Digital TV or FCC Sneak Attack

Maybe you've heard that the federal government is requiring all television transmissions to be carried on a digital signal by 2009. Of course this requires anyone who wants to continue to receive television signals to mess with upgrade equipment (if it works at all) or buy a new TV(what a boon to TV manufacturers). However, it doesn't seem that the public is overly upset about it. Maybe that's because we the people have not really considered the implication of this technological shift.

Granted, I have not studied up on the actual cold facts concerning the conversion, but I have learned not to trust those in charge of commissions such as the FCC which has been trying whole-heartedly to deprive us of any semblence of media diversity by changing the rules to allow megaconglomerates to buy up whatever they want. It's bad enough that the overwhelming majority of media worldwide is now controlled by five huge transnationals, but it now seems they are going to deprive us of recourse to arguments about the public airwaves.

Most Americans are unaware that, as it currently stands, television is broadcast over public airwaves and that means it belongs to us. Networks are responsible under the law to provide programming in the public interest. So what happens when it goes digital? One must assume that digital signals require transmission through satellites. Who owns those satellites? Care to guess?

A cynical person might conclude that the digitizing of television is a subtle (or not-so-subtle) coup over public control of network programming.

Warm enough for you?

First, let's be clear; the problem is methane as well as CO2. However, CO2 is the most talked about greenhouse gas, so let's take a look at the history here. It's a long, detailed article with links, so it's really only for those who want an understanding of how our understanding of the growth, in ppm, of CO2 in our atmosphere has progress over the centuries. The article, though, is not up-to-date, and I'll cover that here. Perhaps I'll do an article on methane in the future, since it's showing a similar rise.

Basically, the CO2 concentration has grown from a low of 180 ppm to today's concentration of 380ppm. The chart covers from 1958 to today. In the past 400,000 years, the concentration in the atmosphere has never exceeded 280 ppm - until 1950, when it surpassed the 280 ppm mark. The chart goes to 2004; the ppm today is > 385 ppm.


What does this mean for global temperature? How about this (thru 2006); the source, very long, article is here.



The picture below should tell you something. The summer melt in Greenland has grown by the shaded amount in just 10 years. 10 freakin' years.



How about other ice indicators around the world? Back in 2002, the alarm about glacier melting was already being sounded, as in this article from The National Geographic. Here's just one quote from the article:

Most of Earth's 160,000 glaciers have been slowly shrinking and thinning for more than a century as the climate warms up from both natural causes and human activity.

But scientists say the melt rate has accelerated dramatically since the mid-1990s, which was the hottest decade in a thousand years, according to data from ancient ice cores and tree rings.

A glacier in the Peruvian Andes, Qori Kalis, is losing as much ice in one week as it used to surrender in a year, according to Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University in Columbus.

Here's a before and after picture of a glacier in Montana (sourced here)


We know that the melting rate today is much larger than it was in 2002. Back in 2002, scientists thought that the Arctic might be free of ice during the summer by 2100; now, they think it will happen by 2030. Even just 9 months ago, the date was put at 2040 or later; in just 9 months, they've moved the date up by 10 years.

Something that's not talked about, outside of scientific communities, is that the RATE of CO2/methane increase in the atmosphere is increasing at about .3 ppm per year. So, in 3 years, the RATE of Co2 increase goes up about 1 percent; right now, the rate of increase is about 2.6 ppm/year.

Take a look at the amount of CO2 projected to be released in the future - and this graph is now out of date, since it didn't properly take into account the growth that would hit China and India.



The point is: we're screwed. 30 years ago, it was already too late not to get where we are - and we're still not doing anything, meaningful, about it. We're also not preparing people to move away from the coasts, and we face a 16 foot rise by 2030-2040. That doesn't mean that, in the last 10 minutes of 2030, the sea-level will come up 16 feet. In my lifetime, the world is going to change dramatically; warming, sea level rise, increased strength of storms, energy shortages, food riots, drought, floods, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Obviously, some Chinese guy has cursed the world with the old curse of:
May you live in interesting times.

Our times are WAY too interesting for my taste.

Have a nice day!

Larry Wilson

The Destruction of Public Television

Maybe you've noticed the changes that have occurred on PBS under the guidance of the current administration and the last congress. These changes are said to have no effect on the programming. However, it seems this is yet another Orwellian attempt at double speak, i.e. no change means major change.

The inclusion of sponsors such as Boeing and ADM are having serious ramifications on the quality of news programming. Case in point: While the diversity of viewpoints was always sorely lacking on programs such as The Newshour, the recent transition from established, although by no means objective, sources to what can only be described as front organizations is destructive to say the least. To allow organizations such as Freedom's Watch (a poorly disguised front for the pro-war position of the Bush administration) airtime to smear a prominent senator for disagreeing with the president and to make seriously specious claims about him (although one can have little sympathy for Mr. Warner)is an abuse of the public airwaves.

But even beyond allowing egregious agenda promotion, a.k.a. commercial propaganda, to parade as news, one must wonder how it seems to go unnoticed that groups such as Freedom's Watch are actually proselytizing for the position of the so-called sponsors. Not only does Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. get to plaster their logo all over a formerly citizen-supported media, but they apparently get to inject what is to their economic benefit into the discourse. One must wonder if at every news program on PBS there is a corporate rep now standing over the editing process or if their is a corporate goon under the ombudsman's desk.

So once again it seems the Bushie's are getting their way with little or no opposition - replace funding with mandatory scripting.

The Promotion of Media Mythology

Friday night is politics night on PBS with the Newshour, followed by Washington Week, NOW, the McLaughlin Group and Bill Moyers. These shows are billed as being politically savvy and in the know. We are also reassured that they represent a balanced exchange of views. Nonsense! PBS, with the exception of the investigative reporting by NOW and Moyers commentary has been thoroughly coopted by the right. Does that sound like a conspiracy theory? Too bad. The truth hurts. Besides, all one has to do is look at the current corporate sponsorship to see a startling pattern of corporate, right-wing manipulation of these broadcasts. Boeing is not interested in the truth. Not enough to convince you? Okay consider this.

This past Friday, 8/16/07, The topic of media interest was Karl Rove. Rove has decided to step down, or as we on the left believe, run. Yet there was no real discussion of the possible crimes Rove has committed. The "debate" focused on how much of a "genius" Rove is concerning political maneuvering. But even worse than that, the talking point of the night, most likely drawn up by some right-wing fascist, was how Rove managed to win the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections for Bush by utilizing his special brand of voter targetting. Whoa! Let's look at that for a minute.

No matter how much the right wing base wants to live in La La Land, it is now an uncontestable fact that George Bush did NOT win the election of 2000. Independent studies have shown repeatedly that, even with large stretches of the imagination, that Al Gore won Florida. Even if they hadn't, the fact remains that the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction to hand Bush the election. Then there was the clear use of illegal voter caging. Are we to applaud Karl Rove for cheating? Apparently so. Ohio in 2004 suffered the same types of Rovian shenanigans and we can logically and credibly assume that Bush did not win the 2004 election either. (Of course we'll never know now that Republican rats in the state have destroyed the election ballots. (Can you say cover up?) So why did the guy from the American Prospect and Lehrer just sit there and nod when Brooks repeated the lie?

Then we go to Washington Week where, lo and behold, the exact same talking point was reiterated ad nauseum by some partisan from the Wall Street Journal (a true bastion of balanced editorializing) named Jackie Calmes. Again, no one refuted her assertions. The same story happened on the McLaughlin Group where the supposed liberal, Eleanor Clift, allowed Tony "Canned Spam" Blankley to continue to mislead the public without batting an eyelid.

The fact is that the "news" is packed with liars and those who are complicit for the sake of their jobs. There is no liberal media. In fact, there is no real news. Bush is the first two-term, unelected President in history and Rove is a criminal. Yet the media persists with its version of the "Truth" which is nothing more than fantasy.

Ron Paul and the Independent Aura

What is it with the word Independent? According to the mainstream "press"tidigitators for the last few decades, politicians have had to court the independent voter. But why? In the past, self-identified independents made up a very small portion of the overall electorate. However, the news today trumpets the growing independent minority as if it represents the apex of political intellectual acuity; nevermind that most who identify as independent are sorely lacking understanding of the political system. It is the contention of the mass media that the growth in the number of self-identifying independents is a result of discontent with the Democratic party as Republicans are depicted as solidly loyal to their party of preference. But is this true?

Firstly, any pollster can tell you that when a third, seemingly innocuous, choice is added to a poll question, a large number of people will pick it. For instance, if presented with a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 and 10 represent extremes, the average American will usually opt for somewhere in the middle if not 5 outright. This in no way means that they have a better understanding of the topic and it continues to propogate the myth that Americans are "centrists." If most polls used to offer a choice between Republican and Democrat or a choice between the two major parties and a number of other affililiations, but now trend towards Republican, Democrat, and Independent, it is not unlikely that those with no opinion or an ill-informed opinion will gravitate to Independent. That is, independent has become the chic choice for those who don't know.

Secondly, the media continues to deny that most polls have shown repeatedly, and for quite some time, that the majority of the American electorate is left of center on most issues, even the contentious issues like abortion. Self-identifying independents are no exception. Most would choose a perceived liberal over a perceived conservative most of the time. So while it may be true that some people have begun identifying themselves as independents because they have become disillusioned with the Democrats, it is by no means a sign that the principles of the Democratic base have become out-of-touch with the American voter. The press only wants it to seem that way. That is why it persists in pushing the idea that anti-Iraq war voters are on the fringe when approximately 70% of the elctorate is against the Iraq occupation.

The current fascination with Ron Paul fits well into what the media is selling. Ron Paul is popular with independents because, simply put, he sounds like a Democrat, at least on issues like Iraq. A deeper look at the man will reveal his right-wing tendencies. Paul is simply functioning as the new maverick McCain since McCain has gone off the deep end. If the media actually covered his record in lieu of selling him as a Republican insurgent, the American public would not take a media-encouraged shine to him. However, the media has managed to effectivley give the words conservative and Republican a connotation of respectablility even in the face of continued Republican scandals and, arguably, the worst GOP administration in history.

Independents must understand that until there is a major overhaul of the electoral system, we have, for better or for worse, a two-party system. The only real change must be affected by altering a major party. That requires participation. Independents have effectively opted out of the process and expect to be wooed anyway.

Restating the Names

It's time for an Aristotelean attempt at reordering the labels that the media has now used for years to distort the positions of the politicians they are supposed to be covering. Specifically, it's time to take a good look at the terms Conservative and Liberal.

Conservatism, loosley being the belief in smaller government, is a dead propostion. Both sides of the political spectrum seek to enlarge government. The Left still pursues those nasty social spending programs. You know, the ones that, like the New Deal, tend to work. The other side, while decrying government spending, seeks enlargement of government through the creation of federal bureaucracies charged with things like spying on the public, facilitating corporate intrusion into government, and the military (but only so corporate war-profiteers can make some more cash of the public cow. To hell with the vets).

However, the "press" consistently labels anyone with a "D' behind their name as liberal and anyone who supports government-run religious oppression as conservative.
So let's do some redefining.

The first term, that is gaining more usage, but is already being misapplied, is progressive. Progressively can be loosley defined as working for the benefit of the majority. Do not be misled. Progressives do represent the interest of disenfranchised minorities, etc. in the hopes that equality will benefit all.

The second term is Regressivism. Regressives represent the elite. Regressives seek to insulate extreme special interest groups through legislation.

So now, if we utilize the four terms we have, we can create four categories of political characterization. First, Progressivism can be combined with Liberalism. or the desire for quick systemic change, to create Liberal Progressives, or those who desire quick systemic change for the benefit of all. Secondly, we can combine Conservatism with Progressivism yielding Conservative Progressives, or those who want slow, managed change for the benefit of all. Thirdly, we have the Liberal Regressives. Sounds like a contradiction of terms, but this is what then "Neocons" actually consider themselves to be. Liberal Regressives, such as Dick Cheney, want quick, systemic change benefitting the few. Lastly, we have the Conservative Regressives, or John McCains, who want slow, managed change to benefit the few.

The problem that we are still left with is the divide between social agendas and economic agendas. A Rudolph Guliani poses a problem. Considered by the mainstream media to be a social "liberal" Guliani would seem to fall into the ranks of Conservative Progressives on social issues. However, as is often the case, Guliani's economic proposals would have the effect of creating an atmosphere where Regressives would dominate the social arena through economic policy. So what is he? Who knows?

What is certain is that Clinton is no Progressive and McCain is no Conservative.

Flashback: Snow Job Says Oversight......Overshite

So Tony Snow , ex-Faux "news"-caster, told the "press"tidigitators that Congress has no oversight authority over the executive branch!? Once upon a time, before a creature called Reagan began dismantling public education, it was common for kids to learn about things called checks and balances. I suppose Snowjob was edumacated either at home, by a Neil-Bush style private school or by the Ivy League. In any case, he's as wrong as can be and the mythical basis for a Unitary Executive is not only a product for a flat-earth bake sale, but should be seen as so Right-leaning as to be perpendicular to democracy, ready to ram it to death. Welcome to Bizarro world. Repugs call it a different interpretation. What it is is a serious danger and a high crime.

Let's rewind a little more. In a sweltering building in 1787, a bunch of guys in tights got together to hash out the basis for our government. Unlike today's leaders, they all spoke intelligible English. There they argued over the Executive branch. They argued over how many executives there should be. They argued over whether the exec should be removable or not and who should do it. In the end, they decided that there should be one executive who could be impeached by Congress and who would be required to tell Congress what the Executive was up to occasionally. They even decided the president would have to get confirmations for all his appointments from Congress. In essence, they figured they might one day get a real git and would need an out. Boy, if they only knew.

Here's the problem. These self-styled wunderkinds either can't read or are so bloody damaged that they are wholly incapable of hearing, seeing, speaking.......thinking the truth (capital or lowercase t). Their comprehension skills are similar to a goldfish's memory - 3 seconds to make the connection.....1......2......oh no, it's gone! If you think they don't eat their own baloney just listen to their "experts," like John Yoo at Berkely law (my favorite punching bag). His writing has been described as "tortured logic." Hmmmm. They torture the abstract too but claim they don't? I wonder if they perform extraordinary renditions on it?

Now these eegits (Oh I know. Calling names is bad. We don't want to impede a dialogue.......), anyway, these eegits will argue that the debate hedged between a weak and powerful executive and, since the presidential powers are mostly undefined in Article II, whereas Congress's powers are strictly defined by Article I (not really), it follows that the president has broad authority. Sounds like a pretty persuasive position, huh? Goldfish turds! Article II has to be taken in the same context as Article I, not separately. Article II follows Article I for a reason. Congress is the most powerful branch of government being the branch with the House which represents the direct will of the people and has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. With few exceptions, the president has no power to act except upon Congressional legislation that may be "executed" or vetoed. (Today Repugs claim Congress has no authority, other than funding authority over Iraq. Besides the fact that Bush violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Act by invading Iraq without notifying Congress, Congress may both declare and undeclare war).

But yeah, some of the tight-wearing, wigged guys wanted a king; specifically Hamilton. He thought that the public was too stupid to rule itself. (We may have finally come to the crossroads where we find out once and for all. But, at least, we'd want a semi-reasonable king, right?) Thing is it doesn't matter because Hamilton lost the argument then. So where do these blatantly anti-American nutsos get the idea that it's still an open debate? Really want the answer? Okay......you and me! The public is responsible for every crime this egregious excuse for an administration has and will commit. They can't change the rules unless we let them. We made an effort by changing Congress last round, but it appears we went back to sleep.

Hey! THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A UNITARY EXECUTIVE! In fact, in light of Bush/Cheney's motives for declaring it, being to suck up to fat cat, robber baron heads of trans-nationals, it's probably definitional treason. So why hasn't the House done its Constitutional duty and impeached these S.O.B.s? We haven't demanded it.

Repug History

Last night (3/9/07) on The Newshour, while discussing possible (we should say given) abuses by the FBI, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) gave the public yet another insight into the delusional world of Repuglican thought processes with the following observation:

"REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: Well, you know, first of all, we do give law enforcement in
this country a lot of discretion. And that's been the way since the beginning of the republic. The
FBI has very clearly abused its discretion, and in its abuse of the discretion, is going to end up
bringing about a reaction by the Congress."

Apparently, to Sensenbrenner's "sensen" of history, the American colonists were never suspicious of law enforcement encroaching on their rights. They never ousted governors nor railed against military presences. They never passed a Bill of Rights that forbade law enforcement (you know, the occasional sheriff or reeve or magistrate) from illegal searches and seizures, etc. In fact, according to Sensenbrenner's comment, he must believe the Founders would have applauded the creation of the FBI, CIA, NSA etal. since they are so like the large paramilitary organizations the Founders themselves organized. Right? It's a little like talking about how the original colonists loved their AK-47s, telephones and Model-Ts.

Moreover, how does a man convince himself that the Founders would have applauded the PATRIOT Act which in essence undoes most of the protections the Bill of Rights solidified? Beyond that, how does he believe that the FBI can overstep its legal obligations when its very existence is counter to Constitution?

Unfortunately, Repugs have difficulty comprehending history as is epitomized, not only by Sensenbrenner's statement, but by idiotic ramblings by people such as John Yoo and all the Right-wingers who miscontextualize history for ideological expediency. Take, for instance, the debate over the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment cannot be taken apart from the whole Constitution, since it was meant to redress deficiencies in the Constitution proper, specifically those in Article I. However, Repugs (most recently the Repug court that has gone after gun laws) insist on taking it out of context and then ignoring those pesky little references to militias and regulation. The 2nd Amendment is not a guaranteed right to own a gun or to shoot at other Americans and was never meant to be. It simply says you have the right to defend your country and that the government has to let you do so by providing you with an "arm" and training. So what's this business about turning people away from the armed services? Oh yeah, they aren't allowed to exist either.

In short, Sensenbrenner's statement, while seemingly benign, is indicative of Republican penchants for chronically and intentionally attempting to undermine Constitutional protections. Whether its the creation of clandestine paramilitary organizations, unitary executives, perpetual, illegally engaged in wars, denying checks and balances, stealing elections, spying on the public, privatizing the military or purposefully misinterpreting history, the Right-wing in this country is out to recreate Stalinism in red, white and blue paint.

Who's Your Daddy

As the Republicans struggle against the reality that they are no longer in complete control of the government, it seems a certain faction within the Democratic party is suffering from a similar delusion. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) does not seem to recognize that the party base is not what it calls "centrist," translating from media/political speak as center-right corporatist, but is far more "progressive" than the DLC or mainstream media wish to recognize. The DLC still believes it is calling all of the shots and is, apparently, plotting behind the scenes as if it was business as usual.

The DLC was begun by the Clintonistas and, while Clinton's fiscal conservatism was, generally speaking, beneficial overall during the '90s, DLC-style corporatism also led him to join Rethuglicans in passing attrocious bills such as NAFTA. The DLC today still champions corporate-friendly, anti-consumer initiatives and functions more as a socially moderate wing of the GOP than a wing of the Democratic party. It uses this position to gain access to the mainstream media.

We the people are now bombarded daily with the message that Hillary Clinton is, by gosh, the certain frontrunner for '08. In fact, according to the mainstream "news," Hillary has been the frontrunner since even before the Congressional elections. It seems unlikely the media would make this claim before being sure of the future, but why bite then? While being Bill's significant other, a woman, and a senator doesn't hurt, it's also nice to have the DLC, Richard Mellon Scaife and media baron Rupert Murdoch on your side. The point here is not to bash the senator (who, truth be told, needs to hear more criticism from the base), but to raise questions about who owns the Democratic party's soul, the people or the corporations?

According to a continuing poll at Democrats.com targeting likely Democratic voters, Al Gore is leading the race not Hillary. As the "press" keeps calling DLCer Liebermann a Democrat when it was Rethuglican voters in Connecticut who gave him a victory over Ned Lamont, one should assume that mainstream polls do not represent Democratic voters and the media has an agenda in pushing Clinton.

The soup gets thicker however. It was not very long ago that political strategist and DLC Clintonista James Carville lashed out against insurgent DNC Chair Howard Dean. Not only was the attack completely unexpected, it came after the '06 election where it was widely agreed upon that Dean's 50 state strategy was incredibly effective in picking up Democratic wins, especially in areas considered GOP strongholds. Since group think becomes rampant among political cliques, it must be assumed that Carville's antagonism towards Dean, especially considering Dean's anti-big business money position, is prevalent within the DLC and among other Washington Democratic elites.

Now come rumors, as yet uncorroborated, that there are definitely movements within the party elite to oust Dean from the DNC. It seems Mr. Dean has planned the 2008 Democratic convention for Denver, CO. But suspected plotters are said to have desired to hold it New York. Currently there is scant evidence for this, but stop and put two and two together. Hillary is magically the frontrunner (with no input from the voters). The media is already pushing the idea that it's a two-way race between Hillary and Obama from which it seems Hillary has already been decided the winner. Hillary is a senator from New York. The simple syllogism suggests that this is a made for TV movie, another anointing of the presidential candidate by the unseen hands of the party inside circle in collaboration with their media lackies. The people's will be damned.

If we get no say in the party then there is no party. It's time to send, yet another, clear message to the DLC and any other Democrats who believe their political agendas are bigger than the voters. When you align with corporate interests over the interests of your constituents, you choose to oppose the people and the people will oppose you.