BLOWIN' IN THE WIND by The Cosmic Messenger

Movie director Oliver Stone's new film drama, "WORLD TRADE CENTER," was released August 11 for public viewing. It's already ignited a heated debate between progressives and conservatives over the meaning of what's being conjured on the screen with each group offering political explanations they hope will work to their advantage in the November elections.

From the neocon militarist perspective movies such as this and its Spring predecessor, "United 93," are ideal opportunities to exploit fears about homeland security and promote the war on terror. They hope to rally their conservative and evangelical constituents through a marketing campaign directed by a national public relations firm which has represented such groups as the Christian Coalition and National Taxpayers Union previously.

"The conservative and evangelical outreach is being directed by Greg Mueller and his firm, Creative Response Concepts," writes Robert B. Bluey for The Right Angle at Human Events Online. "A private screening of the film in Washington, D.C. brought out big names on the right and similar events are planned nationwide when the film opens. Spotted in the crowd were Tony Blankley, Brendan Conway and Blake Dvorak of the Washington Times, Kate O'Beirne and John J. Miller of National Review, Mariam Bell of the Wilberforce Forum, Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council, Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Seth Leibsohn who produces Bill Bennett's radio show."

It's ironic right-wingers are embracing a Stone flick. After all, this is the man that gave us such controversial movies as JFK and PLATOON previously. Then again, civil libertarians find it typical behavior by their political adversaries to exploit any opportunity which promotes the agenda they advocate. Many peace activists recognize conservatives have outmaneuvered them with aggressive marketing tools which employ patriotic symbols to overwhelm the opposition's message. Efforts to make flag desecration unconstitutional and rally support for movies like WTC are no different. Their intent is to rekindle the embers of jingoistic fervor however misplaced it may be.

Conservatives have "pretty much commandeered patriotic language," said George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley linguistics professor and author of "Moral Politics." "It became very clear right after Sept. 11 there was no patriotic language for progressives, that all the symbols had been taken over. This was a great shame because progressives are just as patriotic as anybody and are loyal to the ideals of the country."

As the controversy rages between left and right factions Stone finds himself caught in the middle of the dispute probably wondering if his thematic intent will penetrate the consciousness of viewers despite the political reactionary spin intended to compromise his audience's perspective. According to Neil Miller who writes movie reviews for Blogcritcs.org, WTC is a narrative about courage, heroic individualism and family anguish.

"The film itself is meant to be a story of hope and survival," says Miller. "Stone’s film is in many ways a testament to the people involved and their triumphs rather than the political nature of the events which is something that should be greatly appreciated."

Miller's assessment emphasizes three key words .... HOPE, SURVIVAL and PERSONAL TRIUMPH which are more significant than the interpretations of either political bloc. He implies that as a logical consequence of that horrific day, Stone sought to demonstrate how the event united people giving them the will to endure and the determination to overcome the tragedy. Contrast this with the sinister exuberance of the right to portray the film's plot as an evil occurrence in anticipation of dividing citizens for political gain. Equally discouraging is the progressive's feeble reaction which lacks an enterprising explaination for WTC assuming it will fade, undistinguished from citizen's cinematic memories as rapidly as it debuted.

Despite plans by either Stone or ultraconservatives to sell their version of the movie's significance, liberals should use its unveiling to remind citizens what's become of their Constitutional rights since the NYC twin towers crashed. The conservative cabal of advisors surrounding Bush saw the event very difirrently than the average person. To them, it meant suspending the Bill of Rights and placing government in an indefinite wartime mode from which they could operate unobstructed for the benefit of a few wealthy business patrons.

Examples include warrantless wiretaps, prisoner torture and ignoring Congressional oversight of various uses of the Patriot Act. Additionally, they've brushed aside whistle blower protection for government employees, a program which alerted Congress and the public about government misconduct. Their method of choice for circumventing legal precedent is through Presidential "signing statements" which Bush claims allows him to dispense with laws he objects to.

Indeed, the thunderous crash of the WTC towers on 9-11 was an epic moment in our nation's history but not for the reasons told to us by politicians on the right or the commercial media. What it symbolized for these propagandists was an opportunity to convert a cataclysmic occurence into a ideological message which they could profit from. The consequences have been enormous as the nation has watched it's tax dollars redistributed from programs assisting the elderly, public education, health care and environmental protection into the pockets of corporate profiteers. With no checks and balances on government and protected by the deregulation enthusiasts of the Bush regime the country has regressed. Now we're ruled by corrupt special interests who bribe our elected federal officials with campaign contributions to obtain no-bid contracts paid for with your tax dollars. Staying the course as Bush implores us to do, has no ethical worth when the fraud, waste and abuse has grown dispassionately under a man who pledged to run government more efficiently.

Where's the moral outrage ?

It's more than wasteful spending or smear and fear politics though. The Bourbon royal crowd has conned America into believing anyone opposing their imperialistic warmongering overseas is disloyal to its supreme ruler. Peaceful dissidents are portrayed as un-American by the organized media which has a vested corporate interest in the success or failure of global politics. How many times this summer have they reported alleged terrorist plots relying on government sources who cite incomplete details just as public opposition to the Bush war policies intensifies ? By providing only partial information they've transformed our nation from an open society based on democratic principles to one governed by secrets and propaganda.

Voltaire, the French philosopher once said "it's dangerous to be right when government is wrong." In Bush's America citizens wouldn't know because he's used national security to suspend the Bill of Rights, media deregulation to compromise their objectivity and merged the evangelical movement with federal government to create a state sponsored religion. Anyone deviating from the beliefs spread by these policy hucksters is cast as sympathetic to violent radicals. Since the war on terror began Americans have been offered numerous accounts why they should continue to support it. Each shift in explaination is accompanied by more falsehoods which makes the government less credible to both our citizens and the rest of the global village. As U.S. plausibility deters worldwide so does its image, formerly emblematic of free speech and thought.

Lamentably, the stars and stripes that once blew majestically in the winds of the world no longer commands respect by others. Love and defense of the United States has become a marketing slogan for the right to manipulate its voting bloc while others equate it with corporate fascism. World harmony cannot be achieved through military coercion or pseudo-patriotic appeals to our own citizens. Only the truth will sustain us.

Until we can change America's leadership everyone should lower the U.S. flag to half staff or replace it with one promoting peace. Then we can become proud citizens again of the greatest nation on earth instead of the blind, obedient subjects we are now.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

STUDENT BETRAYAL by The Cosmic Messenger

Soon many students at the public high school and college levels throughout the nation will be starting their academic year at a greater disadvantage than past semesters due to national budget cutting mandates imposed by our Education President and Congress. Their selfish fascination with waging war has placed bombs before books ensuring our next generation of pupils will graduate academically inferior to their counterparts in other advanced countries globally.

Since taking office in 2001 and control of Congress a year later, Republicans have steadily retreated from pledges to fix Education and established a two tiered system which rewards upper middle class students' academic performance while reducing appropriations for school programs affecting poor, disabled and minority enrollees. Recently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid commented higher education in America is becoming a vanishing hope for a greater number of citizens today.

"Education for many of our graduating high school seniors has become a goal too far," Reid said. "Student loans and Pell grants are not a priority of the Bush Administration. The ability to obtain a college education is becoming more and more based on how much money your parents have instead of how much academic potential our youth have."

Reid's generalizations basically summarize the dilemma students confront in their quest for 21st century academic training but the perplexities go beyond college financing and begin with the struggles they encounter in public high school to obtain a competitive education. Bush's hypothetical, "No Child Left Behind," was a rhetorical asinine campaign promise which he failed to finance with federal money. Missing from the false pledge was his plan to cut national spending on education and turn the destinies of educatees over to states prosperous enough to make up the difference.

In most instances it hasn't happened as they've watched their industrial tax base base depart for cheaper foreign production markets made possible by the trade policies advocated by this Administration. Since 2005, 48 programs designed to assist high school students from disadvantaged neighborhoods have been eliminated saving taxpayers $5 billion dollars. The economizing at students' expense was then transferred to Donald Rumsfeld's War Toys Department to help pay for $420 billion dollars worth of new expenditures and cost overruns on behalf of Pentagon private contractors.

Successful high school programs cut are listed below and don't even reflect the removal of vocational, counseling and government grant programs formally available to students striving for the next academic level:

Javits Gifted and Talented met special needs of gifted students who are disabled, economically disadvantaged and limited English proficiency.

Star Schools improved instruction in math, science and foreign language for disadvantaged, illiterate and disabled students.

Community Technology Centers created technology centers for disadvantaged students in economically distressed areas to provide access to the internet and technology.

Upward Bound provided support to high schoolers from low-income families and low-income first-generation military veterans to succeed in pre-college performance.

Talent Search increased the number of youth from disadvantaged backgrounds completing high school and attending college.

If the current shift in high school education resources to finance Bush's war megalomania isn't criminal enough consider the obstacles public college students now encounter when deciding how to pay for a four year degree. Long gone are the options available to their guardians in the 1960-80's era combining scholarships with parental stipends to cover tuition costs. In an age which federal wealth is redistributed to corporate tax breaks and armed conflict, students are forced to shop for funding from private loan sharks eager to lend them money knowing the terms are rigged in the creditor's favor. As their undergraduate debt becomes more onerous the odds against them completing a university curriculum or higher become inauspicious.

"Forty percent of college graduates who do not go to graduate school blame student loan debt," according to studies by the Nellie Mae Corporation. "Today 54 percent of former students wish they had borrowed less for college, an increase from 31 percent in 1991. The prospect that student loans will be a great burden may also prevent successful high school students from going to college. Twenty percent of low-income high school graduates qualified for college do not go to college."

The significance of these daunting statistics prompted New York Senator Hillary Clinton to introduce legislation in May specifying a "Student Borrower Bill of Rights."

"The bill would give them the right to fair, monthly payments that do not exceed a certain
percentage of their incomes and fair interest rates and fees," Clinton proclaimed in commencement address at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University. "It would also
give them the right to borrow without exploitation. Finally, the bill aims at giving students access to better information about loans and more information that will give them better options."

Although Clinton's legislative proposal is worth noting, it's a centrist position which accepts the contemporary methodology for financing a college education through private loans and seeks to make their terms less excessive. It does nothing to reverse the unfair mandates put into place by Congress and Bush's Education Department in 2004 making it harder for low-income college students to qualify for undergraduate Pell Grants.

This program provides approximately five million students an average of $2,500 each in tuition subsidies annually which doesn't have to be repaid. The maximum yearly benefit of $4,050 has remained unchanged the past five years despite a promise by the President to expand the amount to reflect increases in tuition costs by state universities. However, to be eligible students must meet more rigorous financial standards than in previous hears. A dependent student (living at home w/parents) cannot work and earn more than $2,550 to qualify for the grant. The definition of an independent student was narrowed to mean individuals 24 or older, parent, active duty military or veteran, orphan or a ward of a state. They're allowed to garner up to $5,790 in wages before being disqualified.

What the Bush Administration has done to the Pell Grant program is make it harder for students to qualify for the more generous awards associated independent status while forcing most to rely on their parents and the meager government provisions stipulated for them. The only exceptions for overriding this are if a student has been abandoned or abused by their parents. This type of intolerant policy approach ignores the fact that many low income students are self sufficient earlier in life because of their economic conditions and cannot live at home. It assumes they have a stable family environment from which they can commute to campus everyday. Bush's inordinate belief deliberately limits Pell Grants to moderate income dependent students at the expense of the needy recipients the plan was originally designed to help.

The Bush strategy for addressing education in America has been a massive failure inflicting pain at both the high school and college levels through budget constraints at a time when our children need every resource available to them to be competitive in the future. This can't be achieved by giving up on public instruction, recommending private schools, advising learners
to lower their ambitions to community colleges, altering entitlements or eliminating projects with a record of proven success. What's needed is greater protection for pupils guaranteeing them the right to a public education based on a combination of federal grants, loans and work study.

A comprehensive design would insure all students and their families receive accurate advice about college costs annually upon entering high school until applying to a university. During this period students must be assured their educational standards make them suitable for a higher education by restoring funds to the states Bush expunged from the national budget. Monetary incentives directed toward all economically disadvantaged high schools should be our highest priority conditional on terms which promote intellectual desire rather than impede it.

Once a low-income student is accepted into a public institution of higher learning, Pell Grants should cover at least 75% of an independent's annual tuition costs with a combination of loans and work study paying the rest. Credit terms must be reformed which enable students to refinance their loans at lower rates, choose between a fixed or variable rate and eliminates borrower's fees. Those pursuing teaching, nursing or a career as a child care provider should be offered loan forgiveness if their educational debt becomes unmanageable and demonstrate academic promise.

Modern-day teenagers are entitled to a quality public school education. However, as the situation exists now they're being shortchanged from the time they enter high school until they either graduate or forced to take a military oath of allegiance. They shouldn't have to choose between private loans or becoming a soldier to pay for college. The first option risks personal financial peril while the latter gambles they'll survive Iraq to fulfill their educational ambitions.

Let's make the decision less dangerous for them by winning back Congress in November. A vote for change is a choice for altering the way we fund national education and may save the life of someone you know.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.