The name Saul Alinsky rings few or no bells with most people these days, aside from near constant references by the likes of Gingrich and Beck to paint him as the personification of evil. As a figure in the social movements going back to the 1930's he was well known as probably one of the cornerstone figures in community organizing, whose ideas became the foundation for much of the 60's social movements in civil rights and protest to the Vietnam War. Affiliated with no political organizations and not having much use for mainstream political leaders, Alinsky sought to give power to people who had no power. He once said that Machiavelli's book The Prince was written as a blueprint for the Haves to hold on to power, while Alinsky wrote Rules For Radicals as a blueprint for the Have-nots on how to take it away.

At the time of this interview, in February 1970 for Harper's Magazine and their weekly radio program At Issue, Alinsky is interviewed on the occasion of the reissue of his 1946 book Reveille For Radicals and discusses where the radical movement has gone and where it's going.

So now you know when someone asks you who Saul Alinsky is.

That's why we're here.

Since this November marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iran-Contra Scandal, I ran across this special produced by NPR on the occasion of the opening days testimony of Col. Oliver North, the man alleged to have been at the center of the Iran-Contra scandal from July 1987.

Hosted by Cokie Roberts and featuring veteran newsman Daniel Schorr, they outline the circumstances and events that led up to this moment in the hearings.

Since time and facts get fuzzy, I thought it would be a good idea to run this piece as a sort of refresher course in the scandal and the players involved.

At the end of the NPR piece is an interview conducted by KCRW's Ruth Seymour with none other than Newt Gingrich, himself an outspoken supporter of covert operations and doing-what-needs-to-be-done.

Considering he is the man who would like to be President next year, a glimpse of him twenty-five years ago might not be such a bad thing. Not that he's changed so dramatically over the years. But you get the idea of where he would like our current state of government headed, even in 1986.

History.

The thread for News on January 27th in 1996 seemed to have a lot to do with standoffs and face-downs. Starting with news that chemical heir John DuPont shot and killed Olympic wrestler Dave Schultz and had barricaded himself in the bedroom of the mansion on his 600 acre estate outside Philadelphia and was forcing a standoff with Police had people wondering about the lethal combination of wealth and mental illness.

A standoff of another kind was averted. This one on Capitol Hill where a Stop-Gap Spending Bill was given an eleventh hour approval and instant signing by President Clinton, thus averting a third threatened government shutdown. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wasn't happy, saying it was all media's fault that he didn't get his way and was promising fireworks when the issue would be creeping up again after March 15th.

Another kind of stand-off/face-down went on with the Whitewater Probe. The Grand Jury had finished hearing testimony of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and there were hints this thing was going to get political, with the ever-present Ken Starr in charge of the probe hinting at further questioning of Clinton in the near future.

And the OJ Simpson Civil Suit trial was put on hold as his Grand Jury Deposition seemed to drag on forever.

But everyone was looking forward to Super Bowl XXX which was scheduled to get going the next day.

When in doubt, throw a football.

And so went this particular day in Paradise, for January 27, 1996 as reported on The CBS World News Roundup.

With yet another Government shutdown looming, I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the last one - the one that lasted a while in 1995. The last time the Republicans had a majority and got everyone in an uproar. Finger pointing everywhere. Accusations flew like confetti and the Government shutdown and sent some 800,000 workers home.

It ended badly and it will most likely end badly again, but there are those who just loves them some chaos.

So, as a reminder . . .here is the news via NPR's Morning Edition for November 14, 1995.

Hot on the heels of the 1994 mid-term elections and the abrupt shift to the right, President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address and mapped out his plan for the upcoming year, battle lines and all.

The only thing different (or maybe not as this is being posted on the eve of the 2011 State of The Union), is the level of civility (professionalism?) on the parts of both sides of the aisle. Despite the vicious rancor that often marked the Clinton Presidency, there was a level of civility to be had, even if it was to the music of tepid applause on the Republican side.

President Clinton: "I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it.

The members of Congress who voted for that bill and I would never do anything to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to hunt and to engage in other appropriate sporting activities. I've done it since I was a boy, and I'm going to keep right on doing it until I can't do it anymore. But a lot of people laid down their seats in Congress so that police officers and kids wouldn't have to lay down their lives under a hail of assault weapon attack -- and I will not let that be repealed. I will not let it be repealed."

Then as now, the media were abandoning responsibility and actively engaged in the dumbing down process.

Pres. Clinton: "For people in the entertainment industry in this country, we applaud your creativity and your world-wide success, and we support your freedom of expression. But you do have a responsibility to assess the impact of your work and to understand the damage that comes from the incessant, repetitive, mindless violence and irresponsible conduct that permeates our media all the time."

Despite being directed at Hollywood in general, you can't help but think the addition of "irresponsible conduct that permeates our media" was somehow aimed at the news outlets. In any event, it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The new word to be gotten out of the SOTUS was the word "covenant". It sounded nice at the time, but like the honeymoon with Congress, didn't last that long either.

Now that the 2010 mid-terms are over, and no one is wasting any time girding up for 2012, I thought I would play a press conference from 1994, sounding eerily familiar to one this morning, only the man in the hot seat then was Bill Clinton.

Pres. Clinton: “The American people sent us here to rebuild the American dream. To change the way Washington does business, to make our country work for ordinary citizens again. We made a good start by cutting the deficit, by reducing the size of the Federal Government, by reinventing much of our government to do more with less. We have increased our investment in education and expanded trade and our economy has created more than five million jobs. We’ve also made a serious start in the fight against the terrible plague of crime and violence in this country. I remain committed to completing the work we have done. Still, in the midst of this work there has been too much politics as usual in Washington, too much partisan conflict, too little reform of Congress and the political process. And though we have made progress, not enough people have felt more prosperous and more secure, or believed we were meeting their desires for fundamental change in the role of government in their lives. With the Democrats in control of both the White House and the Congress we were held accountable yesterday and I accept my share of the responsibility in the result of the elections.”

And eerily, some issues were the same.

Clinton: “On the healthcare issue I will concede that, by the time the folks who were characterizing our program had finished with it, and one of your publications said that they thought about $300 million had been spent in lobbying against the healthcare reform, it looked like a government program, designed to solve the problem by restricting the choices of the American people and injecting the government more into healthcare. That is not what I want to do, and I will concede this; I have got to find a way to reassure the American people that, if they like what they’ve got, they can keep it. But let me say I remain committed to solving the healthcare problem.”

And so it goes . . .and so it goes.

Here is the complete press conference as aired on NPR with commentary by Daniel Schorr.

The Mid-term election of 1998. Some surprises. Barbara Boxer won a squeaker, Charles Schumer won an upset victory in a hotly contested race in New York from Alfonse D'Amato. The Bush Brothers won their respective Governor's Races, Jeb in Florida and George in Texas. Grey Davis won in California (but not for long, as we all remember so well), Newt Gingrich was still busy gloating.

Newt Gingrich: “This will be the first time in seventy years that Republicans kept control of the House for a third term. And you would think that, to do something for the first time in seventy years, would be a fairly big deal. But not among the Washington pundits. Well why is it a fairly big deal? Well, because you have every committee will be chaired by Republicans, every sub-committee will be chaired by Republicans. The Rules Committee will be nine to four in favor of Republicans, and we will schedule legislation based on a Republican agenda.”

You gotta love the talk of Bi-partisanship flowing. I'm always reminded how different the story is when the shoe winds up on the other foot.

Here is a one hour (a little less) rehash of November 3, 1998 - starting off with the morning news of the election and later, after most of the polls have closed, the results coming in and the exit polls. A lot of names, unknown at the time, winning elections for the first time. Fascinating to see who pops up twelve years later.

And just think - you may have been one of those people who didn't vote during that election, thinking it wasn't important.

History is very often like a bad meal that keeps coming back.

(Same as it ever was. Same. As. It. Ever. Was.)

In my never ending quest to find some historic evidence that the myth of bi-partisanship ever existed, I had hopes that surely fifteen years ago things may have been a little different. Unfortunately the answer is no. Almost exactly the same. In 1995 it was Bill Clinton facing a majority Republican House and Senate. Budget, Taxes, Base closures and Presidential appointments facing filibusters. During the week of June 21-25, 1995 the filibuster threat came as the result of Clinton's appointment of Dr. Henry Foster to the post of Surgeon General. Phil Gramm voiced a sentiment that has become something of recurring mantra even today.

Phil Gramm (on confirmation of Dr. Henry Foster and a threatened filibuster): “This is the wrong person with the wrong views for the wrong job. I think we can serve the public interests by saying no. I think no is the right answer. I am confident we’re going to say it.”

And saying it over and over and over again.

(Sen. Larry Pressler - R-South Dakota - searching for the favorite world)

It's been fascinating research, digging around to see just when things started going haywire with our media. Sure, it goes back to the late 1960's, but once the ball got rolling, it was only a matter of time before the FCC would become almost completely gutted of any power to regulate anything. Worse than a hollow shell. An abandoned ventriloquists dummy. This news clip, from a CBS World News Roundup broadcast illustrates what happened. BTW - it starts with a Newt Gingrich piece on his view of Civil Rights - as always a well placed shoe in a well heeled mouth lasts forever.

And so in 1995 (June 16th as a matter of fact), the Senate passed sweeping legislation further de-regulating whatever power the FCC might have to limit station ownership, cable rates and cable involvement in telephone communications. It would become the basis for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This leg of the bill was passed (via a Republican controlled Senate) with a large enough majority to insure no possibility of a Presidential veto, which Clinton wasn't thrilled over.
As the Bill's architect South Dakota Senator Larry Pressler said:

Sen. Larry Pressler (R-South Dakota): “I think the country is more ready for de-regulation and competition. And, so, in my favorite world it might be more de-regulatory, but legislation is the art of the possible.”

The idea that one company in one city can own several radio stations, TV stations, a cable operation and maybe a newspaper or two strikes me as anything but stimulating competition. Or maybe that's a piece of logic I've missed.

Legislation may be the art of the possible, but subterfuge is the art of the scam.

(Do as I say, not as I do)

With the latest news about a Republican push for a new Contract With America for the upcoming mid-term elections, I was wondering what ever happened to the other one, the much touted one, the feel-good one, the one that didn't get much past its first 100 days.

Oh, that one. I remember the orgy of "come brother, let us reason together" proclamations that gushed during the first press conference that November in 1994. And remember Dick Armey?

Dick Armey: “When we committed to open process that would allow participation by all our members, giving due respect and the right to participate to both the majority and minority, we anticipated that the minority may flood the floor with amendments and try to slow down, stop the process. In anticipation of that we had a resolve at the time we wrote the Contract that we would be prepared to work seven days a week if necessary, even twenty hours a day if necessary. But there are two things we will not violate – one, is our commitment to an open process, where people are allowed to participate, irrespective of minority or majority status. And two – our commitment to get the work done. We believe a Congress where every member feels their right to participate is fully respected is a Congress that will work smoothly and efficiently. And we expect that to be the case.”

Lofty ideals and bi-partisanship (despite a reporters inquiry if Democratic members would stay on committees the answer was a flat "no") and none of it came much to pass before the Ethics violations would roll out. All that hypocrisy, all those values, all that change.

And they would very much like to do it again.