This is valiant attempt by some shareholders to influence a huge corporation’s policies. This is not a theoretical proposal, you see Fidelity was one of the largest holders of PetroChina, which through its parent company, the China National Petroleum Company, is providing funding that the Sudanese government uses to conduct its genocide in Darfur.

The trustees say “Fidelity seeks to achieve the best investment results for the Fund consistent with the stated investment policies of the Fund” and “investments are lawful under the laws of the United States”. In the tangled web of huge conglomerate speak, Fidelity is saying it’s ok, because they are not directly investing in the parent company of PetroChina, which contributes to genocide, since that is against US laws. I disagree, the parent companies actions also reflect on its children. Why else would it be called the parent company?

So, I am voting in favor of this proposal, despite the Board of Trustees recommendation to vote against it. If you happen to receive similar proxy materials in the mail from Fidelity, I urge you to open it and read Proposal 3.

The deadline for this vote is July 15,2009.

For more information check out Investors Against Genocide at http://www.genocidefreefidelity.net/

The power of this campaign however rest in his ability to use technology to attract younger and otherwise disinterested voters. When you visit his website, you can’t help but to notice how it grabs you and invites you to explore the various options. How it allows you to become directly involved in the campaign. Everything about this campaign empowers you and helps you feel like “Yes we can” make a change! People are catching Obama fever and his opponents can’t seem to find any way to stop it.

This is the primary reason his opponents have resorted to launching false attacks about his religion and nationality. Barack Obama was born in America, and raised as a Christian.

The blue print for change is the official Obama plan for America, his political platform. This 64 page document was written not for political scientists, but for everyday people, without the double talk in use by most politicians today.

Our political system is broken, and Barack Obama is ready to fix it. He wants to improve the lives of average Americans and take the necessary steps to restore America to its rightful place as the leader of the free world. Yes it may sound corny or unrealistic but change must come to our nation so lets start off on the right food by selecting Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.

Do I see skin color as a factor in the upcoming election? Sadly the answer is yes I do, but I also see the rainbow of faces, men and women from all nationalities and cultures who are backing the Obama campaign. I also see the issue of basic human rights finally being brought to the forefront of American politics. No longer will any Americans be excluded from our society!

Be sure to look over the special “know the facts section” it will give you tools to verify or clear up misinformation being spread about Senator Barack Obama. We encourage you to get to know Barack Obama as a candidate, and his platform for change.

So why is this form of musical expression suddenly under attack by some of the same people who profit from it?

Let’s take gangster rap, for instance. Some people believe that gangster rappers control the distribution and air play of their music and videos, but that is not true.

Major corporations are responsible for the shoving down our throats of images that promote sex, drugs, black-on-black crime, and have blocked some of the other forms of rap such as Christian, political, educational, rock, gospel and the 100 other forms of rap not getting equal air play.

Ever wonder why you never hear politicians today coming forward against gangster rap like they did in the ’80s?

That is because those same politicians now have a vested interest in the corporate distribution of this worldwide musical phenomenon.

Just like they outsource millions of American jobs to overseas businesses they also make billions bombarding us and glorifying gangster rap, drugs and sex until our youth, regardless of their race, become influenced by the thug culture.

Now don’t get me wrong – I said influenced, not destroyed.

As a big gangster rap fan myself, I do not support banning gangster rap. That would be a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Instead, let’s point the finger at the major corporations who make billions of dollars portraying African Americans as thugs to the world.

We must demand that they give us a diverse variety of rap music on our airwaves.

It’s just like illegal drugs. If you go after the big boys at the top who own the boats and planes, then the drugs can’t get into hands of the street dealers and into the communities.

The same message holds true for gangster rap.

Make the corporations who own these TV and radio stations give all forms of rap an equal opportunity to be heard, and you will see a positive change in our society.

Most of all, gangster rap is not responsible for the formation or the rise in gang activities. Gangs have been a part of America since the 1800s when the white Anglo-Saxon “nativist” gangs would fight the Irish immigrant gangs for political power and territory.

This notion that every kid that wears baggy pants and makes hand gestures is a gang member or thug is ridiculous.

I watched an old performance of Elvis Presley and noticed how he made some of the same hand gestures I see on the streets each day as he swung his hips and arms to the music.

As for the use of the “N” word and the recent campaigns to have it buried. That is never going to happen. The “N” word was embedded in our society over the course of 400 years and is as American as apple pie.

What an ugly stain left over from the slavery era.

We have more pressing issues in our community to address like HIV/AIDS, high unemployment rates, major health issues, our children are being suspended and expelled from schools at a higher rate, and the dropout rate for black males is through the roof.

But in all fairness to the system, we also need to get off our butts and get more involved in our kids’ education. Yes, racism is still alive and well, but to use it as a crutch and allow it to stop you from achieving your goals is unacceptable.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you like this film you can visit the filmmakers web site, buy a copy of the DVD, or just make a donation.

DEFINITIONS:

• Astroturf—An organization set up by a large corporation or corporations to put forward the corporate agenda but to look like an authentic ‘grass-roots’ group.
• Co-opted—An authentic group that is given funding by a large corporation or corporations, where the group lobbies for corporate initiatives even if they are contrary to the needs of its members.
• Skunkworks—A well coordinated campaign funded by large corporations (or industries) that incorporates Astroturf and co-opted groups, research think tanks, PR firms, lobbying firms, state and federal politicians to put forward the corporate agenda on a specific topic.

Over the last few weeks numerous groups have been lobbying and hyping the corporate position of AT&T and Verizon for relaxed cable franchise requirements or to stop any net neutrality legislation.

Some of these groups are working together to supply a message that blacks, Hispanics, seniors, low income, deaf or disabled persons care about these issues – and that they back the AT&T and Verizon positions.

A release from a group called Video Access Alliance in mid-March, for example, titled “Video Industry Organization Voices Support for Broadband Deployment and Consumer Choice,” outlines how numerous groups support what it refers to as the FCC’s “bold” cable television decision.

“Last week’s video franchising order by the FCC was a bold and necessary step in providing consumers and new content providers alike with a more competitive and fair marketplace for cable television and broadband services. The Video Access Alliance commends the FCC and Chairman Kevin Martin for this decision, and we are not alone. Below are the words of just a few of the organizations representing a broad spectrum of constituencies and interests that support this action.”

The press release goes on to quote Astroturf and co-opted groups representing the deaf, disabled, black, low income and others, all touting a plan to loosen cable franchise rules for the phone companies.

Some of the organizations quoted in the release are the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Internet Innovation Alliance, and the National Association of the Deaf, the Alliance for Public Technology, and the Video Access Alliance itself.

Other groups that sent out releases supporting the telecoms on this and related topics include the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Consumers for Cable Choice, Netcompetition, and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)

What do these groups have in common? They all receive funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, and then lobby for them.

[Click here for a description by my group, Teletruth, of the FCC decision in question and why it’s anti-consumer. Also for background: America is 15th in the world in broadband, in part because the phone companies failed to deliver on their promises to rewire America with fiber optics. Customers have already paid billions per state for that. On these issues, read our summary, written a year ago, for Nieman Watchdog.]

These “consumer” groups now are congratulating the FCC for doing a runaround of Congress (which did not pass legislation last session), by allowing the phone companies to pick and choose which communities, if any, will get new competition and without having to worry about commitments to the public, which is still paying for services not yet received.

Worse, AT&T and MCI (Verizon) are now raising local and long distance rates, especially harming low-income and low-volume customers, including seniors and the disabled.

You would think the consumer groups would be outraged and want an investigation of where all the money allocated for fiber optic broadband went or about the large increases to the price of service. Instead, the AT&T and Verizon-funded groups—some authentic but ‘co-opted’, others, such as Video Access Alliance, simply made up—are now attempting to confuse Congress, the FCC and the public into thinking that the phone companies have the support of blacks, Hispanics, seniors, the disabled and low-income families. (Click here to see what we’ve written on many these groups.)

This is all very sleazy. It is about deception. It is about playing on America’s caring about the public interest and about minorities getting a fair shake. Video Access Alliance claims that blacks and Hispanics care about Verizon and AT&T cable plans and it is important to help these ‘poor’ misunderstood companies deliver cable services.

“This issue is extremely important for minority businesses and minority consumers,” said VAA Chairman Julia Johnson. “Blacks and Hispanics spend more on telecommunications and media products and services than non-minorities. Studies indicate minorities have higher penetration rates for digital television. Minorities subscribe to more premium television channels like HBO and Showtime and minorities are the industry’s best pay per view customers. We are high value customers with enormous buying power.”

The conclusion one should draw is that these groups, while they themselves benefit from the phone companies’ funding, certainly harm their own constituents. Minorities typically live in areas that are not the rich neighborhoods that will be the first to be rewired. Seniors are not worrying about broadband issues and certainly spend less than most customers on telecom issues. And we doubt that the disabled are worried about ‘premium’ television programming.

Teletruth has no problem with large corporations donating money to non-profits. In fact, we encourage it. But the line should be drawn when a group starts lobbying for the phone companies, even if the money it received has nothing to do with the corporation’s business, or when a group takes the money in exchange for doing corporate favors – like lobbying.

The reason Astroturf, co-opted, and skunkworks groups should be ‘outed’ is simple – these organizations have very deep-pocketed funders with lobbying groups, PR firms, and others to get them the loudest “volume” in the media or access to regulators and legislators. They often overwhelm the message of independent consumer groups.

Teletruth suggests national legislation be created to stop deceptive practices. Imagine the removal of thousands of groups’ non-profit status for lobbying for their large corporate benefactors. IRS regulations state that for a citizens group “to be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code … it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates”.

In our view, every organization should be required to identify all major contributors before taking part in public meetings, filing comments, and so on. This would clear up the deceptive practices issue.

In the movie Man of the Year, Robin Williams, playing a comedian running for president, recommended that all politicians and organizations be required to wear a ‘NASCAR’ jacket, showing all of the sponsors on their ’sleeve’, as it were.

When AT&T and MCI were separate long distance companies they had their own ‘Astroturf groups, research firms, etc., that gave balance to the political forces. Today, with the mergers and consolidations, AT&T and Verizon not only own the local phone companies and the long distance companies, but they are also the largest wireless companies. There is no longer a serious ‘other side’. The Cable companies are simply not going to defend customers’ rights against the abuse of other large corporations.

The public voice needs to be on equal footing with the deceptive organizations that are using ethnic diversity or disabilities as ‘marketing’, putting corporate initiatives over the public interest.

[Click here for additional Nieman Watchdog reports by Bruce Kushnick.] Re-published here with the author’s permission

The author of this article, Bruce Kushnick has been a telecom analyst for 24 years, and is currently the chairman of Teletruth, an independent customer advocacy group focusing on broadband and telecom issues, as well as executive director of New Networks Institute, a market research firm. Teletruth was a member of the FCC’s Consumer Advisory Committee in 2003-2004 and has worked with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy on competitive issues. It also helped to create the Broadband Bill of Rights, and research through Teletruth’s phone bill auditing services has led to class action suits and major refunds for phone bill overcharging. His new ebook, The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal, is available online. His email address is  if you wish to contact him directly.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.  Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed, and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

This film was funded by people like you, and me.

Brave New Films are both funded and distributed completely outside corporate America. Over 3000 people donated to make Iraq for Sale, and it is up to you to distribute it. Give copies to co-workers and organize a screening in your neighborhood. Get involved

President Eisenhower said it best:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

• and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.