This was my column in InsiderIowa.com.
Race and Politics
Steffen Schmidt
Conservative blogger – does that mean he’s a Republican and possibly a Tea Part supporter? – Andrew Breitbart posted a heavily edited video of a black USDA employee Shirley Sherrod making a “racist comment.”
Without so much as a phone call asking for an explanation she was fired.
It turns out that Breitbart edited the full talk from which the snippet came totally distorting her comment.
In the speech she was sharing how 24 years ago she was initially reluctant to help a white farmer who needed assistance.
The news media especially “the Unfair and Unbalanced” Fox news ran the story as an example of black racism.
The NAACP even condemned her for saying that.
As it turns out she was using it as an example of how UNFAIR it is to use race when relating to people and how badly she felt even though in fact she helped the farmer Roger Spooner, save his Georgia farm (he has come public this week at age 86 in her defense).
Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and Pres Obama apologized and told her she could come back to USDA. Nice gesture but it comes after an incredible knee jerk reaction.
This whole think was a blog lynching. It is just the tip of the iceberg for an increasingly brutal and irresponsible “new media” such as bloggers, YouTubers, ambush journalists working for political causes (such as the ACORN fake prostitute and pimp incident also perpetrated by conservative bloggers) and other new parallel sources of opinion and “news.”
That’s ok and exciting to have so much diversity in media. However the problem comes when so-called respectable outlets such as Fox become the legitimizers who give credibility to this crap.
Of course, as some analysts have commented, having a news empire owned and controlled by a foreign interest such as the Rupert Murdoch clan is at best troubling and at worst a national security threat. In most countries it would be viewed as the interference of a foreign power in the internal affairs of the nation.
In any case, the Sherrod incident is an alarming example of the power and irresponsibility of new media and of how desperate conservatives are to instigate tension and to use race as a match to light a political torch.
It may backfire and I for one hope that the news media including Fox will find a new sense of propriety and accuracy. If we only have Yellow journalism we are doomed.
Once upon a time US journalism was all-political. Most newspapers where totally biased to one or the other party, faction, or cause. Moguls who manipulated public opinion could even start wars – the Spanish American War to be precise. Yellow journalism = there was a little buck tooth Japanese or Asian character used in cartoons that were totally racist which is where the “yellow” comes from. Are we gonna start seeing Fox run cartoons with little black characters with pig tails eating chicken and watermelon sometime soon?
Maybe we are going back to that era which would be a shame.
I believe that the media (including the left media) should NOT be used as a mechanism for inflaming national divisions such as race. We know where that leads – to undermining national moral character, discrediting the US in the eyes of the world, violence, division, hatred.
If the right wing bloggers want to go there so be it but there should be a serious backlash from the majority of Americans. Maybe a media advertiser boycott?
Where will we get good and fair analysis if this happens?
I guess the fine writers for InsiderIowa.com may become the last bastion of truth, justice, good reporting, fair analysis, and bipartisanship!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Is the cyber war a "sleazy new way to take taxpayer money?"
From - Arnie Arneson's hot column in InsiderIowa.com
"The “war du jour” – cyber space - has the government and the military industrial complex hell bent on demanding and, of course, spending billions on monitoring critical infrastructure from the electricity grid to nuclear power plants to subway systems to air traffic control via their internet connectivity let alone their computer control systems. While the defense department is focused on recreating themselves in the frame of cyber safety to ensure that defense dollars keep rolling in (note the new Naval Cyber Forces Command or the Army’s ingenious Network Warfare Battalion), the military defense contractors are way ahead of them. Major General William Lord, the provisional head of AFCyber (Air Force Cyber) was late to the game when he told representatives from the defense industry in May that “ the cyber arena is filled with new business opportunities.”
What, Lord should have known, is that the private boys were plugged into the “necessity” for cyber monitoring years ago because it was their well placed military contractors that planted those seeds and developed the concept. If you want to follow just one actor in this insidious kabuki theater, then check out Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Salon.com entitled: Mike McConnell, the WashPost and the Dangers of Sleazy Corporatism.
Glenn follows the “work” of Mike McConnell, a former high ranking official who suffers from the “classic never ending revolving door syndrome”. McConnell went from head of the National Security Agency under the first Pres. Bush and Bill Clinton to Booz Allen (“one of the nation’s largest private intelligence contractors) and then in “classic syndrome style” became the Director of National Intelligence under son of Bush and then went back to Booz Allen landing a job as Exec. VPresident.
As Greenwald brilliantly points out, McConnell’s job, both in the Executive Branch and the Executive Suite was the same, ensuring that the public role of government intelligence and surveillance was outsourced to corporations who operate in the private sphere, guaranteeing less public scrutiny, less accountability and billions in profits."
"The “war du jour” – cyber space - has the government and the military industrial complex hell bent on demanding and, of course, spending billions on monitoring critical infrastructure from the electricity grid to nuclear power plants to subway systems to air traffic control via their internet connectivity let alone their computer control systems. While the defense department is focused on recreating themselves in the frame of cyber safety to ensure that defense dollars keep rolling in (note the new Naval Cyber Forces Command or the Army’s ingenious Network Warfare Battalion), the military defense contractors are way ahead of them. Major General William Lord, the provisional head of AFCyber (Air Force Cyber) was late to the game when he told representatives from the defense industry in May that “ the cyber arena is filled with new business opportunities.”
What, Lord should have known, is that the private boys were plugged into the “necessity” for cyber monitoring years ago because it was their well placed military contractors that planted those seeds and developed the concept. If you want to follow just one actor in this insidious kabuki theater, then check out Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Salon.com entitled: Mike McConnell, the WashPost and the Dangers of Sleazy Corporatism.
Glenn follows the “work” of Mike McConnell, a former high ranking official who suffers from the “classic never ending revolving door syndrome”. McConnell went from head of the National Security Agency under the first Pres. Bush and Bill Clinton to Booz Allen (“one of the nation’s largest private intelligence contractors) and then in “classic syndrome style” became the Director of National Intelligence under son of Bush and then went back to Booz Allen landing a job as Exec. VPresident.
As Greenwald brilliantly points out, McConnell’s job, both in the Executive Branch and the Executive Suite was the same, ensuring that the public role of government intelligence and surveillance was outsourced to corporations who operate in the private sphere, guaranteeing less public scrutiny, less accountability and billions in profits."
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Federal regulators fritter while oceans burn
Des Moines Register Op Ed Piece.
July 10, 2010
Guest column: Federal regulators fritter while oceans burn
By STEFFEN SCHMIDT
Mines explode, people die and federal and state regulators have repeatedly issued warnings and fines.
But even with people dying, nothing further is done.
Hurricanes hit and people die. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has become a national joke.
Oil wells explode, at least eleven people die, and the federal government is helpless as a child in responding. Business in the Gulf states is severely affected. Wildlife and the ecosystem are probably irreparably damaged.
We discover that the Minerals Management Service, the federal regulatory agency, exercised no oversight of the oil industry and accepted emergency response plans from BP without questioning a single part of the 580-page plan, even though it referred to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico (there are none there). The agency made news before the BP disaster for its "sex, drugs, free Sugar Bowl tickets, and massive royalty give-aways."
My research, and the work of others who are only now starting to pay attention, will show that the Gulf of Mexico has been a Wild West frontier with no law, no sheriff and no jail. Companies operating in this remote environment are not supervised, are not held accountable, have accidents as well as serious spills constantly with no consequences and no reporting. Many of them operate with foreign crews on foreign registry vessels. The workers are intimidated and threatened not to document or report anything.
Many come from countries where the words "law," "legal rights," "transparency," and "the environment" are unknown.
This is basically a no-man's land that has been abandoned to profiteers large and small, giant oil companies and small firms that service the industry by both states and the federal government.
"Don't get in the way of business" may be a nice slogan, but fishermen, resort owners, governors and local government officials who will see tax and tourism revenues collapse, and the families of injured and dead workers, are paying a huge price for that indifference.
Criminal negligence is "the failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner." Much of what's been going on qualifies as criminal negligence, especially when people die. If there are no consequences - not just fines, which are the price of doing business, but serious jail time - nothing will change. If there were no serious consequences for murder, just a token fine, murder would be out of
control.
Recently there was an audit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Asset Forfeiture Fund composed of the fines and other forfeitures turned over by fishermen charged with violating federal fishing laws. The audit showed that "agents had spent some $49 million via more than 82,000 transactions, with absolutely no oversight" and "the agency owns significantly more vehicles (200) than it
has officers (172). The fund was routinely tapped for overseas travel. Plus, the agency bought a $300,000 "undercover" vessel described by its manufacturer as "luxurious" - complete with a "beautifully appointed cabin." (July 3. 2010, Gloucester Times.)
So even when there are agencies charged with regulation and enforcing laws, they become
unsupervised, rogue entities that undermine their mission and damage the public trust in government.
We stand at a fork in the road. One leads down the well-worn path of indifference, neglect, corruption and mismanagement by government oversight and regulatory agencies. The second leads to a renewal of civic-minded, responsible, honest and transparent conduct. It also leads to consequential supervision of activities by business and industry.
Steffen Schmidt is University Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and researches coastal zone management issues at Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center. Contact:
sws@iastate.edu.
www.desmoinesregister.com | Printer-friendly article page http://www.desmoinesregister.com/print/article/20100710/OPI...
2 of 2 7/10/10 5:49 PM
July 10, 2010
Guest column: Federal regulators fritter while oceans burn
By STEFFEN SCHMIDT
Mines explode, people die and federal and state regulators have repeatedly issued warnings and fines.
But even with people dying, nothing further is done.
Hurricanes hit and people die. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has become a national joke.
Oil wells explode, at least eleven people die, and the federal government is helpless as a child in responding. Business in the Gulf states is severely affected. Wildlife and the ecosystem are probably irreparably damaged.
We discover that the Minerals Management Service, the federal regulatory agency, exercised no oversight of the oil industry and accepted emergency response plans from BP without questioning a single part of the 580-page plan, even though it referred to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico (there are none there). The agency made news before the BP disaster for its "sex, drugs, free Sugar Bowl tickets, and massive royalty give-aways."
My research, and the work of others who are only now starting to pay attention, will show that the Gulf of Mexico has been a Wild West frontier with no law, no sheriff and no jail. Companies operating in this remote environment are not supervised, are not held accountable, have accidents as well as serious spills constantly with no consequences and no reporting. Many of them operate with foreign crews on foreign registry vessels. The workers are intimidated and threatened not to document or report anything.
Many come from countries where the words "law," "legal rights," "transparency," and "the environment" are unknown.
This is basically a no-man's land that has been abandoned to profiteers large and small, giant oil companies and small firms that service the industry by both states and the federal government.
"Don't get in the way of business" may be a nice slogan, but fishermen, resort owners, governors and local government officials who will see tax and tourism revenues collapse, and the families of injured and dead workers, are paying a huge price for that indifference.
Criminal negligence is "the failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner." Much of what's been going on qualifies as criminal negligence, especially when people die. If there are no consequences - not just fines, which are the price of doing business, but serious jail time - nothing will change. If there were no serious consequences for murder, just a token fine, murder would be out of
control.
Recently there was an audit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Asset Forfeiture Fund composed of the fines and other forfeitures turned over by fishermen charged with violating federal fishing laws. The audit showed that "agents had spent some $49 million via more than 82,000 transactions, with absolutely no oversight" and "the agency owns significantly more vehicles (200) than it
has officers (172). The fund was routinely tapped for overseas travel. Plus, the agency bought a $300,000 "undercover" vessel described by its manufacturer as "luxurious" - complete with a "beautifully appointed cabin." (July 3. 2010, Gloucester Times.)
So even when there are agencies charged with regulation and enforcing laws, they become
unsupervised, rogue entities that undermine their mission and damage the public trust in government.
We stand at a fork in the road. One leads down the well-worn path of indifference, neglect, corruption and mismanagement by government oversight and regulatory agencies. The second leads to a renewal of civic-minded, responsible, honest and transparent conduct. It also leads to consequential supervision of activities by business and industry.
Steffen Schmidt is University Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and researches coastal zone management issues at Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center. Contact:
sws@iastate.edu.
www.desmoinesregister.com | Printer-friendly article page http://www.desmoinesregister.com/print/article/20100710/OPI...
2 of 2 7/10/10 5:49 PM
Friday, July 9, 2010
Opinion: Treading Slick Political Waters
Link to Original AOL News Article.
(May 19, 2010) -- The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has focused a white-hot light on the problems faced along the country's coastal zones. Even as experts are struggling to staunch the spill, Americans are struggling to find the best path to secure our nation's energy future.
(Will the "Loop Current" takes this oil up the East coast?)
The political ramifications from the spill came to a head this week with the announcement that the U.S. Department of the Interior plans to split the federal Minerals Management Service, which is supposed to supervise the country's renewable resources in eco-friendly ways. This new plan will divide the MMS section that ensures that energy companies comply with federal safety and environmental regulations from the section that gets billions of dollars in drilling royalties for the federal government each year -- second only to federal taxes among our nation's most important revenue streams.
The move, according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, was designed to guarantee "there is no conflict, real or perceived, with respect to those functions." But there's already a real political conflict on how best to proceed with energy policy in the wake of this environmental disaster. The "Drill, baby, drill" cheerleading of Sarah Palin and John McCain during his 2008 presidential bid, as well as by Newt Gingrich, the de-facto intellectual guru of the GOP, has lost nearly all of its cachet.
In a new CBS News poll, more than a third of all Americans say the spill is "an indication of a broader problem with offshore drilling." Yet a recent Pew survey also shows just 38 percent approval for the president's handling of the oil leak.
So both political sides are covered in sludge over this spill, leaving even more uncertainty over how best to proceed. That makes it one of the most complex and pervasive coastal policy challenges ever seen. It will leave a much more lasting impact than Katrina.
And it's only going to get worse according to Joanna Gyory, Arthur J. Mariano and Edward H. Ryan, some of my colleagues at Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center. They are now tracking the Gulf of Mexico currents that swirl east. Those currents take material from the Gulf to the Florida Keys, along the southern tip of Florida, and then into the Gulf Stream, which runs north along the entire U.S. coast and then past Ireland and England. This flow is indicated on the map below.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
According to the scientists, The Loop Current (1) feeds the Florida Current that transports significant amounts of heat toward the North Pole; (2) transports surface waters of tropical origin into the Gulf of Mexico; and (3) is fed by the Caribbean current and the Yucatan Current.
This could add to the enormous political firestorm that has already exploded over oil drilling offshore and in the environment. For the Republicans, this is bad news up and down the oil-threatened East Coast, with repercussions also felt across the country.
Should we stop offshore drilling?
We can't. Our dependence on carbon-based fuels is so huge that we will be struggling with how to make coal, oil and natural gas environmentally friendly for many, many decades. But just where do we drill? After this disaster, many coastal states may take a not-in-my-backyard (or-not-along-my-beaches) position.
One thing's for sure. After this spill, "Drill, baby, drill" will not be the bumper sticker of any political party anytime soon.
Steffen Schmidt teaches coastal policy and is an affiliate at the Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center in Dania Beach, Fla. He is a professor of political science at Iowa State University.
BP Oil Disaster: The View From Britain
From my Article in InsiderIowa.com
By Steffen Schmidt
On my recent trip to Great Britain I was taken aback by the utterly different news coverage of the BP oil disaster in the British media from how U.S. news sources treated the story.
First of all, the disaster played at a much lower level of intensity and I had to literally search through the newspapers to find articles. Britain was preoccupied with other serious issues which I will discuss in subsequent columns and which you will find interesting because they are topics of great urgency for Americans as well such as economic troubles and Afghanistan.
Second, there was lots of philosophizing about the "blame culture" in the USA where "everything becomes a lawsuit" and "where there are no accidents only willful malice." In fact, there were parallel stories about an increase in lawsuits in Britain for things that in the past had always been seen and treated as accidents and not as reasons to sue someone for causing them.
Third, a recurring theme of discussion in London was the importance of BP to British pensioners (that's retired folks for those of you who don't do "Brit-speak"). One of every seven pounds of pensioners’ income comes from BP dividends and earnings. This was of great concern all around as retirement and living a decent and actually, a VERY comfortable life after work is a huge value of life in Britain.
Fourth, taxes on BP profits accounts for close to a six billion pound source of tax revenue for an already strapped government budget.
Fifth, over ten thousand British jobs depend on BP directly and many tens of thousand additional jobs indirectly.
Sixth, although there was sympathy for the creatures such as oil coated and stunned looking brown Pelicans and oily fish and some stunning and disturbing pictures were run in the media, there was quite definitely more focus on the economic impact of the disaster.
Seventh, the latest round of articles and commentary in London at least emphasized the enormous importance of BP to the economy of the United States and especially to the Gulf states and in particular Texas and Louisiana.
The Guardian ran an article with impressive graphics and the headline "Anger as Obama freeze on deepwater drilling ordered by the Obama administration puts 46,000 oil jobs at risk." The piece went on to quote folks such as oilrig workers and Gov. Jindal of Louisiana who lamented the moratorium on deepwater drilling. There was also commentary that the rigs would likely be moved from the Gulf of Mexico to offshore Africa, Brazil, and India where wells are waiting to be drilled. The press in London quoted the widow of one of the rig workers killed in the explosion that still supports offshore deep water drilling.
Another theme that emerged in the media was the shortfall in oil production that would result from the moratorium with the number of 350,000 barrels a day less by 2016 mentioned as a possibility. Sidebar stories analyzed the global demand for oil and emphasized that China had now passed the UK in energy consumption per capita. The idea of this package of articles was that by stopping oil drilling Pres. Obama was putting at risk the energy security of the U.S. and setting up a potential for sharp rises in oil prices worldwide.
It was very interesting to see the BP disaster discussed away from the glare of CNN and the American media frenzy. At one pub in Wales I discussed this issue with a guy who had lived in the U.S. for many years, served in the British military during the Gulf wars, and who was an avid hunter and nature lover. His comment was that the long-term dangerous impact of this spill was being vastly overplayed. He noted that he had seen the terrible oil spills during the first Gulf war first hand and that the long-term consequences of these were temporary and most of life was back to normal. "Nature is very powerful and we always underestimate her resilience," he insisted.
In any case, the BP oil disaster is much more than environmental issues – it actually appears to be resetting US-British relations and not in a good way. My next column will be on "Obama in the UK: Things Are Not Going Well."
By Steffen Schmidt
On my recent trip to Great Britain I was taken aback by the utterly different news coverage of the BP oil disaster in the British media from how U.S. news sources treated the story.
First of all, the disaster played at a much lower level of intensity and I had to literally search through the newspapers to find articles. Britain was preoccupied with other serious issues which I will discuss in subsequent columns and which you will find interesting because they are topics of great urgency for Americans as well such as economic troubles and Afghanistan.
Second, there was lots of philosophizing about the "blame culture" in the USA where "everything becomes a lawsuit" and "where there are no accidents only willful malice." In fact, there were parallel stories about an increase in lawsuits in Britain for things that in the past had always been seen and treated as accidents and not as reasons to sue someone for causing them.
Third, a recurring theme of discussion in London was the importance of BP to British pensioners (that's retired folks for those of you who don't do "Brit-speak"). One of every seven pounds of pensioners’ income comes from BP dividends and earnings. This was of great concern all around as retirement and living a decent and actually, a VERY comfortable life after work is a huge value of life in Britain.
Fourth, taxes on BP profits accounts for close to a six billion pound source of tax revenue for an already strapped government budget.
Fifth, over ten thousand British jobs depend on BP directly and many tens of thousand additional jobs indirectly.
Sixth, although there was sympathy for the creatures such as oil coated and stunned looking brown Pelicans and oily fish and some stunning and disturbing pictures were run in the media, there was quite definitely more focus on the economic impact of the disaster.
Seventh, the latest round of articles and commentary in London at least emphasized the enormous importance of BP to the economy of the United States and especially to the Gulf states and in particular Texas and Louisiana.
The Guardian ran an article with impressive graphics and the headline "Anger as Obama freeze on deepwater drilling ordered by the Obama administration puts 46,000 oil jobs at risk." The piece went on to quote folks such as oilrig workers and Gov. Jindal of Louisiana who lamented the moratorium on deepwater drilling. There was also commentary that the rigs would likely be moved from the Gulf of Mexico to offshore Africa, Brazil, and India where wells are waiting to be drilled. The press in London quoted the widow of one of the rig workers killed in the explosion that still supports offshore deep water drilling.
Another theme that emerged in the media was the shortfall in oil production that would result from the moratorium with the number of 350,000 barrels a day less by 2016 mentioned as a possibility. Sidebar stories analyzed the global demand for oil and emphasized that China had now passed the UK in energy consumption per capita. The idea of this package of articles was that by stopping oil drilling Pres. Obama was putting at risk the energy security of the U.S. and setting up a potential for sharp rises in oil prices worldwide.
It was very interesting to see the BP disaster discussed away from the glare of CNN and the American media frenzy. At one pub in Wales I discussed this issue with a guy who had lived in the U.S. for many years, served in the British military during the Gulf wars, and who was an avid hunter and nature lover. His comment was that the long-term dangerous impact of this spill was being vastly overplayed. He noted that he had seen the terrible oil spills during the first Gulf war first hand and that the long-term consequences of these were temporary and most of life was back to normal. "Nature is very powerful and we always underestimate her resilience," he insisted.
In any case, the BP oil disaster is much more than environmental issues – it actually appears to be resetting US-British relations and not in a good way. My next column will be on "Obama in the UK: Things Are Not Going Well."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)