So, the NSA is keeping a database of all the phone records from AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth.  The only surprising thing about it is how not surprising it is.

I’m going to hope that I still have some privacy since I get my service from T-Mobile, a spin-off of Deutsch Telekom.  Who knows at this point?  My phone is probably spying on me right now.

Pete DeWan

Either John F. Kennedy is rolling his eyes or he’s laughing his head off at all the fuss Americans have given to his assassination over the years.  Even before he was laid to rest, the conspiracy theories began and have continued throughout the years in print, in the movies, and on television.  The best-known filmed account is Oliver Stone’s personal theory (though based on the account of New Orleans’s DA Jim Garrison) JFK, which has lost a lot of steam since it first hit theaters back in 1991.  Since then several biographical accounts of the late president’s personal life have painted a rather less flattering picture of the man who many people consider one of the greatest presidents of the 20th Century.

Now more controversy regarding JFK is resurrected on cable this Thursday, May 11th as the Discovery Channel presents an NBC-produced special called Conspiracy Files: JFK Assassination, which shows for the first time on TV declassified CIA files about a top secret plan by John and Robert Kennedy to stage a coup against Castro by invading Cuba on December 1, 1963, just ten days after JFK was shot in Dallas.

The special details the secret coup plan, code named AMWORLD by the CIA, which was withheld from the Warren Commission and later Congressional investigation committees.  Even as these files are being opened to the public, over a million JFK assassination files remain under lock and key, including other documents pertaining to the secret coup plan.

But to fill an hour’s worth of programming, there has to be more, so also included is information also withheld from the Warren Commission and Congress regarding a Mafia plot to kill JFK in Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963, just four days before Dallas.  President Kennedy was informed of the threat before his motorcade was to roll, but he continued anyway, which in hindsight seems a bit eerie, especially when they show rare footage showing a tall building along the motorcade route that was a concern to law enforcement.

Another interesting part of the special, though a little too Dateline-ish for this reviewer, is an interview with Abraham Bolden, who was the first black presidential Secret Service agent.  According to Bolden, he was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the day he was going to testify to the Warren Commission about the Tampa assassination threat.  He spent six years in prison and has been trying to clear his name ever since.

Much of the special is based upon material in the book, Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba and the Murder of JFK, by progressive national radio host Thom Hartman and Lamar Waldron, who interviewed dozens of Kennedy insiders and perused over thousands of recently declassified files from the National Archives.

It seems every few years, another special or movie drudges up the JFK assassination and theories that purport that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only one involved.  I don’t think any of this new information will settle anything because those who believe in conspiracies will only tell you about another conspiracy when the truth is unveiled.  Yet, specials such as this do make interesting television and, for at least entertainment purposes, deserve a look-see.

The special airs on the Discovery Channel on May 11th at 9 p.m. (Eastern; repeated later than night at 1 a.m.).

Rich Burlingham

In the last issue of Ode magazine came a series of articles with the tagline, “How marketing could save the world.” In one piece about the power of marketing, uber-marketer Seth Godin proclaims, “Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese people have died recently because of bad marketing.”

Gasp.

But hold on a minute. There’s a method to the madness. Godin talks about the responsibility, or even better, the imperative of marketers to tell better stories. Marketing, he asserts, is about spreading ideas. And spreading ideas can be done through telling better stories. Not more positive stories, not spun stories, but better stories. Stories that matter and that make a difference in our lives, in the landscape of our world. Transformative stories that provide us with knowledge and move us to action.

As a marketer, I tend to agree with Godin.  How many of us prefer Coke over Pepsi? Or Nike over Adidas? You think these are all simply personal choices and preferences? Maybe. But we can’t deny the power of marketing. Hell, I’ve tried a product or two because I liked the commercial or the packaging, i.e., the story sold to me. And who among us hasn’t sung the praises of a miracle product to our friends and family members? When you believe in what you’re selling, it’s not that hard.

And therein lies the point. If we as consumers are drawn in by the story, or moved by the promise of merchandise, what amazing things are we capable of when marketers tell us better stories?

What if, instead of being bombarded by ads to buy this or try that, we were told stories about real ideas to help others, improve the environment, or invest our money in finding solutions to disease, hunger, and poverty? I know we’ve all seen commercials that address these issues before. But are these telling us better stories or providing us with inspiring, passionate ideas? Are we absolutely convinced to take the action that the commercial or billboard or brochure tells us to? Do we believe that we can make a real difference?

Obviously, some of us do because these ads wouldn’t run if they weren’t effective. But imagine if we all were convinced.

As marketers of consumer products utilize more and more sophisticated means to track our preferences, our buying habits, and what moves us to spend more money, it will be that much easier to get us to take action. Let’s hope that between all of these stories, some better ones, some with inspired ideas, find their way through.

Desiree Aquino

Iran’s Supreme Leader has instructed the government to consider the religious leaders’ views and reverse its decision (on letting women into stadiums)… The government will act based on this instruction…

— Iranian government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham, speaking about the decision by Iran’s top cleric Ayatollah Khamenei to reverse President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent decision to let women attend sporting events at stadiums in Iran.

President Ahmadinejad ostensibly believes that including women in the arena will add a civilizing presence to the events, and citing this rather curious logic, he declared that allowing women and families into public places, including sports stadiums, “promotes chastity.” He therefore declared in April 2006 that women should be allowed, for the first time since the ban was put into effect during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, to attend sporting events in stadiums where men complete.  Incensed, the clerics, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have ordered that the ban remain in place.

Mimi Hanaoka

Hundreds of thousands of people gathered throughout the Americas Monday, May 1, 2006, in support of immigrants’ rights. The day symbolized protest against the U.S. economy, as many people did not attend work or school or spend any money. Above all else, this was a day when people came out in protest of HR4437.

In Santa Cruz, California, protestors collected by the thousands. Santa Cruz County was able to organize nearly 10,000 people in areas such as Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville. Waves of supporters marched through the streets in support of immigrants’ rights, chanting “Sí se puede,” which is Spanish for “Yes we can!”

Protests also occurred throughout Central America. In Honduras, union members boycotted U.S. soft drinks and fast food. In Nicaragua, President Bolaños issued a special message to the Nicaraguans in the United States, saying, “God protect them, and I hope they achieve their goal.” In Guatemala, protestors were heard chanting, “Gringos criticize us, but without immigrants they’d be nothing.” In Mexico, at least six state governors endorsed the boycott of U.S. companies.  

Since the House of Representatives voted to pass HR4437 in December, people throughout the country have gathered to protest the bill. HR4437 increases the penalties for illegal immigrants who come into the U.S. along with those who employ them. The bill makes it a felony for any immigrant to cross over into the United States. Anyone who knowingly hires illegal immigrants is now subject to a fine of up to 50,000 dollars and no less than a year in prison.

This is merely a recap of the events that occurred on May 1. More correspondence coming soon.

ahodgdon

There is a fundamental logical flaw in much of rhetoric questioning American support for Israel.  It is a failure to imagine the counterfactual.  What would happen if America changed its policies?

One answer is implicit in many of the arguments made against American policy.  In this scenario, a more isolated Israel would be forced to pay attention to world opinion and United Nations decrees.  Their bargaining position relative to the Palestinians and the Arab states would be weakened, making a compromise possible.  American policy is thereby making the situation worse by enabling Israel to act more aggressively than it otherwise would.

This belief ignores much of what makes the conflict so difficult.  If it were only a matter of calculating interests, Israel would have withdrawn from the occupied territories decades ago.  Despite American help, their international position has declined dramatically since 1967.  Their state has been militarized and they have endured years of horrific terrorism.  It doesn’t seem rational at all.

Israel’s actions must be understood in the context of the history of the Jewish people.  After the Holocaust, the natural position of a Jewish state is to be overwhelmingly concerned with self-protection.  Despite their obviously huge military advantage relative to potential enemies, there is no feeling of security.  Why else would they continue to hold the high ground of the Golan Heights, a military posture intended to protect Israel from the fearsome threat of pathetically disorganized and incompetent Syria?  Couldn’t Israeli air power easily stop any attack?

Imagine Israeli politics without the comfort of American support and still threatened by Palestinian terrorism.  The United Nations would pass resolutions condemning them.  Emboldened Arab states would take even more hardline positions.  Defensive paranoia would overwhelm every other impulse in the Israeli electorate.  It would be Israel versus the world.  More dangerous leaders elected by the frightened populace would increase tensions with other states, leading to an unstoppable spiral into catastrophic violence.

A more evenhanded approach by the American government could help towards a solution for the Palestinian conflict.  However, this can never go so far as to make Israelis doubt that we are on their side.  That trust is what allows any American influence at all.  If you think Israel with American support is too aggressive, imagine an Israel that believed its only defense against another genocide was its military.  As we have seen in America over the last five years, fear doesn’t engender rational diplomacy — it leads almost inevitably to aggressive idiocy.

Pete DeWan