February 1999
Like something I said? Hate something I said? Do you think I should "go back to Russia"? Do you think that Bill Clinton should be impeached for killing over 500,000 children in Iraq? Don't keep it to yourself! Send me an email. And then hopefully after a while, I will give you a way to post your views directly on this site...
You Can Quote Me
As we read about conviction after conviction of prisoners on Death Row being overturned after DNA testing proves them innocent, how can anyone continue to support the death penalty, today, in its concrete and at best arbitrary application?
Given the state of justice in the United States today, I believe that to support the death penalty is to sanction the killing of innocent men, women and -- surely soon enough -- children.
Interesting Web Sites
www.crp.org: The Center for Responsive Politics
"The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that specializes in the study of Congress and particularly the role that money plays in its elections and actions. The Center conducts computer-based research on campaign finance issues for the news media, academics, activists, and other interested observers of Congress. The Center's work is aimed at creating a more involved citizenry and a more responsive Congress."
Filled with lots of interesting information. You can search a database of privately-funded travel by members of Congress. Here, for example, is the single most expensive trip taken by any Congressperson in 1997:
Total Expenses: $33,141.20
Who Traveled: Newt Gingrich (R-Ga)
Sponsor: ARCO
Purpose: Speech
Beginning Travel Date: 12/1/97
Ending Travel Date: 12/5/97
More Date Info:
Destination: London, England
Transportation Expenses: $20,268.55
Lodging Expenses: $12,235.12
Meal Expenses: $637.53
All Other Expenses: $0.00
Report Date: 1/2/98
Can you imagine? A four day trip in which Newt racked up $12,000 in hotel bills and a $20,000 airfare tab! But don't worry, folks, he didn't pay for it with our tax dollars. And this sort of "sponsorship" should not be considered a bribe. Furthermore, these kinds of sponsored trips do not have any influence whatsoever on Representative Gingrich's treatment of ARCO and legislature affecting ARCO.
Sure, some of you will be saying: there goes that radical Steven picking on the Republicans, so here is the most expensive trip on record for that ultra-liberal, Ted Kennedy:
Who Traveled: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)
Sponsor: EMDEE Productions Ireland
Purpose: Travel for self and spouse for interview/taping.
Beginning Travel Date: 7/25/97
Ending Travel Date: 7/28/97
More Date Info:
Destination: Dublin, Ireland
Transportation Expenses: $4,278.00
Lodging Expenses: $0.00
Meal Expenses: $0.00
All Other Expenses: $0.00
Total Expenses: $4,278.00
Report Date: 8/15/97
I guess Ted was willing to skip the Concorde.
www.sweatshopwatch.org
" Sweatshop Watch is a coalition of labor, community, civil rights, immigrant rights and women's organizations,
attorneys and advocates committed to eliminating the exploitation that occurs in sweatshops. We believe that workers
should be earning a living wage in a safe and healthy working environment, and that those who benefit the most
from the exploitation of sweatshop workers must be held accountable. Our work includes public education, public
policy advocacy and coalition-building."
The latest and biggest news in this area occurred on January 13, 1999: "In the first-ever attempt to hold
U.S. retailers and manufacturers accountable for mistreatment of workers in foreign-owned factories operating on
U.S. soil, litigation was filed today in California and Saipan against 18 high-profile U.S. clothing manufacturers
and retailers."
Precious Earth
I received this via email last week, and thought it worth passing on:
In 1854, the "Great White Chief" in Washington made an offer for a large area of Indian land and promised
a 'reservation' for the Indian people. Chief Seattle's reply, here in full, has been described as the most beautiful
and profound statement on the environment ever made.
Chief Seattle's Speech "This Earth is Precious"
"How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man - all belong to the same family.
So, when the Great Chief in Washington send word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land.
ut it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.
The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers our brothers, and yours, and henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother.
We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care. His father's grave, and his children's birthright, are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.
I don't know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes for the red man. But
perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does not understand. There is no quiet place in the white man's
cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves of spring, or the rustle of an insect's wing. But perhaps it is
because I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult my ears. And what is there to life
if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? I
am a red man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond,
and the smell of the wind itself, cleaned by a midday rain, or scented with the pinon pine.
The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath - the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where a even a white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's flowers.
So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we decide to accept, I will make one condition: The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of your grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know.
All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a stand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. Even the white man, whose God walks and talks to him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from this common destiny. We may be brother after all. We shall see.
One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover, our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man; and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator.
The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man.
This destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many man, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires.
Where is the thicket? Gone.
Where is the eagle? Gone.
The end of living and the beginning of survival."
Social Security
Sent to the Chicago Tribune "Voice of the People" editorial department:
Your title, "The politics of the surplus", has to be the most accurate headline I have ever read in the Tribune. President Clinton and the GOP are fighting over what to do with the federal budget "surplus". Clinton wants to use it to "save" Social Security. The Republicans want to hand that money back to citizens through a tax cut...and then "save" Social Security by privatizing it.
That all seemed like "politics as usual" until I encountered this paragraph buried deep in your article on page 13: "This year...the government will run an overall surplus of $80 billion after spending $1.72 trillion. But that comes from a $117 billion surplus in the Social Security fund."
Our politicians are now reaching new lows of hypocrisy, deception and thievery. There is no budget surplus at all -- unless you count the very successful Social Security program, which is definitely not supposed to be funding other areas of government activity.
The result of the accounting shenanigans of Congress and the White House? They steal from the Social Security program to pay for the Pentagon and other forms of corporate welfare. They steal SO MUCH from Social Security that there is even enough left over to claim an overall surplus. Then Clinton vows to save Social Security by handing back to it a portion of the money he just "re-allocated".
I have been steadily suspicious of government claims that Social Security will go bust in 20 years. At best, such claims are based on extremely conservative projections of future economic activity -- so conservative that if true, we would have widespread hunger, unemployment and discontent. But now it is very, very clear: Social Security would not be in trouble if our politicians were not stealing massive amounts of money from it. Impeach the lot of them!
1/24/99 Well, that hasn't been published and on Sunday, I found a truly unreadable editorial from the Tribune editors themselves who sort of said some of the above. So I sent them another letter:
Your 1/24/99 Sunday editorial, "First, show us the money", was outlandishly vague and misleading. You want Congress to show you the money? How about if you first show us the plain truth?
Last week your report on Clinton's state of the union address included this information: "This year...the government will run an overall surplus of $80 billion after spending $1.72 trillion. But that comes from a $117 billion surplus in the Social Security fund." I didn't my bachelor's degree in mathematics to come to the inescapable conclusion that Social Security dollars (which are not taxes, but actually investments made into a separate program) account for ALL of the so-called federal surplus.
Let's see how you translated these plain facts into incomprehensible pundit-talk: "Only a small portion
of that projected surplus has actually materialized and, if Social Security promises are removed, there currently
is no surplus." Social security "promises"? What the heck are you big-word editors talking about?
Why can't you just say it plainly: our politicians are playing a shell game with Social Security funds so that
they can continue to build their war toys and line the pockets of their friends.
Maybe they'll print that one, but I doubt it.
Dying from Listeriosis
11 people have died so far in an outbreak of this deadly bacterial contamination, the result of tainted meat sold by Sara Lee. The Sunday Chicago Tribune put the story on its front page with the headline: "A rare disease, a deadly mystery". Above the headline, they had this lengthy subtext: "Researchers investigate door-to-door and used genetic tests to uncover the latest outbreak of listeriosis, a food-borne illness that meat processors can do little to banish entirely from their facilities."
Now, that sounded like a whitewash for corporate America to me, but my wife wisely suggested that I read the article; perhaps it really is a toughie for those ever-so-careful companies. Here is what I found inside the main section:
"The only solution, according to health experts, would be for the federal government o order meat processors to inspect for the deadly bacteria before the meat makes it to supermarket shelves, a move that would undoubtedly lead to higher costs for consumers. Such tests can cost up to $3,200-a-day for an average processing plant."
Well, that lays out the issue really clearly, doesn't it? Turns out that meat processors can do "lots" to banish listeriosis from their facilities. All they have to do is test for the contamination. $3,200 a day? I bet Sara Lee is going to pay lots more than that "per day" to settle with the families of the victims of this outbreak.
But of course companies will not perform these tests -- even if they realize that they may have to pay more later on to compensate victims -- unless the government forces companies to take those steps. Our government will not do that because they don't have enough inspectors to enforce the law (another truly sterling legacy of the Reagan Administration) and because that would smack of "Big Government" interference in the holy goings-on of the "free market".
And we end up with this scenario: The CEO of a meat processing company knows that his company could go a long
way to avoiding outbreaks of killer diseases like listeriosis by spending $3,200 a day for testing. He chooses
to not do this. Eleven people then die of listeriosis.
Should that CEO be indicted for manslaughter? Or is it just one of those things that are going to happen in this
big, complex world we live in?
Reporting the Listeriosis Story
The Chicago Tribune also had in its Sunday paper a fascinating analysis of the media coverage of this story by Tim Jones, titled "A major outbreak, but little attention". It noted the "seeming collective indifference" of the media in reporting this story, compared to the coverage of the Hudson Foods recall of 25 million pounds of meat (a response to an e-coli outbreak that killed not a single person). Mr. Jones concluded that the coverage has been light because it has been pushed aside by other, bigger stories: impeachment, big winter storm, Michael Jordan's retirement.
Oh, yeah, sure. One thing that Mr. Jones neglected to mention or analyze was the amount of advertising money
paid by the unnamed company to each of these media sources each year. Media empires will go to great lengths to
cover up a fundamental conflict of interest in their work: their profits and therefore the jobs of upper management
in these companies depend greatly on advertising revenue from other companies.
If you collect $10 million a year from an unnamed meat processing company, are you going to be openly and honestly
critical of that company?
And that argument about bigger stories crowding out this "little" story? Also hogwash, to my mind. Let's change the scenario a little bit: suppose it was discovered that (like the Tylenol tampering years past) an individual or, even worse, a radical political organization was deliberately contaminating the food. Do you think that the story would have been covered in the same way?
No way! It would have been a not-to-be-missed opportunity by the media and the right-wing pundits who dominate the airwaves to sensationalize the heck out of the story and put out many dire warnings about the growth of terrorism in this country (interestingly, however, a similar outcry has not resulted from the nationwide wave of bombings of abortion clinics and killings of abortion providers).
And I admit that there is a difference between someone intentionally contaminating food and an unnamed company intentionally refusing to test their food for contamination. I would suggest, however, that the difference is not as great as the unnamed company and the right-wing pundits would have us believe.
[3/3/99 Update: I just read in a small article buried in the paper (I think in the business section) that the death toll from Sara Lee's irresponsibility has now reached 20 people. Imagine if it were your mother or wife or son or uncle who was killed by Sara Lee's refusal to give up $3000 of profits from its plants each day.]
Return to Diary Index
You Can Quote Me
Interesting Web Sites
Precious Earth
Social Security
Dying from Listeriosis
Reporting the Listeriosis Story
www.stevenfeuerstein.com © 1999 Steven Feuerstein. All rights reserved.