Rupert Murdoch... Goin' Green?!

You know who Rupert Murdoch is, right? He's an Austrailian-American who owns the News Corporation, a conglomerate based out of New York City. FOX TV, FOX "News" Channel, The Weekly Standard, The New York Post, HarperCollins and MySpace.com are among the properties under his control. He also owns a big chunk of Direct TV. In addition Murdoch recently purchased Dow Jones, and made a bid to buy the Wall Street Journal. Although Murdoch's political affiliations have historically been all over the map, he is associated in the United States with the radical right wing. He's been close to both Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan, and he voted for Dubya in 2000 and 2004. All of his worldwide newspapers strongly supported the invasion of Iraq. He's even on the record accusing BBC television of having a left-leaning bias. In any case the media mogul identifies himself as a "libertarian".

Murdoch inherited his trade from his father- who upon his deathbed instructed the newspaper he owned to jump-start his son's career in journalism. Though some observers believed that Rupert had more interest in gambling and making money, he soon warmed to the publishing business. Through an ambitious plan of acquisition he soon built his own empire, with a heavy focus on tabloids. His holdings expanded to England, and he soon ran afoul of the printers union by setting up an expanded process of automation. Despite the ire he garnered for that move, the youthful Murdoch proved to be quite successful as a businessman. He became known as the kind of guy that can (and would) justify doing anything for money. In fact he became a US citizen just to satisfy the requirements for owning an American television station.

Somehow Rupert Murdoch has managed to side-step many onerous regulations, including paying any form of corporate taxes for an unspecified number of years. Apparently News Corp. Investments has used a complex tax structure (involving offshore havens) to avoid paying its due. Yet somehow Murdoch is able to remain more of a cartoon villian than a real-life antogonist. Some credit must go to his own FOX network's The Simpsons, which routinely lampoons the man and his reputation. Whether he is as devious and tyrannical as he is portrayed is an unanswered question. However there is no doubt that he is willing to exploit any advantage (including self-serving political alliances) in order to further the interests of himself and his corporation(s).

So what should we make of the recent series of announcements that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is going "Green"? Not only has he pledged to reduce his comapany's carbon emissions, but he has promised to include pro-environment messages into his media products of. He says that he "wants to inspire people to change their behavior". Huh? Does this include FOX News, home of global warming deniers like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter? What about the Weekly Standard- home of the neo-cons? I would imagine that many of the pundits that represent Murdoch's news empire are aghast and appalled by this decision. On the other hand maybe they know this is all just smoke-and-mirrors. Remember that this is the same guy that supported deposing Saddam Hussein with the rationale that "the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil". Come on now. Do you really think Murdoch has changed that much in four years?

Perhaps it's more appropriate to ask whether or not it makes any difference if Murdoch is sincere in his new campaign against global climate change. If his company really does reduce its carbon footprint, does it matter what the spirit behind the shift is? If viewers of the FOX Channel are exposed to the potential dangers of not changing their destructive behaviors, should we care whether or not Rupert Murdoch makes money as a result? The case could be made that if it's in his self-interest to confront this issue, then it should be understood as a universal concern. Or think about it this way- does whether or not a FOX news anchor truly believes in what he says give his words any more or less credibility? There's going to be an agenda either way. I'd rather see an ecologiocally responsible one.

Voter Fraud.

If there is one refrain in the political sphere that drives me up a wall, it is "Get Over it!" This, of course has been the Republican response to charges of widespread voter fraud in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. What bothers me most about this sentiment is that the GOP has incorporated the protection of our "freedoms" into their rhetoric for justifying just about every agenda they have had since 2001. I'd like to know what exactly they consider to be our "freedoms", other than the right of wealthy people to avoid paying taxes. Open participation in a "representative democracy" certainly does not seem to be among their priorities.

Recently there has been a rash of stories about specific incidents of election irregularities. Conservative extremist and harpy Ann Coulter has once again distinguished herself in the nation's media. There are reports that the loathsome pundit has refused to cooperate with an investigation into her personal voter misconduct in a 2006 election. Apparently she voted in a precinct in Florida in which she didn't even live. When Palm Beach County officials sent an inquiry to the address that she registered under, the correspondence went ignored. The reason for this was because it was actually the residence of her real estate agent. Her attorney himself has noted that Coulter doesn't even live in Florida (and she has told FOX News' Alan Colmes that she lives in New York). The positive side is that if Coulter is convicted of the charges levied against her, she could face a fine or prison term (fat chance of that happening). Ironically her right to vote would be rescinded in Florida once she is a convicted felon.

But Coulter's misdeed are relatively minor compared with the horror stories I heard today on NPR. While the Republicans are busy spouting rhetoric about voter fraud (see this detailed expose on the rightwing American Center for Voter Rights scam), house Democrats are proposing legislation to insure that this misbehavior is addressed. They are trying to make it a federal crime to intentionally deceive voters to stop them from casting a ballot. This is a long time coming. I would be shocked that the issue wasn't confronted previously had it not been for the fact that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government until this past January.

-Milwaukee voters (principally Democratic-voting African-Americans) were recipients of a flier put out by the "Milwaukee Black Voters League" (which evidently didn't even exist) informing them that they would face imprisonment if they tried to vote having been convicted of any crime- including traffic violations!

-In Pennsylvania a flier (printed on government letterhead stationary) warned that voter turnout was expected to be so high that authorities were asking registered Republicans to vote on Tuesday (the actual day of the election), and Democrats to wait until Wednesday. Of course by then it would be too late. Whoever composed the letter went on to apologize for any inconvenience this improvised arrangement would cause.

-A similar flier appeared in Franklin County, Ohio. Here's a detailed list of voter irregularities during the 2004 election. Note that the presidential contest was decided in the Buckeye state.

-Last year Hispanics in Orange County, CA received letters informing them that it was illegal for immigrants to vote. How many of our fellow countrymen know that every naturalized citizen is given the right to vote?

-A Republican flier in Prince George's County, MD (last November) fraudulently implied that black Democratic leaders supported Republican candidates for Governor and the Senate. In this case they even included a photo of an unsuspecting politician, who spent much time convincing his irate supporters that the thing was a hoax.


This is only a small list that I gathered from one single article on the internet. It's amazing to think that it's necessary to actually pass new legislation to outlaw such crimes. And it's even more disturbing to see people like Republican attorney Bill Canfield publicly oppose the bill. This is as concerted an attack on our system of government as ever posed by Saddam Hussein. Yet for some reason the perpetrators of these acts have not been targeted by our freedom-fighting commander-in-chief, or the legions of "patriots" with ribbon magnets on their SUVs. What gives?

What do you call a "conspiracy" when it is completely out in the open?