Category Archives: Politics

First Amendment TV

I’d like to recommend something on TV. It’s called “The First Amendment Project” and being shown on Sundance and CourtTV. Tonight was the first night (Wed will have same programming on CourtTV,) and featured two short documentaries. The first was a look at Fox v. Franken. That flap was over Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, and the fact that it used the term “fair and balanced” in it’s subheading. Fox News claimed that the term “fair and balanced” was their trademark… and took Franken to federal court. Of course, the real reason this suit was prompted was because Franken throughly discredited O’Reilly in book and O’Reilly was pissed off. In the end Franken won. The documentary is a funny, pithy look into the case and the issues surrounding it.

The second documentary was about the Amiri Baraka scandal. Although I had not heard about this story previously, it turned out to be really interesting. Basically, Baraka, a controversial poet, was named by NJ as the state poet laureate. After 9/11, Baraka wrote a long poem about 9/11, which could be summed up as a, “who’s really the bad guy here?” type piece. In it, he hinted that perhaps the state of Israel knew about the attacks. This, of course, got the people at the ADL furious. Since NJ could not revoke Baraka’s title as poet laureate, and he refused to abscond, the NJ senate decided to abolish the position of state poet laureate… a roundabout way of firing him for what he wrote. The film uses this story to outline the importance of art as political speech, and examine to what extent, if any, art can be regulated when financed with public funds.

Lurking in the back of both stories, and explicitly touched upon in the latter was the idea of culture wars. Sure there are the Fox News’ and Franken’s of the world, but what of the many lesser battles that play out daily in the streets, courts, art galleries and schools? The question in my mind becomes, “Does the current administration, because it is so indebted to the religious right, stifle first amendment privileges in the name of decency, morality, national security, or what have you?” Although you all probably know my answer, it’s certainly not a question to be treated lightly.

To reel in this topic for some discussion (which I’m glad to see happening here) I’ll bring it to the specific instance of government funded art. If the government supports an individual artist, through a grant program or any other means of financial assistance, does it have the right to censor what that individual creates? Does the piper have to play to the tune of his benefactor, or should the first amendment supersede such patronage?

Link: First Amendment Project – Sundance Channel.

Money, Politics and You – Part I

Okay, so most of the people I know are not too happy that W has got himself another 4 years at the helm of this country. If you read my last post, I noted that at the time I was feeling disappointed, and that the anger would come later. Well it has. But, this time around, I am going to attempt to do something productive with that anger.

As such, this will be the first in hopefully many entries about what we, that is progressives/democrats/non-Jesus freaks, can do to stem the tide of the right wing neocon movement in this country. Although my ideas may come across as mere drops in the bucket, I feel that collective action around a unified cause will have results… I mean, look how we got into this mess in the first place.

This week, I’ve moseyed on over to a website called Open Secrets, an outfit that concerns itself with campaign finance disclosure. I pulled up the top twenty donors to both the Bush and the Kerry campaign. First the overviews:

1) Of the top twenty donors on each side, George W Bush’s top ten each donated over $300,000.00 Only John Kerry’s top two donors broke this mark.

2) 16 of Bush’s top twenty donors were large financial companies. (The other two included a business law firm and a large electricity generation conglomerate serving the southeastern US.)

3) Of the previously noted 16 financial institutions giving to the Bush campaign, six of them also gave to the Kerry campaign. In each instance, though, the Bush campaign received significantly more from the same institution.

4) Five of the top donors to the Kerry campaign were universities (three private, two public.)

5) Like the financial institutions, one popular company which makes, among other things, operating systems, played both sides. However, unlike the financial companies, this one donated more to Kerry than Bush

6) Four of Kerry’s top twenty donors were large, predominantly corporate, law firms.

Naming Names:

Bush’s top 10 (all over $300,00.00) :

Morgan Stanley
Merrill Lynch
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
UBS Americas
Goldman Sachs
MBNA
Credit Suisse First Boston
Lehman Brothers
Citigroup
Bear Sterns

Kerry’s Top 10:

University of California
Harvard University
Time Warner
Goldman Sachs
Microsoft
Citigroup
Law Firm
UBS Americas
JP Morgan Chase
Stanford University

Putting it all together:

Working only within the top twenty donors to both campaigns, I have removed those companies that have given to both. On the right, I am left with nothing but financial companies and the electricity generation company. On the left, there are: universities, law firms, two major media outlets, and a large international computer maker. What does this all prove? Well beyond the obvious, that academia is filled with lefty communist pinkos and that there really is a liberal media, not much. The trends shown by this little investigation are not at all earth shattering.

For instance, those who control large sums of money tend to favor the Republicans. Why? Generally Republicans are associated with a culture that is pro-business and anti-social spending. This ideal of rugged individualism, as applied to economics, makes the Republicans understandably more favorable to those who already control capital.

On the other hand, the large involvement of academia within the Democratic party sends a different message. The universities in Kerry’s top 20 were: UCal, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, and the University of Michigan. This list itself is interesting, in that both elite private schools and public schools are on it. Whereas a place such as Harvard or Stanford could be written off as just as institution where the wealthy send their children, the presence of UCal and U Michigan sends a different message, emphasizing the power of strong, rigorously run state education systems. Although any college graduate will have an appropriate level of cynicism when viewing the entire notion of higher education, it is hard to deny that the experience often serves as a springboard for socially progressive ideas and actions. Both state systems and private institutions, while having to admit some students just to foot the bill, do offer enormous opportunities for those who have the talent but not the cash.

Recommendation:

Since financial institutions tend to favor Republicans, why not check up on the institution you do your banking and trading with? For instance, if you have an account in one of the “mega banks,” ask yourself, “is that giant network of ATM’s really worth it if the money they get from me is going to neocons like Bush?” If you think not, then find a socially progressive bank and do your business with them. For instance, check out this funky local bank chain serving the Boston metropolitan area: Wainwright Bank. Though their website is a bit hokey, their commitment to progressive social activism and corporate responsibility is commendable.

What’s most disturbing about the fact that the Republican party is so rich is that its biggest supporters are constantly funded by the likes of you and me. Sure we aren’t writing a check to the GOP, but when we patronize institutions that are heavily right weighted, we are doing ourselves a grave disservice.

Coming up next:

Although today’s “lesson” focused on the biggest corporate donors, next time, we’ll take a look at some other (non top 20) corporations and where their money goes. We’ll break down the relationship between the parent company and the item on the shelf at your local supermarket, and start to think about how we can consume for our future.

This is what I’m talking about.

I’ve just finished debating a length with a friend of mine who prefers W in this year’s election. His main reason is fear that Kerry will not be harsh enough in dealing with the likes of Iran and North Korea, thus allowing them to develop and use nuclear weapons against us. We debated the merits of this claim for a while, then made our way to a multitude of other topics. At some point, Reagan and AIDS came up. While my friend wanted to tout Reagan’s accomplishments, I wanted to point out that he took an awfuly long time to address the AIDS crisis and help develop policies to combat it. I also quoted Reagan’s communications director, Pat Buchanan, who stated that AIDS was, “nature’s revenge on gay men.”

This of course led to a exchange on how being a gay person influences one’s priorities when voting. When I mentioned that I could not support Bush because of his policies regarding GLBT individuals, in addition to Cheney’s doublespeak on the issue, I was accused of rejecting an entire large entity because of one small aspect of it. It was also insinuated that I was less a patriot for putting the interests of this special interest group above those I should hold as a patriot and American.

I realize that there are many issues at stake in this election. Considering the position I am in, some issues are more important than others. I see nothing wrong with this. Don’t older voters and young voters have different worries? Don’t rich voters and poor voters have different worries? Urban/Suburban – White/Minority …./…. ??? I don’t mean to imply by this that these groupings represent exact opposites or polar pairings. But I do think it is fair to imply that one’s situation does determine how one prioritizes issues.

I reject George Bush because I beleive that he is sincere about the FMA. I reject Dick Cheney for publicly disagreeing with Bush but agreeing to support him nontheless. And I reject Mary Cheney for supporting someone who seeks to disenfranchise her, even if that person is indeed her father.

I also reject George Bush because I beleive that he is not a worldly man, and is not the right person to be appointing those who represent our country to the rest of the world. I reject George Bush because I beleive that it is difficult to be a war hawk when you and your 2nd in command did all you could to avoid serving. I reject George Bush because I beleive that the war on terror is far too important to go alone, and that 4 more years will result in a weaker front against those who harbor and espouse such tactics.

I reject George Bush as a patriot, an American, and a homosexual. Parcel is part as part is parcel.

To acknowlege both our own special interests and that which serves the greater good of our country – and be able to weigh and reconsile the two – is the most honest form of patriotism.

Debating Republicans

Tomorrow – Important – Vote – Future…

It has been a great weekend. Saturday marked the IVth annual pumpkin party. Unfortunately, I could not host the party this year (I no longer have a dorm room and common area at my disposal.) But, Kate stepped in and did a wonderful job. The hilight of the party included playing taboo (like password and $36,000 pyramid.) Suffice to say Sam and I would have won if it wasn’t for T’s nautical excretory term…

In terms of food, it was a good few days. I got to hit up Tom Can Cook – a brilliant pan-asian restaurant in Waltham on Moody; Legal Sea Foods at Park Place; Minado on Rt. 9; Jewl of India; and Campo di Fiori. Let’s just say that two days of moving jobs paid well for my culinary delight.

Yesterday, the whole gang headed over to Walden pond. After proceeding to get seperated immediately, Jude and I decided we’d go for a swim. With Tri as our witness, Jude and I did a deck change on the sandy shore and plowed into the frigid waters of Walden. Suffice to say, it was one of those silly manly dare type moments, and after a few spasams of splashing, we both headed back out immediately. However, standing on the shore after the brief forray in the October waters, there remained an intense feeling of clarity and purity – Henry David would have been proud.

Today, Jude and I headed to the Blue Hills reservation in Canton. Taking the “Skyline Loop,” we proceded to immediately get seperated, and take two entirely different hikes, ending up back at my car two hours later within five minutes of each other. Today was one of those perfect hiking days – the air was as crisp and clear as it can only be here in the Northeast, and the sun warmed skyward facing boulders. The view of Boston from the trail, and later from an old observation tower, was flawless – the buildings, harbor islands and beyond all stood with more clarity than could ever be captured in the most expensive HDTV.

Oh, and I had a great new drink this weekend called a Grasshopper. If anyone wants to make me extra happy after dinner, then the previous sentence should be a hint.

I like if then statements.

If “For More Years,” then one very disheartened American.
If business as usual under Kerry, then one very disheartened American.
If eel sushi, then happy Matt.