The HUGE Media Scandal that Could Rock India but Wouldn't

NOTE: I'm not here to pass judgment on the journalists personally. I'm posting the article here with my comments because of its extreme serious nature. I've rarely seen such a directly exposed breach of journalistic ethics.

Photo Source: The Pioneer.

__________

Dear Friends:

Here's my two cents and an article on: The HUGE Media Scandal that Could Rock India but Wouldn't.

Since graduating from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (and going through the pro-status-quo, pro-establishment climate there), I took special interest to expose corporate media's role as a propaganda wing of corrupt, repressive and undemocratic governments across the world, and I emphasized on USA and India because of my personal knowledge and experience with both systems. For ten years, I ran a mailing list called J4TEAM (Journalists for Truth, Ethics and Awareness in Media), and then found a more effective platform on Facebook; I shut the list down.

I continue the mission because of its relevance now more than ever before. I hope you also join in on the cause and expose big media's political agenda, bias and complete lack of objectivity. In that world now, only profit matters vis-a-vis We the People.

India media is now, with exceptions, following the U.S. corporate media model where journalistic objectivity and ethics have taken a far-behind back seat. Media have relinquished its democracy-torchbearer role and purposefully decided to create a world of mass confusion, distortions and half truths. People like us who want to take our democracy back for the ordinary, working people and families need to appreciate the gravity of the situation. The Indian media story has direct relevance to the U.S. media scenario today.

Why this HUGE scandal would not rock India now? As The Hindu put it, "Perhaps because of the large number of journalists involved in the controversy, most Indian newspapers and TV channels have not covered [it]." Same could be said about the U.S.

Please read and take action. Comments and feedback would be much welcome.

Partha

P.S. -- I'm also posting a link here to my Outlook India oped last year on this very subject. It's at http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?240578 . I'm glad that Outlook India is still on it.

___________________

From: The Hindu, India.

Published: November 24, 2010 02:59 IST | Updated: November 24, 2010 15:20 IST November 24, 2010

The spotlight is on the media now

by Priscilla Jebaraj

The Hindu MEDIA FOCUS: "Perhaps because of the large number of journalists involved in the controversy, most Indian newspapers and TV channels have not covered the Radia tapes at all."

The Niira Radia episode raises questions about the boundary between legitimate news gathering, lobbying and influence peddling.

The publication of taped conversations between Niira Radia — a lobbyist for [billionaire business magnets] Mukesh Ambani and Ratan Tata with a keen interest in the allocation of ministerial portfolios — and editors, reporters, industrialists and politicians has shone a harsh and even unwelcome light on the web of connections which exist between the worlds of business, politics and journalism.

The transcripts — drawn from 104 phone conversations recorded between May and July 2009 when the [India Prime Minister] Manmohan Singh government was in the process of beginning its second innings — also raise questions about the boundary between legitimate news gathering, lobbying and influence peddling. Even as the journalists involved have strongly defended their conduct, others in the media are divided with some believing the boundary was transgressed.

The transcripts were published last week by Open and Outlook magazines, which sourced them to audio recordings submitted recently to the Supreme Court by advocate Prashant Bhushan as part of a PIL on the 2G scam [a telecommunication bribery deal involving billions of dollars and national politicians and govt ministers]. The magazines claim the recordings were made by the Income Tax department as part of its ongoing surveillance of Ms Radia. The recordings are believed to be part of a wider set of phone taps, though who leaked this particular selection and why is not known.

In the tapes, NDTV Group Editor Barkha Dutt and Hindustan Times' Advisory Editorial Director Vir Sanghvi [two celebrity journalists] both appear to be offering to use their connections and influence with [ruling] Congress leaders to pass on messages from Ms Radia, who seemed to be representing a section of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [a Tamil political party] interests. Other senior business journalists have discussions with Ms Radia about the gas pricing dispute between the Ambani brothers, mostly regarding favourable coverage for Mukesh Ambani. Prabhu Chawla, India Today's editor of language publications, appears to be offering her “advice” on how to pursue an appeal in the Supreme Court.

On the political front, in multiple conversations, both Ms Dutt and Mr. Sanghvi offer to mediate between the Congress and the DMK, and even help to set up meetings, in order to dispel misgivings between them on the specific role of Dayanidhi Maran and the allocation of portfolios more generally. In what seems to be an ongoing conversation during the stalemate between the Congress and the DMK over Cabinet berths, Ms Dutt asks Ms Radia what she should tell her Congress contacts. “Oh God. So now what? What should I tell them? Tell me what should I tell them?” she asks.

After listening to Ms Radia's instructions, she promises to speak to Congress leaders. “OK, let me talk to them again,” she says. In a later conversation, she says, “That's not a problem, I'll talk to [Congress leader Ghulam Nabi] Azad —I'll talk to Azad right after I get out of RCR [which has been read as Race Course Road, where the Prime Minister lives].” In separate conversations with A. Raja and Atal Bihari Vajpayee's foster son-in-law, Ranjan Bhattacharya — who also, surprisingly, appears to be playing the role of a conduit to the Congress — Ms Radia speaks of Ms Dutt's help. “I made Barkha call up Congress and get a statement,” she tells Mr. Bhattacharya. In response to questions on Twitter, however, Ms Dutt has categorically denied acting on any promise to pass on messages to the Congress.

In his conversations with Ms Radia on the Cabinet issue, Mr. Sanghvi claims to be passing on information from Congress leader Ahmed Patel. “I spoke to Ahmed … Ahmed is the key figure. Ahmed says, ‘We told him, we told Maran also that we'll deal with Karunanidhi, so he has gone back',” he tells Ms Radia. Later, she asks him to pass on the message that the Congress must deal directly with DMK chief M. Karunanidhi. “I was supposed to meet Sonia today but I've been stuck here. So, now it's becoming tomorrow. I've been meeting with Rahul, but tell me ... So, who should they talk to?” When she replies, “They need to talk directly to Karunanidhi,” Mr. Sanghvi's response is: “Let me try and get through to Ahmed.”

On his part, Mr. Sanghvi has indignantly denied any wrong-doing. “When there's a fast moving story like the formation of government, you talk to all kinds of sources. Most of the time, they're quite busy doing whatever they want and they don't actually give you the information unless you string them along,” he told The Hindu. “It just seemed easier to say, ‘Yeah, yeah, I'll do it' and then forget about it.” He insisted that he had never acted on Ms Radia's requests to call Mr. Patel or anyone else in the Congress “as anyone in the government will know.” However, even if he had called Mr. Patel as promised, it would not have been unethical if it was not privileged or secretly communicated information, he felt.

Ms Dutt declined to answer The Hindu's questions, citing legal concerns, but she has been freely offering answers to similar queries on her Twitter account over the past few days. “Let's put it like this, unless we only cover news based on bland press conferences, we have to talk to all sorts, good and bad,” she said in one tweet. “I think there is nothing wrong in stringing along a source for info… I think EVERY journo has the right to engage a source, its NO CRIME … as a matter of record, I never passed the message. But info sharing per se is not immoral in a fluid news situation,” she tweeted.

In an official response to the publication of Ms Dutt's conversations in Open magazine, NDTV said it was “preposterous” to “caricature the professional sourcing of information as ‘lobbying'.”

Other senior journalists are not so sure about the appropriateness of the conversations but admitted there are growing gray areas in the ethics of journalism. “Cultivating a source, giving him a sense of comfort, that you are not antagonistic, massaging his ego — all that is fine. But acting as an intermediary is inappropriate,” said one senior television journalist who asked not to be named. The same editor felt that increased competition led to today's journalists being in more constant and informal touch with their sources, and he admitted that misusing this legitimate proximity was now easier than ever. But he hastened to add that political reporters often make tall claims or promises to get their sources to part with information.

The same argument is echoed by Diptosh Mazumdar, national editor of CNN-IBN, who endorsed Ms Dutt's insistence that she had done nothing wrong. “Regarding Nira Radia tapes, let me say that accessing info is a difficult job and ur promises to ur source is often a ploy to get more info,” he said on Twitter. “When there are fast moving Cabinet formation stories, you make every possible move to get the info out, those promises mean nothing …” Rajdeep Sardesai, IBN's editor-in-chief tweeted in response to the Open story: “Conversation between source and journo is legitimate. If quid pro quo is shown, expose it. Else, don't destroy hard earned reputations.”

Apart from the portfolio-related recordings, many of Ms Radia's conversations dealt with the tussle between the Ambani brothers over gas pricing. She is heard berating financial journalists for the poor placement of stories she had passed on. In one conversation, Mr. Sanghvi asks Ms Radia — who represents Mukesh Ambani — what kind of story she wants him to do on the gas dispute between the two Ambani brothers. Ms Radia talks of gas being a national resource and that the younger brother should have no right to insist that “a family MoU” he signed with her client be placed above “national interest.” Mr. Sanghvi's column in the Hindustan Times the next day makes precisely the same argument. His defence is that this was genuinely his own view, and that the conversation with Ms Radia was only one of multiple inputs for his column.

In another conversation, India Today's Prabhu Chawla advises Ms Radia on Mukesh Ambani's strategy in appealing the apex court against the Bombay High Court ruling in the gas pricing case. “You should convey to Mukesh that the way he is going about the Supreme Court is not the right way,” he tells her.

However, Mr. Chawla insists he was not giving any advice regarding the case. Instead, he told The Hindu that he was indulging in “social chit chat” with a source who called him, and merely giving his opinion that the Ambani brothers should come together since “when the brothers fight, the nation suffers.”

Perhaps because of the large number of journalists involved in the controversy, most Indian newspapers and TV channels have not covered the Radia tapes at all, even though they include conversations with Mr. Raja himself and Ratan Tata, head of the Tata group. This despite foreign newspapers like Wall Street Journal and Washington Post taking note of them and none of the protagonists denying the genuineness of the recorded conversations.

Though the blogosphere has been filled with outrage over the seemingly cosy relationship between the media and corporate lobbyists (one website has spoken sarcastically of ‘All India Radia'), questions have also been raised about privacy issues, especially since some of the conversations seem to be personal, with no direct news linkage. “I don't agree that tapes of private individuals not breaking law should be aired,” Ms Dutt said on Twitter.

Outlook editor-in-chief Vinod Mehta defended his publication of the tapes, but declined to comment on the recorded conversations or answer further questions. “We printed the story because it was hugely in the public interest,” he told The Hindu. “Our purpose is not to pass judgment, but to put information in the public domain.”

Keywords: 2G spectrum scam

###



A Quick Midterm "Day-After"

Related analysis: Media Misreading Midterms. Link at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4190 .

November 3, 2010

So, yesterday, in the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans with support from far right Tea Party got a big victory; Democrats lost the House and state governorships, but kept the Senate.

Many compared 2010 with the midterm elections of 1994 when far right Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and their so-called Contract with America swept Republicans to huge Congressional victories. I see some differences between the two; I see some similarities as well.

Let's find the differences first. In 1994, Republicans captured both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In 2010, Republicans got the House taking back 60-odd seats across the country; but they failed to capture the Senate. In fact, in some bellwether Senate seats, Democrats fought off well-oiled, big-funded Tea Party candidates: Senate majority leader Harry Reid defeated a fiercely right wing Sharron Angle by a not-so-narrow five percent points; in California, Ebay CEO billionaire Meg Whitman got defeated in the governor's election; in West Virginia, Joe Manchin won over another Tea Party resurgent.

The one single, primary factor in this election was the state of the economy: many call 2010 a "Great Depression 2" year (more "popularly" called the Great Recession) with huge unemployment for the ordinary people, with no end in sight. In contrast, years preceding the 1994 midterm elections were not so catastrophic, although economic hardship returned with the beginning of the first Iraq war and the resulting spike in oil prices, which in turn increased inflation and for the next several years, high unemployment, massive government budgetary deficits, and slow GDP growth. Contrary to the economic disaster now that caused a global havoc, in 1994, the rest of the world was less affected.

But because of a strange, exclusive way corporate media reported the economic crisis and the measures Obama government took to try to bring the down economy back to life, the ordinary electorate never understood it; my personal experience to work with thousands of labor union workers over the past three years has been that even some of the more politically savvy and informed workers did not understand some of the primary causes the meltdown happened (years of deregulation, lobbying and financial law overturns, and extreme inequality), or the basic, pro-people actions Obama implemented that actually stopped the U.S. economy from completely imploding. One of the measures was the $787 billion-plus economic stimulus package that brought back many individuals and small businesses from the brink of death; yet, media’s portrayal of the stimulus was indifferent if not negative, compared to how they covered Bush government’s historic $1.3 trillion bailout money with which many financial giants gave themselves big bonuses.There was no comprehensive discussion at all as to the root causes of the crisis.

But, going back to comparing the two elections four midterms apart, there were certain similarities too between 1994 and 2010. Just like Contract with America, the forces of Tea Party were propelled to national limelight with backdoor support of mega corporations and super-rich individuals such as the Koch brothers, and not-so-secret support from avidly pro-Wall Street, anti-labor media behemoths such as Murdoch's Fox Network. In fact, Fox political commentator Glenn Beck, with help from far right "star" politicians like Sarah Palin, was able to put together a major rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, on the anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. That was ominous. Ilks of Rush Limbaugh and their right-wing radio shows created knee-jerk paranoia about Obama’s “socialist” and “big government,” "high tax" measures – an allegation never refuted or analyzed by other so-called objective media organizations, some of them having dubious connections with Wall Street and with perennial disdain for the labor movement. They conveniently forgot to mention that the big bank bailout was also big government, or the $1 trillion-plus deficit-exploding Iraq-Afghanistan warfare was also big government (pushed by war and oil industries). They used a double standard to report and analyze facts; worse, they didn't analyze them. They never reminded today's voters that FDR and his America-transforming New Deal were also labeled socialist back in the forties.

There’s one other important similarity. After the Republican landslide of 1994, it was the elite, centrist Democrats that pushed Bill Clinton to drastically get rid of pro-people laws and reforms to make compromises with the Republicans. The threat to pull political support out of Clinton was real: the day after the election results came in, Alabama’s senator Richard Shelby quit his Democratic Party and joined Republicans. The rest of his first term, Clinton complied, passed anti-labor NAFTA that broke the backs of workers both in Mexico and the U.S., and accelerated Reagan's mantra of shipping jobs out of the U.S. Under pressure from the right wing, he also “reformed” welfare for the American poor. His Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) replaced a 60-year-old program initiated during the New Deal-entitled Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). What Republicans couldn’t do since the New Deal, Clinton did it in 1994, and corporate America loved it. In two years, Clinton got re-elected, trouncing Republican Bob Dole.

Now, 2010 on, corporate America is determined to do the same with Obama, with help from their people in Congress; not just the Republicans, status-quo centrist Democrats will join hands with them, just the same way they did it almost two decades ago. Two of the major victims on their chopping block would perhaps be the health care reform and financial sector reform; in all likelihood, they will push for drastic reversals on both fronts, turning the clock back on America’s working people and families. In all likelihood, pro-labor Employee Free Choice Act would now be forced to be put on the back burner, or else, pushed into oblivion. A meaningful immigration reform would perhaps be shelved for a long time to come, keeping millions of enslaved immigrants underground.

Corporate America and its media want it. If Obama shows guts to resist their red eyes, in two years, they’ll find a complying president – Republican or Democrat. The selection process will begin soon. Just watch out.

And a post script: why was Hillary Clinton MIA during the campaign of such a critically important election, especially when her husband was stomping for his favored candidates? Who did her followers vote for this time?

Media wouldn’t discuss it either. We the ordinary, working Americans must find out.

###

This November 2010, I'm voting for Barack Obama

This November 2010, I'm voting for Barack Obama





Yes, you've heard it right!

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, I'm going to vote for Barack Obama even though he's not a candidate. Here's my small endorsement for him even though he's not running.

I'm going to vote for his politics and principles, which I believe have been major, positive departures from eight fascist years of Bush, Cheney and Rove, and eight neoliberal years of Clinton. I know Clinton is campaigning for centrist-Dem candidates (Boeing's Patty Murray and anti-immigrant Heath "Tancredo" Shuler included), and drawing big crowds. Good for him. But my vote is for Obama and not for Clinton.

Am I happy that Obama is still continuing the brutal Afghanistan war, and seeking help from Washington insiders and Wall Street operatives to resolve the disastrous economic crisis? No. I wish he'd completely moved away from them. When I worked for his victory in November, 2008, I voted for a peace candidate. When I campaigned hard for him, I did it to support his pro-working-people, futuristic politics. That's why I chose Obama and not Hillary. To me, Obama was future, and Hillary was past. Obama was progressive, and Hillary was status quo.

I know Obama's handicaps. But I'm still supporting him because I've seen things happening in these two years that I haven't seen in twenty five years -- since 1985 -- when I came to America waking up to the nightmare of Ronald Reagan. The nightmare continued. When Obama became the president, in spite of my deep reservation for the deeply-entrenched Republocrat system, I knew that I was able to breathe freely, for the first time ever, when nobody was going to choke me anymore.

I wrote and spoke in various forums about the urgency to build solidarity across the working-class spectrum -- the sane and moderate majority I call the Second Circle. After decades of working at the grassroots level, first with the right and then with the left, I've moved away from the divisive left-right boxed politics, because I believe that the divide is artificial and destructive for the ordinary working people and families. There are many more overlaps than differences across the working class. I shunned the far right. I shunned the far left. And I shunned the iron-walled, elite center.

In my opinion, Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Sarah Palin-Glenn Beck-Tea Party is a dark, Jim Crow force that our young generation -- black, white and brown -- has rejected once and for all. In my opinion, the Clintons and their centrist cronies are symbols of an inaccessible, elite status quo that our young generation has decided not to return to. Even the Clinton remnants we've seen damaging the progressive, pro-ordinary-people Obama agenda have been bad enough; I'm glad Obama is slowly but surely doing away with them. With strong support from labor unions, grassroots constituencies and young people that made an impossible Obama presidency possible, in the coming years, a re-charged Obama administration will be able to do much more to get America moving -- up and not down, forward and not backward.

I'm sure of it.

Let's quickly highlight some of the measures Barack Obama has accomplished, against all odds. They are (1) overturning of Bush-era limits of accessibility on federal documents; (2) ending of Bush-era practice of circumventing established FDA rules for political reasons; (3) announcing intentions to close Guantanamo prison camp; (4) negotiating deal with Swiss Bank to permit U.S. government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals; (5) beginning of phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq; (6) authorizing the U.S. auto industry rescue plan; (7) authorizing the housing rescue plan and new FHA residential housing guarantees; (8) authorizing $787 billion economic stimulus package with one-third in tax cuts for working-class families; (9) authorizing the Cash for Clunkers program removing polluting cars; (10) extending unemployment benefits for millions of workers; (11) instituting enforcements for equal pay for women; and of course, (12) signing a historic health care reform bill.

And that's only a small, partial list.

Obviously, corporate media have not been truthful to tell the story clearly and candidly. They won't do it because of their vested interest in crony capitalism; moreover, American big media survive on Nielsen ratings that in turn thrive on keeping people fearful, and on edge -- whether it's war, terrorism, bird flu, stimulus package, or health care. Remember just two years ago, when we all knew McCain-Palin was a lost ticket, yet CNN, etc. kept turning in close poll predictions? And we're not even talking about the Foxy, Rushy filth.

We don't need big media to tell us the truth. We have our own knowledge. We have our own analysis. We may have lack of money and power, but we have no lack of intelligence and experience.

This November 2, 2010, I'm going to use some of that knowledge and insight. I ask you to make up your mind, come out and do the same. Too much is at stake -- for us and our children.

Support Obama. Endorse a pro-people politics. Reject profit and profiteers. Embrace the future. Reject the past.



###

Courtesy: Obama accomplishment list from IBEW Local 3's newsletter Union World, October 22, 2010. Graph from Pew Center, 2009.

The Brave Chilean Miners

October 13, 2010

(revised October 14)




On reaching freedom, Mario Sepulveda, or “Super Mario” as a British newspaper dubbed him, lived up to his reputation with a jubilant display. All the thirty-three trapped miners in the Copiapo San Jose copper mine in Chile are now safely out. They're all rejoicing.


We are, too.


During the post-rescue press conference, Sepulveda gave a powerful statement. He said, “I met God. I met the devil. God won.” Despite his flair on-camera, Sepulveda went on to say he was not a showbiz icon.


He said, “I’d like you to treat me like I am, a miner.”


He then also said something the U.S. media completely excluded from their reports (I've checked the New York Times, CNN and Associated Press). However, Reuters and Euronews reported it. He said: "I think that this country has to understand once and for all that we have to change the way we work. The working world needs lots of changes. We, the miners, we won’t let it rest.”


Talking about changes, I'm sure, two of the things that were on his mind were the mining corporation's complete disregard for the labor union's repeated warnings and protests about the unsafe working conditions and possible danger; I'm sure he was also talking about the no-pay the thirty-three miners and their families went through during the 70-day nightmarish ordeal.


U.S. media excluded that discussion too in their usual "fair and objective journalism."


It's the strength of the workers that charged me the most. What courage, what resilience, what organization and optimism even against the most extreme adversities! Miracle? Sure, we all know that; we'd say the same thing if one of our family members had experienced the situation. But it's also much more than that. It's the fighting spirit of the working people. It's their solidarity.


We must not forget this chapter -- in my opinion, one of the most important episodes of human history. I'm glad and grateful I've been able to witness it in my lifetime. American homes for the first time in a long time got a glimpse of what workers' rights and solidarity are really all about, however difficult the circumstances have been. This episode unfolding in a distant corner of the world forced corporate media to tell the story to us all, as is, even though they did their best to censor some important points. It is now our role to fill people in with the missing information and analysis.


For the first time in a long time, ordinary workers and their families across the world felt strong and vindicated, because of the solidarity action of the Chilean miners.


"Chi-Chi-Chi...Le-Le-Le." Workers of the world, this is our time!


###

The Un-Common Wealth Games Begin

Incredible India, It Stinks

Homeless Indians sleeping on flyover renovated for the Games

Jim Yardley writes in New York Times today: As Global Games Begin, India Hopes for Chance to Save National Pride. Wrong title, Mr. Yardley. India doesn't hope to save national pride: it's the violent, corrupt and inefficient people on top who're trying to save their national power, with help from corporate media -- Indian and international. It's shameful.

This is a quick summary of the so-called Commonwealth Games, 2010. (1) Rounding up and jailing of poor people with their children off Delhi's streets; (2) massive corruption of the ruling Congress leaders who allegedly stole millions of dollars by doling out big corporate contracts with outrageously inflated prices; (3) major failing to meet important deadlines causing international derision; (4) paying 15-20 cents or less per hour (and working them 12-14 hours a day) to the thousands of workers, and falsely promising them housing, health care, child care, education, etc.; (5) creating an oppressive and unsafe work climate where at least 40 workers have died from on-the-job injuries, etc. while working on the Games sites; (6) organizers rampantly used child labor; (7) the govt. shut down schools, colleges and govt. offices for the games with no make-up time for lost studies or work -- unprecedented in modern world history; (8) major construction debacles including the road bridge collapse in Delhi last week; (9) historic number of international athletes pulling out of the games; (10) massive arrogance of the Congress govt, International Olympic Committee and Commonwealth Games executives who took millions of dollars, yet didn't deliver.

Other than some no-name, local, grassroots groups, international human rights bodies or the United Nations did not produce any audible screams against such rights and justice violations (bizarre, because the big-name groups in particular wouldn't miss any opportunity to raise hell on other politically expedient lapses in select places across the globe.)

The entire cost that has nothing to do with welfare of the ordinary people (totaling billions of dollars) has been and will be dumped on the broken backs of the average and poor Indian citizens who couldn't care less about the Games; their lives will not change a bit after the fiasco is all over. Mr. Yardley, you might challenge the status quo the Games' sponsor corporations and their trustee governments are perpetuating. That's the real problem big media need to address.

And we're not even talking about the painful and pathetic legacy of the Commonwealth hegemony. As if two hundred years of looting a once-prosperous country and leaving a torn, bloody, violent and impoverished three pieces of land with carefully chosen cronies weren't enough.

If anything, the British Queen and her administration owe a long-overdue apology with major reparation to the one billion-plus people they tyrannized in South Asia. That would be a real good start. Everything else falls short.

Second Circle: the Middle Majority of Working People

Updated on August 4, 2010







Second Circle: the Middle Majority of Working People



A Simple Spin Wheel Model to Build Alliance and Power across the Soft “Left and Right”



(Because the divide is artificial: sane working people have more in common than difference)


By Partha Banerjee



Short Description: There are more overlaps than divides among the moderate “left and right” working people. Creating broad-based alliance and synergy across this democracy, equality and justice spectrum is critical today.


Long Description: Working people who consider themselves moderate "left" or 'right" have more overlaps than differences. Below are a few examples -- the moderate working people feel similarly and strongly about the following:

1. Economic disparity and frustrations on social mobility: living wages, unpredictable workplace, loss of health care, education costs for children, loss of home and savings, and consequent psychological trauma and depression are major issues.

2. Feeling of being left out: not being a part of the election-time promises to be included in democratic processes.

3. Discontent on lack of peace, right, justice and human dignity issues: state repression, global warfare and poverty issues hit the average home.

4. Helplessness on destruction of the earth and environment: the BP disaster, Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan and Iraq wars are examples.

5. Fast-worsening stability and security situation for the children: terrorism and violence are all-time high.

Can the poor, working man and woman strengthen themselves to a position of power? Can we empower the Middle Majority -- which I call the Second Circle -- driven by coalition building across the working class, political education, and will power, in a non-violent way? What are the obstacles?

I propose a simple "spin wheel" model to create cooperation and collaboration across the moderate left and right working class spectrum, eventually empowering the Second Circle middle majority, and through the process, disempowering the iron-walled elite center and separatist and violent far right and far left. I believe that with evolving action plans (including but not limited to elections), moderate working people will win and assume power.

The artificial left-right divide is deliberately created by the forces in power aided by corporate media; it's been detrimental for the working class people and families. It's time we go beyond the archaic box and come together.

Obama and FDR -- Revisiting American History (quickly)

Obama and FDR -- Revisiting American History (quickly)

March 27, 2010



Now, this is a serious historical discussion that should be done by serious historians. I'm not one of them. My little knowledge about American history and society comes from a twenty-five years of first-generation immigrant existence in this country, and that too, an existence of struggle, spending valuable time on unmemorable, mundane events. Still, as a student of political history as well as an unflappable cheerleader of human spirit, I find urge to chronicle history of this land where I spent half of my life, as it's been unfolding my way. Hope is, friends are gracious enough to forgive any possible impudence.

About Barack Obama, the man who made history. However much I want to support him (and I do, still) and however much time and energy I'd put in for an Obama victory, I'm skeptical about the way he's doing business. This is after I threw in all my support for this health care reform bill, irking my three and a half admirers worldwide.

This is a very important discussion, and I hope we continue it. Briefly, I just came back from an annual conference of my college where a paper was read about the Obama vision of "One America." The young, vibrant, erudite historian quoted many Obama speeches to show how he's been able to create a sense of race harmony and futuristic vision for America through his enviable eloquence. Sure, I love the Obama eloquence, but not sure if I'm totally sold on the liberal, centrist theme. If anything, I said during the questionnaire that Obama has said things that new-generation, educated or otherwise privileged Americans want to hear, without ever addressing the issue of class, corporatism or globalized, neo-colonization and economic-cultural enslavement a la Monsanto, Union Carbide, McDonald's, IBM, MTV or Hollywood. That's not the vision of One America that other leaders such as MLK or even FDR or Lincoln had stood for.

[Of course, young America has matured a bit (and their election of Obama over dark-age, divisive forces is greatly reassuring), but has it gotten the difference between a liberal, individualistic concept of glossed-over diversity and one from a grassroots, working America pov? Not sure at all. I'd ask the same question for the country where I spent the other half of my life: India.]

In fact, in this extreme economic downturn caused by corporate America and its crony Republocrats (the JoeLieb ilk), one might take a lesson or two from FDR and his New Deal: how he tried to take on the Wall Street criminals in 1930's and how his administration passed pro-people, pro-labor laws (Wagner, Norris-LaGuardia, WPA...), curtailing the power of corporate America and their massive deregulation and out-of-control profiteering -- shockingly similar chain of events that caused the 1929 stock market crash, mortgage and banking collapse and the subsequent Great Depression.

Obama, surrounded by some sinister characters, has failed to replicate FDR. The crony Republocrats would not let him do it; in fact, the health care reform that finally passed with a razon-thin, heart-stopping margin passed after many concessions and carrots to corporate lobbyists: insurance companies themselves are big beneficiaries. It's a far cry from any serious reform. Still, we have no choice but to take it because the alternative is horrific.

American working people, courtesy big media, do not understand the centrist, elitist, entrenched status-quo politics, other than what they read, hear or watch at their living rooms -- "analysis" thrown at them by self-styled experts and media celebrities. But they do understand history, they do remember FDR, and millions of Americans (some of whom I work with on a daily basis) understand the hypocrisy of the Obama government (not necessarily himself) to bail out with a $1.5 trillion historic reward the same people who should've been put behind bars. These are ordinary, hard-working, family Americans some of whom, with the lack of an honest political analysis -- again courtesy big media and corporations -- now throw their support behind the Tea Party thugs. We can certainly blast them for joining hands with bigots, but we cannot and must not criticize the reasons of their frustration; after all, countless are out of work while blessed bank bullies keep giving themselves big bonuses.

This is a critical time in history, and in a few months come November, we'll know whether health care reform would make or break Obama once and for all. It could be that we're going to see a repeat of the 1994 New Gingrich far right takeover of Congress, given how money keeps pouring in to Republocrats' election coffers.

Instead of perpetuating and falling victims of the so-called left-right divide that distorts history of the American people, we need to find overlaps between the moderate working class -- the so-called left of center and right of center vast majority that share many commonalities -- and build alliance so that we gradually assume power for ourselves and slowly disempower the extremists, and more importantly, the centrist JoeLieb power of status quo.

I call it my Second Circle model: the large, majority concentric ring of honest, sincere, yet powerless, vulnerable people taken advantage of by the center circle of power, as well as people targeted by an outermost circle of fringe, violent forces. I hope to talk more about this model in the coming days.

Here's a diagram of the model. We'll expand more.







Thanks for the opportunity to share my two cents. Much appreciate comments, and if it's any worth, a circulation.

In solidarity (and hope for a united future),

Partha

Brooklyn, New York