During the Watergate scandal, Congress eventually forced the collapsing Nixon administration to hand over tapes that had recorded conversations in the disgraced White House. Except it turned out that the tapes had a very curious 18 1/2 minute gap in the middle of a key part that no one in the Nixon White House could (credibly) explain.
Turns out we have an new version of this CYOA (cover your own... rear end) trick for the 21st century: magically disappeared emails.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Bush White House said Wednesday that it may have lost what could amount to thousands of messages sent through a private e-mail system used by political guru Karl Rove and at least 50 other top officials, an admission that stirred anger and dismay among congressional investigators.
The e-mails were considered potentially crucial evidence in congressional inquiries launched by Democrats into the role partisan politics may have played in such policy decisions as the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
At best, these people are incompetent and it raises further doubts about their ability to protect us and our privacy (not that they really ever had a clue about the former or any interest in the latter).
But calling them incompetent is probably way too generous. I seem to remember a very recent president who was impeached for obstruction of justice. Thought it was relating to a weighty issue of national importance (oral sex), not some triviality like making sure federal prosecutors were sufficiently politicized.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
A man can leave the Bush administration, but the Bush administration never leaves the man
Then-US deputy war secretary Paul Wolfowitz was rewarded for his job as an architect of the Iraq Aggression (an incomprehensibly destructive role) by being named head of the World Bank (an organization whose job is to help countries develop). The sick irony was not lost on many observers. But not the only irony.
During his time as World Bank chief, Wolfowitz has made the drive against corruption the single most important focus of the bank.
Fair enough.
So what does it say that Wolfowitz himself is being accused of corruption. His girlfriend, a press officer in the Bank's Middle East bureau, was given a 35.5 percent raise shortly after Wolfowitz became the organization's chief. She was given a 7.5 percent raise last year.
"If World Bank staff rules had been respected, she was not to receive percentage increases greater than 12% and 3,7%, respectively. Her current salary of $193 590 [tax-free] is about $7 000 more than what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earns," according to the watchdog Government Accountability Project.
Wolfowitz's office originally said the raise was ok'd by the Bank's ethics committee. But members of the committee said they knew nothing of the apparent nepotism.
"Wolfowitz is much, much more concerned about who leaked the information than about how to rectify the situation. He's just furious," said a source inside the Bank.
All this demonstrates that a man can leave the Bush administration, but the Bush administration never leaves the man.
During his time as World Bank chief, Wolfowitz has made the drive against corruption the single most important focus of the bank.
Fair enough.
So what does it say that Wolfowitz himself is being accused of corruption. His girlfriend, a press officer in the Bank's Middle East bureau, was given a 35.5 percent raise shortly after Wolfowitz became the organization's chief. She was given a 7.5 percent raise last year.
"If World Bank staff rules had been respected, she was not to receive percentage increases greater than 12% and 3,7%, respectively. Her current salary of $193 590 [tax-free] is about $7 000 more than what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earns," according to the watchdog Government Accountability Project.
Wolfowitz's office originally said the raise was ok'd by the Bank's ethics committee. But members of the committee said they knew nothing of the apparent nepotism.
"Wolfowitz is much, much more concerned about who leaked the information than about how to rectify the situation. He's just furious," said a source inside the Bank.
All this demonstrates that a man can leave the Bush administration, but the Bush administration never leaves the man.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Anti-climate change event in Bolton Landing
Bakeka727 informs me of the following anti-climate change event in Bolton Landing (NY)
April 14, 2007 04:00PM to 07:00PM
Event Description:
Folks of and near the Bolton Landing/ Lake George area: Harken to the warning and come speak your mind about this tremendous issue! Be seen and heard by congress! A Representative from Congresswoman Gillibrand's office will speak, Chris Navitsy will come and speak also, and we will have great music Music by BIG TUNA and BLUES HIGHWAY, and Bill Cambell, among others.
There are times in our lives and in history when we must do something to help foster necessary change. These days are one of those times. Be not resigned to inaction, for we do have more power to fix things than the powerful people would have you believe. We are organizing a public forum to join in with the rest of the country on this national day of speaking out. Please join us and we will be heard!
Location:
BOLTON CONSERVATION CLUB
Directions:
Please bring your cameras! CONSERVATION CLUB RT 9N NORTH, BEFORE TOWN MAKE LEFT UP MOHICAN HILL AT RONDACK MOTEL. ABOUT 1.2 MILE MAKE RIGHT TURN ON TO EDGECOMB POND ROAD. CLUB IS 500 YARDS ON RIGHT.
For more info, contact Bakeka727 @ yahoo.com
April 14, 2007 04:00PM to 07:00PM
Event Description:
Folks of and near the Bolton Landing/ Lake George area: Harken to the warning and come speak your mind about this tremendous issue! Be seen and heard by congress! A Representative from Congresswoman Gillibrand's office will speak, Chris Navitsy will come and speak also, and we will have great music Music by BIG TUNA and BLUES HIGHWAY, and Bill Cambell, among others.
There are times in our lives and in history when we must do something to help foster necessary change. These days are one of those times. Be not resigned to inaction, for we do have more power to fix things than the powerful people would have you believe. We are organizing a public forum to join in with the rest of the country on this national day of speaking out. Please join us and we will be heard!
Location:
BOLTON CONSERVATION CLUB
Directions:
Please bring your cameras! CONSERVATION CLUB RT 9N NORTH, BEFORE TOWN MAKE LEFT UP MOHICAN HILL AT RONDACK MOTEL. ABOUT 1.2 MILE MAKE RIGHT TURN ON TO EDGECOMB POND ROAD. CLUB IS 500 YARDS ON RIGHT.
For more info, contact Bakeka727 @ yahoo.com
'Pro-life' Americans
Sometimes listening to the news makes my head want to explode. Ok, more than sometimes.
I was listening to a story on NPR on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The purpose of this essay is not to discuss that issue, but to discuss commentaries about that issue.
Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback compared the use of embryonic stem cells to raiding the organs of the condemned on death row. "This person is going to die - why not harvest his organs?" he asked. The answer is that "it violates his human dignity."
A presidential spokesman said that "This legislation crosses a moral line that would use taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos, and that's a moral line the president said he would not cross."
It's good to know that those who support the state murdering its own citizens want to make sure that murder is done with the utmost 'human dignity.'
And it's also reassuring to know that those who advocate destructive militarism that inevitably leads to massive human carnage actually believe there is a moral line somewhere, even if it only applies to cells and fetuses and not full-fledged human beings.
The sickening part is that Brownback and Bush are hardly in a tiny minority of self-described 'pro-life' Americans who believe these things.
I was listening to a story on NPR on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The purpose of this essay is not to discuss that issue, but to discuss commentaries about that issue.
Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback compared the use of embryonic stem cells to raiding the organs of the condemned on death row. "This person is going to die - why not harvest his organs?" he asked. The answer is that "it violates his human dignity."
A presidential spokesman said that "This legislation crosses a moral line that would use taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos, and that's a moral line the president said he would not cross."
It's good to know that those who support the state murdering its own citizens want to make sure that murder is done with the utmost 'human dignity.'
And it's also reassuring to know that those who advocate destructive militarism that inevitably leads to massive human carnage actually believe there is a moral line somewhere, even if it only applies to cells and fetuses and not full-fledged human beings.
The sickening part is that Brownback and Bush are hardly in a tiny minority of self-described 'pro-life' Americans who believe these things.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
'Military: gays ok to serve as cannon fodder' and other tales of horror
All of these pieces are worthy of essays of their own but there are so many, I don't have time.
-The anti-gay sentiment among many in the military is no secret. You have the military's top man Gen. Peter Pace condemning homosexuality as immoral. Many resisted the farcical 'Don't ask, don't tell' non-policy not because it too strong, but because it was too weak. But it turns out the military brass is more tolerant gays now that it's having such a hard time finding anyone else to serve as cannon fodder for the latest militaristic adventure. The number of soldiers discharged under the 'Don't ask, don't tell' charade in 2006 was more than 50 percent lower than in 2001.
-Turns out the 'gays are ok as cannon fodder' mentality hasn't completely permeated all levels of the military.The behavior of many military recruiters in chasing their prey borders on unethical, if not completely crossing the line. But at least one recruiter was honest enough to vent her feelings toward a recruit. US Army Sgt. Marcia Ramode emailed a potential recruit in New Jersey asking him if he was interested in signing up. The young man, who is black, informed Ramode that he is gay and that he opposed 'Don't ask, don't tell.' A professional with the tiniest hint of ethics would have simply replied, "Sorry, but the military does not accept openly gay people. Good bye." Or simply not replied at all. Instead, Ramode initiated a hysterical series of tirades (which the young man eventually returned) with comments like:
GO BACK TO AFRICA AND DO YOUR GAY VOODOO LIMBO TANGO AND WANGO DANCE AND JUMP AROUND AND PRANCE AND RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE HALF NAKED THERE.
and
YOU HEAD OF FTO [sic] GAY LAND OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO MORALS AND GET RID OF YOURSELF....
and
TAKE YOUR GAY ASS OFF SOMEPLACE...
The recruiter, who's Native American, added:
MY ROOTS RUN MUCH STRONGER THAN YOURS... I HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU.
Before repeating the insidious lie:
YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS GIVENM [sic] TO YOU BY THE US MILITARY
And concluding one email with:
TAKE YOUR ASS BACK WHERE YOU BELONG.
and adding in another
Go migrate to another country.
It's a heck of a lot more vile and loathsome than what Don Imus said. But then again, Imus isn't given immunity for being one of 'our heroes.'
-Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust. Remember that study by the British medical journal The Lancet estimating that over 650,000 Iraqis had died (beyond what would be expected from natural attrition) from the beginning of the Aggression through the middle of last year? Remember how the US and British governments fell over themselves attacking the peer-reviewed study from highly respected non-partisan journal? It turns out that the British Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust". Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested". Looks like the Blair government took a page from their mates in the White House in ignoring its own people's expert advice for political reasons.
-The situation in Iraq is so bad that it was recently decried by three of the most pro-respectful of authority, establishmentarian entities around. Pope Benedict XVI noted, 'Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.' Mr. Establishment himself, Henry Kissinger, pointed out what's fairly obvious to clear-headed observers: military victory not possible in Iraq. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that 'the suffering that Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable.' This is particularly remarkable for an organization reknown, and often heavily criticized, for its insistent neutrality. Its warnings are far more credible than a US senator strolling in a Bagdhad market in a flack jacket surrounded by a gargantuan security detail and declaring the place safer than Fort Knox.
-There's been an homicide bombing inside the Iraqi parliament, which is located inside the massively fortified Green Zone of Iraq's capital. Eight people were killed in what is supposed to be the safest place in Iraq. I wonder how the head of the Straight Talk Express, Sen. John "Baghdad is safe" McCain, will try to rationalize this.
-Incidentally, I hear incessant warnings from Chicken Littles about Christianity is under threat. About how anti-theocrats like myself want to ban the Bible and criminalize anyone from saying 'Bless you' to someone who sneezes on a public sidewalk. So given this supposed War on Christianity, I was surprised to see a banner in the bandstand in local park from the local Catholic school encouraging people to sign their kids up. If the hysteria were true, the ACLU would've filed a lawsuit long ago. There would have been anti-Catholic school marches and Bible burnings. Go figure.
-The anti-gay sentiment among many in the military is no secret. You have the military's top man Gen. Peter Pace condemning homosexuality as immoral. Many resisted the farcical 'Don't ask, don't tell' non-policy not because it too strong, but because it was too weak. But it turns out the military brass is more tolerant gays now that it's having such a hard time finding anyone else to serve as cannon fodder for the latest militaristic adventure. The number of soldiers discharged under the 'Don't ask, don't tell' charade in 2006 was more than 50 percent lower than in 2001.
-Turns out the 'gays are ok as cannon fodder' mentality hasn't completely permeated all levels of the military.The behavior of many military recruiters in chasing their prey borders on unethical, if not completely crossing the line. But at least one recruiter was honest enough to vent her feelings toward a recruit. US Army Sgt. Marcia Ramode emailed a potential recruit in New Jersey asking him if he was interested in signing up. The young man, who is black, informed Ramode that he is gay and that he opposed 'Don't ask, don't tell.' A professional with the tiniest hint of ethics would have simply replied, "Sorry, but the military does not accept openly gay people. Good bye." Or simply not replied at all. Instead, Ramode initiated a hysterical series of tirades (which the young man eventually returned) with comments like:
GO BACK TO AFRICA AND DO YOUR GAY VOODOO LIMBO TANGO AND WANGO DANCE AND JUMP AROUND AND PRANCE AND RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE HALF NAKED THERE.
and
YOU HEAD OF FTO [sic] GAY LAND OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO MORALS AND GET RID OF YOURSELF....
and
TAKE YOUR GAY ASS OFF SOMEPLACE...
The recruiter, who's Native American, added:
MY ROOTS RUN MUCH STRONGER THAN YOURS... I HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU.
Before repeating the insidious lie:
YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS GIVENM [sic] TO YOU BY THE US MILITARY
And concluding one email with:
TAKE YOUR ASS BACK WHERE YOU BELONG.
and adding in another
Go migrate to another country.
It's a heck of a lot more vile and loathsome than what Don Imus said. But then again, Imus isn't given immunity for being one of 'our heroes.'
-Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust. Remember that study by the British medical journal The Lancet estimating that over 650,000 Iraqis had died (beyond what would be expected from natural attrition) from the beginning of the Aggression through the middle of last year? Remember how the US and British governments fell over themselves attacking the peer-reviewed study from highly respected non-partisan journal? It turns out that the British Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust". Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested". Looks like the Blair government took a page from their mates in the White House in ignoring its own people's expert advice for political reasons.
-The situation in Iraq is so bad that it was recently decried by three of the most pro-respectful of authority, establishmentarian entities around. Pope Benedict XVI noted, 'Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.' Mr. Establishment himself, Henry Kissinger, pointed out what's fairly obvious to clear-headed observers: military victory not possible in Iraq. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that 'the suffering that Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable.' This is particularly remarkable for an organization reknown, and often heavily criticized, for its insistent neutrality. Its warnings are far more credible than a US senator strolling in a Bagdhad market in a flack jacket surrounded by a gargantuan security detail and declaring the place safer than Fort Knox.
-There's been an homicide bombing inside the Iraqi parliament, which is located inside the massively fortified Green Zone of Iraq's capital. Eight people were killed in what is supposed to be the safest place in Iraq. I wonder how the head of the Straight Talk Express, Sen. John "Baghdad is safe" McCain, will try to rationalize this.
-Incidentally, I hear incessant warnings from Chicken Littles about Christianity is under threat. About how anti-theocrats like myself want to ban the Bible and criminalize anyone from saying 'Bless you' to someone who sneezes on a public sidewalk. So given this supposed War on Christianity, I was surprised to see a banner in the bandstand in local park from the local Catholic school encouraging people to sign their kids up. If the hysteria were true, the ACLU would've filed a lawsuit long ago. There would have been anti-Catholic school marches and Bible burnings. Go figure.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The further hypocrisy of Big Media (pt. 9123)
Last month, I wrote about how some newspapers dumped Ann Coulter for making an anti-gay slur. They hired her to be outrageous and obnoxious. But when she did exactly what she was hired to do, with crap that wasn't 1/10 as bad some of filth she got away with previously, they dumped her.
A few seasons ago, ESPN hired Rush Limbaugh to be an 'analyst' on their football studio show. Limbaugh was hired for the sole purpose of being controversial; there were hundreds of guys far more qualified if the main criteria was football knowledge. His job was to liven things up. But when he did exactly that, there was a big flap and ESPN forced him out.
Now, there's a similar flap with radio shock jock Don Imus. He described the players on Rutgers' women's basketball team as a bunch of 'nappy-headed hos' and when watching them, he wondered if it was the women's team or the men's team.
This caused a big flap. The usual suspects, Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, made a big stink about this to make sure they were in the media spotlight. Drugs, violence and broken families are destroying the black community and the only time you here from these self-serving non- (or ex-)leaders is when a white entertainer makes an obnoxious joke. Think Michael Richards.
The thing that befuddled me is that this is being seen as a racial flap, the Rutgers' players being mostly black. To me, the comment was not so much racist as sexist. But then again, if the sexist angle were played up, Jackson and Sharpton couldn't play this up. They are self-styled race activists. We wouldn't want them speaking out against misogyny in the black community or in rap lyrics. That might be... what a responsible leader did.
Imus has been suspended for two weeks and has gone on the media circuit making lame apologies that no one believes are sincere because they know he's being forced to for PR reasons.
Imus is a 'shock jock.' The job for which he was hired was to shock. He did exactly that. He's not called the Aristotle-of-the-airwaves.
Some defenders point out that Imus offends everybody so therefore it's ok.
My point is that Imus offends everybody and that's precisely why it's not ok.
As far as I'm concerned, Don Imus has never been particularly funny. I'm not easily offended but I like clever humor, regardless of the target. I may not necessarily be offended by crude or gratuitous 'humor' or lame cheap shots but I'm not likely to find it entertaining in the least. I've heard Imus a few times. I quickly change the channel.
In addition to being very unentertaining, he adds zilch to the public discourse. It would be one thing if he were making legitimate points that happened to piss some people off because sometimes the truth offends people. But this is different. He's obnoxious for its own sake. That's his schtick. That's his job. He adds nothing. Nor does Coulter. Nor does Limbaugh. Nor does Jim Carville. Nor does Sean Penn, who I saw a few days ago discussing the president's dirty underpants (note to Mr. Madonna: unless you're a porn star, please do not hold a press conference to discuss your fetishes).
My point is not to defend in any way Imus, Coulter, Limbaugh and their ilk, nor to say they should be sent to Gitmo (well maybe Coulter). They were obnoxious long before the particular flaps that got them in special hot water. And spare me the "they're just standing up to political correctness b.s." Just because you're politically incorrect doesn't exempt you for the possibility that you might be a moron who poisons what passes for public discourse in this country.
My point is to attack the media companies is that they hired these loudmouthes in the first place. That these guys were sanctioned for doing exactly what Big Media hired them for is proof not of Imus and company's worthlessness (which speaks for itself), but of the media companies' grotesque hypocrisy. It's ok to make money being offensive, but only when that poison threatens the bottom line does Big Media fake public sensitivity.
On a related note, I've been amused to see a YouTube clip making the rounds of an on-air confrontation between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera. I think they embody everything that's wrong with the public discourse today. The idea that these two guys had some sort of disagreement was highly amusing.
Geraldo was essentially the godfather of trash TV brought to a nationwide audience and O'Reilly its current emperor. O'Reilly's 'success' wouldn't be possible if not for the path blazed by Geraldo. Though it was funny to see O'Reilly tremble with rage at someone who actually had the lungs to shout him down. I thought they were going to come to blows.
It's sad because Geraldo was once a serious journalist; his TV expose of a Long Island mental institution caused such outrage that New York state's programs for developmentally disabled children were completely revamped. Yet his legacy will be not as Murrow's or Cronkite's successor but of having spawned Bill O'Reilly.
A few seasons ago, ESPN hired Rush Limbaugh to be an 'analyst' on their football studio show. Limbaugh was hired for the sole purpose of being controversial; there were hundreds of guys far more qualified if the main criteria was football knowledge. His job was to liven things up. But when he did exactly that, there was a big flap and ESPN forced him out.
Now, there's a similar flap with radio shock jock Don Imus. He described the players on Rutgers' women's basketball team as a bunch of 'nappy-headed hos' and when watching them, he wondered if it was the women's team or the men's team.
This caused a big flap. The usual suspects, Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, made a big stink about this to make sure they were in the media spotlight. Drugs, violence and broken families are destroying the black community and the only time you here from these self-serving non- (or ex-)leaders is when a white entertainer makes an obnoxious joke. Think Michael Richards.
The thing that befuddled me is that this is being seen as a racial flap, the Rutgers' players being mostly black. To me, the comment was not so much racist as sexist. But then again, if the sexist angle were played up, Jackson and Sharpton couldn't play this up. They are self-styled race activists. We wouldn't want them speaking out against misogyny in the black community or in rap lyrics. That might be... what a responsible leader did.
Imus has been suspended for two weeks and has gone on the media circuit making lame apologies that no one believes are sincere because they know he's being forced to for PR reasons.
Imus is a 'shock jock.' The job for which he was hired was to shock. He did exactly that. He's not called the Aristotle-of-the-airwaves.
Some defenders point out that Imus offends everybody so therefore it's ok.
My point is that Imus offends everybody and that's precisely why it's not ok.
As far as I'm concerned, Don Imus has never been particularly funny. I'm not easily offended but I like clever humor, regardless of the target. I may not necessarily be offended by crude or gratuitous 'humor' or lame cheap shots but I'm not likely to find it entertaining in the least. I've heard Imus a few times. I quickly change the channel.
In addition to being very unentertaining, he adds zilch to the public discourse. It would be one thing if he were making legitimate points that happened to piss some people off because sometimes the truth offends people. But this is different. He's obnoxious for its own sake. That's his schtick. That's his job. He adds nothing. Nor does Coulter. Nor does Limbaugh. Nor does Jim Carville. Nor does Sean Penn, who I saw a few days ago discussing the president's dirty underpants (note to Mr. Madonna: unless you're a porn star, please do not hold a press conference to discuss your fetishes).
My point is not to defend in any way Imus, Coulter, Limbaugh and their ilk, nor to say they should be sent to Gitmo (well maybe Coulter). They were obnoxious long before the particular flaps that got them in special hot water. And spare me the "they're just standing up to political correctness b.s." Just because you're politically incorrect doesn't exempt you for the possibility that you might be a moron who poisons what passes for public discourse in this country.
My point is to attack the media companies is that they hired these loudmouthes in the first place. That these guys were sanctioned for doing exactly what Big Media hired them for is proof not of Imus and company's worthlessness (which speaks for itself), but of the media companies' grotesque hypocrisy. It's ok to make money being offensive, but only when that poison threatens the bottom line does Big Media fake public sensitivity.
On a related note, I've been amused to see a YouTube clip making the rounds of an on-air confrontation between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera. I think they embody everything that's wrong with the public discourse today. The idea that these two guys had some sort of disagreement was highly amusing.
Geraldo was essentially the godfather of trash TV brought to a nationwide audience and O'Reilly its current emperor. O'Reilly's 'success' wouldn't be possible if not for the path blazed by Geraldo. Though it was funny to see O'Reilly tremble with rage at someone who actually had the lungs to shout him down. I thought they were going to come to blows.
It's sad because Geraldo was once a serious journalist; his TV expose of a Long Island mental institution caused such outrage that New York state's programs for developmentally disabled children were completely revamped. Yet his legacy will be not as Murrow's or Cronkite's successor but of having spawned Bill O'Reilly.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
'Independent' activist groups
Don't tell me that there's no coordination between supposedly independent activist organizations. Take a look at some emails I just received.
-Today, 1:25 PM from MoveOn.org: "This Saturday will see the biggest demonstration on climate change in U.S. History."
-Today, 2:38 PM from Democracy in America: "Will you petition the presidential candidates to share their bold plan to lead America forward and reverse the effects of Global Warming?"
-Today, 3:26 PM from ActForChange: "Come to Step It Up, the national day of climate action on April 14."
I get these sorts of 'coincidental' emails all the time.
My guess is that People for the American Way will send me something around 4:20.
-Today, 1:25 PM from MoveOn.org: "This Saturday will see the biggest demonstration on climate change in U.S. History."
-Today, 2:38 PM from Democracy in America: "Will you petition the presidential candidates to share their bold plan to lead America forward and reverse the effects of Global Warming?"
-Today, 3:26 PM from ActForChange: "Come to Step It Up, the national day of climate action on April 14."
I get these sorts of 'coincidental' emails all the time.
My guess is that People for the American Way will send me something around 4:20.
Ethiopia coffee growers and the fight for a fair price
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
The excellent Independent Lens documentary series is airing a piece tonight entitled Black Gold, on the travails of coffee growers in Ethiopia and one man's fight for a fair price for the beans. The show airs tonight on most PBS stations (local times vary).
The excellent Independent Lens documentary series is airing a piece tonight entitled Black Gold, on the travails of coffee growers in Ethiopia and one man's fight for a fair price for the beans. The show airs tonight on most PBS stations (local times vary).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)