And what about the editorial board of the National Post? One word, disgusting.
LINKS:
- National Post: The Post editorial board: Offering aid to Burma is a tragic waste of time and money
- Wikipedia: Burma | Cyclone Nargis
- Wikipedia: Cyclone Nargis
When Tim Robbins speaks, I listen. His "original" is below. Come along:
Hello, I'm Tim Robbins. I'd like to thank you for the invitation to address you here at the National Association of Broadcasters. When I first received the invitation I was a little confused because the last time I had contact with the national media I seem to remember them telling me to shut the hell up.
I would like to start with an apology. To Rush and Sean, and Billo and Savage and Laura what's-her-name. A few years ago they told America that because I had different opinions on the wisdom of going to war that I was a traitor, a Saddam lover, a terrorist supporter, undermining the troops. I was appealing at the time for the inspectors to have more time to find those weapons of mass destruction. I was a naïve dupe of left wing appeasement. And how right they were. If I had known then what I know now, if I had seen the festive and appreciative faces on the streets of Baghdad today, if I had known then what a robust economy we would be in, the unity of our people, the wildfire of democracy that has spread across the Mideast, I would never have said those traitorous, unfounded and irresponsible things. I stand chastened in the face of the wisdom of the talk radio geniuses, and I apologize for standing in the way of freedom.
So when they asked me to come speak to you I said, "Are you sure? Me?" And they said, "Yes."
And I said, "You know, I have a tendency to say things that I believe at the time to be well-intentioned but that are actually traitorous." And they said, "Sure, cool." And then I read the press release and it said, "Mr. Robbins will be speaking about the challenges of new media and delivery systems." Oh, OK. But I just want you to know I'm not sure I know what that fucking means.
But it is an honor to be speaking to you here at this years National Association Broadcasting convention even if I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
I owe a lot to broadcast media. I got my start in radio in the early 20s. In my early twenties. And it was television.
But these tremendous inventions have benefited us all.
Radio has come a long way from the early days when family's gathered around the trusty old Philco to listen to such programs as Superman, Sherlock Holmes and Amos and Andy. Thanks to music and sound effects, this magical medium was able to transport families to a place where a man could fly, a brilliant detective could solve the most perplexing of crimes, and two white guys could portray ridiculously offensive black stereotypes for the amusement of millions.
The first broadcast occurred on Christmas Eve in 1906 at Brant Rock, MA, when a man named Fessenden played his violin, sang a song and read Bible verses into a wireless telephone of his own invention. His goal was to find financial backers, but no investor of the day believed that radio could ever replace the most popular leisure activity of the day; listening to the hoot owl while playing the zither as your 14-year-old niece bounced on your knee. Some of you may remember. It was all the rage in the early century.
But soon broadcasting over the radio caught on and zither playing and child molestation were a thing of the past. Radio reached a boom time during the Depression as people begin to listen to and depend on radio to lift their spirits during that catastrophic economic crisis. Shows such as The Bickersons taught people life is not so bad as long as somebody has got it worse.
President Roosevelt became the first "radio president" and his "fireside chats" set the stage for later presidential weekly addresses such as; "chew the fat with Ike," "LBJ's bull session," and George W's "Hooked on Phonics and Strategery Hour."
Radio continued to expand and soon, the public turned to their radios for news, which began to mature during World War II with the regular reports of the bombing of London by Edward R. Murrow, with his "London After Dark" series, where Murrow coined the famous phrase: "Good Night and Good Luck" as well as the lesser known phrase; "Die, you Nazi cocksuckers."
In the post war years, the radio business exploded when 90% of all American's claimed radio was their primary source of news and entertainment. To meet this incredible demand Philco built 6 million radios in 1947. And to provide content for those 6 million radios, we were introduced to some of the greatest drama, comedy and musical entertainment this country has ever seen.
In the '70s, radio took a serious nosedive when Edwin Armstrong invented FM to eliminate the static and noise associated with AM and unwittingly provided a home for easy listening jazz rock, overly dramatic disco songs and 20 minute psychedelic sitar jams.
In the '80s and '90s the FCC, under pressure from the Reagan and Clinton administrations, changed the rules limiting the number of radio and television stations a business entity could own, paving the way for such conglomerates as Infinity broadcasting and Clear Channel to buy up local stations and put them under the umbrella of their larger corporations. Again the community benefited because due to Clear Channel and Infinities' conservative approach, listeners no longer had to be subjected to perplexing controversial subjects, or confusing varied opinion, or alternative rock. And as a bonus these large companies, with the help of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Clinton got rid of that annoying Fairness Doctrine, freeing its listeners from the burden of hearing equally from all sides of the political debate. What a bore.
This new world of conglomeration also brought us back to a simpler, more exciting time with regard to natural disasters and calamities. Your local station would now be broadcasting from a city many miles away and should there be a tornado coming your way you wouldn't know about it until the funnel was in full view. Exciting times.
In the 1950s, television began to replace radio as the chief source of revenue for broadcasting networks. It quickly became apparent that talking about "Old Sandusky Lager" on the radio didn't quite have the same impact as watching a buxom flaxen haired temptress in a skin tight dress play pool in a bar while she drank "old Sandusky Lager." Beer sales skyrocketed.
In the '60s, American television networks began broadcasting in color bringing a new vibrant reality to the content of the day. Suddenly it didn't seem unusual that an astronaut was dating a scantily clad genie that lived in a bottle in his living room.
Television also brought the horror and reality of war into our living rooms airing footage of the war in Vietnam. Building on the mistakes of the past, war is now televised in an easily digestible sanitized version. The current administration has proven that war doesn't have to be upsetting, or sacrificed for, or even reported on at all. We have come a long way, baby.
But what is the state of broadcasting today? Some critics have noted that there is a dangerous lack of diversity and opinion. That may be true, but imagine the nightmare of having to rectify that situation.
I propose a much simpler solution, which I've separated into three prongs, or a Satan's trident if you will.
First, erase all diversity. Thankfully the majority of what is broadcast over television and radio is of two opinions and that feels good. That's simple. But unfortunately there is a tiny minority out here on the airwaves expressing a different view outside of the Democrats and Republicans nexus trying to confuse us all. Can we please shut them up? How expensive could it be to buy Pacifica Radio? These people are driving us apart.
Secondly, let's stay focused on Sex Scandals. Stop with the in depth reporting that gets outside of the sound bite. More sex scandals! Surely with a little more prying, a little more effort we can find more sexual deviants. And trust me, sexual deviancy is something we can all agree on. It's deliciously intoxicating to watch unfold. It's titillating.
The absolute zenith of news, the perfect storm of reporting, the shining city on the hill in news coverage was Lewinsky v Clinton. Now that was fun. We couldn't get enough of that. There were salacious details, semen stains, oral sex. And the president lied. He threatened every notion of marriage and the sanctity of family. He put our country at risk. And when he did lie we held his feet to the fire. We reported on every angle, every permutation of the story. We held hearings, appointed an independent council, led off every newscast for months about the lie, played it until there was no hiding from it, and then held him accountable by impeaching him. It is our moral responsibility to report on the sex lives of the powerful. It is the only thing that kept our country alive at that point. It righted our ship of state. It saved our collective soul. And it was great, juicy fun. Imagine what would have happened to our country's soul if the president lied and nothing was done about it, if impeachment was off the table. Where would we be today if we did not hold our president accountable?
Third, find more racially divisive news and play that constantly. As long as we hate each other we will never be bothered with this gnawing lefty obsession with information. Let's make the purpose of the media salacious entertainment, not information. The more our news outlets and talk radio can distract us the better. We love distraction. When the nattering nabobs of negativity tell you that the economy is falling apart, that gas costs four dollars a gallon, that they are foreclosing on your home, that there is chaos in Iraq, when these propagandists spread this "information" it is our moral responsibility to distract. I don't know about you but show me a starlet without panties getting out of a car and suddenly the world seems like a better place. Show me Knight Rider drunk on the floor eating a hamburger, and I won't ask why my kid has no health insurance. Let's stop burdening people with facts. I bet some of you are saying; "Sure Tim, there's no question, sex scandals, race riots and drunken TV stars are a lot of fun, but shouldn't broadcasters see themselves as part of the larger picture? Isn't there an obligation to honestly report on what is going on, to pursue stories past their headlines? Haven't criminal acts occurred in government? Shouldn't there be accountability for inept policy decisions? Shouldn't someone be fired?" And you know something? I didn't hear any of that because I'm still thinking about that starlet getting out of the car without her panties. You see, that doesn't take any energy. I know exactly what to think about.
Now some of you are concerned with that unrelenting pesky competition. You know, the new technologies; the Internets and satellite radio and television. The problem is there are too many people in this country that take the notion of creativity and invention too damn seriously. Just when one technology is centralized, conglomerated, monopolized, along come new technologies and delivery systems to threaten the good work born of deregulation. Just when we were getting close to a national playlist for our music, satellite technology is threatening to provide music that people actually want to hear. Just when we were close to a national news media, providing a general consensus on what the truth is, along comes the Internets that allow its users a choice on the kinds of news it watches. And the You Tube. My God we've got to stop them. Recently when we were about to enjoy our great national pastime of 'tearing apart a presidential candidate with relentless repetition of ugly things his friend said', You Tube provided the candidates reasoned response and millions watched and responded positively.
Well you here at NAB have the power to stop this dangerous technology. The question is, how? I respectfully suggest that you do what others have done when facing the competition of new technologies. Get compromising information on your enemy and expose them in a sex scandal. Or call them a racist, or better yet a traitor. That not only undermines your competitor, but provides the public with fantastic entertainment.
Of course you can do that. And no one in this current world would fault you for it. It is, after all, where we stand today. In all seriousness folks, let's face it. We are at an abyss as a country and as an industry. And I know that saying we are at an abyss isn't the stuff of keynote addresses but all sarcasm and irony and rude pithiness aside, we are at a critical juncture in this nation's history. This is a nation divided and reeling from betrayal and economic hardships. And you, the broadcasters of this great nation have a tremendous power, and a tremendous potential to effect change. You have the power to turn this country away from cynicism. You have the power to turn this nation away from the hatred and the divisive dialogue that has rendered such a corrosive affect on our body politic. You can lift us up into a more enlightened age. Or you can hide behind that old adage; "I'm just a businessman, I provide what the audience wants." Well, I'm here to tell you that we don't need to look at the car crash. We don't need to live off of the pain and humiliation of the unfortunate. We don't need to celebrate our pornographic obsession with celebrity culture. We are better than that.
Some of you are trying. Some of you are inspiring people towards altruism and compassion with your programming. Some of you are trying to lift the civic dialogue into a more responsible and adult arena. But I know you do so against the odds of ratings and job security. It is really up to the leaders in this room. It is up to you, the scions of this industry to leave behind formulas and focus groups and your own fears of job security. Only with your courage and your vision can we begin to imagine a world of broadcasting where the general consensus of those with real power say "Enough is enough. Now is the time to move away from our lesser selves. Now is the time to stop making money on the misfortunes of others and the prurient and salacious desires of the public. Now is the time to admit and recognize that we aren't just businessmen but the guardians of the human spirit, with a responsibility to the health of this nation. That we can lift this country up with our programming, that instead of catering to the gossips and the scolds and the voyeurs we can appeal to the better nature in our audience, the better nature of what this country is all about."
This is a country filled with people of great compassion and tremendous generosity. This is a country that has survived dust bowls and depressions, that united to defeat Hitler and fascism and communism. We are a resilient people and a tenacious people. And we are ready for change.
Imagine a new broadcasting industry aesthetic, that respecting the better nature of the American people, produces shows that promote strength instead of fear. That does not divide, but inspires, that does not promote hate, but unity, that will not tear the weak down, but build up their strength. Imagine a world of broadcasting where the American people are encouraged to reject despair and distrust. And when they turn their TVs and radios off at night and go to sleep they possess strength, and unity and compassion for those they disagree with. That's not out of the question. You can make that happen. It will be difficult, and will fly in the face of conventional wisdom, and standard operational procedures. But do we have any choice? The road we are on is leading us to a corruption of our former selves. We are better than that. You can help us reclaim our better nature, our perfect union. It isn't necessarily a matter of country before profit, or of patriotism and truth before personal comfort. There could be money to be made in appealing to our better selves. Wouldn't that be great?
And if there isn't and we came out of it a little less rich but more unified and healthier as a nation wouldn't that be something we could all be proud of?
Perhaps you are of the opinion that US Democrats are a lot more interested in getting the troops out of Iraq than the US Republicans. Think again.
Here's a list of lawmakers (led by nobody less than Democrat John Kerry) that have the most money invested in companies with Department of Defence contracts:
The Investors: Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with Department of Defense contracts
| Member of Congress | Minimum Value of Investment | Maximum Value of Investment |
| Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) | $28,872,067 | $38,209,020 |
| Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) | $12,081,050 | $49,140,000 |
| Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) | $9,232,037 | $37,105,000 |
| Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis) | $5,207,668 | $7,612,653 |
| Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif) | $2,684,050 | $6,260,000 |
| Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich) | $2,469,029 | $8,360,000 |
| Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) | $2,000,002 | $2,000,002 |
| Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis) | $1,365,004 | $5,800,000 |
| Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas) | $1,163,231 | $1,163,231 |
| Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 |
The highest stakeholder is Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry made at least $2.6 million from his investments between 2004 and 2006.That's nice, $2.6 million. I wonder what John Kerry (and all those other holy Democrats) did with all that blood money.
From the Democracy Now website:
Amy Goodman Questions Sen. Obama (click Real Audio to go to the interview directly) on Heeding Iraqis’ Call for Full U.S. WithdrawalAnother Amy Goodman interview with former American president Bill Clinton shouldn't be missed either.
Following his speech on the economy at New York’s Cooper Union, Amy Goodman asks Sen. Barack Obama why he is not calling for a total withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in accordance with the 70 percent of Iraqis who say they want the U.S. out.
4,000 dead American soldiers / 5 years.
--------------------------------------
800 dead American soldiers per year
800 dead American soldiers / 365 days (I get my calculator out)
-----------------------------------------
2.2 dead American soldiers per day
This 2.2 soldiers per day for ALL THAT OIL? How can that be bad?
LINKS
- Wikipedia: Oil reserves Iraq
- Democracy Now: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Reach 4,000
From The Real News
Winter Soldier: Clifton Hicks and Steven Casey
Hicks and Casey: Indiscriminate killings in Iraq
Saturday March 15th, 2008
Transcript:CLIFTON HICKS, US SOLDIER: My name is Clifton Hicks. This is Steve Casey to my left here. We were both privates in C Troop of the 1st Squadron of the 1st US Cavalry Regiment. First item, April 2004, free fire zone in Abu Ghraib neighborhood of Baghdad, during Operation Blackjack, my troop was specifically instructed by our troop commander, a captain, that a particular sector we were moving to recon enforce was now considered a free-fire zone. I specifically recall him telling us that there were, quote, “no friendlies in the area,” and then he specifically said, “Game on. All weapons free.” It's important to understand these are not unusual orders. These are not even unnecessary orders. In the nature of war and this particular war, these are necessary whenever a situation gets unusually dangerous or confused, which happens quite often, as I'm sure you can imagine. Upon arrival in the area, we found the streets, besides being littered with wreckage of, you know, vehicles, who knows if it's a civilian or an enemy vehicle? There's on way to tell. But wreckage of vehicles. There wasn't a single building in this neighborhood that hadn't had a hole shot through it or something explode inside of it. This place was totally destroyed. The streets were littered with numerous human and animal corpses, not just men, but all manner of humanity. I personally saw no military gear or weapons of any kind on any of the bodies that I came across. I personally did not fire my weapon on this operation. But I do know that other members of my unit embraced the weapons-free order, for example by firing indiscriminately into occupied civilian vehicles and at civilians themselves, using both personal weapons, such as rifles, and cruiser vehicle-mounted weapons, such as machine guns, coaxial machine guns of various caliber.
STEVEN CASEY, US SOLDIER: I'm Steven Casey. I was in the same unit as Cliff. We went to the city, where we were supposed to secure and patrol. One of the first things that I noticed is that several buildings had been bulldozed by American engineering companies, two had been flattened and piled everything from rubble and vehicles up on the side of the road and set them ablaze. And that's how they cleaned up the area and weeded out the bad guys. And we were sort of a cleanup crew after that. And we eyewitnessed several different occurrences where people took advantage of the free-fire order. Specifically, over 20 different vehicles were disabled. I witnessed personal weapons being fired into the radiators and windshields due to the fact that these vehicles were coming up the correct side of the road that we were going down the wrong way. Our orders at this point in time were to have one vehicle on each side of the highway and ensure there was no one on the highway besides us. So with all the hand-waving you can really do from a vehicle, those who didn't turn around, unfortunately, were neutralized one way or another, into the vehicle there were shots fired, into the windshields, the radiators.
HICKS: It was later estimated, later reported to us by our platoon leader—Steve and I were in separate platoons. He was a scout. I was a tanker. But my platoon leader later reported to me that some whiz kid somewhere had estimated that between 700 to 800 enemy had been killed on that operation. And as you just heard, and I'll agree to that, and I'll agree to swear to that to the day I die, I didn't see one enemy on that operation, but 700 to 800 of them got killed. Judging from what I saw on the ground, I'm willing to swear under oath in all honesty that while many enemy combatants were in fact killed, the majority of those so-called KIAs were in fact civilians attempting to flee the battlefield.
CASEY: I'd like to bring up something that Hicks brought up earlier, and that is the raids and the way the raids are conducted. And usually the—. What happens, to go on into raids, and typically, in many, many instances, it is what the military calls a “dry hole” or “whoops.” Several times this happened, specifically at one event I would like to talk about, and I'll be providing some video evidence, sort of a truncated version of the raid. But you can get the gist. It was just a typical night raid. It was my platoon, a couple of Bradleys. We rolled out to this house, and the procedure for getting into the gate, 'cause typically there were concrete walls with metal gates closed and secured. So we would pivot and steer the Bradleys into the walls to knock down the wall and tear down the infrastructure, whatever security infrastructure that the person's home had, sometimes even crushing the vehicles parked right behind it, 'cause you can't see over it. After doing that, we dropped the ramp and continue inside. We go to the right door, which happens to be the wrong door. You can't get into the house through this door. There was a deep freeze behind the house. So in all this chaos, everyone's screaming and trying to find another way to get in. We go through the front door. And then we started hearing a lady screaming from the inside, her and her children. And we get to the door and bust the door in, and take her and her children to what we call the EPW Roundup Area, which is where lower enlisted soldiers would take the enemy prisoners of war, like this lady and her children, at gunpoint, hold them until the raid was complete. So moving on through there, we entered their house and destroyed it. We rummaged through her personal effects and touched things no one should ever probably touch looking for weapons, puncturing the walls, looking for soft spots. That was the new thing at that point in time, that they were putting things in the walls. So that was our order. So I guess to make this a long story short, we destroyed this lady's house and we find nothing. We've scared her to death and her children. We were off by a number—it was the house across the street. And we didn't go. [inaudible] I mean, at the time, I actually say, “Hey, we've got time. Why don't we go?” However, we didn't go. We chalked it up, as he says, [inaudible] went home and maybe went to bed.
Nicolas Sarkozy's popularity just got another hit. A president calling a bystander an asshole doesn't really make one more popular, or does it?
These are the people that undermine a democratic Canada (p4 report), by presenting a so-called "Independent" report on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan:
- The Honourable John Manley,(Chair)
- Derek H. Burney
- The Honourable Jake Epp
- The Honourable Paul Tellier
- Pamela Wallin
Excellent posts from the following bloggers to clarify why:
The Scott Ross:
The Manley Panel's Report came out today, I have just completed reading it as well as another interesting report, John Manely's contribution to a journal, Policy Options. In the October issue of that journal, John Manley wrote an entry on Afghanistan, this was before he was picked to head the 5 person panel appointed by Stephen Harper. In reading both, two passages struck me. They were not only similar, but bordering on exactly the same.Galloping Beaver:
Why this troubles me is two points: the first, it seems quite perplexing how John Manley's opinion before he spent three months looking at facts and talking to witnesses can be so similar to his opinion after; the second point, is plagerism and how it affects the Panel. Now some may suggest this is not plagiarism, academically it is; but besides that fact, the references I give, by his use of old material in the forward of the report and imposing it on the work done by the Panel, it appears that he attributes conclusions he made seperately and previously, onto the Panel.
The report from the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, a.k.a. The Manley Report, is now available to the public - all 40 pages of it. (Plus some pretty maps, a glossary of terms, some glowing biographies and a list of contacts).Far and Wide:
Honest to gawd, if I had been sent on a fact finding mission for three months and produced such a piece of fluff I would have been torn to shreds. When I first read it I thought I had copied an executive summary and had missed the full document.
The people who defend the Manley panel’s relevance, point to the report’s demand of 1000 NATO troops to assist Canadian forces in Kandahar, as evidence of a hard-nosed approach, evidence the status-quo is unacceptable, moving forward. Yesterday, I pointed out that this demand was more bluster, than actual position, because the panel already had indications that NATO, specifically the Americans, were already on side with this troop increase.
Today, it comes as NO surprise to read the following:Sources at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the United States have indicated in recent days that two marine battalions being sent to southern Afghanistan for seven months this spring with specific orders to assist the Canadians are likely to be followed by even more marine battalions in 2009 and 2010. This was possible because the Pentagon has begun to slowly wind down combat operations in Iraq and because the marine leadership has been pressing hard for a bigger role in Afghanistan.
The officer, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about the issue, said U.S. help for the Canadians had been in the works for several months.
A nifty post at The Scott Ross which argues that the Manley Report is a rehash of his earlier article in Policy Options, "Afghanistan: Meeting the Development Challenge". Since the article was published in October of '07, before he was chosen to lead Stephen Harper's panel, Ross suggests that the panel itself was an empty pantomime, and the other panellists sock-puppets meant to function as a chorus to John Manley's pronouncements.Canada deserves better. A lot better.
Read the whole thing at the link above, but here's a couple of passages that clearly imply a degree of self-plagiarism on Manley's part.
From the report:
Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, there was never any hesitation: “We want you to stay; we need you to stay.” Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.
From "Policy Options":
Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue.
So Canadian tax-payers forked out how much for this cut-and-paste job?
Interesting video from an interesting lady. Watch the talk she gave on October 11, 2007 at the University of Washington, Seattle:
Who thought that Dion would be so openly, what's the word here, neoliberal?
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion pledged to reduce the federal corporate tax rate on Friday to further bolster economic growth and fuel competition with foreign markets.During a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto, Dion said the previous Liberal government lowered the rate from 28 per cent to 19 per cent. [...]Right-wing corporatism would be another way to describe the direction, I suppose. And we all know how that story finished.
"What I have said for our economic prosperity, what will be especially important is to have a competitive tax system and to have a way to decrease our corporate tax, deeper than what was planned," Dion said after his speech at a downtown hotel.
Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army", explains (video) the rise of this company:
Here he talks about the latest developments with CNN:
From Al Jazeera
September 17, 2008
The Iraqi interior ministry has cancelled the operating license of a US security firm [Blackwater USA] after it was involved in a shootout that killed eight people, a senior official said.
Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a ministry spokesman, said 13 people were wounded when Blackwater USA staff opened fire in a Baghdad incident involving an attack on a US motorcade.
"The interior minister has issued an order to cancel Blackwater's licence and the company is prohibited from operating anywhere in Iraq," Khalaf said on Monday.
"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime."
The spokesman said witness reports pointed to Blackwater's involvement but said the incident, in a predominantly Sunni area of western Baghdad on Sunday, was still under investigation.
US troops are immune from prosecution in Iraq under the UN resolution that authorises their presence, but Khalaf said the exemption did not apply to private security companies.
Full Article
- AL Jazeera: Iraq ends US security firm licence
- Wikipedia: Blackwater
- Wikipedia: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
- Wikipedia: mercenary
Those of us fortunate enough to be able to pay Telus phone bills will probably have noticed this on their regular phone bill:
.13 per month for 911 serviceNow, this might not look like a lot of money to anyone, but if you multiply this by the amount of customers Telus has ($10.8 million customers), and multiply it again by 12 (1 year) then we can all agree that $16.848.000 (almost $17 million dollars, year after year) is a substantial amount of money, good enough to keep this important service in perfect shape, right?
Greater Victoria's 911 system suffered a "database failure" the day of the quadruple murder-suicide in a posh Victoria suburb and rerouted a call from a screaming woman inside the home to the wrong dispatch centre.Now, things can happen right? But you'd think with roughly $17 million dollars (yearly) to spend on a system that deals with life-and-death situations, Telus would have some sort of backup system, right?
A 911 call in any of the area's 13 municipalities is supposed to be routed to thenearest emergency dispatch centre based on a database of numbers and addresses held by Telus.
However, a "database failure" hit the service on Sept. 3 and 4, confirmed Telus spokesman Shawn Hall.
[The database failure] meant a 911 call from inside the home of a murder-suicide in Oak Bay was misdirected to Victoria before being eventually transferred to Saanich - which handles Oak Bay's calls. [...]This murder tragedy might have had a complete different outcome if Telus would have had a backup system that would kick in as soon some sort of system failure occurs. Given the importance of having a 100% reliable 911 system and the amount of money they pull in yearly (close to 17 million) from mandatory individual 911 contributions, there's no other conclusion to make than that Telus dropped the ball, big time. Four people dead.At 3:06 a.m., a woman inside called 911 screaming for help because of a fight, a fire and a knife. That call lasted one minute, said Hall.
The woman either hung up or was somehow disconnected at least once. [...]
Inside the home, officers found the bodies of four adults and a six-year-old child. The B.C. Coroners Service has declared it a murder-suicide.
The Luminara has been part of much local debate lately. Especially the unsigned editorial of January 21 has fanned the flames. Let's have a look how the editors of the Times Colonist skew the facts to make all of us think that commercialism is the way to go for the Beacon Hill Park.
The TC begins their bullying right from the start: the Friends of the Beacon Hill Park are the "most unfriendly folks imaginable". According to the article, "all the rules and regulations" make "the the park no fun to go to anymore". No fun anymore? The rules haven't changed, but the opinions of our favourite (and only) Island newspaper clearly have.
The article continues with an abundance of complaints, you wonder what their coffee breaks are like. I will address a few of them.
1. We (most probably meaning: the editors of the Times Colonist - the TC is definitely not talking for all of us) are denied a Great Canadian Family Picnic. Well excuse me, what's wrong with bringing your own lunch?
2. The editors of the Times Colonist "can't buy an ice cream cone there on a hot day": can someone send a free city map to the editors of the TC and mark where the Beacon Drive Inn is located? It seems the "journalists" are not only bored to death, they're also either lazy or stupid.
3. "There's no place to sit down for a cup of tea." Where does this nonsense come from? There is plenty of space, just bring your own tea. Can someone else sponsor these editors with a thermos? (Don't forget to include the instructions :).
4."God forbid a beer or glass of wine". Hey, I have to agree with the TC on this one. When will it be possible to have a drink in public? Coming from the Netherlands (yes, pot country, gay marriages and what not), drinking a beer in the open is one of the things I miss. Symphony Splash with a beer? I'm for it! But don't blame the Friends for it, they do not make the rules.
The Friends are also blamed for the rules and regulations, set by the city counsel, that wouldn't let the sponsors of the event show their names inside the park. Rules that do not allow commercial activity to take place in Beacon Hill Park. Are the Friends of the Beacon Hill Park wrong by abiding the law?
Finally we get to the heart of the matter: According to the editors of the Times Colonist it is also "naturally" that sponsors, who would like "a little credit for their generosity", are giving up on the Luminara and therefore there will be no "lanterns or children's faces shining in the park".
Is it so usual that sponsors give up funding when they can't even show their names in small print inside the park? I don't think so. I am sure there are lots of people in Victoria who regularly donate (yes, donating is also sponsoring) activities and good causes, without needing much in return: a tax receipt does it for most of us. The tsunami donations, were a perfect example of real generosity. Unfortunately another breed of sponsors used to fund the Luminara. And this breed is used to getting what they want, or else.
Who are they? And what do they want? Maybe someone can fill me in on the first WHO question?
WHAT they want? THEY WANT IT ALL.
There are many ways of letting people know who is sponsoring the Luminara. Sponsors can inform their own clientèle through newsletters, they can buy some advertising space on one of the local radio stations "claiming their generosity", they can even buy advertising space in the TC.
But, the Times Colonist thinks that this is "naturally" not enough. Sponsors want a "little credit for their generosity". Their imposed advertising practices should also be allowed inside the park. And that's what the Friends are against, and so am I.
Commercialism without restrictions is a dangerous thing. It has ruined the objectivity of most North American TV stations and newspapers, and quite obvious that of the Times Colonist.
I like the Luminara. I like the Beacon Hill Park. I'm starting to adore the Friends of the Beacon Hill Park for taking a firm stand to sticking to their principles. I am disappointed about the stand of the TC. Not only are they (and their corporate friends) imposing their advertising on us whenever and wherever they think they can, they also bully well meaning volunteers with their false and inciting statements.
The Beacon Hill Park is a peoples park, not a corporate park. Let's keep it that way.
Friends of Beacon Hill Park, keep up the good work!
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
Progressive Media
Democracy Now!
Center for Media and Democracy
Human Rights and Activism
Wikileaks.org
Amnesty International
Amnesty International Canada
Human Rights Watch
Transnational Institute
Council of Canadians
Dutch News
Nova
NRC Handelsblad
Radio Netherlands
Qatar
Al Jazeera
UK News
BBC News
Guardian
Independent
US News
Democracy Now!
BC Blogs
Paul Willcocks
US Blogs
Noam Chomsky
Norman Solomon
ZNet Blogs
Buttons
Sponsors
Marketas Bed and Breakfast Victoria BC
Victoria B&B
Personal Life Coaching
