Daily Archives: December 7, 2008

45% of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers….

….E&P website  has a report on the findings from the Committee to Protect Journalists annual report.  Repressive governments continue to fear internet news reporters and their easily available audience.Internet reporting may be becoming as mighty or at least as feared by tyrants as the print press once was. Efforts to control and censor access online will only continue as people look more to the web for the news that’s fit. Ironic that as newspaper chains and even TV news corporations cut back coverage and costs the need for news at home and worldwide remains steady or grows.The manner that people access the media has evolved quickly and that evolution is unfortunately evidenced by the level of threat some governments feel from internet new reporters. The United States is included in the CPJ list of countries holding journalists. Although not internet reporters the US has detained journalists in Iraq, and is currently holding a Reuters photographer with out charge or due process.

Worldwide, online journalists are jailed more often today than journalists working in any other medium, according to findings released Thursday by the Committee to Protect Journalists.In its annual census of imprisoned journalists, the CPJ found that 45% of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. This group represents the largest professional category for the first time in CPJ’s annual survey.

 The increase in online journalists in jail correlates with a rise in the imprisonment of freelance journalists, according to CPJ. Its annual survey found 45 of the journalists counted to be freelancers, and most of them work online. This number has increased more than 40% in the last two years.

Annual Prison Census: Journalists in Prison as of December 2008

http://www.editorandpublisher….

 

Juxtaposition

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

There was an interesting juxtaposition in the articles by Paul Cillo and Governor Douglas in Sunday’s Times-Argus.  We have Cillo outlining a balanced approach to solve what he characterizes as a revenue problem.  His approach is to temporarily increase taxes on those that can afford it, tap the rainy day fund, and make some targeted spending cuts.

In contrast we have Governor Douglas’ article.  Here all that exists is the need to cut state spending.  He puts this forward at a time when so many have to rely on the state both for their jobs and essential services.  

But the most interesting juxtaposition was between Jim Douglas and Jim Douglas.  More below the fold.

Our governor changes hats with a deftness that rivals a follow-the-bean huckster when he heads to Washington.  Here it is fine to ask the essentially bankrupt federal government to borrow oodles of money to send to Vermont so we don’t have to do any of the things that Cillo is suggesting.

But them is us.  We, the people, have assumed somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 trillion dollars in new federal bailouts and guarantees in just the past few months.  Vermont’s share of these new commitments, based simply on population, is about $16 billion (about $27,000 per person)!  But, gasp, we have about a $100 million shortfall in revenues.  According to Douglas, we can’t solve this problem in the true Yankee fashion that Cillo describes and that Republican Governor Snelling implemented when he was governor, we need to have the feds borrow the money from us for us and cut back spending.

When hit with calamity you can either crawl under a rock and pull back all your assets or you can decide to use them and try to prevail.  We need our critical state programs and the state workers that make them happen to win this fight.  

Let’s hope the legislature follows Cillo’s model.

Of cross-sections and Democrats…

From the email that went out from State Democratic Chair Ian Carleton to the State Committee regarding the VDP’s Executive Director search (emphasis added):


This year’s search committee will include the following individuals:  

1. Judy Bevans

2. Chuck Ross

3. Linda Weiss

4. Dick Marek

5. Carolyn Dwyer

6. Spence Putnam

7. Mary Sullivan

8. Jon Copans

9. Ian Carleton

I think this group exhibits an excellent cross section of all aspects of our party.

Oy. I think he’s not kidding.

Let’s see, of 9 names, all but one are on the state Executive Committee or have been on in the past, while the remaining person is a recent ED.

Geez. I don’t know what’s worse, the idea that this could be an “excellent cross section” of the Democratic Party, or that Carleton thinks it is.

Thomas Friedman: The Real Gen X

Update:  This little piece needed some redrafting/editing.  Hat tip to Jack.
 
******
 
We've heard plenty about the WWII era “Greatest Generation” as well as Boomers; so how about a little print on Gen Xers for a change, eh?  
 
This seemed to be the promise of Thomas Freidman's op-ed today, but once again, it appears that Gen Xers are simply a point of reference for Boomers to compare themselves to in the greater scheme of things.  A more appropriate and descriptive title Freidman should have offered might be:  “The Real Boomer Legacy.”

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Tom Brokaw’s book “The Greatest Generation,” that classic about our parents and their incredible sacrifices during World War II. What I’ve been thinking about actually is this: What book will our kids write about us? “The Greediest Generation?” “The Complacent Generation?” Or maybe: “The Subprime Generation: How My Parents Bailed Themselves Out for Their Excesses by Charging It All on My Visa Card.”

Friedman was born in 1953 making him a Boomer and it's refreshing to hear a Boomer critique the failures of Boomers.  We don't see that very often, especially via titles such as, “The [Real] Greatest Generation.”  In fact, as a Gen Xer, it's been pretty tiring to sitt in the shadow of self-aggrandizing references all of these years.  Lay on to that the incredulous suggestions that Gen Xers are not radical enough, disengaged, slackers, etc., and it plain gets a little annoying.  
More below the fold.
For those of us born between 1964 and 1982, Friedman's op-ed might sound familiar to what many of us have been thinking all along.  As a generation (not any person or persons in particular), Boomers have benefited from the legacy of those who came before them.  The War Generation worked through the Great Depression, went to war, then came home to rebuild much of America's infrastructure.  We benefit to this day for almost everything we take for granted.  Additionally,  the “Greatest Generation” has provided for something no one should take for granted:  a historic transfer of wealth in the form of inheritence.  Boomer children are now the recipients of their parent's financial legacy.  Anticipating this, they helped themselves to the generous cuts in the inheritence tax.  Unlike proponents of the estate tax — Andrew Carnegie, Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Buffet — it seems as if the Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush era prefers to recieve rather than give.
Let's hope the “Me Generation” begins to start thinking more closely about the legacy they are leaving to the rest of us.  Kudos to them on successes in environmental and social advancements.  But when it comes to our debt-economy and investments in America's infrastructure, the generations that follow are being left with the bill.  
– 
One obvious metaphor of the most likely Boomers legacy is the parent who, in death, leaves children with debts to pay.  Maybe the parent was a narcissist who lived for the day but never planned for funeral expenses because it was too morbid to think about.  Maybe the parent was a second-generation business owner who let the business go bust.  Maybe it was a parent who said, to heck with the kids, I'm having a stellar retirement. 
 
inherit their parent's debt.  Sure, they love their parents, but their parents were frankly irresponsible and maybe a bit narcissistic in living for the moment and leaving others to clean up the mess.
Friedman calls it as it is.  But there's one other annoying reference in his analysis:  the assumption that Gen Xers are sitting around quietly when we should be, in his words, “more radical than [we] are today.”  I've heard this face-to-face right here in little ol' Northfield when a boomer said, “Where are people your age?”
Gen Xers are in the omnipresent shadow of the Boomer Generation because we are half in number and therefore a much smaller public voice and a consumer group that most companies don't market to.  It's not like we're sitting around quietly at all.  We're the middle child of America's family, left to our own devices and generally passed over in favor of the eldest and the youngest.  Boomers and Echo Boomers are the focus groups by virtue of their much larger populations.  This translates to consumer marketing focusing on Boomers and Echos.  It also translates to Boomers and Echos realizing more political opportunities in elected postions.  Right here in Vermont we are beginning to see Boomers maintaing control while the Echos begin to rise as a new focus group for mentoring. 

Good news in Louisiana

It isn't often that I'll think it's good news that a Democrat loses an election, especially an incumbent Democrat in Congress, but this time it definitely is:

 “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D-LA) Loses Re-Election

Rep. “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D-LA) has lost his seat in tonight's Louisiana elections to Republican candidate Joseph Cao, giving the Dems their own case of Ted Stevens Syndrome — that is, a safe and well-entrenched incumbent, who holds a seat that ought to be an easy win for his party, going down to defeat on a corruption scandal.

Yes, that's right, the guy caught hiding bribe money in his freezer, but still hasn't been tried, in large part because of overreaching by the prosecutors, is out.

I think this is great news for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that we all benefit from the ejection of a corrupt politician. Maybe he was serving his district, but he wasn't doing that nearly so much as he was lining his own pockets.

The other reason is that for years now, as we have talked about the legions of Republicans involved in public corruption, the wingers have gleefully pointed to him, saying “Yeah, but you're sticking with Jefferson.”

Now they don't have that argument.

If the case ever goes to trial, despite the Feds' efforts to screw the case up, he will presumably be convicted and sent away, and I say good.

Pardon season is upon us. As Bush pardons some of the criminals on his side, let's see if he hands out a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card to Jefferson.

Drop the Gas Tax Proposal!

Yesterday, Obama made it official: he is going to put a massive amount of federal dollars on the table for infrastructure projects.  Conservative estimates put this at $400 billion.

So can Jeb and others please now drop the gas tax proposal for infrastructure?  Uncle Sam is picking up the tab, so there is no need to raise the revenue.  Arguments regarding fuel efficiency are premised on faulty economics – due to the inelasticity of demand a gas tax would need to be magnitudes larger to change purchase or commuting decisions of consumers.   Lastly, for Dems the idea of proposing a tax is yet another opportunity for Douglas to tee off.

The gas tax proposal is unnecessary, regressive and bad politics.  

Grijalva for Secretary of Interior? Let’s hope so!

Photobucket   Photobucket

As president-elect Barack Obama is introducing new members of his cabinet, bloggers are wondering if they’ll see anyone progressive enough to like. I heard Mary Beth Maxwell is being considered for Secretary of Labor. She’s a union activist and former field director for Jobs With Justice. If chosen, Maxwell will also be the first openly-gay cabinet member. I sincerely hope she gets it.

But now, many environmentalists are giddy over the fact that another progressive is being considered for Secretary of Interior. Roberto Lovato writes today, for Alternet and Huffington Post, that Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is under consideration for Secretary of Interior. If chosen, environmentalists and environmental organizations have reason to celebrate.

Lovato writes “of all the candidates being vetted by the Obama transition team for this complex and challenging responsibility, none can match the unique qualifications of Raul Grijalva.” Let’s take a look:

Read below the fold.

* Grijalva is the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

* He led the way in denouncing this week’s most recent giveaway to mining companies by the Bush Administration.

* He spearheaded efforts to stop the planned re-mining of the Black Mesa, located in northern Arizona.

* He is a leading political supporter of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, an ambitious and highly regarded county program for planned land-use and biodiversity conservation.

* He leads the way on Native/Indigenous Amerocan issues and a strong supporter of sovereignty and government-to-government relationship.

* He serves on the Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education and the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities; the Committee on Natural Resources and chairs the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands; the Committee on Small Business and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, co-Chair of the Congressional National Landscape Conservation System, and 1st Vice Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

* Check out his report on “The Bush Administration’s Assault on Protections of Public Lands.

* He supported H. Res 635 calling for the censure of George W. Bush.

There’s more, but those are the highlights. California Blue-Dog Dem Mike Thompson is also being considered, but Grijalva brings some much needed balance to Obama’s cabinet. To read Lovato’s article click here.

Let’s hope this happens folks.