TAMING THE BEAST ... by The Cosmic Messenger

The beginning of October brought to a storm fatigued public's attention two decisive speeches about the significance of democratic principles within society and proposals for achieving them by Al Gore and President Bush. Both were delivered on the same day but this commonality was the only thing they shared as their solutions were as dissimilar as the audiences each targeted. Although the two men had important messages to convey, Bush chose to focus on building corporate empires in foreign lands while Gore emphasized what he thought was the key to preserving our republic in the United States.

Bush's oratory, pitched before the "NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY" was presented at a time when the public has grown weary of the war on terror and suspects the President has no real agenda other than to make industry safe from terrorist threats in countries whose natural and human resources they wish to profit from. Bush chose to deliver his message of fear and panic to an audience of NED enthusiasts, an organization that historically has urged financing regime change throughout the world with U.S tax dollars whenever it perceives a government to be unfriendly to corporate ambitions. In his address, Bush repeated the same five themes that Americans have come to associate with the Iraq campaign but which lack specifics for winning the conflict:

1. Disrupt Terrorist Plots
   
2. Deny WMD'S To Outlaw Regimes
   
3. Deny Radical Groups Support And Sanctuary
   
4. Deny Militants Home Bases To Launch Terrorist Attacks From
   
5. Replace Hate And Resentment For U.S. With Democracy
   

His closing statement portrayed the Iraq conflict as a "global ideological struggle" amongst "those who put their faith in dictators and those who put their faith in the people."

"Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve thTeir grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay."

The most ironical component of his appraisal though, was contained in the third point listed above when he clarified his goal of controlling support for Muslim opposition by curbing the Arab news media who "incite hatred that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American war on Islam", according to Bush.

Coincidentally, Bush's remarks about an incendiary media came at a time when Al Gore was broaching the same subject before an audience of media executives and journalists in New York City. Like Bush, the former Vice President believes journalism has a critical role to play in fostering basic democratic truths but from an entirely different perspective. Both men agree the media of this century has become more activist but the President assumes the industry can be channeled to reinforce the global aspirations of corporate behavior whereas Gore believes its function should be returned to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

"Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well-informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge."

Although Gore acknowledges elements of the modern media have revolutionized how we relate and instantaneously exposed us to vast quantities of information previously inaccessible, he maintains this is a detriment to democracy unless the new forms of communication technology can make citizen input interactive allowing people to debate issues of consequence. Without a media forum for discussion, he concludes the "creativity of the human spirit" will be extinguished along with our ability to form a general consensus making us vulnerable to propaganda designed to promote a particular cause. Gore asserts the media "no longer informs or serves the public interest" but it's purpose has become to "sell advertising" to make profits for the few conglomerates which now own it. He declares the corporatization of journalism has reshaped its role from the guardianship of democracy to an industry which "manufactures consent" by allowing opinion to be purchased by the highest bidder. Gore cautions this trend is concentrating the powerful influence of the media in the "hands of the few" who see it as a vehicle for refocusing the public's attention away from debate about critical economic and social issues affecting our nation to less substantive events which entertain us.

Gore's siren warning isn't without merit as we've seen repeated attempts throughout the five years of the Bush Presidency to make it economically advantageous for the media to use selective information manufactured by them to support its policies. Whether it's paying journalists to promote an initiative or distributing video segments designed to emulate a story typically seen in a nightly newscast, staff officials of this Administration have attempted to influence how we think about issues from their biased view without notifying the consumer in advance the information is slanted and the origin of its source.

Recently, Bush was caught staging a live teleconference with soldiers in Iraq which naive viewers might assume was a spontaneous interchange but actually a meticulously, rehearsed event designed to delude people into thinking overwhelming support for the Iraq war exists.

Given his penchant for tactical deceit, the Bush rhetoric about democracy seems disingenuous and violates one of the key principles meant to safeguard it. Freedom, either at home or abroad cannot survive without the right to informed debate. Whether it's the Muslim press or domestic opposition, the public won't be adequately enlightened if the government attempts to limit their input and substitute prescribed truths which suit its goals. Bush has provided monetary incentives to the corporate press by changing laws enabling them to become profit driven rather than compelled by verifiable facts which buys loyalty and compromises objectivity. Such methods are the building blocks of imperial dominance which relies on manipulating the populace by appealing to their religious and ethical values, reinforcing the message via a tainted media and eventually subjugating citizens to aristocratic governance.

Is it too late for Americans to subdue the rapacity of this brute we've come to abhor as our President ? Not if we demand changes which assure the information we receive about our daily lives is precise and allows us to express an opinion if we disagree. This can be accomplished by restoring such media regulations as the the Public Interest Standard, Equal Time Provision, and Fairness Doctrine which stood as touchstones governing the profession until repealed in the mid 1980's. Without these guidelines, public debate becomes dominated by those wealthy enough to pay for their opinion to be heard while excluding the thoughts of those with limited resources.

We can and must do better than auction our Fourth Estate to the highest bidder. The destiny of democracy will be imperiled if we don't.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

THE PEOPLE VS DUBYA ... by The Cosmic Messenger

For residents along the Gulf coast September was a tough lesson in reality as the devastating winds of Katrina and Rita peeled away the illusionary rhetoric of the Bush administration about a secure homeland. After the deadly spirals of destruction subsided, many of the citizens populating red states who make up the affected areas were left with a sense of betrayal by elected officials at every level of government. As the blame game began for such ineptitude, you had to wonder if the groundwork was being laid to escape liability for the consequences of irresponsible decisions made which allowed human exposure to spills of toxic pollutants or the abandonment of the region's most vulnerable people. It was as if the fiercest elements of the cosmos had been unleashed upon humanity combining to write a real life tragic drama containing all the ingredients of a John Grisham legal suspense novel.

As I watched internet video broadcasts of the horrific destruction and suffering left behind in the wake of the hurricanes, I was struck by how eerily similar these calamities were to the extreme misfortune endured by the plaintiff in Hollywood's screen adaptation of Grisham's fictional story, "The Runaway Jury." The movie version, released in 2003 was filmed in New Orleans and its plot revolves around a suit brought by the widow of a stockbroker gunned down by a disgruntled ex-employee. She's filing against a Mississippi gun manufacturer which hopes to avoid an enormous jury award fearing the establishment of a judicial precedent against the industry if it loses. It capitalizes on several themes the writer employs frequently in his prose such as the undue influence of corporate power and money, legal corruption and industry's lawsuit persecution complex. Beyond these similarities and the Gulf coast setting there's an effort to exploit citizens' fears of corporate jury tampering to influence verdicts.

Although gun violence and hurricane devastation differ vastly both can result in unwanted outcomes if not addressed prudently. Undoubtedly, as questions about the government's emergency response evolves beyond the public arena of dismay, the issue is destined to be addressed in our nation's courts of justice where litigants will battle defendants represented by their attorneys seeking valid remedies applicable to whatever is being alleged. It's the American way.

However, the path to winning a verdict sometimes traverses unethical means such as those employed by the Grisham character Rankin Fitch, a jury consultant hired by the gun manufacturer to ensure a propitious outcome. Fitch specialized in illegal surveillance of jurors by photographing them in compromising situations, tapping their phone conversations and searching medical records for embarrassing information that could be used to blackmail them into voting for his client. If the described methods failed, a corporation might attempt to buy either the judge or a majority of the jurors.

These solutions were considered routine 20 years ago but as industry losses mounted in a variety of consumer complaints over tobacco, guns and pharmaceutical products corporations recognized more aggressive actions were needed. Beginning with the Reagan era, the business community has focused on restructuring the court system through appointment of judges willing to limit the powers of federal government and protect seizure of their assets for violations of "New Deal" regulatory laws. What's transpired since the era of jury fixing is a gradual change in philosophy which diminishes government's restrictive capacity while suggesting taxpayers will shoulder the cost if fines are imposed due to public laws such as environmental, welfare or economic limitations. William Greider, in a 2001 article for Nation magazine credits former University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein for popularizing the present trend of construing the Constitution to mean government can't regulate without just compensation to those whose property is lessened in value by their actions. Greider points out the theory has not only been encompassed by modern American conservatives but was embraced by NAFTA signatories who failed to recognize the agreement provided a method to settle disputes between countries and corporations through an arbitration panel. Although the committe's determinations can't supplant domestic laws of a country, a monetary judgment is binding.

Given that the prevailing legal trend both within American jurisprudence and free trade accords tilts litigation heavily in favor of corporate rights, the prospect of obtaining proper redress for hurricane victims seems improbable. Most of these people's property rights such as home values or the fair worth of their labor was taken from them on those fateful days in late August and September without any expectation they'd be justly compensated by the government due to its own negligence. The declaration by President Bush to set up a Gulf Opportunity Zone and using Fast Track Authority to suspend minimum wage statutes reflects the predominate sentiment of placing the concerns of business ahead of individual rights. Bush's impious actions demonstrate his godless reverence for opportunistic capitalism while extinguishing the hopes of people suffering in the Gulf coast region that his previous proclamations of compassion for society's less privileged would somehow be fulfilled. His behavior in the aftermath of our country's worst disaster is a signal to business they've nothing to fear from either his Attorney General or him and any allegations of corporate remissness will have to be pursued civilly at the local and state levels where Bush knows the probability of impoverished persons' winning retribution is reduced by their incapacity to pay for adequate legal counsel.

With the "pay to play" economic principle of the Bush administration now thoroughly entwined in its efforts to shrink government regulation by reshaping the way justice is administered, individual rights will soon disappear. For residents of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama seeking compensation due to corporate malfeasance or government mismanagement of the crisis, the odds of obtaining an equitable monetary settlement have been reduced significantly. To win justice for them, attorney generals from the states affected must step forward to defend citizen rights, recognizing they have a responsibility to protect everyone and not merely corporations because it's the politically correct trend at the moment. Some have already threatened to do so based on concerns insurance companies are denying claims for water damage. However, suits brought related to adverse reactions to toxic hazards created by the storms present a more challenging problem. For example, if the dispute came about due to the negligence of an international oil company operating in the U.S. and the failure of our government to enforce environmental regulations affecting them, it's conceivable Bush officials would recommend to them a complaint be filed with a NAFTA arbitration panel asserting that both state and federal government laws requiring clean up of harmful dangers inordinately weighs against the companies profits. If the oil corporations were to win such an action, they and the Bush administration could cite it as a warning to state governments not to file charges seeking damages for violations of local environmental regulations or risk having to pay an enormous pecuniary price. Considering both the President and Vice President's intimate past relationship with the oil cartel and their eagerness to protect corporations at the expense of working class Americans, the alleged scenario appears valid.

We're at a crucial point in our nation's history where we must decide if we want to be governed by the system of checks and balances originally provided for in our Constitution or ruled by corporate laws designed solely for their benefit. The confirmation of John Roberts as Supreme Court Chief Justice lessens the prospect a balanced judiciary will objectively curb the powers of the other branches of our government anytime soon. Perhaps the litmus question Congress and the corporate media should ask the next nominee is whether you support Epstein's Constitutional interpretation of limiting government rather than a woman's right to choose since this philosophy is dedicated to sacrificing individual values for the property rights of corporations. If not, the only remaining legal avenue for people victimized by either industrial or government carelessness is to ask state attorney generals to prosecute on their behalf for criminal negligence. Travis County, Texas DA Ronnie Earle isn't waiting for the Texas Attorney General to file criminal charges against elected officials who abuse power in his state. This week he indicted Republican House Leader Tom Delay for conspirancy to launder campaign donations. Hopefully, that was a warning shot which will result in a conviction for a foolhardy leader who thinks he's so powerful that laws don't apply to him.

Are you listening Mr. Bush ? A lot of people in the nation and along the Gulf coast think you're guilty of recklessly endangering people's lives by failing to make certain our homeland is secure from any threat of danger. It remains to be seen if a state attorney general has the ethical will to indict the President for heedlessly putting citizens at risk for injury or death by not preparing properly in advance of the ravaging winds of a hurricane.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.