I was surprised by the vehemence, but not the essence, of British politico "Gorgeous" George Galloway's defense against charges of profiting from Iraqi oil in the US senate committee hearings.

I don't think many of us in the USA fully appreciate the difference in the degree and quality of "free speech" here and in Europe, Canada or most other western-style democracies. Cartoons in the British press demeaning Blair's participation in Iraq are more vicious than anything I've seen here against GWB. [Though even there I have not seen them mock the rumor that he sleeps with a Bible under his pillow. Wonder how that would go down in the Muslim world.]

That difference struck me like a bat when I read Craig Murray's column \"What drives support for this torturer\" Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and may actually know whereof he speaks, unlike us armchair critics.

An excerpt from the end of his essay: It is difficult to imagine an ex-Bush administration official having the courage to criticize his former employer so strongly in public without immediately being ruined politically as a traitor in the war on terrorism, and accused of not 'supporting the troops'.

It is also disconcerting that Republican moderates especially are so cowardly about speaking up: John McCain and Colin Powell come immediately to mind. Since it cannot possibly be physical fear that ties their tongues, it would have to be either ignorance of the facts, lack of wisdom to interpret the facts, or - and this is the most disturbing possibility - a machiavellian desire to use the facts to advance their own future political interests.

Whatever the reasons, I believe that the military facts created on the ground have been aggressively exploited by the Bush administration to limit "free speech" in this country.

[ March 04, 2006, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

As a foreigner (Canadian) I must say my impression since 2000 at least is that any criticism of a sitting US President can get you in deep shit in the US. You are immediately attacked as a Liberal (why is that a bad word in the US?), anti-American, or somehow sympathizing with terrorists. Your tv media are certainly leary of any real criticism or willing to do any investigative journalism. Maybe its just a short attention span but stories seem to drop pretty quickly. It seems as if todays journalist would never have gone after Watergate just because of denials and pressure from the White House.Too much hard work maybe?
I can't imagine GWB , or his cabinet,being able to function day to day in a Parliamentary system where they would have to answer opposition memebers questions daily with the TV cameras rolling. Might be fun to watch though.
While I am definitely not anti-America or anti-American, and visit the US often, I would be hard pressed to move to a country where I think I might be treated as 3rd class and not be able to speak out.

[ May 31, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: swiminbuff ]

Swim, I have noticed that while those who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" have no problem at all criticizing the candidates they support ("I agree with him/her on ABC but not on XYZ") it does seem that among Bush supporters and in general those who call themselves "conservative" ANY criticism is seen as treason. After all, Bush has said he does not make mistakes. A video made before the elections, "The Faith of George Bush" presents him as a messianic, almost Christ-like figure and says explicitly that any criticism of Bush is a criticism of Christ.
Among other things it makes for a very low level of political discussion.

That is certainly how it appears from the outside looking in. When ever I watch one of those political panel shows on CNN, I'm always amazed at how black and white the 'conservative' panelist view the world. I'm never sure if it is an act for tv or if they truly believe all the venom they spew.
I'm still unsure when and why the word "Liberal" became a negative in the US. Surely most of your founding fathers and many presidents would now be considered very liberal or else you would still have slavery and segregation right?!

The appointment of Kenneth Y. Tomlinson as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was blasted recently by PBS regular Bill Moyers.

Though it probably does not get government support on the order of that of the BBC, any lose in funding would hurt public broadcasting severely. Maybe it's my imagination, but I have noticed some visible second-guessing, or apparent defiance, on the part of some newsreaders on PBS television's one-hour daily lately. The flow does not seem the same. One wonders how the content might be affected.

It is to be expected that there would be more coverage of issues important to conservatives in a political environment where Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress. But "how" that news is delivered should not necessarily be controlled by people who are not devoted to journalism as an academic pursuit, rather than propaganda.

It seems to me that blanket statements or evasive answers by conservatives are not challenged sufficiently. An interview with Judge William Pryor in particular comes to mind. We all lose when there is not a vigorous challenging of our views, regardless of which side we're on.

Interesting you should mention the issue of slavery. It has come up recently here in Philadelphia with the \"revealing\" by a bank with major local connections (including the naming rights to one of the local sports stadiums) that its predecessor financial organizations had benefited directly from slavery and issued an apology. More importantly That kind of education was painfully deficient in my own primary and secondary education, which admittedly occured during the fiery era of the early Civil Rights movement.

Our inability to speak practically and factually about our history of african slavery, and about 'race' in general, is a definite example of self-censorship.

[ June 02, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

The simple and obvious solution to the problems caused by government forcing taxpayers to subsidize PBS/NPR/NEA is to end the funding. No more court battles over "censorship" or any of the other rot these institutions have spawned. Let these outfits compete with the demonstrated success of History Channel, Discovery and their like. Tax breaks could still be available to anyone who VOLUNTARILY contributes to them, instead of being forced to subsidize their world-view, which in too many cases mirrors Mr. Moyers'. And maybe even Barney and Arthur will finally yield to a few well-placed blows from "The Three Stooges." Nyuk, nyuk.

OK, but I don't want any of my tax money to go to any faith-based initiative, so will conservatives stop funding them? What about pacifists who don't want their tax money to support propaganda coming from the Pentagon, should the Pentagon start funding itself through an annual fund drive?

Personally, I love PBS. I have two kids who watched PBS and I strongly believe they have good language skills as a result. Anyone who thinks PBS should just go the same route as History or Discovery simply does not understand that PBS provides a service that no commercial TV channel can.

There is not one thing government does that every citizen agrees upon, so calling for the dropping fo funding of programs that don't support any particular political philosophy is just ridiculous.

But would that improve the amount or quality of free speech? It obviously would if it prevents the party in power from having undue influence over the newscasts and other content. But wouldn't that influence occur some other way? It's like campaign finance reform - plug one whole and another one opens even larger.

From a constitutional perspective, there's no obligation to "improve" speech of any kind - just to keep it free. I don't like the idea of tax dollars going to religious organizations under the "faith-based" guise either, and while I like some of what PBS provides, especially on NPR, I still don't like the idea of forcing taxpayers to fund it. There's nothing ridiculous about an across the board ban on using taxpayer-based funds to support either religious groups or PBS; it's consistent and even-handed. Unlike national defense, funding these outfits with public monies is not a necessity; we got along for nearly two centuries just fine - better, some would say - without them.

Virtually every government in the world has some sort of state-sponsored public broadcasting system. Some discourage 'free speech' like Saudi Arabia or China, others promote it like Britain or France. Both Britain's and France's government-sponsored media are critical of their own governments to some extent. We would be one of the very few, and I cannot think of any others right now, who would not have some sort of publicly sponsored broadcasting. The functions performed by CPB will still need doing.

[ June 02, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

The ongoing battle to determine who defines \"Free Speech\" at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Just read an article about an exhibition at the School of Visual Arts in NYC that foucuses on the "graphic response to the constraints of government and the “powers that be” from around the globe."

I thought this piece was interesting:

"George W. Bush is there, too, though only in two dimensions and not in a context he would likely approve of.

In one image, his mouth is dripping with oil in a take on the "got milk?" campaign that usually features celebrities with milk moustaches. In another, his head is topped with Mickey Mouse ears."

Canmark, your post, and the SVA's exhibit in NYC, prove once again that free speech is alive nd well in the US to a greater degree than anywhere else in the world - and demonstrate that private interests are entirely capable of maintaining it without resorting taxpayer monies to support the CPB or any of its subsidiaries. Just because "other countries do it" is no reason we need to.

The best advertising slogan I have EVER heard:

If PBS doesn't do it, who will?

Why is it my channel surfing ends more nights than not on PBS? The Learning Channel, History, and Discovery are all good additions to the mix, but more often than not, it's "pop and bubblegum learning--" shadows of warriors with costume shop outfits, nature shows with a hodgepodge of clips and dumb-ass commentary -- anyone remember the opening of the Wild World of Disney: the lemmings going over the cliff and the polar bear humourously rolling down the hill? Guess what, folks: the lemmings were staged and the polar bear was pushed. Ain't private enterprise grand?

Without PBS who would have brought us Ken Burn's The Civil War? Who has the scope and will to present the excellent American Experience? Hell, I even had to catch Red Dwarf on PBS. Maybe someday private enterprise will set up to the plate...

But until that time, if PBS doesn't do it, who will?

Good question, in the generic sense. I suspect that the internet has already taken on much of the role of the CPB in political discussion and other news information. But the other educational functions are less likely to be as objective as the CPB broadcasts have been so far. Most likely many other sources will pick up the tab if the federal government drops the ball, but what effect on free speech follows?

The internet does not have the variety of PBS. I can't see Swan Lake or Nova on the internet, or the Story of English or Cosmos.

I wonder how many people in the US subscribe to cable just to get the BBC. There seems to be much more interesting broadcasting there from the little we get without subscribing. There is a lot of British content on CPB stations as well, albeit mostly older stuff in the entertainment area. Are we less capable of that sort of publicly funded variety here, or is there simply less demand for it from the government? It seems to be a different interpretation of what government should support.

[ July 30, 2005, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

“The Founding Sachems” by Charles C. Mann about the Iroquois confederation’s Great Law of Peace in today's NYT is a good example of how our notion of "freedom of speech" owes more to universal principles than to the limited notion promoted by some who only see it as applying to religion, property or gun rights. Iroquoians had little experience with the class system of Europe, and contempt for anyone who lived as a slave - much the same as many Arabs do by the way. Colonial rebelliousness owed a lot to that.

There's an interesting story in the New York Times magazine called "The Ghosts of Emmitt Till" by Richard Rubin that illustrates the deficiency of "free speech" in this country.

One has to keep in mind that this trial was legally conducted by people who felt at the time that they were doing the right thing, and may still believe so in some way.

The "Emmitt Tills" of today are still being made.

You can say or post whatever you want. Somehow you will turn up dead or missing. Happens all the time to those that really give a shit and have the means to do something. They die in plain crashes in Minnesota. Some get terrorized by government agencies. Some get moved around in federal prisons for the rest of their natural lives.

Yeah, yeah, and yeah. Tell it to Amnesty International.

But isn't it amazing Erik, how with so many ass****s born into the world, the "nice folks" aways seem to outnumber them? I think most people are able to put up with most others in the world most of the time. And some of us see light in the tunnels always.

It is amazing until you get to close to the truth. That light at the end of the tunnel is to give purpose to the lives of moths. In dark times it attracts many more insects. Some of which feed of the blood of others.

Sorry, Sport, I used to be this happy guy with an amazing energy. I guess now I am happy in a Hendrix kind of way. Drop the alcoholic anvil on my head. Drown out the seven generations and let me sleep.

Perhaps when I get my head together I'll post the exact details of how you can make your very own nuclear device in your garage. "Standing next to a mountain, chop it down with the edge of my hand".

Aping the planet, I think it is time for the chimpanzees to take over now Hollywood style. Seeing as how there is a smirking chimp in the White House already.

Yeah those people pretending to get along have yet to begin fighting for their space.

[ July 31, 2005, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Erik G ]

Patience and persistence my friend.

By the way, I think it's time they reset the Doomsday Clock again. Seven minutes seems a bit much. With the proliferation in the last 3 years I think three minutes might be more appropriate.

I guess if the world was a great utopia, all punk rock would suck and sound like Green Day or U2. I would be road racing and sipping gatorade with brain dead jocks competing and training on the criterium circuit. I would be stuck pedaling the straight and narrow waiting for my turn to break free while pulling the pack.

Thanks for helping cheer me up. I was taking my misery for granted.

De nada. A suspect in the attempted second wave of bombings in London is speaking up quite a lot. How much is true is highly questionable, but any investigator worth his salt will tell you that a live witness, even a hostile one, is better than a dead one.

The information he is giving now can be vetted and compared to more objective sources hopefully.

[ August 01, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

A relevant story today: a US network is banned in Russia for broadcasting an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev and an American Journalist is killed in Iraq. Much has been made of how the Reagan administration brought down the former communist regime. Little was said about the drumbeat of bad publicity from journalists who printed facts.

[ March 05, 2006, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

Well the clock certainly seems to be 'ticking down' on free speech if not on the date of the start of a nuclear war - though the two may be closely tied. With the nation so polarized several terms no longer seem to be allowed to exist in the same sentence, i.e.

1 - 'George W. Bush' and 'assasination'
2 - 'Mohammed' and 'photograph'
3 - 'Israel's existence' and 'Israeli-Palestine'
4 - 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion'...some others?

It may be cliche to say free speech is the first casualty of war but this fake war in Iraq has probably done more damage than any of us want to admit. The critical difference between this and previous military intelligence efforts seems to be the subtle way religion is being abused by all of the three major faiths, and the proliferation of means of communication vulnerable to being flooded with propaganda:

Any opposition to the policies of Israel is considered anti-semitic and by implication anti-Jewish

Both Tony Blair and George W. Bush assume they are acting on God's will and have special access that trumps the democratic process in their own nations

So-called Muslims are using the most brutal and barbaric methods to enforce their faith on their own and others

The Supreme Courts recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission appears to me to be somewhat flawed in its logic.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion implies an equivalency between the rights of "citizens" and "associations of citizens". Though any entity composed of citizens should have the same rights to free speech as the individuals who compose it, there could be a problem with allowing every "association" to speak for all of its members.

Most advocacy groups are composed of individuals who are free to contribute to the formulation and dissemination of the policies of that organization. This is not true for a corporation. Decisions are made at a managerial level - often with veto, or initiation without consultation, of a single individual such as a CEO - and the penalty of even expressing descent, whether on or off the job, can be severe.

This is less likely to occur in other lobbying organizations in which the members join because they agree with the policie, rather than because they merely want to earn a salary. In most they also have a vote.

But corporate"associations of citizens" do not have a vote, so the Constitution already treats them differently than "citizens". However now specific "associations of citizens" called corporations have exraordinary power.

Well, years ago the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons entitled to the same protections as individuals (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). Of course, preborn babies are not and get no protection until they simply emerge from the dark into the light. Go figure.

Speaking of the Citizens United decision last week, CNN just confirmed it. They have Associate Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing the words "no, not true," when the president suggested that the Citizens United decision overturned a "century" of law.

It is very unusual for a Supreme Court Justice to register a reaction at the State of the Union. Unusual, too, for a president to attack the Court's decisions in the presence of six Justices. However, we've come to expect such classless behavior from this guy.

The president's statement in the SOTU speech is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or gather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.

Perhaps someone ought to educate the President on why last week's decision was absolutely correct and a huge victory for the First Amendment! Believe it or not, I'm almost with Bill regarding corporate money in politics, etc. Where I differ is in my opinion that as repugnant as corporate involvement is, it is something the First Amendment protects, just as it protects flag burners or ass****s who protest the funerals of our fallen troops. Thank God McCain-Feingold was severely curtailed.

How a corporation spends its money is its choice. However it must be taken into consideration that they are not democratic bodies. The employees do not vote for the CEO. That allows a disproportionate ability to use funds acquired from the public to influence public policy in the favor of those few who most profit from the organization. Publicly elected officials might have a role in regulating that expenditure in the public interest.

With respect to Samuel Alito, his libertarian views extend to the ownership of submachine guns and consultation on an opinion supporting gay rights as a Princeton student, so it is not surprising that he supports free speech rights of corporate entities.

However these entities can affect the election of judges, in states like Pennsylvania, and even his former Republican Supreme Court colleague Sandra Day O'Connor opposes that.

We have not yet had the opportunity to learn Alito's views on this issue (that I am aware of), but should a case come up it will be interesting to know whether he thinks justices could be subect to corporate influences.