Supreme Court to Decide Whether U.S. Corporations Can Be Sued for Abuses Overseas
Democracy Now
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on whether U.S.-based corporations can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights abuses committed overseas. The case involves nine Nigerian activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, executed for protesting Royal Dutch Shell. We’re joined by Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International, which filed a "friend of the court" legal brief in this case and has been a pioneer in using the Alien Tort Statute to sue corporations for human rights abuses in Burma, Nigeria, Colombia and other nations. Some legal analysts are comparing the case to the landmark campaign finance ruling in Citizens United, which found that corporations have broad rights under the First Amendment and can directly fund political campaigns. "This case is really about whether a corporation that participates in serious human rights abuses, such as crimes against humanity or genocide or state-sponsored torture, can profit from those abuses and shield those profits from the victims when the victims come to take them to court," Marco says.
Guest:
Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
2012 Oscar Selections
I do not have TV hooked up at my house, so I won't see them (but I will probably pop online from time to time to see the general progression). I believe that the Oscar nominees are once again very limited. Still, I guess I am obligated to make my choices as a film studies professor -- so here goes:
Best Picture: The Tree of Life
Actor in a Leading Role: Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
Actress in a Leading Role: Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
Actor in a Supporting Role: Nick Nolte (Warrior)
Actress in a Supporting Role: Berenice Bejo (The Artist)
Animated Feature Film: Rango
Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki (Tree of Life)
Art Direction: Dante Ferretti and Francesco Lo Schiavo (Hugo)
Costume Design: Sandy Powell (Hugo)
Directing: Terence Malick (Tree of Life)
Documentary Feature: If a Tree Falls: The Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Film Editing: Thelma Schoonmaker (Hugo)
Sound Editing: Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis (Drive)
Foreign Language Film: A Separation (Asghar Faradi: Iran)
Sound Mixing: Various (Moneyball)
Writing (Adapted Screenplay): Various (Moneyball)
Writing (Original Screenplay): Asghar Faradi (A Separation)
Best Picture: The Tree of Life
Actor in a Leading Role: Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
Actress in a Leading Role: Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
Actor in a Supporting Role: Nick Nolte (Warrior)
Actress in a Supporting Role: Berenice Bejo (The Artist)
Animated Feature Film: Rango
Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki (Tree of Life)
Art Direction: Dante Ferretti and Francesco Lo Schiavo (Hugo)
Costume Design: Sandy Powell (Hugo)
Directing: Terence Malick (Tree of Life)
Documentary Feature: If a Tree Falls: The Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Film Editing: Thelma Schoonmaker (Hugo)
Sound Editing: Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis (Drive)
Foreign Language Film: A Separation (Asghar Faradi: Iran)
Sound Mixing: Various (Moneyball)
Writing (Adapted Screenplay): Various (Moneyball)
Writing (Original Screenplay): Asghar Faradi (A Separation)
Robert Joe Stout: Do the United States and Mexico Really Want the Drug War To Succeed?
Do the United States and Mexico Really Want the Drug War To Succeed?
by Robert Joe Stout
Monthly Review
...
Both the governments of Mexico and the United States have demonstrated a need to justify military actions and to portray the “War on Drugs” as a battle between good and evil with no gray areas in between. To make the rhetoric effective it has been necessary to villainize the perpetrators of the “evil” and to ignore the dominant reasons that the evil exists: unabated drug consumption in the United States. Also overlooked has been drug-associated violence in the United States, particularly in city ghettos where gang warfare involving drug distribution has existed since the 1960s.
Until late in the twentieth century heroin and cocaine addiction in Mexico was not considered a major problem. Narcotics filtered to Mexican buyers as a spin off from smuggling, but most production and distribution was focused on getting the narcotics to consumers north of the border who would pay ten or more times what the drugs sold for in Mexico. Governmental sources in both countries consistently denied that U.S. military intervention into Mexican territory was being planned; nevertheless several governors of states on the U.S. side of the border have requested permanent military “protection,” including armed patrols and battle-ready commandos.
Many of the groups that distribute narcotics in the United States are linked to specific Mexican corporations just as U.S. auto, livestock, cosmetics, and computer exporters are linked with importers in Mexico. Gangs in the United States clash primarily over obtaining drugs for street sales, but the majority of imported narcotics passes into the hands of white-collar distributors with regular clients who can afford the prices established for purchasing cocaine and other drugs.
Although many journalists and editors would like to deny it, newspapers and television which rely financially on readers, viewers, and advertisers profit more from graphic reports about beheadings, drug raids, and high-speed chases than they do from features about controlled or casual use of narcotics. Attitudes towards drug use in both countries run a gamut between “drugs are a sin” to “I enjoy them, why not?” That they can be detrimental to one’s health, just as the consumption of alcoholic beverages, cigarette smoking, overeating, driving a car at excessive speeds, or long-term exposure to direct sunlight can be detrimental, is grounded in fact.
Unfortunately facts and politics do not go hand in glove. Nor do facts and marketing. Newspaper wire services and television reports designed to stimulate interest and sell sponsors’ products (and/or comply with ownership political biases) influence public opinion and public opinion influences the decisions of legislators and Congressmen. As Laura Carlson insists: “These claims and others like them, although unsubstantiated, accumulate into a critical mass to push a public consensus on implementing dangerous and delusional policies…. Like the model it mimics—the Bush war on terror—the drug war in Mexico is being mounted on the back of hype, half-truths, omissions and outright falsehoods.”
Unfortunately, major questions that need to be answered are shunted aside by policymakers on both sides of the border and preference is given to partisan stances that have less to do with the drug trade or the war against it than they have to do with maintaining economic and political power. Neither government seems capable of asking: Can Mexico really afford to end the production and exportation of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines, and designer drugs without its U.S.-dependent economy collapsing?
In many respects, the drug organizations operating in Mexico exemplify what “free enterprise” is about: developing and marketing a product that satisfies willing consumers. Their armed components make their competition deadlier than competitors in other industries, but their methods of operation duplicate those of legitimate corporations: they seek (or buy) government support, network a well-organized retail trade, and invest their profits in condominiums, the stock market, and high-visibility consumer items. Their corporate structures, divided into distinct operations and with well-defined chains of command, enable them to replace any executive who is arrested or killed without that materially affecting production or sales.
To Read the Entire Essay
by Robert Joe Stout
Monthly Review
...
Both the governments of Mexico and the United States have demonstrated a need to justify military actions and to portray the “War on Drugs” as a battle between good and evil with no gray areas in between. To make the rhetoric effective it has been necessary to villainize the perpetrators of the “evil” and to ignore the dominant reasons that the evil exists: unabated drug consumption in the United States. Also overlooked has been drug-associated violence in the United States, particularly in city ghettos where gang warfare involving drug distribution has existed since the 1960s.
Until late in the twentieth century heroin and cocaine addiction in Mexico was not considered a major problem. Narcotics filtered to Mexican buyers as a spin off from smuggling, but most production and distribution was focused on getting the narcotics to consumers north of the border who would pay ten or more times what the drugs sold for in Mexico. Governmental sources in both countries consistently denied that U.S. military intervention into Mexican territory was being planned; nevertheless several governors of states on the U.S. side of the border have requested permanent military “protection,” including armed patrols and battle-ready commandos.
Many of the groups that distribute narcotics in the United States are linked to specific Mexican corporations just as U.S. auto, livestock, cosmetics, and computer exporters are linked with importers in Mexico. Gangs in the United States clash primarily over obtaining drugs for street sales, but the majority of imported narcotics passes into the hands of white-collar distributors with regular clients who can afford the prices established for purchasing cocaine and other drugs.
Although many journalists and editors would like to deny it, newspapers and television which rely financially on readers, viewers, and advertisers profit more from graphic reports about beheadings, drug raids, and high-speed chases than they do from features about controlled or casual use of narcotics. Attitudes towards drug use in both countries run a gamut between “drugs are a sin” to “I enjoy them, why not?” That they can be detrimental to one’s health, just as the consumption of alcoholic beverages, cigarette smoking, overeating, driving a car at excessive speeds, or long-term exposure to direct sunlight can be detrimental, is grounded in fact.
Unfortunately facts and politics do not go hand in glove. Nor do facts and marketing. Newspaper wire services and television reports designed to stimulate interest and sell sponsors’ products (and/or comply with ownership political biases) influence public opinion and public opinion influences the decisions of legislators and Congressmen. As Laura Carlson insists: “These claims and others like them, although unsubstantiated, accumulate into a critical mass to push a public consensus on implementing dangerous and delusional policies…. Like the model it mimics—the Bush war on terror—the drug war in Mexico is being mounted on the back of hype, half-truths, omissions and outright falsehoods.”
Unfortunately, major questions that need to be answered are shunted aside by policymakers on both sides of the border and preference is given to partisan stances that have less to do with the drug trade or the war against it than they have to do with maintaining economic and political power. Neither government seems capable of asking: Can Mexico really afford to end the production and exportation of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines, and designer drugs without its U.S.-dependent economy collapsing?
In many respects, the drug organizations operating in Mexico exemplify what “free enterprise” is about: developing and marketing a product that satisfies willing consumers. Their armed components make their competition deadlier than competitors in other industries, but their methods of operation duplicate those of legitimate corporations: they seek (or buy) government support, network a well-organized retail trade, and invest their profits in condominiums, the stock market, and high-visibility consumer items. Their corporate structures, divided into distinct operations and with well-defined chains of command, enable them to replace any executive who is arrested or killed without that materially affecting production or sales.
To Read the Entire Essay
Radio West: Scott Carrier - Prisoner of Zion
Prisoner of Zion
Radio West (KUER/Public Radio International: Salt Lake City, Utah)
... Doug is joined by independent radio producer Scott Carrier. When the US invaded Afghanistan after the attacks on 9/11, Carrier decided to go there too. He wanted to meet the enemy himself and find out what life is like in their world. But when he returned, he also found an enemy at home. It was the fear and anger that he says Americans have towards others. Scott Carrier has just published a book of stories from the post-9/11 world. It's called "Prisoner of Zion."
To Listen to the Episode
Radio West (KUER/Public Radio International: Salt Lake City, Utah)
... Doug is joined by independent radio producer Scott Carrier. When the US invaded Afghanistan after the attacks on 9/11, Carrier decided to go there too. He wanted to meet the enemy himself and find out what life is like in their world. But when he returned, he also found an enemy at home. It was the fear and anger that he says Americans have towards others. Scott Carrier has just published a book of stories from the post-9/11 world. It's called "Prisoner of Zion."
To Listen to the Episode
Michelle Richardson: "Patriot Act" Extended -- Assault on Liberties Continues
"Patriot Act" Extended: Assault on Liberties Continues
The Burt Cohen Show
In opposing the four year extension of the so-called Patriot Act, Senator Mark Udall said, "Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out," and Sen. Ron Wyden said, "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry." Listen to this interview with the ACLU's legislative counsel Michelle Richardson and you'll see what they mean. Problem is, it was all done quietly.
To Listen to the Episode
The Burt Cohen Show
In opposing the four year extension of the so-called Patriot Act, Senator Mark Udall said, "Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out," and Sen. Ron Wyden said, "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry." Listen to this interview with the ACLU's legislative counsel Michelle Richardson and you'll see what they mean. Problem is, it was all done quietly.
To Listen to the Episode
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Daniel Kovalik: The CIA, Cocaine and Death Squads -- The U.S. War for Drugs of Terror in Colombia
The CIA, Cocaine and Death Squads: The U.S. War for Drugs of Terror in Colombia
by DANIEL KOVALIK
Counterpunch
I just had the pleasure of reading an important new book entitled, Cocaine, Death Squads and the War on Terror: U.S. Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia. This book, which was ten years in the making, is written by Oliver Villar & Drew Cottle and published and published by Monthly Review. The premise of the book is that, despite the U.S. claims that it is engaged in a war against drugs in Colombia, it is in fact engaged in an anti-insurgency war against the left-wing FARC guerillas – a war which does not seek to eradicate coca growing and cocaine production in Colombia at all.
Rather, the U.S. war effort (which has cost U.S. taxpayers over $7 billion since 2000) is designed to ensure that the allies of the U.S. in Colombia — that is, the Colombian state, paramilitaries and wealthy elite who are favorable to U.S. business interests and to the U.S.’s desire for exploitation of Colombia’s vast resources — are themselves able to monopolize the drug trade so critical to their survival.
This thesis is well expressed in the Forward by Peter Dale Scott:
The CIA can (and does) point to its role in the arrest or elimination of a number of major Colombian traffickers. These arrests have not diminished the actual flow of cocaine into the United States, which on the contrary reached a new high in 2000. But they have institutionalized the relationship of law enforcement to rival cartels and visibly contributed to the increase of urban cartel violence. The true purpose of most of these campaigns, like the current Plan Colombia, has not been the hopeless ideal of eradication. It has been to alter market share: to target specific enemies and thus ensure that the drug traffic remains under the control of those traffickers who are allies of the Colombian state security apparatus and/or the CIA. This confirms the judgment of Senate investigator Jack Blum a decade ago, that America, instead of battling a narcotics conspiracy, has in a subtle way . . . become part of the conspiracy.
These may seem like wild claims at first blush, but the authors put this in context by reminding the reader of the history of U.S. war efforts since World War II, many of which have been financed, at least in part, through alliances with drug traffickers. The litany of this is a long one, with the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) forming a strategic alliance with the Sicilian and Corsican mafia after World War II to prevent possible communist uprisings in Europe and to smash left-wing unions; the CIA’s assisting the Kuomintang with its opium trafficking operations to fund their joint anti-communist efforts in Asia; the CIA’s actual trafficking of opium out of Laos, Burma and Thailand to help fund the U.S. counter-insurgency effort in South East Asia; the CIA’s support of “the chief smugglers of Afghan opium, the anti-communist Mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan” in their efforts against the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, leading ultimately to Afghanistan becoming one of the largest opium suppliers in the world (a status only briefly interrupted when it was under Taliban control); and the Reagan Administration’s funding the Nicaraguan Contras (after such funding was outlawed by Congress) by, among other things, cocaine smuggling operations.
To Read the Rest of the Review
by DANIEL KOVALIK
Counterpunch
I just had the pleasure of reading an important new book entitled, Cocaine, Death Squads and the War on Terror: U.S. Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia. This book, which was ten years in the making, is written by Oliver Villar & Drew Cottle and published and published by Monthly Review. The premise of the book is that, despite the U.S. claims that it is engaged in a war against drugs in Colombia, it is in fact engaged in an anti-insurgency war against the left-wing FARC guerillas – a war which does not seek to eradicate coca growing and cocaine production in Colombia at all.
Rather, the U.S. war effort (which has cost U.S. taxpayers over $7 billion since 2000) is designed to ensure that the allies of the U.S. in Colombia — that is, the Colombian state, paramilitaries and wealthy elite who are favorable to U.S. business interests and to the U.S.’s desire for exploitation of Colombia’s vast resources — are themselves able to monopolize the drug trade so critical to their survival.
This thesis is well expressed in the Forward by Peter Dale Scott:
The CIA can (and does) point to its role in the arrest or elimination of a number of major Colombian traffickers. These arrests have not diminished the actual flow of cocaine into the United States, which on the contrary reached a new high in 2000. But they have institutionalized the relationship of law enforcement to rival cartels and visibly contributed to the increase of urban cartel violence. The true purpose of most of these campaigns, like the current Plan Colombia, has not been the hopeless ideal of eradication. It has been to alter market share: to target specific enemies and thus ensure that the drug traffic remains under the control of those traffickers who are allies of the Colombian state security apparatus and/or the CIA. This confirms the judgment of Senate investigator Jack Blum a decade ago, that America, instead of battling a narcotics conspiracy, has in a subtle way . . . become part of the conspiracy.
These may seem like wild claims at first blush, but the authors put this in context by reminding the reader of the history of U.S. war efforts since World War II, many of which have been financed, at least in part, through alliances with drug traffickers. The litany of this is a long one, with the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) forming a strategic alliance with the Sicilian and Corsican mafia after World War II to prevent possible communist uprisings in Europe and to smash left-wing unions; the CIA’s assisting the Kuomintang with its opium trafficking operations to fund their joint anti-communist efforts in Asia; the CIA’s actual trafficking of opium out of Laos, Burma and Thailand to help fund the U.S. counter-insurgency effort in South East Asia; the CIA’s support of “the chief smugglers of Afghan opium, the anti-communist Mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan” in their efforts against the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, leading ultimately to Afghanistan becoming one of the largest opium suppliers in the world (a status only briefly interrupted when it was under Taliban control); and the Reagan Administration’s funding the Nicaraguan Contras (after such funding was outlawed by Congress) by, among other things, cocaine smuggling operations.
To Read the Rest of the Review
Rich Media, Poor Democracy
Rich Media, Poor Democracy (Inspired by and framework modeled on Robert McChesney’s book of the same name and the Media Education Foundation documentary based on the book.) Notes/sources for the Regional Left Convergence media panel at University of Kentucky. This was originally compiled for a 2009 War and Recession panel discussion -- for updated materials consult the archives section on the right side of this website (especially the Media and Framing/Propaganda archives).
Part One: Media Ownership
1) The job of media’s corporate executives is to maximize profit for shareholders, not to provide in-depth coverage, diversity of information/perspectives, and reporting on important issues for citizens.
Free Press: Who Owns the Media?
Various Charts of Media Ownership (Take Back the Media)
Robbie Graham/Mathhew Alford: The Power Behind the Screen (The New Statesman)
From Media Reform Information Center:
Media Matters with Bob McChesney: Deepa Kumar on the limitations of the corporate media system (audio)
2) Although the airwaves belong to the people, government policy has favored private, not public interests.
Free Press
Electronic Frontier Foundation
3) The 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed with very little public debate over how deregulating ownership rules would lead to massive consolidation of these new telecommunication technologies.
Consumer's Union: Lesson from the 1996 Telecommunications Act
Robert McChesney: The FCC's Big Grab--Making Media Monopoly Part of the Constitution (Counterpunch)
Part Two: Journalism and Democracy
1) More and more, the first amendment is being interpreted as a protection for owners and advertisers, and not editors and reporters.
Robert McChesney: The New Theology of the First Amendment (Monthly Review)
Robert McChesney: The New Global Media (The Nation)
Exploring Congressional Conflicts: Levels of First Amendment Protection for Different Media
Google Search "media and first amendment": Big Business Law Firms Protecting Corporate Media Interests Under the Auspices of the First Amendment
Matt Zoller Seitz: Copy Rites--YouTube vs. Kevin B. Lee (The House Next Door)
Philip K. Dick: If You Can Control the Meaning of Words...
2) What Happened to the News
Due to cost cutting and the consolidation of news departments, investigative journalism is on the decline. In its place, news that is high on sensationalism and low on information.
Media Matters
On the Media (NPR/WNYC)
Project Censored: The News That Didn't Make the News (Sonoma State University Sociology Department)and their annual list of the top 25 censored news stories
International News Coverage in a New Media World: The Decline of the Foreign Correspondent
The Flog of War: Media Reliance on Paid Military Experts (On the Media)
2008 Plagiarism/Fabrication Round-Up; Crunks 2008: The Year in Media Errors and Corrections (Regret the Error)
Extras:
1) Myth of the Liberal Media
There is ample evidence to support the existence of corporate bias and little to suggest the supposed liberal bias of the media. The “myth” is effectively propaganda to silence criticism of those in power. Likewise the call for "objectivity" in journalism (and other forms of documenting history/events) is a smoke screen for silencing the critiques of a dominant conception of reality that benefits those in power.
Free Press: Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim
The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of the News (Noam Chomsky/Edward Herman/Media Education Foundation video) and another clip here
Eric Alterman: What Liberal Media? (The Nation)
Eric Alterman: Debunking the Myth of a Liberal Media (AlterNet/Center for American Progress)
Jay Rosen: The Dangerous Myth of Journalistic Objectivity (Press Think/NYU School of Journalism)
Jay Rosen: The News about the News (Open Source)
Richard Taflinger: The Myth of Objectivity in Journalism (Washington State University Edward R. Murrow School of Communication)
Jay Davis: Beyond the Myth of Objectivity/How To Analyze a News Story (Center for Media Literacy)
Resources for Studying Propaganda (Sourcewatch)
2) The Fox Guarding the Henhouse
The gradual weakening of the FCC is the ultimate triumph of the commercial media system over the rights and needs of the public.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
House Report Investigates FCC Problems Under Martin (Radio Magazine)
Free Press: FCC Media Ownership Rulings Archive
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Net Neutrality Rulings
Cindy Cohn the Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Fora TV)
3) A Classic Case of Corporate Journalism
The absence of investigative reporting on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, lack of coverage of the lies in regards to the case to invade Iraq, and the cutting of foreign correspondents is further evidence of the decline of journalism in the age of corporate ownership.
Bill Moyer's Journal: Buying the War (PBS Documentary)
Source Watch
PR Watch
Spin of the Day
International News Coverage in a New Media World: The Decline of the Foreign Correspondent
4) This Ad was Paid for By
Political advertising has taken the place of political campaign coverage—a financial gain for broadcasters, but a loss of information for the public.
Online Communication Studies Resources: Political Advertising (University of Iowa Department of Communication Studies)
The Democracy Project: 30 Second Candidate (PBS)
Mixed Messages: tracking political Advertising (711 ads) (Washington Post)
Political Advertising Resource Center (Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership at the University of Maryland)
Political Advertising Archives and Resources (Glenn W. Richardson Jr. of the Department of Political Science at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania)
5) Hands Off My Mouse
Copyright law has been extended to protect the monopoly power of private interests to keep cultural and intellectual materials out of the public domain.
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Defending Freedom in the Digital World
Cory Doctorow: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright and the Future of the Future (Entire Reading of this book available at Internet Archive) and description of the book here
Cory Doctorow: Why I Copyfight (Locus Magazine)
John Perry Barlow: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (1996)
John Perry Barlow: The Economy of Ideas
James Boyle: The Public Domain--The Enclosing of the Commons of the Mind (Internet Archive Audio)
Lawrence Lessig: Free Culture--How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (Entire Book Online) and more on his Website
U.S. Copyright Office: Copyright Law of the U.S.
Georgia Harper: Copyright Law in the Electronic Environment (Office of General Counsel
University of Texas System)
6) There Are Alternatives
Independent media are a vital alternative to the corporate media system and need our support.
Democracy Now
Robert McChesney/Josh Silver on the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform
Robert McChesey/John Nichols: Platform for Media Reform (Media Alliance)
Free Culture: Students for a Free Culture
Media Education Foundation
Jay Rosen: Citizen Journalism (Professor of Journalism at New York University)
Rising Voices and Global Voices
Independent Media Centers
RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA: Web Sites That Dig for News Rise as Watchdogs
Michael Wesch: A Portal to Media Literacy/Michael Benton: Thinking About 21st Century Multiliteracies
(Compiled by Michael Benton, Humanities Professor at Bluegrass Community and Technical College)
Part One: Media Ownership
1) The job of media’s corporate executives is to maximize profit for shareholders, not to provide in-depth coverage, diversity of information/perspectives, and reporting on important issues for citizens.
Free Press: Who Owns the Media?
Various Charts of Media Ownership (Take Back the Media)
Robbie Graham/Mathhew Alford: The Power Behind the Screen (The New Statesman)
From Media Reform Information Center:
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
Media Matters with Bob McChesney: Deepa Kumar on the limitations of the corporate media system (audio)
2) Although the airwaves belong to the people, government policy has favored private, not public interests.
Free Press
Electronic Frontier Foundation
3) The 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed with very little public debate over how deregulating ownership rules would lead to massive consolidation of these new telecommunication technologies.
Consumer's Union: Lesson from the 1996 Telecommunications Act
Robert McChesney: The FCC's Big Grab--Making Media Monopoly Part of the Constitution (Counterpunch)
Part Two: Journalism and Democracy
1) More and more, the first amendment is being interpreted as a protection for owners and advertisers, and not editors and reporters.
Robert McChesney: The New Theology of the First Amendment (Monthly Review)
Robert McChesney: The New Global Media (The Nation)
Exploring Congressional Conflicts: Levels of First Amendment Protection for Different Media
Google Search "media and first amendment": Big Business Law Firms Protecting Corporate Media Interests Under the Auspices of the First Amendment
Matt Zoller Seitz: Copy Rites--YouTube vs. Kevin B. Lee (The House Next Door)
Philip K. Dick: If You Can Control the Meaning of Words...
2) What Happened to the News
Due to cost cutting and the consolidation of news departments, investigative journalism is on the decline. In its place, news that is high on sensationalism and low on information.
Media Matters
On the Media (NPR/WNYC)
Project Censored: The News That Didn't Make the News (Sonoma State University Sociology Department)and their annual list of the top 25 censored news stories
International News Coverage in a New Media World: The Decline of the Foreign Correspondent
The Flog of War: Media Reliance on Paid Military Experts (On the Media)
2008 Plagiarism/Fabrication Round-Up; Crunks 2008: The Year in Media Errors and Corrections (Regret the Error)
Extras:
1) Myth of the Liberal Media
There is ample evidence to support the existence of corporate bias and little to suggest the supposed liberal bias of the media. The “myth” is effectively propaganda to silence criticism of those in power. Likewise the call for "objectivity" in journalism (and other forms of documenting history/events) is a smoke screen for silencing the critiques of a dominant conception of reality that benefits those in power.
Free Press: Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim
The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of the News (Noam Chomsky/Edward Herman/Media Education Foundation video) and another clip here
Eric Alterman: What Liberal Media? (The Nation)
Eric Alterman: Debunking the Myth of a Liberal Media (AlterNet/Center for American Progress)
Jay Rosen: The Dangerous Myth of Journalistic Objectivity (Press Think/NYU School of Journalism)
Jay Rosen: The News about the News (Open Source)
Richard Taflinger: The Myth of Objectivity in Journalism (Washington State University Edward R. Murrow School of Communication)
Jay Davis: Beyond the Myth of Objectivity/How To Analyze a News Story (Center for Media Literacy)
Resources for Studying Propaganda (Sourcewatch)
2) The Fox Guarding the Henhouse
The gradual weakening of the FCC is the ultimate triumph of the commercial media system over the rights and needs of the public.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
House Report Investigates FCC Problems Under Martin (Radio Magazine)
Free Press: FCC Media Ownership Rulings Archive
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Net Neutrality Rulings
Cindy Cohn the Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Fora TV)
3) A Classic Case of Corporate Journalism
The absence of investigative reporting on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, lack of coverage of the lies in regards to the case to invade Iraq, and the cutting of foreign correspondents is further evidence of the decline of journalism in the age of corporate ownership.
Bill Moyer's Journal: Buying the War (PBS Documentary)
Source Watch
PR Watch
Spin of the Day
International News Coverage in a New Media World: The Decline of the Foreign Correspondent
4) This Ad was Paid for By
Political advertising has taken the place of political campaign coverage—a financial gain for broadcasters, but a loss of information for the public.
Online Communication Studies Resources: Political Advertising (University of Iowa Department of Communication Studies)
The Democracy Project: 30 Second Candidate (PBS)
Mixed Messages: tracking political Advertising (711 ads) (Washington Post)
Political Advertising Resource Center (Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership at the University of Maryland)
Political Advertising Archives and Resources (Glenn W. Richardson Jr. of the Department of Political Science at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania)
5) Hands Off My Mouse
Copyright law has been extended to protect the monopoly power of private interests to keep cultural and intellectual materials out of the public domain.
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Defending Freedom in the Digital World
Cory Doctorow: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright and the Future of the Future (Entire Reading of this book available at Internet Archive) and description of the book here
Cory Doctorow: Why I Copyfight (Locus Magazine)
John Perry Barlow: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (1996)
John Perry Barlow: The Economy of Ideas
James Boyle: The Public Domain--The Enclosing of the Commons of the Mind (Internet Archive Audio)
Lawrence Lessig: Free Culture--How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (Entire Book Online) and more on his Website
U.S. Copyright Office: Copyright Law of the U.S.
Georgia Harper: Copyright Law in the Electronic Environment (Office of General Counsel
University of Texas System)
6) There Are Alternatives
Independent media are a vital alternative to the corporate media system and need our support.
Democracy Now
Robert McChesney/Josh Silver on the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform
Robert McChesey/John Nichols: Platform for Media Reform (Media Alliance)
Free Culture: Students for a Free Culture
Media Education Foundation
Jay Rosen: Citizen Journalism (Professor of Journalism at New York University)
Rising Voices and Global Voices
Independent Media Centers
RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA: Web Sites That Dig for News Rise as Watchdogs
Michael Wesch: A Portal to Media Literacy/Michael Benton: Thinking About 21st Century Multiliteracies
(Compiled by Michael Benton, Humanities Professor at Bluegrass Community and Technical College)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
David Bowie: Changes
Where’s your shame? You’ve left us up to our necks in it!
-- David Bowie, "Changes" (1971)
-- David Bowie, "Changes" (1971)
Astroturf and Front Group Research: The Center for Union Facts
This morning I was searching for a video on Youtube and an advertisement started before I could watch it. I had my cursor hovering over the "skip ad" button as the necessary five second buffer ticked away, but I noticed the ridiculous nature of the ad and let it continue playing. The absurdity lay in its obvious distortion through child actors of the nature of union voting. There was obviously no pretense toward presenting an accurate picture of unions and it was obviously not designed to appeal to anyone other than rabid anti-union people. Furthermore it engaged in the depiction of gross ethnic stereotypes -- Greaser Italians and shade wearing African-Americans as union muscle/enforcers who are a threat to "our" democracy (I'll leave you to speculate who is the "our" population that is threatened by these ethnicities). My only conclusion was that it was designed to whip up hysteria in the already-faithful followers of this ideology and ensure that they did not waver from their support of the Employee Rights Act (notice the Orwellian doublespeak in Orrin Hatch's proposed bill that gives one the impression it is designed to protect workers). Most likely the creators of this ad hoped they might also sway some naive citizens:
At the end of the video it states that you can follow a link to find out more. The link takes the curious to the The Employee Rights Act website. This website once again does not provide any obvious information "about" (the requisite link/button that appears on any legitimate site) the organization behind the website and it is loaded with more videos (including ones that attempts to link unions with totalitarian societies like North Korea... once again so gross a distortion of reality one has to wonder who would buy into this disinformation). The Center for Union Facts is listed in name only as the organization that promotes this legislation and created the ads. They are attempting to appear as a citizens, grassroots group just looking out for workers' rights. They have many more thinly disguised websites, such as Labor Pains, seeking to amplify their voice online through the appearance of multiple organizations all joining in on the support of this legislation.
I decided to find out more about The Center for Union Facts and visited Sourcewatch to get some background on this organization. This is a secretive front group set up by lobbyist Rick Berman and is part of family of front groups under the umbrella organization Employment Policies Institute "created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic beverage and tobacco" industries. They are also behind one of the more notorious front groups Center for Consumer Freedom, whose efforts notoriously included running:
media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you."
Berman & Co. efforts to mislead American citizens is so egregious that they start off Sourcewatch's entry on what is a Front Group.
A reminder: research the information you are presented with, especially when it is so blatantly trying to sway your opinion. If an organization does not clearly represent to their audience who they are and what their purpose is, then there is most likely a reason why they are hiding their true identity. For instance, while googling the Sourcewatch website this advertisement appeared (it says "ad" in small letters next to the link, but the unaware/naive often miss that and it is placed strategically at the top of my search results). It claimed to have proven that Sourcewatch has a hidden agenda and funders. Click on the host website Judicial Hellholes "about" link -- it is a false link. Who is ATR, the organization behind the Judicial Hellholes website and why are they not forthcoming about their agenda/identity? What is Judicial Hellholes purpose -- seems obvious they are a site designed to advocate for "tort reform," but why are they once again so secretive about who is supporting this effort and what are their broader connections (for more on these misleading "tort reform" campaigns listen to an interview with documentary filmmaker Susan Saladoff.
As an example of a forthright group, check out Sourcewatch's "about" link. Notice how the first thing they do is mention their parent organization with a full link to its website and another link about their purpose/funding/members.
Once again, even without full research one can sense when a front group is trying to mislead citizens. I would like to encourage all citizens to develop the skills necessary to uncover the background to information they access and then share these skills with others so that we can protect ourselves from front group disinformation campaigns.
At the end of the video it states that you can follow a link to find out more. The link takes the curious to the The Employee Rights Act website. This website once again does not provide any obvious information "about" (the requisite link/button that appears on any legitimate site) the organization behind the website and it is loaded with more videos (including ones that attempts to link unions with totalitarian societies like North Korea... once again so gross a distortion of reality one has to wonder who would buy into this disinformation). The Center for Union Facts is listed in name only as the organization that promotes this legislation and created the ads. They are attempting to appear as a citizens, grassroots group just looking out for workers' rights. They have many more thinly disguised websites, such as Labor Pains, seeking to amplify their voice online through the appearance of multiple organizations all joining in on the support of this legislation.
I decided to find out more about The Center for Union Facts and visited Sourcewatch to get some background on this organization. This is a secretive front group set up by lobbyist Rick Berman and is part of family of front groups under the umbrella organization Employment Policies Institute "created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic beverage and tobacco" industries. They are also behind one of the more notorious front groups Center for Consumer Freedom, whose efforts notoriously included running:
media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you."
Berman & Co. efforts to mislead American citizens is so egregious that they start off Sourcewatch's entry on what is a Front Group.
A reminder: research the information you are presented with, especially when it is so blatantly trying to sway your opinion. If an organization does not clearly represent to their audience who they are and what their purpose is, then there is most likely a reason why they are hiding their true identity. For instance, while googling the Sourcewatch website this advertisement appeared (it says "ad" in small letters next to the link, but the unaware/naive often miss that and it is placed strategically at the top of my search results). It claimed to have proven that Sourcewatch has a hidden agenda and funders. Click on the host website Judicial Hellholes "about" link -- it is a false link. Who is ATR, the organization behind the Judicial Hellholes website and why are they not forthcoming about their agenda/identity? What is Judicial Hellholes purpose -- seems obvious they are a site designed to advocate for "tort reform," but why are they once again so secretive about who is supporting this effort and what are their broader connections (for more on these misleading "tort reform" campaigns listen to an interview with documentary filmmaker Susan Saladoff.
As an example of a forthright group, check out Sourcewatch's "about" link. Notice how the first thing they do is mention their parent organization with a full link to its website and another link about their purpose/funding/members.
Once again, even without full research one can sense when a front group is trying to mislead citizens. I would like to encourage all citizens to develop the skills necessary to uncover the background to information they access and then share these skills with others so that we can protect ourselves from front group disinformation campaigns.
Media Matters: Bruce Williams and Michael X. Delli Carpini discuss the future of news and journalism
Bruce Williams and Michael X. Delli Carpini discuss the future of news and journalism
Media Matters (WILL: Illinois Public Radio)
The new media environment has challenged the role of professional journalists as the primary source of politically relevant information. After Broadcast News puts this challenge into historical context, arguing that it is the latest of several critical moments, driven by economic, political, cultural and technological changes, in which the relationship among citizens, political elites and the media has been contested. Out of these past moments, distinct 'media regimes' eventually emerged, each with its own seemingly natural rules and norms, and each the result of political struggle with clear winners and losers. The media regime in place for the latter half of the twentieth century has been dismantled, but a new regime has yet to emerge. Assuring this regime is a democratic one requires serious consideration of what was most beneficial and most problematic about past regimes and what is potentially most beneficial and most problematic about today's new information environment.
Bruce A. Williams received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Minnesota and has taught at the Pennsylvania State University, the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois, and the London School of Economics. His current research interest focuses on the role of a changing media environment in shaping citizenship in the United States. He has published five books and more than forty scholarly journal articles and book chapters. His two most recent books are The New Media Environment: An Introduction (with Andrea Press), published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2010 and After Broadcast News: Media Regimes, Democracy, and the New Information Environment. He is the editor (with Andrea Press) of The Communication Review. He is starting a new research project examining the influence of media on understanding the role of American military force in the world.
Michael X. Delli Carpini, Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, received his B.A. and M.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Prior to joining the University of Pennsylvania faculty in July of 2003, Professor Delli Carpini was Director of the Public Policy program of the Pew Charitable Trusts, and member of the Political Science Department at Barnard College and graduate faculty of Columbia University, serving as chair of the Barnard department. Delli Carpini began his academic career as an Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at Rutgers University. His research explores the role of the citizen in American politics, with particular emphasis on the impact of the mass media on public opinion, political knowledge and political participation.
To Listen to the Episode
Media Matters (WILL: Illinois Public Radio)
The new media environment has challenged the role of professional journalists as the primary source of politically relevant information. After Broadcast News puts this challenge into historical context, arguing that it is the latest of several critical moments, driven by economic, political, cultural and technological changes, in which the relationship among citizens, political elites and the media has been contested. Out of these past moments, distinct 'media regimes' eventually emerged, each with its own seemingly natural rules and norms, and each the result of political struggle with clear winners and losers. The media regime in place for the latter half of the twentieth century has been dismantled, but a new regime has yet to emerge. Assuring this regime is a democratic one requires serious consideration of what was most beneficial and most problematic about past regimes and what is potentially most beneficial and most problematic about today's new information environment.
Bruce A. Williams received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Minnesota and has taught at the Pennsylvania State University, the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois, and the London School of Economics. His current research interest focuses on the role of a changing media environment in shaping citizenship in the United States. He has published five books and more than forty scholarly journal articles and book chapters. His two most recent books are The New Media Environment: An Introduction (with Andrea Press), published by Wiley-Blackwell in 2010 and After Broadcast News: Media Regimes, Democracy, and the New Information Environment. He is the editor (with Andrea Press) of The Communication Review. He is starting a new research project examining the influence of media on understanding the role of American military force in the world.
Michael X. Delli Carpini, Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, received his B.A. and M.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Prior to joining the University of Pennsylvania faculty in July of 2003, Professor Delli Carpini was Director of the Public Policy program of the Pew Charitable Trusts, and member of the Political Science Department at Barnard College and graduate faculty of Columbia University, serving as chair of the Barnard department. Delli Carpini began his academic career as an Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at Rutgers University. His research explores the role of the citizen in American politics, with particular emphasis on the impact of the mass media on public opinion, political knowledge and political participation.
To Listen to the Episode
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Media Matters: Richard Arum -- Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses
Author Richard Arum discuss higher education
Media Matters (WILL: Illinois Public Radio)
In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor’s degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they’re born. Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on Higher Education: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there?
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise—instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Richard Arum is professor of sociology in New York University's Department of Sociology and professor of education at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. In January 2011 his book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, was published by the University of Chicago Press. The book received national media attention for its findings that, after the first two years of college, a significant number of students demonstrate no improvement in a range of skills including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.
Professor Arum is also Program Director of Educational Research at the Social Science Research Council, where he has directed the CLA Longitudinal Project and successfully led efforts to organize educational stakeholders in New York City to create the Research Alliance for New York City Schools (an entity loosely modeled after the Consortium on Chicago School Research) that focuses on ongoing evaluation and assessment research to support public school improvement efforts.
To Listen to the Episode
Media Matters (WILL: Illinois Public Radio)
In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor’s degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they’re born. Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on Higher Education: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there?
For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise—instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.
Richard Arum is professor of sociology in New York University's Department of Sociology and professor of education at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. In January 2011 his book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, was published by the University of Chicago Press. The book received national media attention for its findings that, after the first two years of college, a significant number of students demonstrate no improvement in a range of skills including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.
Professor Arum is also Program Director of Educational Research at the Social Science Research Council, where he has directed the CLA Longitudinal Project and successfully led efforts to organize educational stakeholders in New York City to create the Research Alliance for New York City Schools (an entity loosely modeled after the Consortium on Chicago School Research) that focuses on ongoing evaluation and assessment research to support public school improvement efforts.
To Listen to the Episode
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Casting Call for Lexington Film Production of "The Townie" (3/5)
[Students, extra credit for auditioning -- I'll be at the auditions]
ACTORS! THESPIANS! PHILISTINES! DRAMATICS! HISTRIONICS! CINEASTES! CINEPHILES! SCIENTOLOGISTS! and ALL interested parties!
On MARCH 5TH we will be holding AUDITIONS for
“THE TOWNIE”
a Sound & Vision unlike any other
at KCTS’s COOPER CAMPUS in the
OSWALD BUILDING AUDITORIUM
from 5pm to 9pm
No need to bring a monologue! We’ll supply the sides! Simply bring your glowing personality, myriad idiosyncrasies, and a pleasant and proactive attitude!
“The Townie” conveys the confluent tales of an aimless wanderer seeking a shoe, a young philosopher judging his weight in the world, a madman combating a malefic witch’s coven, a casual lover trying to see his girl, and a sex addict thrusting his way to enlightenment.
A few roles of interest:
INDIGO, a sarcastic demimondaine with morals
YOMURA NAGITO, a transsexual Japanese witch and cruel, immane manipulator of weak minds and hard hearts
MITCH, a knife wielding videographer
GYURKA ETTINGTON, a limping, broken man, embittered to the point of parody
YOUNG WOMAN, an ingenue
OLD MAN, a lech
JONES, a harem doorman who's not in love with his anvil
MURREL WISDOM, a jovial giant and jokester
EXTRAS! for a PARTY! And BLOOD ORGY! (no nudity and nothing pornographic)
ACTORS! THESPIANS! PHILISTINES! DRAMATICS! HISTRIONICS! CINEASTES! CINEPHILES! SCIENTOLOGISTS! and ALL interested parties!
On MARCH 5TH we will be holding AUDITIONS for
“THE TOWNIE”
a Sound & Vision unlike any other
at KCTS’s COOPER CAMPUS in the
OSWALD BUILDING AUDITORIUM
from 5pm to 9pm
No need to bring a monologue! We’ll supply the sides! Simply bring your glowing personality, myriad idiosyncrasies, and a pleasant and proactive attitude!
“The Townie” conveys the confluent tales of an aimless wanderer seeking a shoe, a young philosopher judging his weight in the world, a madman combating a malefic witch’s coven, a casual lover trying to see his girl, and a sex addict thrusting his way to enlightenment.
A few roles of interest:
INDIGO, a sarcastic demimondaine with morals
YOMURA NAGITO, a transsexual Japanese witch and cruel, immane manipulator of weak minds and hard hearts
MITCH, a knife wielding videographer
GYURKA ETTINGTON, a limping, broken man, embittered to the point of parody
YOUNG WOMAN, an ingenue
OLD MAN, a lech
JONES, a harem doorman who's not in love with his anvil
MURREL WISDOM, a jovial giant and jokester
EXTRAS! for a PARTY! And BLOOD ORGY! (no nudity and nothing pornographic)
Monday, February 20, 2012
John Bellamy Foster, Robert W. McChesney, and R. Jamil Jonna: The Internationalization of Monopoly Capital
The Internationalization of Monopoly Capital
by John Bellamy Foster, Robert W. McChesney, and R. Jamil Jonna
Monthly Review
In a 1997 article entitled “More (or Less) on Globalization,” Paul Sweezy referred to “the three most important underlying trends in the recent history of capitalism, the period beginning with the recession of 1974-75: (1) the slowing down of the overall rate of growth; (2) the worldwide proliferation of monopolistic (or oligopolistic) multinational corporations; and (3) what may be called the financialization of the capital accumulation process.” (Globalization, he argued was not a recent trend but a process that characterized the entire history of capitalism.)1 The first and third of these three trends—economic stagnation in the rich economies and the financialization of accumulation—have been the subjects of widespread discussion since the onset of severe financial crisis in 2007-09. Yet the second underlying trend, which might be called the “internationalization of monopoly capital,” has received much less attention. Indeed, the dominant, neoliberal discourse—one that has also penetrated the left—assumes that the tendency toward monopoly has been vanquished. In this narrative, the oligopolistic structure of early post-Second World War capitalism in the United States and elsewhere was broken down and replaced by a new era of intense global competition.
We do not intend to argue, in what follows, that those perceptions of growing global competition were all wrong. Rather, we suggest that renewed international competition evident since the 1970s was much more limited in range than often supposed. It has since given way to a new phase of global monopoly-finance capital in which world production is increasingly dominated by a relatively few multinational corporations able to exercise considerable monopoly power. In short, we are confronted by a system of international oligopoly. We present the broad contours of our argument with empirical evidence and explanation. Our treatment of these issues will no doubt raise as many questions as it will answer. Nevertheless, our objective is to demonstrate that addressing the internationalization of monopoly capital is a necessary prerequisite to understanding present global economic trends, including the period of slow growth and financialization in the mature economies.
The general outlines of what we have to say will not, of course, be a revelation to all of our readers. Evidence of the internationalization of monopoly capital has been mounting for decades. As Richard Barnet and Ronald Müller wrote in 1974 in their book, Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations: “The rise of the global corporation represents the globalization of oligopoly capitalism….The new corporate structure is the culmination of a process of concentration and internationalization that has put the economy under the substantial control of a few hundred business enterprises which do not compete with one another according to the traditional rules of the classic market.”2
As in all cases of oligopoly, where a few firms dominate particular industries or spheres of production, what is evident is not competition in the classic sense. Rather we are confronted with a dialectic of rivalry and collusion.3 In particular, “price competition”—or “price warfare,” as it is often called in business—is viewed as too dangerous, and generally avoided by the giant corporations. Instead, competition between firms largely takes other forms: the search for low-cost position, which remains the bottom line for business; competition for resources and markets; and product differentiation.
The typical or representative firm today is a monopolistic multinational corporation—a firm that operates in numerous countries, but is headquartered in one. In recent years, there has been a growth of multinational corporations in the periphery of the capitalist economy, but in the main such global firms are predominantly headquartered in the rich nations of the center (the more so the larger the firm). As the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated in its 2010 World Investment Report, “The composition of the world’s top 100 TNCs [transnational corporations] confirms that the triad countries [the United States, the European Union, and Japan] remain dominant,” although “their share has been slowly decreasing.”4
Mark Casson, a leading mainstream analyst of the global corporation, observed in 1985: “From a broad long-run perspective, the postwar MNE [multinational enterprise] may be regarded simply as the latest and most sophisticated manifestation of a tendency towards the international concentration of capital. This view emerges most clearly from the work of Lenin [in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism].”5
Today this tendency is manifested most concretely in the growth of international oligopolies. For Louis Galambos, a business historian at Johns Hopkins University, “global oligopolies are as inevitable as the sunrise.”6 Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal put it in 1999:
In industry after industry the march toward consolidation has seemed inexorable….The world automobile industry is coalescing into six or eight companies. Two U.S. car makers, two Japanese and a few European firms are among the likely survivors.
The world’s top semiconductor makers number barely a dozen. Four companies essentially supply all of the worlds recorded music. Ten companies dominate the world’s pharmaceutical industry, and that number is expected to decline through mergers as even these giants fear they are too small to compete across the globe.
In the global soft drink business, just three companies matter, and the smallest, Cadbury Schweppes PLC, in January sold part of its international business to Coca-Cola Co., the leader. Just two names run the world market for commercial aviation: Boeing Co. and Airbus Industrie.7
The same tendency is evident across the board: in areas such as telecommunications, software, tires, etc. This is reflected in record annual levels of global mergers and acquisitions up through 2007 (reaching an all-time high of $4.38 trillion), and in vast increases in foreign direct investment (FDI), which is rising much faster than world income. Thus FDI inward stock grew from 7 percent of world GDP in 1980 to around 30 percent in 2009, with the pace accelerating in the late 1990s. (See Chart 1, below.) Even these figures are conservative in demonstrating the growing power of multinationals since they do not capture the various forms of collusion, such as strategic alliances and technological agreements that extend the global reach of such firms. Nor is there any accounting of the massive subcontracting done by multinational corporations, extending their tentacles into all areas of the global economy. In these and other ways, the rapid expansion of multinationals is creating a more concentrated world economic system, with the revenue of the top five hundred global corporations now in the range of 35-40 percent of world income.
Links to this post
by John Bellamy Foster, Robert W. McChesney, and R. Jamil Jonna
Monthly Review
In a 1997 article entitled “More (or Less) on Globalization,” Paul Sweezy referred to “the three most important underlying trends in the recent history of capitalism, the period beginning with the recession of 1974-75: (1) the slowing down of the overall rate of growth; (2) the worldwide proliferation of monopolistic (or oligopolistic) multinational corporations; and (3) what may be called the financialization of the capital accumulation process.” (Globalization, he argued was not a recent trend but a process that characterized the entire history of capitalism.)1 The first and third of these three trends—economic stagnation in the rich economies and the financialization of accumulation—have been the subjects of widespread discussion since the onset of severe financial crisis in 2007-09. Yet the second underlying trend, which might be called the “internationalization of monopoly capital,” has received much less attention. Indeed, the dominant, neoliberal discourse—one that has also penetrated the left—assumes that the tendency toward monopoly has been vanquished. In this narrative, the oligopolistic structure of early post-Second World War capitalism in the United States and elsewhere was broken down and replaced by a new era of intense global competition.
We do not intend to argue, in what follows, that those perceptions of growing global competition were all wrong. Rather, we suggest that renewed international competition evident since the 1970s was much more limited in range than often supposed. It has since given way to a new phase of global monopoly-finance capital in which world production is increasingly dominated by a relatively few multinational corporations able to exercise considerable monopoly power. In short, we are confronted by a system of international oligopoly. We present the broad contours of our argument with empirical evidence and explanation. Our treatment of these issues will no doubt raise as many questions as it will answer. Nevertheless, our objective is to demonstrate that addressing the internationalization of monopoly capital is a necessary prerequisite to understanding present global economic trends, including the period of slow growth and financialization in the mature economies.
The general outlines of what we have to say will not, of course, be a revelation to all of our readers. Evidence of the internationalization of monopoly capital has been mounting for decades. As Richard Barnet and Ronald Müller wrote in 1974 in their book, Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations: “The rise of the global corporation represents the globalization of oligopoly capitalism….The new corporate structure is the culmination of a process of concentration and internationalization that has put the economy under the substantial control of a few hundred business enterprises which do not compete with one another according to the traditional rules of the classic market.”2
As in all cases of oligopoly, where a few firms dominate particular industries or spheres of production, what is evident is not competition in the classic sense. Rather we are confronted with a dialectic of rivalry and collusion.3 In particular, “price competition”—or “price warfare,” as it is often called in business—is viewed as too dangerous, and generally avoided by the giant corporations. Instead, competition between firms largely takes other forms: the search for low-cost position, which remains the bottom line for business; competition for resources and markets; and product differentiation.
The typical or representative firm today is a monopolistic multinational corporation—a firm that operates in numerous countries, but is headquartered in one. In recent years, there has been a growth of multinational corporations in the periphery of the capitalist economy, but in the main such global firms are predominantly headquartered in the rich nations of the center (the more so the larger the firm). As the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated in its 2010 World Investment Report, “The composition of the world’s top 100 TNCs [transnational corporations] confirms that the triad countries [the United States, the European Union, and Japan] remain dominant,” although “their share has been slowly decreasing.”4
Mark Casson, a leading mainstream analyst of the global corporation, observed in 1985: “From a broad long-run perspective, the postwar MNE [multinational enterprise] may be regarded simply as the latest and most sophisticated manifestation of a tendency towards the international concentration of capital. This view emerges most clearly from the work of Lenin [in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism].”5
Today this tendency is manifested most concretely in the growth of international oligopolies. For Louis Galambos, a business historian at Johns Hopkins University, “global oligopolies are as inevitable as the sunrise.”6 Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal put it in 1999:
In industry after industry the march toward consolidation has seemed inexorable….The world automobile industry is coalescing into six or eight companies. Two U.S. car makers, two Japanese and a few European firms are among the likely survivors.
The world’s top semiconductor makers number barely a dozen. Four companies essentially supply all of the worlds recorded music. Ten companies dominate the world’s pharmaceutical industry, and that number is expected to decline through mergers as even these giants fear they are too small to compete across the globe.
In the global soft drink business, just three companies matter, and the smallest, Cadbury Schweppes PLC, in January sold part of its international business to Coca-Cola Co., the leader. Just two names run the world market for commercial aviation: Boeing Co. and Airbus Industrie.7
The same tendency is evident across the board: in areas such as telecommunications, software, tires, etc. This is reflected in record annual levels of global mergers and acquisitions up through 2007 (reaching an all-time high of $4.38 trillion), and in vast increases in foreign direct investment (FDI), which is rising much faster than world income. Thus FDI inward stock grew from 7 percent of world GDP in 1980 to around 30 percent in 2009, with the pace accelerating in the late 1990s. (See Chart 1, below.) Even these figures are conservative in demonstrating the growing power of multinationals since they do not capture the various forms of collusion, such as strategic alliances and technological agreements that extend the global reach of such firms. Nor is there any accounting of the massive subcontracting done by multinational corporations, extending their tentacles into all areas of the global economy. In these and other ways, the rapid expansion of multinationals is creating a more concentrated world economic system, with the revenue of the top five hundred global corporations now in the range of 35-40 percent of world income.
Jane Ayers: 300,000 Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto in Federal Court
300,000 Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto in Federal Court
By Jane Ayers
Reader Supported News
Little did Willie Nelson know when he recorded "Crazy" years ago just how crazy it would become for our cherished family farmers in America. Nelson, President of Farm Aid, has recently called for the national Occupy movement to declare an "Occupy the Food System" action.
Nelson states, "Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, destruction of our soil…"
Hundreds of citizens, (even including NYC chefs in their white chef hats) joined Occupy the Food System groups, ie Food Democracy Now, gathered outside the Federal Courts in Manhattan on January 31st, to support organic family farmers in their landmark lawsuit against Big Agribusiness giant Monsanto. (Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association v. Monsanto) Oral arguments were heard that day concerning the lawsuit by 83 plaintiffs representing over 300,000 organic farmers, organic seed growers, and organic seed businesses.
The lawsuit addresses the bizarre and shocking issue of Monsanto harassing and threatening organic farmers with lawsuits of "patent infringement" if any organic farmer ends up with any trace amount of GM seeds on their organic farmland.
Judge Naomi Buckwald heard the oral arguments on Monsanto’s Motion to Dismiss, and the legal team from Public Patent Foundation represented the rights of American organic farmers against Monsanto, maker of GM seeds, [and additionally, Agent Orange, dioxin, etc.]
After hearing the arguments, Judge Buckwald stated that on March 31st she will hand down her decision on whether the lawsuit will move forward to trial.
Not only does this lawsuit debate the issue of Monsanto potentially ruining the organic farmers’ pure seeds and crops with the introduction of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds anywhere near the organic farms, but additionally any nearby GM fields can withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides, thus possibly further contaminating the organic farms nearby if Roundup is used.
Of course, the organic farmers don’t want anything to do with that ole contaminated GM seed in the first place. In fact, that is why they are certified organic farmers. Hello? But now they have to worry about getting sued by the very monster they abhor, and even have to spend extra money and land (for buffers which only sometimes deter the contaminated seed from being swept by the wind into their crop land). At this point, they are even having to resort to not growing at all the following organic plants: soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, and canola, …just to protect themselves from having any (unwanted) plant that Monsanto could possibly sue them over.
"Crazy, crazy for feeling so….."
The farmers are suffering the threat of possible loss of Right Livelihood. They are creating good jobs for Americans, and supplying our purest foods. These organic farmers are bringing Americans healthy food so we can be a healthy Nation, instead of the undernourished and obese kids and adults that President Obama worries so much about us becoming.
So what was President Obama doing when he appointed Michael Taylor, a former VP of Monsanto, as Sr. Advisor to the Commissioner at the FDA? The FDA is responsible for "label requirements" and recently ruled under Michael Taylor’s time as FDA Food Czar that GMO products did not need to be labeled as such, even though national consumer groups loudly professed the public’s right to know what is genetically modified in the food system. Sadly to remember: President Obama promised in campaign speeches that he would "let folks know what foods are genetically modified." These are the conflict of interests that lead to the 99% movement standing up for the family farmers.
Just look at the confusing headlines lately that revealed that mid-western farms of GM corn will be sprayed with 2,4-D toxins found in the deadly Agent Orange. Just refer to the previous lawsuits taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by U.S. Veterans who tried to argue the dangers of Monsanto’s Agent Orange, and high rates of cancers in our soldiers who had to suffer the side effects from their wartime exposures in Vietnam.
In 1980 alone, when all this mess started with corporations wiping out the livelihoods of family farmers, the National Farm Medicine Center reported that 900 male farmers in the Upper Midwest committed suicide. That was nearly double the national average for white men. Even sadder is the fact that some of the farmers’ children also committed suicide. Studies show that when one generation of family farmers lose their farms, then the next generation usually can’t revive the family business and traditions later.
Jim Gerritsen, President of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, has pointed out that there are 5th and 6th generation family farmers being pushed off their farms today, and because of a "climate of fear" (from possible lawsuits from Monsanto), they can’t grow some of the food they want to grow.
These farmers are the ones who have been able to survive the changes over the past twenty years by choosing to go into the budding niche of organic farming. Now look at what they have to deal with while trying to grow successful businesses: Monsanto’s threats.
To Read the Rest
By Jane Ayers
Reader Supported News
Little did Willie Nelson know when he recorded "Crazy" years ago just how crazy it would become for our cherished family farmers in America. Nelson, President of Farm Aid, has recently called for the national Occupy movement to declare an "Occupy the Food System" action.
Nelson states, "Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, destruction of our soil…"
Hundreds of citizens, (even including NYC chefs in their white chef hats) joined Occupy the Food System groups, ie Food Democracy Now, gathered outside the Federal Courts in Manhattan on January 31st, to support organic family farmers in their landmark lawsuit against Big Agribusiness giant Monsanto. (Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association v. Monsanto) Oral arguments were heard that day concerning the lawsuit by 83 plaintiffs representing over 300,000 organic farmers, organic seed growers, and organic seed businesses.
The lawsuit addresses the bizarre and shocking issue of Monsanto harassing and threatening organic farmers with lawsuits of "patent infringement" if any organic farmer ends up with any trace amount of GM seeds on their organic farmland.
Judge Naomi Buckwald heard the oral arguments on Monsanto’s Motion to Dismiss, and the legal team from Public Patent Foundation represented the rights of American organic farmers against Monsanto, maker of GM seeds, [and additionally, Agent Orange, dioxin, etc.]
After hearing the arguments, Judge Buckwald stated that on March 31st she will hand down her decision on whether the lawsuit will move forward to trial.
Not only does this lawsuit debate the issue of Monsanto potentially ruining the organic farmers’ pure seeds and crops with the introduction of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds anywhere near the organic farms, but additionally any nearby GM fields can withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides, thus possibly further contaminating the organic farms nearby if Roundup is used.
Of course, the organic farmers don’t want anything to do with that ole contaminated GM seed in the first place. In fact, that is why they are certified organic farmers. Hello? But now they have to worry about getting sued by the very monster they abhor, and even have to spend extra money and land (for buffers which only sometimes deter the contaminated seed from being swept by the wind into their crop land). At this point, they are even having to resort to not growing at all the following organic plants: soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, and canola, …just to protect themselves from having any (unwanted) plant that Monsanto could possibly sue them over.
"Crazy, crazy for feeling so….."
The farmers are suffering the threat of possible loss of Right Livelihood. They are creating good jobs for Americans, and supplying our purest foods. These organic farmers are bringing Americans healthy food so we can be a healthy Nation, instead of the undernourished and obese kids and adults that President Obama worries so much about us becoming.
So what was President Obama doing when he appointed Michael Taylor, a former VP of Monsanto, as Sr. Advisor to the Commissioner at the FDA? The FDA is responsible for "label requirements" and recently ruled under Michael Taylor’s time as FDA Food Czar that GMO products did not need to be labeled as such, even though national consumer groups loudly professed the public’s right to know what is genetically modified in the food system. Sadly to remember: President Obama promised in campaign speeches that he would "let folks know what foods are genetically modified." These are the conflict of interests that lead to the 99% movement standing up for the family farmers.
Just look at the confusing headlines lately that revealed that mid-western farms of GM corn will be sprayed with 2,4-D toxins found in the deadly Agent Orange. Just refer to the previous lawsuits taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court by U.S. Veterans who tried to argue the dangers of Monsanto’s Agent Orange, and high rates of cancers in our soldiers who had to suffer the side effects from their wartime exposures in Vietnam.
In 1980 alone, when all this mess started with corporations wiping out the livelihoods of family farmers, the National Farm Medicine Center reported that 900 male farmers in the Upper Midwest committed suicide. That was nearly double the national average for white men. Even sadder is the fact that some of the farmers’ children also committed suicide. Studies show that when one generation of family farmers lose their farms, then the next generation usually can’t revive the family business and traditions later.
Jim Gerritsen, President of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, has pointed out that there are 5th and 6th generation family farmers being pushed off their farms today, and because of a "climate of fear" (from possible lawsuits from Monsanto), they can’t grow some of the food they want to grow.
These farmers are the ones who have been able to survive the changes over the past twenty years by choosing to go into the budding niche of organic farming. Now look at what they have to deal with while trying to grow successful businesses: Monsanto’s threats.
To Read the Rest
Bruce E. Levine: Clinical Psychologist
Wikipedia: Bruce E. Levine
Levine, Bruce E. "Are Americans A Broken People?" The Burt Cohen Show (May 24, 2011)
---. "How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation." AlterNet (December 15, 2011)
---. "How Teenage Rebellion Has Become a Mental Illness. Big pharma has some new customers. Not complying with authority is now, in many cases, labeled a disease." AlterNet (January 28, 2008)
---. "Toward a Healthy Society." Equal Time for Freethought (June 4, 2011)
Levine, Bruce E. "Are Americans A Broken People?" The Burt Cohen Show (May 24, 2011)
---. "How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation." AlterNet (December 15, 2011)
---. "How Teenage Rebellion Has Become a Mental Illness. Big pharma has some new customers. Not complying with authority is now, in many cases, labeled a disease." AlterNet (January 28, 2008)
---. "Toward a Healthy Society." Equal Time for Freethought (June 4, 2011)
Bruce Levine: Are Americans A Broken People?
Are Americans A Broken People?
The Burt Cohen Show
Compared to other western nations, Americans seem more accepting of our own powerlessness over institutions that run our lives. Psychologist Bruce Levine, author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite looks into the many reasons for the widespread demoralization and suggests what can be done about it.
To Listen to the Interview
The Burt Cohen Show
Compared to other western nations, Americans seem more accepting of our own powerlessness over institutions that run our lives. Psychologist Bruce Levine, author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite looks into the many reasons for the widespread demoralization and suggests what can be done about it.
To Listen to the Interview
Mike Fasano and Mike Brickner: Florida Lawmakers Defeat Prison Privatization amid National Push for For-Profit Jails
Florida Lawmakers Defeat Prison Privatization amid National Push for For-Profit Jails
Democracy Now
The Florida State Senate has defeated a measure to privatize at least 27 prisons, which would have created the largest corporate-run prison system in the country. Despite the vote, Republican Gov. Rick Scott could still privatize the prisons through executive authority. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of prisoners being added to privately run jails is outpacing the overall prison population by 17 percent compared to 4 percent. The nation’s largest operator of for-profit prisons, Corrections Corporation of America, recently sent letters to 48 states offering to buy up their prisons in exchange for a 20-year management contract, plus an assurance that the prison would remain at least at 90 percent capacity. We discuss prison privatization with two guests: Florida Republican State Senator Mike Fasano, who led the charge against the bill to handover South Florida’s state prisons to private companies, and ACLU of Ohio spokesperson Mike Brickner, co-author of the report, "Prisons for Profit: A Look at Prison Privatization."
Guests:
State Senator Mike Fasano, Florida Republican who led the charge against the bill to hand over South Florida’s state prisons to private companies.
Mike Brickner, communications and public policy director at ACLU of Ohio. He co-authored the report "Prisons for Profit: A Look at Prison Privatization."
To Watch/Listen/Read
Democracy Now
The Florida State Senate has defeated a measure to privatize at least 27 prisons, which would have created the largest corporate-run prison system in the country. Despite the vote, Republican Gov. Rick Scott could still privatize the prisons through executive authority. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of prisoners being added to privately run jails is outpacing the overall prison population by 17 percent compared to 4 percent. The nation’s largest operator of for-profit prisons, Corrections Corporation of America, recently sent letters to 48 states offering to buy up their prisons in exchange for a 20-year management contract, plus an assurance that the prison would remain at least at 90 percent capacity. We discuss prison privatization with two guests: Florida Republican State Senator Mike Fasano, who led the charge against the bill to handover South Florida’s state prisons to private companies, and ACLU of Ohio spokesperson Mike Brickner, co-author of the report, "Prisons for Profit: A Look at Prison Privatization."
Guests:
State Senator Mike Fasano, Florida Republican who led the charge against the bill to hand over South Florida’s state prisons to private companies.
Mike Brickner, communications and public policy director at ACLU of Ohio. He co-authored the report "Prisons for Profit: A Look at Prison Privatization."
To Watch/Listen/Read
Media Matters: Mari Jo & Paul Buhle weigh in on the largest pro-labor mobilization in modern American history
Mari Jo & Paul Buhle weigh in on the largest pro-labor mobilization in modern American history
Media Matters (WILL: Illinois Public Media)
In the spring of 2011, Wisconsinites took to the streets in what became the largest and liveliest labor demonstrations in modern American history. Protesters in the Middle East sent greetings-and pizzas-to the thousands occupying the Capitol building in Madison, and 150,000 demonstrators converged on the city.
In a year that has seen a revival of protest in America, here is a riveting account of the first great wave of grassroots resistance to the corporate restructuring of the Great Recession.
It Started in Wisconsin includes eyewitness reports by striking teachers, students, and others (such as Wisconsin-born musician Tom Morello), as well as essays explaining Wisconsin's progressive legacy by acclaimed historians. The book lays bare the national corporate campaign that crafted Wisconsin's anti-union legislation and similar laws across the country, and it conveys the infectious esprit de corps that pervaded the protests with original pictures and comics.
To Listen to the Episode
Media Matters (WILL: Illinois Public Media)
In the spring of 2011, Wisconsinites took to the streets in what became the largest and liveliest labor demonstrations in modern American history. Protesters in the Middle East sent greetings-and pizzas-to the thousands occupying the Capitol building in Madison, and 150,000 demonstrators converged on the city.
In a year that has seen a revival of protest in America, here is a riveting account of the first great wave of grassroots resistance to the corporate restructuring of the Great Recession.
It Started in Wisconsin includes eyewitness reports by striking teachers, students, and others (such as Wisconsin-born musician Tom Morello), as well as essays explaining Wisconsin's progressive legacy by acclaimed historians. The book lays bare the national corporate campaign that crafted Wisconsin's anti-union legislation and similar laws across the country, and it conveys the infectious esprit de corps that pervaded the protests with original pictures and comics.
To Listen to the Episode
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)