the more disappointing.

Meanwhile, Hoyt’s justification of the Times failure to cover Winter Soldier on the grounds that they also did not cover “an announcement the following day by Vets for Freedom, a group supporting the war and claiming more than 13 times the membership of Iraq Veterans Against the War, the group which organized Winter Soldier,” draws a far-fetched parallel between a group presenting eyewitness testimony about atrocities in Iraq and a group releasing a press release about media bias. (As a group that often puts out press releases about media bias that don't get covered by the Times, the comparison strikes us as rather absurd.) Further, the size of IVAW and Vets for Freedom are not directly comparable, as IVAW is a group of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, whereas anyone can sign up on the Vets for Freedom website, which stipulates that “non-veterans can also be members of Vets for Freedom.”

Hoyt's claim that “news organizations like the Times, with its own substantial investment in independent reporting from Iraq, tend to prefer their own on-scene accounts of the war” is akin to asserting that reporters on the police beat prefer to write about crimes they have seen themselves rather than talking to eyewitnesses. Given that Times reporters, like all Western journalists in Iraq, have great difficulty travelling freely outside the Green Zone, it is hard to imagine that they could provide a full and accurate picture of the war without interviewing people who have participated in it. And of course the paper does often interview U.S. military personnel about what they've seen, though when they are whistleblowers trying to call attention to what they describe as "the human consequences of failed policy," the Times suddenly has much less interest in what they have to say.

The New York Times’ decision to assign one of its two available correspondents to tour with the Secretary of Defense instead of hearing the first-hand accounts of the Winter Soldiers demonstrates a very strange notion of “independent reporting.”

Glens Falls Post-Star Sort Of Covers Presidential Candidate

I suppose I should be happy that the Glens Falls Post-Star reprinted some of our press release on page B7 (instead of not giving Ralph's visit any advance coverage at all), but I have to admit that I am not, in any way, satisfied that this action represents FAIR coverage. Its not. Ralph is running for PRESIDENT and he and his supporters are serious even if the media wants everyone to believe that we're not. This was not coverage worthy of a serious candidate.

The only truly effective argument against Nader's candidacy is that the media refuses to take him seriously. Thats a good argument. They do refuse to treat him seriously. Why is that? Geez, I wonder. They tell me that they are not part of a corporate culture. They tell me they are not told what to do by their corporate headquarters. They tell me that they are "slaves to the wire" and yet they never seem to reprint stories from the wires about third party candidates. How the Hell can they justify or rationalize ignoring a guy who is polling 6%? What are they so frightened of? Democracy?

If I was to believe that corporate media isn't overrun with corporate agenda, Nader's total media shutout would make no sense at all. The placement of today's article shows us where our corporate paper's metaphorical bread is buttered. If a presidential candidate came to Mayberry and the "Mayberry Banner" buried the story on B7 or didn't look at the visit as a windfall, I think the townspeople would be incredulous. I hope the Post-Star's lackluster coverage and their purposeful ignoring of Ralph Nader shows us all "the wizard". Corporate media (even small local corporate media) refuses to cover a guy with 6% in the polls on purpose. Thats not right and it smacks of agenda.

If Ralph was covered by the media, people would be aware of his candidacy and would read about his issues. When was the last time you saw an article comparing presidential candidates' positions on the issues of the day? How about ... never. All we hear about is the horse race between the corporate puppets. They're not informing us, they are demanding through their purposeful burying of third party candidacies that we, the vigilant electorate, not take candidates without corporate support seriously.

Just imagine that Obama or McCain came to Glens Falls ... it will never happen but feel free to imagine it, nonetheless. Do you think that there would be one advance story buried on page B7 or would reporters and editors be falling all over themselves trying to cover the historical event? There would be a dozen stories chronicling who they are and what they have done.

The media will only cover two-party candidates. Ron Paul was polling 5-8% and he got some media attention (because he is a two-party candidate). Nader was polling 18% in early 2000 and he didn't get covered by the media at all. They ignored him then, too. So, this has nothing to do with poll numbers. It has to do with purposeful manipulation of our electoral process. Is no one else offended by this manipulation? I sure hope they plan to do more than this and prove me wrong!


Ralph Nader to speak in Glens Falls

Staff Report

Published: Saturday, April 05, 2008

GLENS FALLS - Independent presidential candidate and progressive activist Ralph Nader will return to Glens Falls on April 26 for an appearance at the Charles R. Wood Theater at 8 p.m.

Nader's visit will be hosted by the Adirondack Progressives, a group of area citizens interested in fostering local dialogue on today's issues.

Nader is expected to speak about his campaign for the presidency, media reform, the Iraq war, the threat of corporate power and its dangerous convergence with government and the role of third parties and citizen activism in the political process. There will be a question and answer period at the theater, time allowing.

Prior to Nader's appearance will be the local premiere of "Awake From Your Slumber," a short film created by members of the Hudson Mohawk Independent Media Center.

"Awake" is comprised of three basic elements: a speech given by Nader when he visited Albany in 2005 on the Democracy Rising tour, the music and words of punk-poet Patti Smith (accompanied by local musician, Michael Eck); and footage of the human costs of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Copies of the film will be sold in the lobby to benefit the Sanctuary for Independent Media. Tickets are on sale now at Rock Hill Cafe, 19 Exchange St., Glens Falls). The suggested donation is $25.

A free loaf of Rock Hill bread will be provided to every ticket holder, and refreshments will be served "pay what you wish" with all proceeds going to the Sanctuary for Independent Media's capital fund to aid them in re-opening their doors in Troy.

There will be a vegetarian dinner fund raiser, with all proceeds going to Nader's campaign, at Rock Hill Cafe prior to the theater event.

The suggested donation is $250 per person, though scholarships will be made available to those for whom this may be a hardship.

Those interested should contact Matt Funiciello at 361-6278.

The Fix Is In (And It Has Been For Over Six Years)

I've been saying for many years that people have to stop pretending that two party primaries aren't fixed. We are nothing more than a country of sleepy consuming dullards being manipulated and marketed to by McDonald's/Federal Government/Military Industrial Complex (insert evil mechanism of choice). Who the two parties "select" to represent us is no different. They offer us choices; "Would you prefer a Whopper or a Big Mac - Hillary Clinton or John McCain" The "sameness" is VERY important. The candidates MUST be the same or, at least, very similar. Only hamburgers are allowed! Those who may want soup or salad or a fruit plate can just piss off. This is America, damn it!

I'm pretty sure that, regardless of all the buzzing bees, Hillary and McCain will ultimately be the candidates and the reason I know this is quite simple. For about six years, the corporate press has been giving both of them tons of free advertising and none of the other candidates have received this kind of constant free national attention because ... the fix is in, as it always is.

When "the dullards" (the kind of people who only follow politics once every four years and who often do so by watching TV) start to decide who they will support in the primaries, they usually resort to voting for whomever they are most FAMILIAR with (with the caveat that this person also be wearing their team's "colors").

For better or worse, Hillary and McCain are those candidates. It is the frightened dullard CENTER who ultimately decide who the two parties will put up and McCain and Hillary have very similar ideals and agendas. After 8 years of impending fascism, the dullards will once again accept one of these well-known Dems or Reps as their champion as if either of them are principled human beings instead of just lobbyist donation receptacles! Stop pretending the two party primaries are real! It just encourages them.

T.U. reprints AP story. Post Star ignores soldiers, as usual

While only a handful of us ventured to Syracuse for the rally, we met up with about 3,000 of our brothers and sisters in the peace movement to support about 25 active duty soldiers, members of the Fort Drum chapter of Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW). We (and they) were also joined by about 100 members of Veterans For Peace. Green veterans were there in full force as well, represented by Bob Gumbs, a Gulf War vet and Green congressional candidate. The Times Union (at least) reprinted the lazy, inadequate AP fluff piece on the rally which I have copied below. The Glens Falls Post Star totally ignored our veterans as they are pro-WAR and anti-SOLDIER.

Peace,

Matt Funiciello

Peace rally organizers say thousands turned up at event

Associated Press
Last updated: 9:32 p.m., Saturday, September 29, 2007

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- About 2,500 antiwar protesters marched through Syracuse on Saturday, calling for an end to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rally began at 1 p.m. at the Everson Museum of Art. It ended more than three hours later after a march of 1.6 miles to Walnut Park and another rally. Blocks of SU students joined the chanting, singing, banner-carrying marchers as they came near the campus.

The rally was organized by the Syracuse Peace Council, Service Employees International Union 1199 and Syracuse University Student Peace Action Network. Three buses full of members of the SEIU 119 came from New York City and Boston.

John Burdick of the Syracuse Peace Council, an organizer, said groups came from New York and New England, with an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 in attendance. "That number would make it one of the largest mobilizations since the Vietnam War," he said.

Angela Morano, 57, of Saugerties, said "this is nice, but it's not enough. It's not enough of us on the street."

Morano, who protested during the Vietnam War, said "we are much too peaceful protesters now."

David Lester, 26, of Syracuse, was part of the protest. The Nottingham High School graduate served in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division.

"We want to let the people still serving and the people at Fort Drum who don't understand this war to know they are represented," Lester said. "They are not alone."

Ben Winters, 23, of Albany, heard about the protest on the Internet and came.

"I have come to support the cause," Winters said. "I used to go here (to SU). This is much bigger than rallies two or three years ago."

Burdick said the rally marks a big change in logistics.

"It used to be that we'd travel to the bigger cities, New York and Washington, D.C., for these rallies," Burdick said. "It's time for us not to wait for the big cities. Now, they're sending buses up to us."

Betty Wood, 65, of Blodgett Mills, brought five quilt banners with her to the parade. Each had the 170 faces of U.S. soldiers from New York state who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since fighting began. Wood has gotten up to April. She's behind by half a banner.

She chokes up when she's asked why she did it.

"The photos of the flag-draped coffins coming back from over there became classified," said Wood, fighting back tears. "These soldiers became numbers. They deserved to have faces."

An evening panel discussion at the university's Hendricks Chapel was to include Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998; Dr. Dahlia Wasfi, who spent her childhood in Iraq; and Jimmy Massey, a former Marine and founding member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

A Response to Some Greens About 2008

We simply cannot afford to make the same mistake again of thinking that a campaign virtually ignored by the media can also be a success for our party. A campaign that fails to be noticed is a failure for our party as it does not help us to build. Party-building is the main reason we run presidential campaigns in the first place, right?

We need to focus on the very real media blackout that exists and how to break it. A candidate who can get national media attention will yield us more membership and more resource and the possibilities of eventually gaining more ballot lines, the fabled 5% and access to the debates.

Lets all keep our eyes on that prize: NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. The common ground here is that we all want the Green Party to grow and become the legitimate and credible alternative to the two corporate war parties, right? Is there anybody out there who disagrees? That said, no one person is even contemplating running with us who will get us the media attention that Ralph Nader will. That is simply a fact and we all know it to be true no matter our whims, desires, moods or strategies.

We need to stop arguing about the "who" immediately. If Nader seeks our nomination, he will get it. Saturday night in Reading was proof positive that the grassroots and their representatives know exactly what we need to do in 2008. We love Ralph, we respect him and we want him to run. The energy is there. The only pertinent question is, "Are we able to show a credible candidate (like Ralph) that we are a party deserving enough that legitimate candidates would seriously consider seeking our nomination?" We need to convince Ralph to run with us. Waiting for an under qualified or lesser-known candidate to beg for our nomination seems to suggest a secret desire for our party to fail.

Running a Green who no-one knows is always going to be a serious mistake. We already made it once and we all seem to agree that it was, at the very least, not a party-building experience. As such, lets not do it again. Most people I know who are not Greens think that Ralph Nader was our candidate in 2004, anyway. They have no idea who our actual candidate was because he (and our party) didn't get any media attention.

Running a Democrat who garners only small amounts of very negative media would be a huge mistake, as well. Cynthia McKinney is a wonderful, brave and articulate woman who deserves our support BUT she is also a Democrat and she also has the rare distinction of being thought of as a loose cannon and a conspiracy theorist by both the Fox News crowd AND the NY Time's crowd, as well. She is not anywhere as well known as Ralph and her resume is considerably shorter. Running her would be a terrible mistake (and it will split our party again).

Run her for Congress as a Green and run Ralph for President. This is a no-brainer. I don't know about you, but I'll throw my resource behind both campaigns, enthusiastically.

I am not holding up a gun and saying "Just do what I tell you". I'm not threatening to "take my ball and go home". I'm just predicting what will happen (again) if we proceed slowly and without common sense. I am stating the obvious. 2008, with Bloomberg in the race, is our year. This is the year to run Ralph and grow our party again. If we start planning early enough, we can make this our best national campaign ever. I am not proud to say that I predicted 2004's disastrous result perfectly, but I did. I believe that 90% of the grassroots Greens I know did as well. For the good of the party, we need to go with the positive.

Ralph for President. Cynthia for Congress. Both with our full support. This time around, I would love to predict that we're going to stop all the infighting and announce our intent early and do something that makes sense. We owe it to our grassroots and we owe it to ourselves. We can do it. I predict that we will!

Am I Really The Only One Who Sees It?

I have spent some time thinking since Ralph Nader's visit a few weeks back. I had ample time to talk with him about many things as we traveled from place to place but the subject we kept coming back to was the 2008 presidential race (which, according to the mainstream media, has already begun).

I have been fairly convinced since John Kerry's (seemingly purposeful) loss in 2004 that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic contender this coming year. I have been equally certain that John McCain will be the Republican standard bearer. Ralph listened to what I had to say about them and then asked what I thought of Barack Obama. I told him that he was a faux progressive whose candidacy was likely designed to funnel real progressive support away from truly progressive candidates like Kucinich or Gravel. I said I thought it quite likely that Obama would join forces with Hillary before the whole thing was over. "Its a twofer. A woman president and a black vice president. They're shoe-ins."

I asked Ralph what he thought would happen. He said that most people inside the beltway understood the selection process fairly well and that the insiders were betting with me on all fronts - McCain and Hillary (likely with Obama as VP).

Now, I don't believe that we have real democracy here in the U.S. We are most often given a narrow difference between two corporate candidates both of whom are corporate. The one we actually "choose" has very little effect on how well corporate America does after the election because they are both guaranteed to have been corporate America's choice to begin with.

I see McCain and Hillary as obvious and pre-destined because the lapdog media has given them four years of extensive free advertising at the national level. I don;t even need to think about pundits and their blathering. I also don't need to worry about the "polls". I know they will be the candidates because corporate media doesn't give anyone a multi-million dollar advertising deal for nothing.

They are much, much wiser investors than that.