LETTER TO RIVERDALE PRESS EDITOR – CONGRESSMAN ENGEL VOTES TO GUT NETWORK NEUTRALITY - Commentary by Judith [Riverdale, NY]

I was shocked to learn that last week, Congressman Engel, voted to gut network neutrality. It was to me, mind boggling that he did this, since Congressman Engel claims to be responsive to and care about his constituents and democratic freedoms; mind boggling that he would vote against any bill that would give control of the internet to the large corporate moneyed interests, the large network providers.

Then, I went to Opensecrets.org, and got the following information, that Congressman Engel has received $8,000 from AT&T and $31,000 from Verizon so far in the 2005-2006 election cycle. Hmmm. The mass media is controlled by the large corporate interests and by those in power, so coverage of real issues important to all of us, is either scant or biased in their favor. Internet freedom is essential. The internet is often the only place where we can get real, detailed facts and information. It MUST be kept fair, objective and free if our country, its democracy and Constitutional freedoms are to survive. HOW can Congressman Engel claim to be a Democrat, and then throw his vote to the large network providers, at the expense of his constituents and democratic freedoms? I feel betrayed.

LETTER TO THE JOURNAL NEWS [West Nyack] EDITOR – ELLIOT ENGEL VOTES TO GUT NETWORK NEUTRALITY
Commentary by Jessica Flagg [Bronx, NY]

Unbelievably, or perhaps not considering his campaign finance contributions, Representative Engel, voted to gut network neutrality last week. He has received $31,000 from Verizon and $8,000 from AT&T so far in the 2005-2006 election cycle according to Opensecrets.org. The telephone utility sector is his largest contributor. This was in spite of many of his constituents who expressed their desire that he vote against any bill that would give control of what we can see to the large network providers such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. Once again the little guy and Democracy loses to the large corporate moneyed interests. We are living in a time when all acknowledge that media coverage of real issues facing Americans is both sparse and biased in favor of large corporate interests and the power elite. We haven’t been able to rely on mainstream media as a truthful source of information since the demise of the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act” in 1986, during the Reagan presidency.

In fact, Democrats like Engel, have been using the lack of media coverage as an excuse for not standing up to the Bush administration on a host of issues. It’s their excuse for not investigating the Downing Street Memo and the lies used to get us into the Iraq war. It is why they aren’t more unified in opposition to the usurpation of power in the war on terror, and the violation of Constitutional Law, as exemplified by the illegal wiretapping of Americans. Lack of mainstream media integrity and investigative journalism, sapped their resolve to fight for an honest assessment of what went wrong in Ohio when exit polls all showed Kerry the winner in the stolen election of 2004 and it is why we are still facing the specter of possibly having DRE’s (electronic voting machines) commissioned right here in New York State!

We need a free and fair media. The internet is our last refuge. It is invaluable as a source of information and as an organizing tool for those who are fighting for Democracy. It is unthinkable that Engel, a Democratic Congressman has voted for its demise. Engel will stand in front of a room and claim that he is a “good progressive Democrat” because he is pro-choice and for gun control. I see those positions as basic requirements of “elect-ability” in New York, not as a progressive calling card. No, he is not the progressive he professes to be. He is all for the power elite, a true DLC Democrat. This vote exposes him as a “sell out” without principle, purchasable for a mere 40,000!

With Democrats like Mr. Engel, who needs a Republican? He favors the war. He won’t co-sponsor bills to investigate the Bush administration’s lies or abuse of power, and he caves in to the large corporate interests at the cost of Democracy! He gives the New York voters just enough pandering, but closer evaluation shows him as the eager, hand-shaking partner of the Republican leadership that is busy bankrupting our country and undermining our Democracy. I am challenging him in the Democratic primary to give New Yorkers the possibility of electing a true “progressive”, a Real Democrat. The march toward fascism must be stopped. Information is vital to a free society. Engel has shown himself to be an enemy of freedom with this vote.

[DUCHESS NOTE: Check out Jessica Flagg's NY congressional district 17 campaign at ... http://www.jessicaflaggforcongress.com/]

UPON THE DEATH OF ZARQAWI, HOW MANY AMERICANS WILL BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO AMERICA AND THEIR LIVES?
Commentary by Linda Zoblotsky [TX]

The mainstream press is on automatic pilot with their reporting of another victory for the Bush administration upon the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The corporate press, reporting to duty, said there is a 25 million dollar bounty being offered as a reward for the end of Zarqawi. Who is going to get that reward money and will they be offered a break from “the long war” for their courageous tour of duty? Is this a victory for the Republican Party to cherish as they head into the mid-term elections? Will Zarqawi’s death rally people to pay tribute to the war-monger politicians at the polls? Are Americans that blood thirsty?

Some people do hold steadfast to the belief that we must destroy Bush’s “axis-of-evil”. Some people will tell you with blind faith that we must kill all of the “terrorists” and all those who “harbor terrorists”. Karl Rove has tutored the numb-minded George W. Bush to make some speeches to his numb-minded supporters who really believe we can destroy every last bad person. A sleepy congress has voted YES, YES and YES for the neo-con vision of never-ending war.

As Americans celebrate the removal of Saddam, a statue of Saddam being toppled and numerous elections in Iraq, other people's families and friends, are loosing life and limbs and some of those who served in Iraq come home with shaken brain syndrome from the damage caused by “improvised explosive devises”. At best these men and women loosing part of their faces in the bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq celebrate being able walk again, while the citizens of Iraq are trying to live in a country that is demolished from the cluster of U.S. bombs.

The press calls those “brown” human citizens, fighting the occupying army, “insurgents”. The press uses the phrase: "improvised explosive devise". The press should call the explosives “the bombs of the citizen armies defending their land”. The dailies use the word "improvised" to diminish the warfare technology of those citizens of a sovereign country, who want the U.S. to leave.

The citizen armies defending their lands are killing and destroying the lives of American troops and destroying the lives of families of American troops with their bombs. “Improvised” sounds like a bunch of high school kids, who are also high” who suddenly decided to put on a show of attack. Most of the citizens that join the war against the occupying forces are beyond improvising and high. They are angry and determined. 20 of those citizens defending their country will take Zarqawi's place.

And then some headlines say Zarqawi survived the strike and then died. And Bush makes statements with his frozen smirk to the effect that even though we have captured Zarqawi the attacks on American troops will continue.

Is this why young people should join the military? Should NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND be used as a tool to recruit young people in “the long war”? While India’s Institute of Technology trains the best engineering minds in the world, what kind of a country do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country where boy scouts are being brain-washed to fight a “long war” for a few elites? As American Idols are being eliminated, how many of other people’s lives are being destroyed in a war where the reason for the mission is to stop the “terrorists”? And as the United States is engaged in stopping the “terrorists”, how much should the American people tolerate of a government that engages in terrorist behavior in order to kill all the “terrorists”? If we kill all of the “terrorists”, are we not supporting a policy which is in engaging in ethnic cleansing of “brown” people? In supporting the war in Iraq, most of us are supporting a war where other people die, other people loose limbs and other people’s families struggle to survive on food stamps, while we rush to buy a PEOPLE Magazine with a 5 million dollar picture of Angelina’s baby. Will Angelina’s baby, the “new savior” fight the war on terrorism? In the “long war” how many of other people’s babies will be recruited by the man who ran as the “education president”?