The Other, Corporate Side Of The DNC

I am sitting Denver out on the sidelines this year, but I do know what a convention looks like, at least in Boston. The speeches, the freebies, the networking and especially the parties. Now the Democratic Party is my party, but it still needs some work and reducing the corporate influence is especially important. At the moment though, big business has tremendous influence and it is on display if you look for it. I remember going to a couple of bashes in Boston where it had to of costs in upwards of half a million to produce the venue, band, amazing food and all that free alcohol.

My roommate and I (he was a delegate in 04') were getting back from the Fleet Center that Monday night and were looking for something to do. We ran into one of the state party brass at the hotel and he couldn't go to the premiere event because his daughter was feeling ill, so he gave us his tickets to the Democratic Governor's Association Ball. At this time I was more awed by tickets, getting into the cool parties and I was all about the free food and booze.

We got there around midnight and the place was breathtaking, the band was amazing, the view of the harbor spectacular and there were at least a dozen tables filled with shrimp, crab legs and lobster. In addition to the regular open bars, there were attendants that poured cosmos and martinis through ice blocks to give the drink that perfect chill. So with food and drink in hand, we set out to mingle in the crowd, but that was where it all fell apart.

First I looked up and noticed the huge banners on the walls, adorned with the logos of the corporate sponsors who ponied up for the event. The sight of them gave me a funny feeling in my stomach, and I knew that it wasn't a good sign. However, I figured what the hell, those bastards aren't going to influence me and in the meantime I'm going to have a good time at their expense.

Then came the mingling part. People were friendly at first for the most part, but when the "what do you do" question came up, most conversations died quickly. I ran into investment bankers, Wall Street execs, Hill staffers and some party elites and when I introduced myself as a grassroots organizer (working in AZ at the time) they lost all interest in me. Clearly, this was a place for the moneyed to connect with those that had political influence.

After repeating this pattern a few times, I started wandering the tables and just listened to the band play. It was definitely a wake up call that there was some serious problems in our party. Unfortunately they still exist, despite the fact that we fight so hard against it. Amy Goodman did a piece yesterday that highlights the corporate influence when she tried attending one of these parties Sunday night. Here is a portion of her conversation with Glenn Greenwald and others outside the Blue Dog party sponsored by AT&T. Clearly, the organizers of the event did not want the press, and certainly not people like Amy Goodman anywhere near the people who attended this event.

From Democracy Now:

AMY GOODMAN: These were big guys, and they weren’t kidding around. It was interesting. The lobbyists were a little more willing to speak than the actual delegates who were being rushed in there. A lot of limousines were coming in.

GLENN GREENWALD: Absolutely. I mean, I found the symbolism of the event very revealing. First of all, as you say, there was a very intended-to-be-intimidating wall of private security surrounding the event, and they were actually infinitely more aggressive and angrier than the Denver police were. And in fact, I was there with Jane Hamsher, the blogger from FireDogLake, who at one point was trying to speak with one of the individuals entering the party, and she was physically pushed by one of the private security members, notwithstanding the fact that the Denver police had been there the entire time, navigating and negotiating where it was that we could stand.

The other aspect of it was, was that what the police had been clearly trained to do is create this façade of being accommodating and cooperative and pleasant, but what it really does is it masks the fact that their strategy is to ensure that any sort of dissident voices, or people off script, are relegated to places where they can’t really be heard.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s very hard to figure out in these situations. You know, you have a sidewalk, which is owned by the private venue, and where the public can use the public sidewalk, they’re showing you the cracks, the crevices in the sidewalk, and they’re saying that’s theirs, this is yours.

So as you can see from this brief excerpt and even more so from the entire exchange, there is an influence on Democratic politics that isn't 100% kosher and needs to be remedied. The combination of money and politics is nothing new in America, but that does not mean that it has to stay this way. That is why we must elect more and especially better Democrats to make sure that the people at large take precedence over those that can write large corporate checks.

Telecoms Write Legislation To Give Themselves Immunity

The FISA debate, if not for anything else shows why Washington is broken and how we need to fix the system. At&T, Verizon and the other telecoms graciously took the time to write their own legislation for Congress so that they can get off the hook for their unconstitutional crimes when they helped George Bush spy on Americans. The problem isn't that Congress laughed in their faces, its that they are trying to 'work things out'.

From Politico:

Many Democrats want the companies held accountable for participating in the program, which was initiated in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The White House, however, has insisted that the participation of the telecoms is crucial to monitoring conversations between potential terrorists. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that does not contain immunity.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday a FISA deal is “still in flux” but he described the latest developments as “promising” and said he hoped to have a solution soon.

House officials declined to discuss the specifics of the proposed immunity language by the telecoms.

Although it remains to be seen if congressional Democrats will accept the telecom companies' proposal, the communication between the two sides signifies that progress is being made.

If many Democrats want these companies to be held accountable, it is only because either they want the rule of law to be upheld or their constituents are screaming in their faces (or in the direction of their offices) to do something for them instead of corporations for a change. The only progress that should have been made is to declare the telecoms immunity legislation dead on arrival. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that George Bush will veto what the people want, nor does it take a genius to know that we can wait until we have the 44th President in office.

If for some reason "progress" is made, Democrats are going to realize they will pay for their actions by facing primary challenges in the near or somewhat near future. We must uphold the law, even if it pisses politicians big campaign donors off. I for one, really do not care for it.

Robo-Calls From Osama

Ah, the twisted genius of Stephen Colbert and his deviant band of writers:

How To Liberate A Billboard

The Billboard Liberation Front is a non-violent group that is seeking to inform the public on behalf of companies and the government that violate the laws of our country. They also work to show how exactly one can liberate a billboard from PR garbage to solid informative data:



Thanks BLF!

The Fox Guarding The Virtual Henhouse

No this isn't about Fox News, we're talking about policing the Internet. You know, who gets to get on, what you get to see, who gets to put content on, etcetera etcetera. That world wide web of the 1990s is just too open in our post- 9/11 society, right? We wouldn't want it to be democratic in nature, that would be enabling the terrorists or some crap like that. Well the story of retroactive immunity, George Bush and telecommunications industry just got a little more interesting.

From Scholars and Rogues:

Following up on my post from a little while back discussing Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell’s desire to police the Internet, the Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima confirmed last weekend that the Decider had signed a classified directive authorizing the NSA to more expansively monitor intrusions on federal networks for signs of cyberattacks:

Until now, the government’s efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks — which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data — have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders.

As Brian has said recently, the U.S. is absolutely not ready to handle cyberwar on almost any front. I’m all in favor of redirecting tax money towards protecting and strengthening our Internet infrastructure against any one of the millions of crippling threats it can face, rather than expensive, crappy weapons systems that have little measurable effect except fattening defense contractors’ coffers.

But in an expansive profile of Mike McConnell, the New Yorker’s Lawrence Wright touches on the myriad obstacles our intelligence community faces towards handling a real threat, and why they get it wrong so often.

Getting it wrong seems to be standard operating procedure in the Bush Administration. So why would Mike McConnell want to change anything? And if democracy/the American people/ Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, etc get their way, then it'll be hard to expand corporate America's power into doing the government's business.....not that they don't do enough already.

Big Media Says Free Speech be Damned On The Internets

It really is a constant battle trying to save free speech against corporate America these days. Companies like AT&T, NBC, Verizon and a whole slew of them seem to have a never-ending thirst to see their customers be stripped of their rights from the First Amendment while using the Internet. The latest salvo concerns network-level filtering, a tool the corporations want to use in order to stop any possible "copyright infringement." What that really does is stop free speech like parody and the people's right to discuss specific pieces of content while online.

From The NY Times:

Network-level filtering means your Internet service provider – Comcast, AT&T, EarthLink, or whoever you send that monthly check to – could soon start sniffing your digital packets, looking for material that infringes on someone’s copyright.[...]

“We are very interested in a technology based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this,” he said. “We recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies. But we are having an open discussion with a number of content companies, including NBC Universal, to try to explore various technologies that are out there.”

Internet civil rights organizations oppose network-level filtering, arguing that it amounts to Big Brother monitoring of free speech, and that such filtering could block the use of material that may fall under fair-use legal provisions — uses like parody, which enrich our culture.

Now why would media giants be so concerned about what goes on the Internet if they aren't going to make a dime anyways? Of course the writers of said content say otherwise, and helpfully explain the producers' excuses and the reality of new media, all in one wiki!

Perhaps they might want to add this net neutrality piece, showing that the networks really do care about every dime they make off the net, and the millions they are willing to spend to protect those shiny pieces of money.

Mark Klein Whistleblows On His Former Telecom Boss

Mark Klein used to work for AT&T. Not only was he employed there, he was tasked with connecting the hardwires from their communication databases to the Bush Administration's program to monitor every single data transfer that occurred between all of their customers. This is an open and shut case, yet the politics of it all hampers justice from being served. Every member of the Judiciary Committee should be watching this before they decide to grant retroactive immunity to any telecommunications giant.

Follow The Telco Money....To Sen. Rockefeller

Sometimes Most of the time politics is a sickening business. I had dinner with a friend of mine last night and we were talking about how money corrupts in politics, especially since he is a first cousin of one of the Democrats that refuses to speak out against retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies that violated that law along with the Bush Administration. He knows first hand how it works and the privileges that are doled out to Senators and their families for serving corporations over their constituents. My friend's name isn't Rockefeller, but that family and specifically that Senator exemplifies the problem of money and government.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Executives at the two biggest phone companies contributed more than $42,000 in political donations to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV this year while seeking his support for legal immunity for businesses participating in National Security Agency eavesdropping.

The surge in contributions came from a Who’s Who of executives at the companies, AT&T and Verizon, starting with the chief executives and including at least 50 executives and lawyers at the two utilities, according to campaign finance reports.

The money came primarily from a fund-raiser that Verizon held for Mr. Rockefeller in March in New York and another that AT&T sponsored for him in May in San Antonio.

Mr. Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emerged last week as the most important supporter of immunity in devising a compromise plan with Senate Republicans and the Bush administration.

It isn't particularly surprising of course that Rockefeller or his many colleagues can be sucked into the mess that is Washington. Nevertheless this is the type of politics that we must speak out against, shine light upon and effect change. One person can't do it, but if enough people get fed up, we can do away with people like Mr. Rockefeller.

AT and T Proves We Need Net Neutrality

I am glad I didn't sign up for AT and T's service at home. Hopefully Verizon won't be as cruel as them. If anyone wants to speak freely on the Internets (about their carrier) they reserve the right to ban people from logging on. I kid you not.

From Scholars and Rogues:

Slashdot broke the news on Saturday that ATT’s updated terms of service for its high-speed Internet packages essentially forbid you from criticizing the company on pain of cancellation. The full terms of service are here, and here’s the offending passage highlighted, courtesy of Ars Technica:

ATT may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of ATT, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

This is the exact kind of overbroad legalese that gets companies in trouble in ways they probably never thought of. If I am an ATT subscriber, for example, and I post derogatory comments about AT&T on a site they own, does this give them leave to terminate my service? What if I post or send a complaint about ATT to a complaint site or consumer news site, like ConsumerAffairs.Com (whom I write for), and they publish said complaint? Am I liable if I was using my ATT ISP while writing said complaint? What if I did so while using my laptop at a Wi-Fi hotspot? The mind boggles.

It isn't boggling, only the sound of increasing corporate power in our country. It isn't the government we need to be afraid of (neo-cons withstanding), the corporations have far too much influence in the halls of Congress and subsequently in society.

Why We Need Net Neutrality

The issue of net neutrality should be an easy one to comprehend. We need legislation that guarantees freedom on the internet because the people can not trust telecomm companies to self-regulate. Corporations like AT and T say they can be trusted, but the evidence shows otherwise. Just this weekend, Pearl Jam played at Lollapalooza in Chicago. Eddie Vetter said some bad things about our dictator-in-chief....guess what, it was censored on the net.

From Down With Tyranny:

CMJ is reporting that AT&T censored Pearl Jam's Lollapalooza set on Sunday. Maybe they figured no one would notice. I guess this has to be expected when one gets in bed with freedom's mortal enemy: corporations, which will always pimp for the status quo. The was an AT&T Blue Room live broadcast set up and an AT&T "content monitor" found "Daughter" too risque for Lollapalooza fans.

Maybe they objected to Eddie quoting that subversive Neil Young! No, it wasn't that. According to the Pearl Jam website it was lines sung by Eddie: "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home" that offended them so. Pearl Jam doesn't seem too happy:

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

Our fears are overblown?? It looks like our fears are actually coming true. The corporate execs are free to support George Bush and his unconstitutional behaviors on an individual basis, but censoring content is a serious no-no. They want to make this type of crap legal. That is the last thing we need. As long as human beings are busy being human beings, especially in the areas of greed, power and ego; we need government regulation to keep these corporate goons in check. Freedom of expression is essential to our democracy, whether it is on the streets or on internet.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is under siege again by the telecommunication industry. See what they might be up to in this mock AT and T boardroom. The flash animation below may not be as far from reality as you think.