Fw:

[Gerry Storm]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C2F8EC.0CF442E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Where the hell is Bob Simmons when the Dixie Chicks need him?

BTW John Fridinger is a neighbor of mine who lived in Ausitn once. He =
distributes information and is very active in enviromental organizations =
in New Mexico.


----- Original Message -----=20
From: John Fridinger=20
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;=20
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:47 AM


Published on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 by the New York Times

Channels of Influence

by Paul Krugman

=20
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people =
as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the =
most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie =
Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to =
watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, =
tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century =
European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair =
Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, =
is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry - =
with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a =
radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of =
the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been =
organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth =
based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and =
increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name =
Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But =
this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory =
articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious - and =
widely hated - for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business =
practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies =
and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. =
But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a =
political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It =
could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part =
of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which =
became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications =
Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry =
favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some =
heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the =
airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there =
are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that =
made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal =
Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would =
allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into =
television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced =
Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed =
to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management =
has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is =
Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When =
Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University =
of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear =
Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, =
Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of =
companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. =
Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a =
multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a =
good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a =
new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New =
Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have =
melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, =
business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now =
oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized =
that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for =
businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to =
reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians - by, for example, =
organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective =
watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly =
blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more =
likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you =
know there's a war on?

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company


------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C2F8EC.0CF442E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<STYLE type=3Dtext/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
	PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
	PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
	PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
	PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
	PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Where the hell is Bob Simmons when&nbsp;the Dixie Chicks need =
him?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>BTW John Fridinger is a neighbor of mine who lived in Ausitn once. =
He=20
distributes information and is very active in enviromental organizations =
in New=20
Mexico.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:crzyhrse@gilanet.com" title=3Dcrzyhrse@gilanet.com>John =
Fridinger</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A href=3D"mailto:Recipient List Suppressed:;"=20
title=3D"Recipient List Suppressed:;">Recipient List Suppressed:;</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:47 AM</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D-3><I>Published on =
Tuesday, March 25,=20
2003 by the</I></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D-3><U><I> New York=20
Times</I></U></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D+1><BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
size=3D+3><B>Channels of=20
Influence</B></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D+1><BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
size=3D-3><B>by Paul=20
Krugman</B></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D+1><BR><BR>&nbsp;</FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
size=3D-3><BR>By and=20
large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as =
antiwar=20
rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking =
took=20
place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized =

President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound =
tractor=20
smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. =
To those=20
familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent =
of. . .=20
. But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.<BR><BR>Who has been=20
organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they =
are=20
being promoted by key players in the radio industry - with close links =
to the=20
Bush administration.<BR><BR>The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, =
part of=20
Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its=20
playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, =
however,=20
been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a =
behemoth=20
based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and =
increasingly=20
dominates the airwaves.<BR><BR>The company claims that the =
demonstrations, which=20
go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of =
individual=20
stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has =
written=20
revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is =
notorious - and=20
widely hated - for its iron-fisted centralized control.<BR><BR>Until =
now,=20
complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. =
Critics=20
say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and =
contributes=20
to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears =
to be=20
using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply =
divides the=20
nation.<BR><BR>Why would a media company insert itself into politics =
this way?=20
It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the =
part of=20
management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which =
became a=20
giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of =
1996=20
removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry favor with the =
ruling=20
party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued =
over=20
allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who =
don't tour=20
with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want =
to roll=20
back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the =
other=20
side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further =
deregulation=20
that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into =

television.<BR><BR>Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. =

Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel =
was=20
revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top =
management=20
has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is =
Tom=20
Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. =
Bush was=20
governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas =
Investment=20
Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry =
Mays, was=20
on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's =
endowment=20
under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush =
family=20
ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made =
Mr. Bush=20
a multimillionaire.<BR><BR>There's something happening here. What it is =
ain't=20
exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage =
in the=20
evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in =
The New=20
Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have =
melded into=20
one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business =
interests=20
rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for =
which they=20
once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if=20
politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why=20
shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those=20
politicians - by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their =

behalf?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D-3><BR>What makes it all =
possible, of=20
course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the =
merest=20
hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the =

scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise =
questions.=20
Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?<BR><BR>Copyright 2003 The New =
York=20
Times Company</FONT><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C2F8EC.0CF442E0--