No matter how much the Chinese government pretends the peace-loving Dalai Lama is a monster inciting bloody rebellion, no informed person anywhere on earth believes such wild propaganda. If fact, the Dalai Lama threatened to resign if Tibetan protestors continued being violent.

By the very same moral reasoning that caused the United States to boycott the 1980 Olympics in Moscow after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the United States should boycott the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

Sadly, that won’t happen. (more…)

Whatever the outcome today, Hillary’s campaign has become so shrill that she had to concede her shrillness during the silliness this past weekend on Saturday Night Live.

Clinton’s shrill attacks on Obama in recent weeks, like refusing on 60 Minutes to overtly declare she knows Obama is not a Muslim, convey much more than a desperate fear of losing the race for the presidency. Her snide behavior bespeaks a trait of vindictiveness and ruthlessness that many find distasteful.

If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination, can her shrill voice compete with the sedate tones of John McCain? Unless she can lower her pitch an octave and practice daily mediation enough to project calmness instead of fear, my concern is that the visceral backlash could hand the election to the Republicans. (more…)

When I’d added antifreeze two weeks earlier, I should have bled the cooling system line, which I did not know to do. I’d learned auto mechanics on an old slant six Plymouth Valiant that I could take apart and put back together again with relative ease. These new engines are too complex for me.

Because I did not bleed the antifreeze line, according to my mechanic, an air bubble caused the temperature sensor to fail, which caused the fan to fail, which caused the engine to overheat, which caused the head gasket to blow, which caused antifreeze to enter the oil system, which then ruined the aluminum engine. Consequently, I now must replace that engine.

Well, I do not happen to have an extra $2,000 laying about this month, so I’ve begun an active search for more income, such as finding new clients. I was not prepared for the absurdity waiting “out there.” (more…)

For information: http://firstspiritualsciencechurch.org
Call: 303- 756-3226

Look at the top tier candidates on the Republican side. Mitt Romney oozes insincere charm. Mike Huckabee feels like an “aw shucks” huckster. John McCain has earned a reputation for being the real deal, but even he’s apparently gone faux to appease the right wing of his party.

Now look at the top tier candidates on the Democratic side. Hillary Rodham Clinton initially tried to suppress her one moment of authentic emotion in New Hampshire, and now she’s smugly milking that moment for voter sympathy without taking off her practiced smile again. Barack Obama began with full presence, but the more he advances in the polls, the more he seems to be speaking by rote and saying what his handlers tell him to say, much like Robert Redford in the classic film, “The Candidate.” John Edwards lets his passion show when he talks about the widening gap between the rich and poor, but is he donating his millions to fund anything more socially significant than his own campaign?

The only two candidates who feel real to me are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They can afford to be themselves on stage because they both know the mainstream press has brainwashed the vast unthinking majority of Americans into believing these two outspoken candidates are not “viable.” While the two men agree strongly on defending our evaporating rights and liberties, they disagree just as strongly on monetary and fiscal policies. I wish we could bundle the two together into one progressive/libertarian super candidate that the corporate media could not ignore.

Meanwhile, the presidential campaigns continue with the press focusing on the horse race and largely ignoring the candidates’ positions on major issues beyond mentioning in passing which constituency prefers this or that position.

Between mostly fake candidates and mostly fake news coverage, what chance does democracy have? We might as well populate the stage at the presidential debates with inflatable dolls hooked up to iPod recordings.

When I tried to explain the difference between self publishing and independent publishing, he was not interested. He’s apparently chosen to limit the range of his story sources to authors published by the big royalty publishers, which is fine. That’s his choice.

Yet the incident caused me to reflect on the fact that there’s rampant disrespect for authors who work outside the box of traditional publishing. Too many established journalists unduly dismiss experts like me because we’ve chosen to seek wealth by starting our own publishing ventures rather than going to royalty publishers.

Granted, if a royalty publisher offered me a deal that would realistically earn more for me than I could ever earn on my own, I’d be happy to sign the contract. Meanwhile, in the process of promoting my work, I’m facing prejudices against independent authors like me, and that bias causes me to write this blog today.

Are you willing to look objectively at the economics behind the most vital trend in the publishing industry since the advent of the chain bookstores? What is the difference between self publishing, independent publishing, and royalty publishing? What difference does it make for journalist seeking expert news sources?

(more…)

The insane furor over her recent visit to a tattoo parlor proves my point. If you see any of the ABC News video footage from the scene, note the look of panic on her face as she cowers behind her bodyguard pushing through the press mob outside the place.

In my view, the press needs to leave the woman alone! If she has life issues to face, give her the respect you would give your own sister and let her deal with them. The fact she chose to be a performer does not give the media a right to violate her privacy.

The press fixation on her estranged husband, Kevin Federline, is equally absurd. What difference does it make to the fate of the world whether the couple stays together or not? Will it end the genocide in Darfur? Will it create peace between Isrealis and Palestinians? Will it get President Bush to stop thwarting the acts of Congress with his Signing Statements?

No, in the big scheme of things, whether their marriage endures really matters to no one but them. The press should butt out and stop exploiting them for the sake of selling ads that target the fans of these pop stars. The same thing applies to all the other entertainers who become the objects of media feeding frenzies.

(more…)

WITHIN the past few weeks, my life has experienced a total turnaround.

In early January, I headed off to New York City for a book reading and signing at Vox Pop bookstore in Brooklyn, performing with New York’s top political comedian, Scott Blakeman. This was the best-attended reading I’ve done so far.

Curiously, at the bookstore’s suggestion, I set up my signing table display near the front door. I did not post a notice with the selling price. My goof. When I came back to the table after the reading, more than a dozen books were gone. One person quipped, “Theft is the sincerest form of flattery.” Must be my lucky day, I told myself.

After a few days in the city, including an amazing Sunday with men from the ManKind Project, I took the train down to Philadelphia. Philly is my kind of town.

To commemorate the 231st anniversary for the January 10 publication of Common Sense by Thomas Paine, I’d organized a press event at The Library Company of Philadelphia (founded by Ben Franklin on 1731). Joining me were the head librarian, James Green; the director of the Thomas Paine National Historical Association, Brian McCartin; the nation’s top Ben Franklin re-enactor, Ralph Archbold; and talented Thomas Paine re-enactor and peace activist, Steve Gulick. I spoke on what Paine would write if he was alive today.

C-SPAN’s Book TV sent a crew to record the event. They cablecast the program three times on the last weekend of January. My publicist, Penny Sansevieri, told me, “This could be really important for your book.” Must be my lucky day, I told myself.

(more…)

When 3,000 people died in Al Qaeda’s air attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, press coverage lasted for months. When U.S.-led troops invaded Afghanistan in January 2002, the first U.S. death saw more press coverage than the 3,000 Afghanis killed. The American press spotlighted the death of the 2,000th U.S. soldier in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, but the press has barely reported estimates of 600,000 Iraqi deaths since the invasion. In fact, the U.S. Government does not keep track of Iraqi deaths. Are not all lives equal?

Given the consolidation of media ownership into fewer and fewer hands, the diversity of editorial viewpoints is dwindling. Once a free press voiced different perspectives from across the political spectrum. Now newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV seem to cover the same stories the same way. Why? The so-called “liberal” media are largely owned by conservatives allied with friends in government.

We can learn from a joke I made up decades ago. How many top government officials and media moguls does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. They want to keep the people in the dark.

Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.” His tactic was to repeat a simplistic Big Lie loud enough and often enough until the people believed it. For instance, Hitler’s media said Poland posed a threat, so a “preemptive” invasion was justified. After weak Poland was easily occupied in 1939, Hitler said the invasion was necessary anyway. Does this sound like U.S. statements about the “preemptive” invasion of Iraq? Is the similarity a coincidence?

Why don’t journalists with integrity protest being used as tools of propaganda? Because speaking truth to power is very risky. Reporters soon learn which stories their editors will not publish. Objecting to censorship, I’ve learned first-hand, can cost reporters their jobs. This causes reporters to practice “self censorship” to keep earning a living, which is the most insidious form of press repression.

Without the mainstream press as a watchdog to report government misdeeds, state abuses of constitutional power too rarely are stopped by public outcry. That’s a shame. As Paddy Chayefsky advised, we need to tell government officials and media network executives that we’re as mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!

Supreme Court justices and federal judges are appointed for life. They are nominated by presidents and approved by the Senate. The House has no vote in court appointments. Why not? Was the judiciary ever intended to feel any allegiance to the common people?

The Supreme Court, like high courts in most nations, reflects the same legacy from feudalism as the president and the Senate. The term “court” itself derives from monarchy. Willful kings in court chambers once settled all disputes. (Remember King Solomon?) We can thank angry English barons in 1215 for the Magna Carta. Their insistence on curbing an abusive monarch gave to us the modern moral and political principle of a leader ruled by the law.

Politics create the laws before they reach the courts, which apply the laws. In a republic or democracy, judges must stay within the law, uphold trial by jury, and ignore political bias. Judicial independence is the best guarantor of equal justice under the law.

Does the U.S. Supreme Court embody fairness? In the close 2000 presidential election, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote. Then Fox News preemptively reported a Republican win in crucial Florida. The High Court intervened to stop a disputed Florida recount, effectively selecting a president instead of letting voters elect one.

If the Supreme Court had not acted, an Electoral College deadlock was possible. In that event, the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the election. Because the Republican Party controlled the House in 2000, the GOP still would have won, but the House was denied its due vote under the Constitution. Was the High Court’s action unconstitutional? Like the discounted and uncounted voters in Florida, were all Americans disenfranchised?

Is the U.S. Supreme Court a trustworthy body? Do the president’s appointees erode our trust? Will today’s Supreme Court ever reverse such unconstitutional measures as those in the Patriot Act?

*

LIKE Paine wrote about the English Constitution, it’s a fallacy to say the U.S. Constitution is a balanced union of three separate powers —executive, legislative, judicial—reciprocally checking one another. The phrase “separation of powers” rarely has real meaning beyond symbolic rhetoric. Cases may be cited where one government branch stopped abuses by another branch, but do not be fooled.

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s, for instance, ordered all of his administration officials to stop testifying before the “unAmerican activities” committee of Sen. Joe McCarthy, the surly pursuer of communists in America; his tactics mirrored his foes in Moscow. When “Ike” cut off political support, McCarthy was primed for prime-time TV demolition by Edward R. Morrow and a free press. The “witch hunts” ended. The “blacklists” ended.

But Eisenhower acted only after McCarthy publicly humiliated a presidential war buddy. McCarthyism was halted only by personality politics, not by the Constitution. This was far better than no restraints at all on power and ambition. However, please observe the failure by “the rule of law” in curbing a nascent dictatorship in America.

More recently, Republicans in Congress told K Street lobbyists in Washington, DC, to hire only Republican staffers and contribute only to Republican campaigns, or else they’d be denied access to majority GOP legislators. The press reported the “pay to play” scheme in 2004, and a top lobbyist went to jail for corruption, but know that nothing in the Constitution has ever halted such abuses of power.