RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise

Posted: Aug 12, 2012 - 10:38am

I wonder if this record came with a little diploma and mortarboard.

Posted: Mar 11, 2005 - 12:22am

EleventhMan wrote:

So stop talking, start signing:

Please sign the petition today:
http://www.moveonpac.org/judges/

Me too, I'm signing in spirit.

Posted: Mar 10, 2005 - 11:33am

EleventhMan wrote:

So stop talking, start signing:

I don't have a US address ;)

Posted: Mar 10, 2005 - 11:32am

So stop talking, start signing:

Dear MoveOn member,

Tomorrow, March 10th, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider the nomination of mining and cattle industry lobbyist William Myers III for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of AppealsÂthe second highest court in the land. Myers is the first of 20 judicial nominees Bush has re-submitted in his second term. All 20 repeat nominees were rejected last term by Senate Democrats (as compared to the 204 judges they accepted) because these nominees consistently sided with corporate special-interests over the rights of ordinary Americans.

This time, Bush is ready to fight dirty to force these nominees through. Dick Cheney has even threatened to use a parliamentary trick to eliminate the centuries-old rule requiring judges to have broad support in the Senate. This would effectively silence all 44 Democratic senators and the 173 million Americans they representÂthe majority of the country.

With the first crucial vote on the first judge in less than a day, we're launching a national campaign to let our senators know that we out here in America are counting on them to hold the line on all 20 of Bush's rejected, corporate judges, and beat back his dirty parliamentary tricks.

The first phase is this national petition that we will hand deliver to your senators before the confirmation votes for the 20 judges. And tomorrow, MoveOn members will host over 1000 house meetings to create local plans to save the judiciary. The courts we have for the next 30 years may depend on your efforts in the next few weeks.

Please sign today:
http://www.moveonpac.org/judges/

To ram his nominees through, Bush is hoping to use a parliamentary trick the Republicans refer to as the "nuclear option." For 200 years, if enough senators strongly objected to a federal judge, they could use a filibuster to force more debate until all their concerns were addressed. That's how Democrats blocked the worst of these 20 nominees last term. Actually changing the rule would require a 2/3 vote of the SenateÂand Bush doesn't have near that level of support.

So instead, Vice President Cheney has threatened to abuse his authority as President of the Senate, and just declare that the right to filibuster judges is null and void. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support the ruling, the filibuster is history. For the first time ever, one party would have complete control over judicial nominations, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Both parties in the Senate were given the power to approve or reject judicial nominations becauseÂabove all elseÂjudges must be trusted by Americans on all sides to rule fairly. So why does Bush refuse to send a few replacement nominees both parties can agree on? Why is he so intent on smashing Democratic resistance to these and all future nominees? Because while his presidency will be over in 4 years, the judges he appoints will be on the bench for the rest of their lives. This is Bush's big push to lock in his hard-right, corporate-friendly ideology for decades to comeÂand that is exactly why we must not back down now.

The whole plot is set into motion tomorrow, with the committee vote on William Myers. We must draw the line here, by stopping Bush's 20 repeat nominees and standing up to the "nuclear option."

Please sign the petition today:
http://www.moveonpac.org/judges/

Thanks for all that you do,

--Ben Brandzel, Eli Pariser and the whole MoveOn PAC Team
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005

P.S. Here's a brief summary of just the first three of the 20 partisan judges re-nominated by President Bush.

William Myers III has never been a judge and spent most of his career as a lobbyist for the cattle and mining industry. <1> He has written that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit. <2> In 2001, Bush appointed him as the chief lawyer for the Department of the Interior. In that role he continued as a champion of corporate interests, setting his agenda in meetings with former employers he promised not to speak with, and even illegally giving away sacred Native American land to be strip mined. <3>

Terrence Boyle was a legal aide to Jesse Helms. As a judge, his signature decisions have attempted to circumvent federal laws barring employment discrimination by race, gender, and disability. <4> His rulings have been overturned a staggering 120 times by the conservative 4th District Court of Appeals, either due to gross errors in judgment or simple incompetence. <5>

William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result. <6> He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against the federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled. <7>

Posted: Mar 10, 2005 - 11:30am

RichardPrins wrote:

A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

<snip>
It is all here at our fingertips. True, it doesn't often make it onto the mainstream media. But click a button and there you have it. It is all right there. Available to anyone with access to the Internet. The concentrated corporate mass media is the primary source of information for most citizens in the United States.

But the fact remains that we have access to every news outlet and web site in the world. We can communicate instantaneously with anyone we wish. There is a flood of quality information and informed criticism, more than we can use.

We can't keep up with it.

You can't keep up with it.

We are drowning.

You are drowning. We know this may sound strange coming from two writers who spend most of their time researching and writing and contributing to the flood.

But someone has to come up for air and scream: It's not making any difference!

Or as Hersh put it -- "It doesn't matter what we write. . Other presidents feel the heat, this one doesn't." To which we would add -- other politicians feel the heat, these don't.
<snip>

It's all right there and we can't be bothered to look...

Posted: Mar 10, 2005 - 11:01am

A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

We traveled to Graceland last year, and picked up a CD.

"30 Elvis Number One Hits".

A seven-year old we know borrowed the CD. He had never heard about Elvis or heard an Elvis song. His favorite song?

It wasn't Jailhouse Rock.

It wasn't Hound Dog.

It wasn't Heartbreak Hotel.

It wasn't Hardheaded Woman.

It was none of the 30 Number One Hits. It was the last song on the CD. It was the bonus song. Number 31: A Little Less Conversation.

Refrain:

A little less conversation, a little more action please. All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me. A little more bite and a little less bark.

This is the seven year old's favorite song.

He plays it over and over and over.

This song came to mind after scanning the web and picking up the flood of writing and criticism about the state of the world.

Here are three stories dated from yesterday, March 9:

In the New York Observer, Nicholas Von Hoffman writing about his son's return from Iraq, in which he observes: "It is the incontestable truth that the politicians and news personalities who talk so blithely about war would adopt a different and more cautious tone in their advocacy of killing others were they to know that a degree of risk attaches to themselves and their own kith and kin should war ensue. It would be a more peaceful world if the law read that the children of every elected official and every TV news celebrity would immediately be drafted on the commencement of hostilities."

A report out by the American Society for Civil Engineers, showing how our nation's infrastructure is crumbling, as we spend billions overseas in wars of destruction.

In the Brown Daily Herald, a report on Seymour Hersh's talk the day before at Brown University.

"The problem is that George Bush is convinced he's doing the right thing," Hersh said. "It doesn't matter how many body bags come back. At some level he thinks he'll be vindicated. It doesn't matter what we write, we can't shape . If you think it's a little terrifying, it is. Other felt the heat, this guy doesn't." There's just a non-stop flow of factual reporting and critical analysis. Those are three stories, just from yesterday. And we could deliver 50 more of equal quality and interest -- just from yesterday.

It is all here at our fingertips. True, it doesn't often make it onto the mainstream media. But click a button and there you have it. It is all right there. Available to anyone with access to the Internet. The concentrated corporate mass media is the primary source of information for most citizens in the United States.

But the fact remains that we have access to every news outlet and web site in the world. We can communicate instantaneously with anyone we wish. There is a flood of quality information and informed criticism, more than we can use.

We can't keep up with it.

You can't keep up with it.

We are drowning.

You are drowning. We know this may sound strange coming from two writers who spend most of their time researching and writing and contributing to the flood.

But someone has to come up for air and scream: It's not making any difference!

Or as Hersh put it -- "It doesn't matter what we write. . Other presidents feel the heat, this one doesn't." To which we would add -- other politicians feel the heat, these don't.

As a citizenry outraged by this war in Iraq, and the possibility of wars against Syria and Iran, we must ask ourselves: will the flood of information break the dam? Or are we deluding ourselves into thinking that information matters? Shouldn't we be spending less time writing and more time organizing?

We can't predict. But we suspect this: We are at a tipping point. Bush can be pushed over. And we know for sure that Elvis wasn't talking about politics.

But his advice holds true for the here and now:

A little less conversation.

A little more action.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. Mokhiber and Weissman are co-authors of On the Rampage: Corporate Predators and the Destruction of Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).

And perhaps a little less last-minute action?

Posted: Feb 24, 2005 - 3:20am

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Go back to sleep Amerika!

You Sickness, Insecurity, and Lack of Freedom have been assured!

Posted: Feb 23, 2005 - 8:57pm

RichardPrins wrote:

The counterpoint to this position, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, took to the floor to endorse Rice and to caution fellow Democrats against giving aid and comfort to America's enemies by opposing Bush's nominees, or his policies. The criticisms of Rice, particularly her dissembling on Iraq, Lieberman said, "are all about the past."

"I don't hear any criticisms about where we are now or where we should go in the future," he said. (Memo to Joe: The war in Iraq rages on. Thirty-one Marines died in a single incident on the highest-casualty day of the conflict for the United States, the same day you were making your let-bygones-be-bygones remarks.)

Excellent Essay...

Posted: Feb 23, 2005 - 7:46pm

I have a pretty hard time making idle chit-chat. When I really have to, I keep it pretty short. I have a few close friends and colleagues with whom I talk about serious stuff. One of those friendships grew out of a book club formed by a common friend. It's true, though, seems like a lot of dialog is a big waste of time. Ever listen to people yapping on their cell phones? When someone's loudly talking on a cell phone, I'm always been tempted to start an equally loud imaginary conversation with my grandmother (making a phone out of my fingers), who's hard of hearing (really); I bet people in the subway would get a good laugh.

Nice quote by MLK, RP. I wrote it down in my diary.

Posted: Feb 22, 2005 - 6:04pm

Hey Coding... ;) or Steeler :)

'Don't Be Silent About Things That Matter'
Standing Their Ground
by Ruth Conniff

As the Bush Administration pushes forward with its aggressive plans to tear up the Constitution and launch its liberty jihad, Senator Barbara Boxer has stepped forward as the voice of Democratic opposition.

In her celebrated clash with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the confirmation hearings, Boxer quoted Martin Luther King Jr., in what ought to be the Democrats' new motto: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

The life began draining out of the Democratic Party the day it decided to take a pass on opposing the most aggressively rightwing Administration in history. Fortunately, Boxer and a handful of colleagues decided to reverse the trend by publicly repudiating Bush in what was expected to be a noncontentious confirmation process. In taking a principled stand against Rice and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a few Democrats became the party's backbone.

The counterpoint to this position, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, took to the floor to endorse Rice and to caution fellow Democrats against giving aid and comfort to America's enemies by opposing Bush's nominees, or his policies. The criticisms of Rice, particularly her dissembling on Iraq, Lieberman said, "are all about the past."

"I don't hear any criticisms about where we are now or where we should go in the future," he said. (Memo to Joe: The war in Iraq rages on. Thirty-one Marines died in a single incident on the highest-casualty day of the conflict for the United States, the same day you were making your let-bygones-be-bygones remarks.)

Sure, Rice and the rest of the Bush team made a lot of self-contradictory statements about weapons of mass destruction. But "if you're just upset about some of the things this Administration has done in Iraq . . . give the benefit of the doubt." Lieberman pleaded.

Lest anyone think there's a minority party in this country that opposes Bush's crusade to spread freedom's "untamed fire" to "the darkest corners of the globe," Lieberman declared that, "in the final analysis, we're together. We're together on what we're doing in Iraq and on the spread of freedom and democracy around the world."

Why is this man a Democrat?

It was a Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, who stepped up first to oppose the Pentagon's frightening new warmaking powers. After New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh and The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is running his own secret intelligence-gathering operation without Congressional oversight, McCain called for hearings to determine if, in fact, the Pentagon can claim such unchecked power.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are clearly divided on how to play the role of opposition. Boxer represents the more aggressive approach, while Lieberman and other spineless wonders continue to pursue the conciliatory route.

Even on abortion--once the last big ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats--the Dems are making increasingly conciliatory noises. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton declared that pro-choice Democrats must find common ground with the anti-abortion crowd. She called abortion a "sad, even tragic choice" that pro-choice and pro-life Americans should work together to prevent through "religious and moral values," as well as abstinence education.

Remember when defending abortion rights was the big reason to vote Democratic? I guess that offer was good only before Bush took office for a second term.

So what's the outlook for the next four years? Who will oppose the Bush Administration's worst policies? And what hope is there for a minority party to be an effective opposition?

On the plus side, along with Boxer, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin found his voice during the confirmation battles and, despite his general policy of rubber-stamping cabinet appointments, including John Ashcroft, took a principled stand against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

While he is against opposing any cabinet nominee on ideological grounds, Feingold said, he opposes an Attorney General who does not respect the rule of law. "Time after time, Judge Gonzales has been a key participant in developing secret legal theories to justify policies that, as they have become public, have tarnished our nation's international reputation," he says. Chief among these, of course, is Gonzales's infamous memo declaring that torture isn't torture unless it causes pain "equivalent in intensity" to organ failure or death, and his dismissal of the Geneva Conventions as inapplicable to suspected terrorists, as well as his endorsing the suspension of the rights of so-called enemy combatants, a view later struck down by the Supreme Court.

"We cannot have a person heading the United States Department of Justice who believes that the President is above the law," Feingold asserted. "I think this Committee and the American people deserved to hear whether the next Attorney General agrees that the President has the power to disobey laws as fundamental to our national character as the prohibition on torture. Judge Gonzales refused to address this question unequivocally," Feingold said in a statement explaining his no vote.

On the issue of Rumsfeld's secret spy powers, Feingold told The Progressive: "When the Executive Branch starts acting without oversight from the elected representatives of the American people in Congress, a fundamental principle of our system of government is abandoned, and policy starts to go off the rails."

Just by bringing public attention to the outrages of this Administration, symbolic stands like the confirmation battles serve some purpose.

But more concretely, it is now up to the Democrats to stop the dismantling of Social Security, the rollback of abortion rights, global warfare, and secret torture chambers. Can they do it?

The numbers are not working in their favor. With the 55-45 split in the Senate, the Democrats can't call hearings or control when legislation reaches the floor. To increase their power, the Dems need to pick up seats in 2006. And they need to make enough noise about this Administration's outrages to help bring public pressure to bear. In other words, they need to be a real opposition. Boxer has the right idea.

But believe it or not, there are those who argue that what the Democrats need to do now is compromise more on matters of core principle.

American Prospect Editor Paul Starr, in a January 26 op-ed in The New York Times, put forward the theory that the Democrats are now paying the price for having made the great liberal gains of the last century through the courts and executive fiat. Roe v. Wade, civil rights laws, and other federal triumphs of liberalism were ahead of the curve, Starr writes. Imposed by the Supreme Court and the executive branch from above, they were always vulnerable to overthrow by an unconvinced populace. Fair enough. But instead of arguing that the Democrats should build a stronger grassroots movement, Starr goes on to assert that what the Democrats should do is compromise and agree to chip away at abortion rights and affirmative action, in order to appease Red State voters.

This sort of thinking is why Hillary Clinton extended an olive branch to the anti-abortion crowd. But it is a grave mistake. The Republicans have made their grassroots gains in the states and nationally by taking exactly the opposite tack. They have fired up their base by appeals to their party's most cherished principles. Especially on the issue of abortion, the Democrats actually enjoy the advantage of a majority pro-choice consensus in public opinion polls. It's absurd to capitulate to a minority of aggressive rightwingers. Worse, it is the seeming shiftlessness of Democratic candidates that makes them so unappealing.

Save Social Security from the privatizers. Get out of the quagmire in Iraq. Defend a woman's right to choose. And remember the words of Martin Luther King: Don't be silent about things that matter.

Ruth Conniff is Political Editor of The Progressive

Posted: Feb 20, 2005 - 6:26pm

Why chattering classes have nothing to say

Amelia Hill, education correspondent
Sunday February 20, 2005

Observer

The art of conversation is dead but the artistry of chatter is thriving, with Britons overwhelmingly admitting they rarely talk about anything more serious than traffic and television.
According to a survey of more than 2,000 adults, almost two-thirds of us admit to indulging in shallow chit-chat at the expense of weighty dialogue - even though we secretly long for more meaningful exchanges.

'Brits have lost the skill of conversation,' said Ronald Carter, conversation expert and professor of English Language at Nottingham University. 'Considered communication has been the first casualty of our rushed, modern lives.

'We can't exchange thoughts and opinions reflectively when we're in a hurry and so we resort to banal banter,' said Carter, who has published more than 20 books and 100 papers on different aspects of spoken language. 'We have got used to chatter and have stopped making the effort to reach any more significant conversational depth.'

The survey, by Telewest Broadband, found that despite the cultural stereotype, the British weather is no longer regarded as an acceptable topic of small talk. Instead, we prefer talking about last night's TV, office gossip and traffic.

Carter believes that considered opinions are the first casualty of an excess of small talk. 'Too much chatter means we keep our real thoughts to ourselves,' he said. 'We risk becoming rigid and thoughtless in our opinions,' he added.

But Dr Jonathan Miller, the neuroscience researcher, TV presenter and author, disagrees. 'Conversation is not an art and anyway, big conversation bores me,' he said. 'Turn-taking in conversation is the important thing. I'm interested in how people watch each other when they are conversing, how they respond to various topics, rather than what those topics are.'

Lemn Sissay, named as one of the 50 key black British writers, fetes small talk: 'Talking about traffic and patio doors is the Western Buddhist mantra,' he said. It's a way we can find inner peace in today's society. Small talk can give away so much more about people, and be much more fascinating than big talk. I truly respect those who can sit around and discuss patio doors for half an hour and get something out of it.'

The survey also found that more than two -thirds of people believe the telephone is the best way to have intelligent conversations, although Ned Sherrin, presenter of Loose Ends , the Radio 4 comedy show, a lexicographer and author of 20 books, admits hating the telephone. 'I would rather see the contours of their face, the clouds and the flicker of their tears. I find the telephone irritating and unsatisfactory, and like to get them over with as quickly as possible,' he said.