Reviving the Commons

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency


Vision: Reviving the Commons — A Recipe for Political Optimism
By Jay Walljasper, AlterNet … Posted on December 20, 2010, Printed on December 31, 2010 … READ COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE …

These are uneasy times for anyone who believes that “liberty and justice for all” still has meaning in modern America.

Triumphant Tea Partiers don their work gloves in anticipation of dismantling three generations of hard-won social progress on Capitol Hill and in the nation’s statehouses. The drumbeat throughout the media is that we have been recklessly profligate in social spending, and simply cannot afford to help the poor, heal the environment or invest in anything besides the Pentagon.

Progressives are understandably dazed. Some seem willing to trim back their values in the name of pragmatism. Others hesitate, but wonder how to express a message about our country’s future that resonates with everyday Americans.
Although political optimism appears hard to come by right now, I have found plenty of it in the course of writing and editing a new book All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons in collaboration with the commons movement strategy center On The Commons.

The commons — which means what we share together and how we share it, encompassing everything from water to the Internet to your neighborhood — is generating excitement among otherwise beleaguered activists. It offers a compelling new way to tackle familiar problems like economic inequity, environmental devastation and social alienation.

When seen through the lens of the commons, public services cannot be dismissed as “waste” nor basic matters of fairness reduced to “entitlements,” And it becomes clear the market is not the ideal framework to govern every aspect of human activity. The commons offers a fresh approach for understanding the most appropriate roles for government, civil society and the market in the complicated mechanism of today’s society.

Practical initiatives based on the principles of the commons hold promise for inspiring citizens (a/k/a commoners) to re-engage in social action as they seek common-sense solutions and opportunities. Even in fallow political times like these when we can’t expect much positive out of Washington, D.C., the emerging emphasis on what belongs to all of us can spark powerful projects at the grassroots level.

Here’s just a sampling of examples from All That We Share that point to a better future we have in common. The good life means more than private property — all of us have a stake in what we share together


A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency




By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd and Tana Ganeva, AlterNet …. Posted on December 31, 2010, Printed on December 31, 2010 .. read complete article here …

The corporate media’s tendency to blare misinformation and outright fabrications has been particularly egregious in coverage of WikiLeaks. As Glenn Greenwald has argued, mainstream news outlets are parroting smears and falsehoods about the whistleblower site and its founder Julian Assange, helping to perpetuate a number of “zombie lies” — misconceptions that refuse to die no matter how much they conflict with known reality, basic logic and well-publicized information.

Here are the bogus narratives that keep appearing in newspapers and on the airwaves.

1. Fearmongering that WikiLeaks revelations will result in deaths. So far there’s no evidence that WikiLeaks’ revelations have cost lives. In fact, right before the cables were released, Pentagon officials admitted there were no documented instances of people being killed because of information exposed by WikiLeaks’ previous document releases (and unlike the diplomatic cables, the Afghanistan files were unredacted).

That’s not to say that the exposure of secret government files can’t somehow lead to someone, somewhere, someday, being hurt. But that’s a pretty high bar to set, especially by a government engaged in multiple military operations — many of them secret — that lead to untold civilian casualties.

2. Spreading the lie that WikiLeaks posted all the cables. WikiLeaks has posted fewer than 2,000 of the 251,287 cables in its possession. The whistleblower released those documents in tandem with major news outlets including the Guardian, El Pais and Le Monde, and used most of the redactions employed by those papers to protect the identities of people whose lives could be endangered by exposure. The AP detailed this process in a December 3 article, but this did not stop officials and pundits from howling that WikiLeaks “indiscriminately” dumped all the cables online. Much of the media mindlessly repeated the claim.
Greenwald and others have battled to kill the myth that the whistleblower site threw up all the cables without taking any precautions to protect people, but it keeps coming up. Just this week NPR issued an apology for all the times contributors and guests have implied or outright voiced the falsehood that WikiLeaks blindly posted all the cables at once.

3. Falsely claiming that Assange has committed a crime regarding WikiLeaks. The State Department is working really hard to pin a crime on Julian Assange. The problem is that so far he doesn’t appear to have broken any laws. Assange is not a U.S. citizen, he does not work for the U.S. government, and the documents WikiLeaks posted were procured by someone else. As Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out, it’s not against the law to publish classified U.S. government information. If it were, hundreds of journalists would be in prison right now.

While the government tries to conjure up a legal justification for prosecuting Assange, the media is helping out by fanning the narrative that he’s some criminal mastermind. Major outlets continue to host guests who accuse Assange of criminal behavior without quite specifying what his crime is. In a much derided CNN debate between Bush Homeland Security adviser Fran Townsend and Glenn Greenwald hosted by Jessica Yellin, Greenwald had to repeatedly bat away the assertion that Assange has “profited” from “criminal” acts.

The effort to tar Assange as a criminal — spearheaded by government officials and helped along by the media — may have a chilling effect on future whistleblowers.

4. Denying that WikiLeaks is a journalistic enterprise. Public officials and pundits continue to claim that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic outlet, even though it procured the scoop of a decade. But much of what WikiLeaks does is identical to the activities of other news sources. WikiLeaks receives secrets from anonymous sources, which it then reveals to the public — news is nothing if not a checks and balances system for the government, a fundamental right of a free press. Secondly, it curates those secrets before revealing them — a journalist selecting relevant and appropriate material from a confidential document is not that different from WikiLeaks redacting certain parts of the cables.

Because WikiLeaks’ actions fall under the First Amendment, all journalists should be outraged if the American government attempts to prosecute.

If WikiLeaks is prosecuted for conducting a journalistic enterprise, what rights will be stripped from journalists in the future? One of the most respected journalistic institutions in the world, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, is speaking out. Earlier this month, 20 faculty members drafted and signed a letter to President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder saying that WikiLeaks’ prosecution will set a “dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity … Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.”

The Walkley Foundation, an institution of journalism in Assange’s home of Australia, put it more succinctly in its own letter of support for WikiLeaks: “To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.”

5. Denying a link between Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers and WikiLeaks, despite Ellsberg’s support of the site. In 1969, Daniel Ellsberg secretly photocopied classified documents that proved the Johnson administration had lied to the American public about the chances of winning the Vietnam War, which it knew from the beginning were slim to none. By 1970, Ellsberg had become disillusioned with the desperate situation and began circulating the documents, first to U.S. senators, then to the New York Times, which reported the contents in a groundbreaking series of articles that set in motion the end to the war…and the Nixon administration. By doing so, he helped end an unjust war carried out in the name of the American people. His actions are widely heralded.

In a parallel scenario, WikiLeaks is acting the part of the Times and other outlets that reported the Pentagon Papers — releasing information of secret, and in many cases, unjust actions carried out in the name of the American people without our knowledge. Alleged leaker Bradley Manning is the Ellsberg in this situation; similarly, if chats between himself and Adrian Lamo printed in Wired are true, he unleashed the cables out of an overwhelming sense of justice, saying, “I want people to see the truth regardless of who they are because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

Earlier this month, Ellsberg appeared on the Colbert Report and praised Manning. “If Bradley Manning did what he’s accused of, then he’s a hero of mine and I think he did a great service to this country,” said Ellsberg. “We’re not in the mess we’re in, in the world, because of too many leaks….I say there should be some secrets. But I also say we invaded Iraq illegally because of a lack of a Bradley Manning at that time.”

6. Accusing Assange of profiting from WikiLeaks. Newspapers this week led with reports that Assange has signed a lucrative book deal, information that inspired mainstream outlets like CNN to mock Assange for “profiting” from the cables despite his anti-corporate ideology. In the CNN interview mentioned above, Jessica Yellin asked Glenn Greenwald if he had “Any qualms about the fact that he is essentially profiting from classified information.” Greenwald pointed out that Assange is hardly profiting from the leaked materials, but rather trying to make a dent in the legal fees he’s accruing as governments around the world go after him. Greenwald also pointed out that trying to make money from journalism is pretty routine in the profession. Bob Woodward, for example, has written multiple books based on classified documents.

7. Calling Assange a terrorist. Last week Vice-President Joe Biden, part of an administration that’s overseen the escalation of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, joined Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin in calling Assange a “terrorist.”
As far as we know, Assange’s leaks haven’t killed anyone. Nor has he threatened to perpetrate violence to promote a political agenda, the definition of terrorism. Nevertheless public officials continue to try to link Assange to terrorism in the public consciousness.

8. Minimizing the significance of the cables. Even though only a tiny fraction of the cables have been released, many critics promote the idea that they reveal “nothing new” and are therefore of no value. But even the cables released so far have contained important revelations about the U.S. and its allies.

Here are just a few of the stories revealed by the documents:
— U.S. special forces working inside Pakistan
— UK agreed to shield U.S. interests in Iraq probe
— Secret bombings of Yemen
— State Department role in the Honduran coup
— U.S. pressured Spain to drop Bush torture probe
— U.S. sought to retaliate against Europe over refusing to allow Monsanto GM crops
— Drug Enforcement Agency goes global, beyond drugs
— Shell’s grip on the Nigerian state
The promise that the next release will target a U.S. bank, and that it will have an effect similar to the Enron disclosures, according to Assange, certainly portends that the trove of information we haven’t yet seen could be explosive. And that is incredibly valuable to the American public.

We have to find our voice … as only “we” can stop GMO proliferation of our food …

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

    What part of Congress and their corporate owners … “big” AG and “big” pharma … ain’t going to STOP … GMO contamination of organic crops

    And in fact will enact laws … rules … making the Organics accountable and liable to the Mon$anto’s of the world …

    We have to find our voice … as only “we” can stop GMO proliferation of our food …

      Stop GMO Contamination of Organic!
      So far, 29,210 OCA activists have written Obama’s USDA, urging Secretary Vilsack to give up his idea of “coexistence” between GMOs and organic.

      “Coexistence” will inevitably lead to GMOs contaminating organic crops and destroying the organic seed supply. Instead, Vilsack should:

      o Block Monsanto’s new GM alfalfa and any other GM crop that isn’t fully safety-tested

      o Implement a strict-liability, polluter-pays rule that holds Monsanto responsible for the harms their GM crops and herbicides cause farmers, farm workers, the environment and consumers

      o Require all Frankenfoods tainted with Monsanto’s GMOs and chemicals to be labeled.

        Please write to the USDA to tell them what you think of their new Environmental Impact Statement on GM alfalfa before the comment period ends on January 23, 2011.

You mean to say that “green washing” has a price

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

    You mean to say that “green washing” has a price which corporate greed must pay…???

    Fiji Water Targeted by Class Action Lawsuit for Lying About Their Green Credo

Looks like Fiji Water has stepped in it again. Just last month the company announced they were shutting down operations in Fiji because the government was proposing a tax hike on bottling (they are exempt from paying income tax) and then a day later they did a quick about-face and re-opened deciding, I guess, that they could still make an extremely handsome profit from the bottled water racket.

Now, the company is apparently the target of a class-action lawsuit, Treehugger reported. It seems that Fiji Water has been trying to separate themselves from the competition by claiming that their water (in a plastic bottle, shipped around the world) is actually really green.

    So green in fact that it is entirely carbon negative.

But a lawsuit from Newport Trial Group claims otherwise. Environmental Leader has the details: According to the complaint,

Fiji Water Company has gained significant market share from its carbon negative claim:
“This case is very simple: Defendants convince consumers to buy their “FIJI” brand of bottled water – and to pay more for FIJI than for competing brands -by advertising and labeling FIJI as “The World’s Only CARBON NEGATIVE bottled water”.

In other words, Defendants claim that they remove more carbon pollution from our atmosphere than they release into it. In reality, however, FIJI water is not “Carbon Negative.” Instead, Defendants justify this claim by employing a discredited carbon accounting method known as “forward crediting.”

Thus, Defendants do not remove more carbon pollution than they create; they simply claim credit for carbon removal that may or may not take place – up to several decades in the future.”

In other words their claims of carbon negativity look like a lot of smoke and mirrors. This is not shocking if you know a bit about how the company does business (hint: it’s not pretty — check out this awesome piece by Anna Lenzer for the details).

Ironically, Fiji Water has been short-listed by the U.S. State Department for a Corporate Excellence Award — which is beginning to look about as laughable as Fiji Water’s environmental credo


A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency



11 Things You Need to Know About the Carcinogen Discovered in Drinking Water … By Rebecca Sutton, AlterNet …Posted on December 22, 2010, Printed on December 31, 2010 … READ COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE …

When you see news reports about a cancer-causing chemical in drinking water everywhere you turn, you probably have a few questions. Of course you can read EWG’s full report, but on the off chance you’re pressed for time and just want to know the basics, we put together these 11 questions and answers.

1. What is hexavalent chromium?
Hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6) is a highly toxic form of the naturally occurring metal chromium. It is a well-known human carcinogen when inhaled, and recent evidence indicates it can cause stomach or gastrointestinal cancer when ingested in drinking water. However, a different form, trivalent chromium, is an essential nutrient. … (MY INSERT … want to get some idea of what Hexavalent Chromium is and what it can do … watch … Erin Brockovich … PGE … $330) million

People typically are exposed to chromium-6 by consuming contaminated water or food, and in some workplaces by breathing contaminated air. That’s a concern especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Ingesting or inhaling contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of hexavalent chromium in two-thirds of current or former Superfund toxic waste sites.

2. How does it get into tap water?
Chromium-6 can get into water as a result of industrial contamination from manufacturing facilities, including electroplating factories, leather tanneries and textile manufacturing facilities, or from disposal of fluids used before 1990 in cooling towers. It also occurs naturally in some minerals. The widely used tap water disinfectant chlorine can transform trivalent chromium into the toxic hexavalent form.

3. Why is it a problem?

Exposure in tap water has been linked to cancers of the stomach and gastrointestinal tract in both animals and people. California’s Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft public health goal based on the conclusion that levels of chromium-6 greater than 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) in tap water may increase cancer risk.

Some people may be especially susceptible. Fetuses, infants and children are more sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals. In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to the benign trivalent form (chromium-3), putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can lower stomach acidity.

Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.

4. How can I find out if my tap water has hexavalent chromium in it?
California requires water utilities to test and report levels of chromium-6 in their water. For Californians, this is a good way to find out if this contaminant is a concern in your area. Unfortunately, these tests only measure levels at or above 1 ppb, more than 16 times above the suggested public health goal of 0.06 ppb.

Of the 438 community water sources in California that have provided test data to EWG, 223 detected levels above 1 ppb, and 93 detected levels above 5 ppb. This means more than 13.7 million Californians drink tap water contaminated with chromium-6.
Elsewhere, water utilities only test and report levels of total chromium — which includes both the toxic form and the essential nutrient chromium-3. Moreover, these tests only detect levels at or above 10 ppb, more than 160 times higher than California’s proposed public health goal.

If your tap water has detectable levels of total chromium, it’s quite possible that it has levels of hexavalent chromium that exceed California’s suggested public health goal. The ratio of chromium-3 to chromium-6 varies in different water supplies, so it is difficult to estimate how much of each might be in your water.

Contact your local water utility or check EWG’s tap water database to learn if chromium has been detected in your tap water. … ( MY INSERT … But do not expect your water purveyor to provide you with FULL DISCLOSURE as they only test your water for those residuals which they choose … you have NO voice in what they test for or how often or in what manner or how “safe” is determined) ….

5. My tap water has high levels of chromium-6. What should I do?
If your tap water contains high levels, your best bet is to install a reverse osmosis filter certified to remove it. Reverse osmosis filters, especially when combined with superior carbon filter technology, are the best way to remove the largest number of contaminants.
EWG assembled a list of reverse osmosis water filters certified to remove hexavalent chromium and available for purchase on

See EWG’s water filter buying guide for more information on how to choose a water filter.

While drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium in tap water, there is no guarantee that bottled water has lower concentrations of this contaminant. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating their water has levels of chromium-6 below 0.06 ppb or that use reverse osmosis filtration to treat their water.
Because infants can be especially sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals, it is particularly important to use safer water when preparing infant formula. Water treated with a reverse osmosis filter will contain fewer contaminants and be safer for babies than bottled water.

6. Can I test my own tap water for chromium-6?
Most commercial water quality laboratories do not offer this test. … (MY INSERT … they don’t because EPA and your local water purveyor does NOT require them to)

7. Besides drinking water, how else can I be exposed?

Other sources of exposure to hexavalent chromium include contaminated food and contaminated workplace air, especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure via ingestion or inhalation. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of chromium-6 in two-thirds of current or former Superfund sites…. (MY INSERT … HEY … but not to worry your Congre$$ jst got through passing is vaunted S510 … Food Safety Act … and thanks to Mon$anto … we believe)

8. Are some people more vulnerable to the effects?
Yes. Fetuses, infants, and children have a higher sensitivity to carcinogenic chemicals. Their developing organ systems are more susceptible to damage from chemical exposures, and less able to detoxify and excrete chemicals.

In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to chromium-3, exposing them to higher levels of the toxic form and putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can reduce stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.

9. What other chemicals in my tap water should I be concerned about?
Check out EWG’s tap water database for an in-depth look at water contaminants, including drinking water quality information for 48,000 communities in 45 states and the District of Columbia. .. (MY INSERT … man has developed more than 118,000 new chemicals and compounds most of which have found their way into our air … water … food chain … but hey EPA owned Mon$santo says is A-OK)

10. What is EPA doing to promote safe drinking water?
Not enough. In the case of hexavalent chromium, the EPA has taken no specific action to limit amounts in drinking water. The agency has left in place an inadequate standard for total chromium, set nearly 20 years ago. It does not distinguish between toxic hexavalent and nutritionally essential trivalent chromium and cites “allergic dermatitis” as the only health concern. The agency has not set a new, enforceable drinking water standard for any contaminant since 2001. … MY INSERT … man has developed more than our corporate owned Congre$$ will allow it to … NOTHING …

Recently, however, the federal government has begun to focus a critical eye on chromium-6 and other water contaminants. EWG recommends that the EPA set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water as quickly as possible and require water utility testing to assess exposures nationwide.

11. Is bottled water a safe alternative? MY INSERT … only if you honestly believe there is TRUTH in their labels … I damn sure don’t …

Drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium, but there is no guarantee that bottled water contains less of this contaminant. Furthermore, there is no legal limit for chromium-6 in bottled water, so consumers cannot assume it is free of it. EWG has assessed bottled water quality and the industry’s labeling practices and isn’t impressed with either. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating that the water has less than 0.06 ppb of chromium-6 or that use reverse osmosis filtration to purify it. Overall, test results strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. As EWG’s Jane Houlihan says,
“It’s buyer beware with bottle water. The bottled water industry promotes its products as pure and healthy, but our tests show that pollutants in some popular brands match the levels found in some of the nation’s most polluted big city tap water systems. Consumers can’t trust that what’s in the bottle is anything more than processed, pricey tap water.” Plus, there’s all that plastic waste. … Rebecca Sutton, Ph D, is an EWG Senio

News … Propaganda … $pin … provide equal truth in America

    … America’s journey … corporate mass media ownership concentration …
    Who owns CNN … MSNB … ABC … CBS … FOX …

GENERAL ELECTRIC –(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
The “MS” in MSNBC
means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

Other Holdings:
* GE Consumer Electronics.
* GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants.
* GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment.
* GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.


Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)

Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.


Television Holdings:
* Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel (joint owner), Flix.
* 20 major market US stations.
Media Holdings:
* Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
* Simon & Schuster Publishing.


DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW’s 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.
Media Holdings:
* Miramax, Touchtone Pictures.
* Magazines: Jane, Los Angeles Magazine, W, Discover.
* 3 music labels, 11 major local newspapers.
* Hyperion book publishers.
* Infoseek Internet search engine (43%).
Other Holdings:
* Sid R. Bass (major shares) crude oil and gas.
* All Disney Theme Parks, Walt Disney Cruise Lines.


TIME-WARNER TBS – AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW’s 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
Media Holdings:
* HBO Independent Productions, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera.
* Music: Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros. Records, EMI, WEA, Sub Pop (distribution) = the world’s largest music company.
* 33 magazines including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Fortune, Book of the Month Club, Entertainment Weekly, Life, DC Comics (50%), and MAD Magazine.
Other Holdings:
* Sports: The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling.


NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%).
* The Golf Channel (33%).
* Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight.
* 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian.
* 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard.
* HarperCollins books.
* Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League.
* Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).

*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*

REPORTED BY … systemfailure Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2003 at 1:43 AM

ODE TO 2010

      Ode to 2010

        Year 2010
        Quickly turns its back to us
        Departing in rather rebellious form
        In its wake
        A landscape littered
        With myriad of issues
        Unasked … Unresolved
        Left to fester
        A rotting stench fills the air
        As we usher in
        Year … Two … O … one … one … 2011

        2010 did one thing
        Quite effectively
        Separate it did
        America’s answer to
        Those self-anointed few
        An elite
        Those self-deemed
        In control
        Who from behind closed doors securely locked
        With curtains tightly drawn
        Pull the strings of those
        We blindly thought
        Duly elected … “to serve & to protect” …
        US … that’s you & me

        Thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts’
        U$ $upreme Court
        These few “corporatist”
        And their corporate confederates
        Interest$ are now our Justices deemed # 1
        While the many … those of us they choose to catalog as “average”
        Relegated to a realty
        A throw back to that point in our history
        Reflecting the brutality of master-slave
        Social as well as economic times

        Rights once thought sovereign
        Now controlled by them
        Parsed out as they deem
        Benefits them
        To you and me

        Our voices stilled
        Through years and years
        These corporatists
        Adroitly used
        Vile propaganda
        Adeptly veiled through the use of
        Our voice cunningly taken
        While our eye … attention too …
        Ingeniously diverted to watch
        The game of the day
        Dancing with the stars
        Reality TV
        And the lies from FoxNews “talking” heads

        Who thanks to our judicial system
        Now authorized and define for us
        What is news…?
        What is true…?
        Did you know that…??

        Political leaders of every color and stripe
        See courtesy but a thing of the past
        Finger pointing
        Blaming … Shaming
        Name calling … Cursing
        Hurling vitriolic statements
        Unthinkingly … Mistakenly
        And so ends year 2010
        Leading to the door
        Opening year 2011