PJD,

Good points. I agree that having a "dedicated tax that goes to public broadcasting and nothing else" is probably the best idea. I really hope that such a system would ensure journalistic independence. My only fear is that because of the particular dysfunctionality and fundamental corruptness of our political system, it might be virtually impossible to cut out external pressure even with guaranteed, independent funding. The government has become so ideologically infected by big industry neo-cons that I think it's really hard to cut out the outside partisan influence because it's on the inside now. We've seen a real breakdown in the barrier between corporate and government power where the government often simply acts as an enabler and agent of the big corporations. And it's true that much of the Democratic Party is either silent or complicit in this. The changes that we need are so systemic and fundamental in order for us to become a real, functioning democracy.

Also, good point on "My Name is Rachel Corrie". Wealthy, individual benefactors can definitely exert a malign influence, as we've seen so tragically in stymied efforts to put on this truly great play in different communities. I guess my point was that it's still important to recognize the distinction between an individual, private contribution and a corporate contribution. When it comes to the range of individual contributions from ordinary, modest up to the big, well-heeled with the latter likely holding most of the weight--I agree this is problematic and shows the down-side of private funding and, thus inevitable, private influence.

Is the british military an all volunteer outfit? I think this is the crux of the piece. Mr. Moyers has brought this point up many times, the concept of shared sacrifice and the reality that it brings to those in charge. This war has had virtually no effect on the day today lives of the vast majority of americans, therefore it is impossible for us to have any real concern for what is happening to people we don't know or have any interaction with. As for the last paragraph, I think we should send all of congress and the administration to the green zone in Baghdad and force them to stay there till they get it figured out, the shirts would be so much more effective there.

What would be great (and fair) is that two twins were in Iraq wearing shirts that say "I'm Barbara" and "I'm Jenna". Of course that'll never happen, only poor patriotic dupes fight for/from this country. Empires require fools that equate wars of conquest and agression as defending the homeland. Can't get a job, then become cannon fodder. Bored with hanging out at the Dairy Queen, then get addicted to the adrenalen of killing brown people. Young men have always died for old men's wars and profits. Ah the glory of "gettin some". Now lets hear about me dis-respecting our brave young fighting men. I dare you and expect it.

Yo smac--

No disrespect intended at you, but Moyer's article kind of disproves your point. The Brits at least still have a sense that when there is war everyone goes off. Charles served in the royal navy, Louis Mountbatten (cousin to the current Queen) commanded forces in South Asia during WWII--this is not just a fashion statement on the part of the current royals.

Personally I find the devotion to the royals on the part of Brits or Americans kind of silly, but at least the royals take themselves seriously. Would that America could say the same about its present political leadership in both parties.

any real consideration of the motive for serving in the military has to involve the civilian "authority" which, in the absence of a moral base, renders the decision to deploy a matter of caprice and arrogance. it certainly doesn't help when troops are overly gung-ho. but our "patriotic" zeal for "superiority" in this society naturally infects our armed services. we can't expect that to change unless the culture demands it.
and there's no time like the present!

The Queen has no integrity. She was so happy to be in the presence of George Bush. Decent people don't befriend mass murdering war criminals. And Harry is a volunteer war criminal. Mr. Moyers, you should have blasted Harry for volunteering to become a war criminal, instead of writing a feel good story about how great his fellow soldiers are.

While true that Mountbatten served in the war, Prince Charles, andrew and now Harry are in it for the ribbon or medal they'll get for doing zero. The royals always look good in uniform. Strictly ceremonial military people..they don't actually do any fighting. But they do look good sitting in the cockpit of a military jet, or a tank, or with their riding crops in fox hunts.....

The River,

The ridiculousness of your comment indicates that you have no idea who Bill Moyers is. He's one of our wisest, deepest progressives. His recent program on the deceptions that led to War in Iraq presents an excellent cumulative overview of the crimes of this administration. The fact that Moyers might communicate in an objective and sober fashion doesn't mitigate the seriousness of his questioning. And your bizarre notion that Moyers comes off "as just another paid for mouthpiece for AIPAC and the neo cons" shows just how cuckoo and out-to-lunch you really are. I can assure you that AIPAC and other right-wing Israel lobby organizations view truth-tellers like Moyers with trepidation.

On the Prince Harry thing, I think Moyers' point is well-taken. The Brits definitely come off better in the wash when it comes to service and sacrifice. One can draw a notable distinction here between chickenhawk American Neo-Cons and the military service of British Royal Family. Although I do agree with Drex that it would be more admirable for Harry to say bullocks to the whole damn thing and rightly declare the war illegal.

Don't worry about Harry, he'll be protected by at last a regiment or dozens private contractors, but its a good show.

Hey Poet;
How does moyers disprove my point? My point is that Americans are not Brits, that Jenna and Barbara are spoilded debutants, and just like thier father would never serve but stay home and get drunk. Harry has integrity.

Hey poet; Its Smac again, maybe this poem help exxplain my outlook..

Again a Shame
Sorrow, pity, pain and shame
To what Is done in my county's name
Lies, distortions and marketing ploys
Insure our solders are to become only toys
We do as we did, never seeming to learn
That in war death is all that we earn

Long rows of black tablets grow again
For the sake of oil, dollar, and yen
The how and why where a mystery to this one
These patriotic dupes listened to none
Far off places with brown people we kill
In the guise of freedom, and a bigger defense bill

A slight majority is all that is needed
To ignore a history, not to be heeded
A quagmire in Nam, blind to the defeat
We're doing it again, catastrophe replete
As this folly is seen and the majority shifts
My country will see and the blindness lifts.

We were all "Clean Cut Kids" once.
Hoa binh

bandido, of course your right on the money.

"Army special forces have been sent to Iraq to provide increased protection for Prince Harry ahead of his tour of duty in the country"
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2068149,00.html

After watching the recent Moyers TV special about going to war on nothing more than lies, I guess hes still trying to find some nobility in this illegal and criminal adventure.

The British Royal family has a long history of ruling, they understand the need to appease the presents with a token sacrifice, if only in appearance. The American Aristocracy has no such history, our rulers are inexperienced at best and thoroughly unsuited to the realties of ruling successfully. That is why the American ruling class is doomed to fail in a comparatively short time. wonder what the USA will look like after the crash?

Anyway - Bush and his ilk are spoiled and greedy they are not even going to pretend to make a sacrifice. War - Over There - no fuss no muss - just keep on shoppin' good people. Unfortunately this spoiled greedy behavior is prevalent thorough national and state governments, only on the local level does it even start to get real.

No, Sir, no thank you Sir.

Until we have free universal healthcare for all, universal free university education for all,

middle class wages as a basic minimum, housing that is good and safe for all, good and

safe food for all and on and on, so that we all share in the fruits of our labor.

Until then go sell crazy some place else.

I usually agree with Mr. Moyers but this time I think he has taken a subject and missed some point (who knows what?) and "sank the eight ball". Most people on these post want our military to quit in protest or not join but when Harry goes to war we try to squeeze some point about the Brits out of a non-event. I would have cheered Harry if he had told them that he thought the war is illegal and the U.K.s involvement immoral and quit the service in protest-now there is real spirit.

I believe Moyers' piece was about the lack of shared sacrifice in the U.S. It's not the British Royals who are showing true support, it's Harry's comrades. Even if it is symbolic, it's a sign of willingness to sacrifice one's self for another. It is not just Bush/Cheney/neoUSA who are not sacrificing in this war, it is all of us.

People don't like it when a mirror is put in front of them...that's what Moyers does.

The River,

The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. Moyers isn't perfect, but he's damned good. It we can improve on Moyers, then I think we should. If not...

smac, I don't disagree with your first post here. I have started to say the same or similar: these soldiers could stop the war in a moment by refusing to go and refusing to fight. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they have been conditioned by this culture to revel in killing and torture, and we are not providing them the support they need to stand up to the scum that seem to be giving the orders and making the decisions. These mostly young people are not heroes just because they die or get wounded. They are willing pawns of the BushCo, but they could stop in a moment if they were motivated to do so. Instead of calling them heroes for killing others, we might call them heroes for not killing people. It calls for a paradigm shift from external blame of others to self responsibility. Let's invoke the Nancy Reagan Solution: Just Say No to violence and torture.
Peace,
st john

Some don"t understand how truly repressive military service is. numerous statements have been made on this site that since these are volunteers they are all to be considered war criminals.This ignores the fact that they are all lied to by recruiters and the entire recruiting process is built around half truths and outright lies. Once in the service a process of breaking down begins immediately-45 years ago we were called dipshits in the Air Force-other branches are harsher.This process has probably gotten worse recently because even the near braindead understand that the US response to the small threat that exists is out of all proportion.But then again as expressed above-it ain't always hard to give people the right and the opportunity to kill.
Let's all hope now that at least one of the Admirals of those carrier attack groups threatening Iran will have the courage to disobey the soon to come order to "shock and Awe " another nation in this neo-con quest for total obedience.

I feel like I'm crossing a tipping point. I've been in this echo chamber, I've done posts, I've gotten self-rightously indignant, I've made my calls to action.

I know what needs to be done, and I'm ready to do it.

Where do you graduate to, once you've absorbed the essence of what CommonDreams has to say? Where are the people who are actually doing the work that needs to get done?

if only he was close family.

it seems that most people still believe that harry is a "royal". lets not forget that he was the bastard love child of james hewitt and diana and we all know what happened to her.

i think the queen is hoping he will be killed in action, finally ending her "annus horribilus"

Perhaps Moyers' point would have been clearer if he would have ended with an expansion of "I'm Harry" to if the Congress would wear T-shirts during debate on Iraq that said, "I'm Harry" or "I'm Joe" or "I'm Jane" - this in order to bring a "humanitarianly" human voice to "the discussion".

This would be a step in the direction Outer Belt Way is looking for - humanizing the discussion organically from which meaningful and human uplift (action!) can arise; beyond the "talk, talk" here or in the halls of Congress.

Bringing a human voice to the discussion can be had now by joining with the National Lawyers Guild current call for a Town Hall meeting in regard to Articles of Impeachment for Bush/Cheney.

They are inviting Congressman Conyers to speak and witness in Detroit, but are organizing meetings nation wide regardless of his appearance, in order to have a humanistic Citizen's voice congeal within the discussion.

An organizing contact: Eleanore Eveleth, 313-963-0843, eleanorenlg@hotmail.com .

Puck Twain:

Thanks, I'm going to call on Ms. Eveleth per your suggestion. I do appreciate your efforts, and the efforts of all the people that work so hard to make CD the perfectly terrific facility it's become.

Best wishes to all involved.

The royal family is one of the biggest scams out there, people. I don't care how noble Harry looks joining up, the royal family is a sham. The taxpayers of Britain shell out for the Royals to essentially figurehead their way around the world. They represent a drain on public coffers, the money they take up could be much more wisely spent. I have deep and abiding respect for Bill Moyers but nothing about the royal family should be glorified. Ask yourselves where else in Europe does the royal family get the sort of kickbacks and public funding that the royals get in the U.K.? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the European countries that still have official royalty don't spend taxpayer's money on them so lavishly. The descendants of those charming people were responsible for overseeing huge atrocities in the guise of British imperialism, they are not a symbol of some kind of supposed gentility but in fact, an anachronistic symbol of the divine right of kings (or queens). The royals serve no legislative purpose save the symbolic and offer no guidance or governance.

So, typical mainstream liberals are no longer "liberal" enough? Now one must be uber-liberal, whiter than white, truer than true, to be believed? Have we become so self-righteous that we exclude all but those who fit our ultra-honed sensibilities?

Shit, no wonder the Left spins its wheels and creates a lot of mud in the process.

OuterBeltway,

Don't look for answers here to your question of what you should do. Look within yourself and just start doing what your gut tells you.

"I never helped anyone expecting that it would do any good; I helped because I was helpless to do otherwise."

Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn

"He's one of our wisest, deepest progressives..."

No, Moyers is just a typical mainstream liberal. Recall that he never used the word "lie" in his recent program. He will also never use the words "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". Don't expect him the question the imperialist economic motivations behind US foreign intervention - like Chomsky, Blum, or more moderate voices like Chalmers Johnson do.

And, in a recent interview with Amy Goodman, he seemed to be completely ignorant of the huge influence of corporate power over the news media. He even suggested "reforming" NPR/PBS by taking all public funding out of it and making it rely entirely on private contributions. He cited the strings the politicians put on the funding while ignoring the much larger role of the corporate "underwriters" in what can be shown or reported on PBS. He seems to be unaware that all these problems could be solved by simply using a dedicated tax to fund PBS/NPR, like is done for the BBC in the UK.

The BBC, particularly BBC2 put out programs more critical and hard-hitting than Moyers stuff on a daily basis.

who cares about harry. lets bring back the draft. let everyone face the consequences. let everyone face the draft. then the obvious. if there's a war in the offing we can be sure that every mother and father will have a say in whether their son or daughter is going to be cannon fodder.

IamMySelf:

I've been doing as you advise for a while now. I'm doing a decent job at the individual level. I continue to hope that there's a group out there that's ready to take the MoveOn concept one step further. I want a place where people who know how to actually design and build stuff, get together (actually or virtually) to build the tools we need to actualize these "common" dreams of ours.

We need tools. We need designs, prototypes, early adopters and distribution channels. Concept people, designers, manufacturers. Think about the team that's building the $100 laptop for poor people, or the $50 solar water heater, or a share-a-ride real-time transportation matcher...you know, innovative technical or social products we can start using to change how we live our lives. Tangible stuff that actually enables us to make the next major step toward the society we want to become. New re-usable food packaging that's safe, cheap, and actually helps the environment. The Urban Pioneer's Guide to Getting The OK to Telework. Stuff like that.

There's gotta be a place where the gifted thinkers, designers, and do-ers of the world get together to actually make the new stuff we need. I want to find that place and those people. I want to join a team of people that builds the actual stepping stones that lead from here to where we want to get.

Can anyone help me?

The whole concept of there being "royals" and non royals is rotten to the core.

If they're supporting the Bush regime, they're supporting a bunch of murderous bastards who need to be kept in steel & concrete cages.

iammyself,
I really appreciate the quote from Henry Miller:
"I never helped anyone expecting that it would do any good; I helped because I was helpless to do otherwise."

Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn

This concept is really the only one that can work. It contains within it the radical concept that of myself I can do nothing; the Creator, through me, does all. What motivates the authentic caregiver/caretaker of humanity is an inner calling to do something about what s/he perceives as suffering. It isn't about laying on guilt trips to get someone else to do it, or the belief that by doing something of value for the world, one will receive some kind of external reward or recognition. It is an inner calling that one who is awake cannot ignore. Free of expectations from outside, the authentic caregiver/caretaker operates from a space of selfless service, yet draws on the fullness of connection with a Higher Power. This is not religion, nationalism, ethnic identification, or any other such tribal affiliation. Whether one believes in a spiritual source or creator, there is a Power that informs all that is, whether we can measure it, see it or define it. Those I consider true humanitarians were more identified with their moral and spiritual essence than any particular secular or religious affiliation. Mother Theresa, though a Catholic, used her immense capacity for Compassion to drive her work. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist preacher, went way beyond the institutional boundaries of his denomination and race. Gandhi was a lawyer, but used the law and his deep commitment to justice to overthrow the British Empire by non-violently violating the laws he was sworn to uphold. One may go through history and see that the "real" revolutionaries were Radicals, as described in PJD's post, and went to the root and the heart of what they were passionate about. Kucinich and Lee are radicals because they challenge the status quo, without much concern for their own reputations. The issues they are passionate about transcend secular and religious dogma, and directly address the human issues of the day. Peace is not a political issue to be discussed with logic; it is a fundamental human desire and is the ultimate vision for global reconciliation. As soon as we recognize the Oneness of all of life, whether sentient or not, we will have discovered the key to world peace. There are so many resources that expand on this concept, it is amazing to me that we are still having this discussion from a political level. "One cannot solve a problem from the same level that is was created." A paraphrase from Einstein.

Peace,
st john

"So, typical mainstream liberals are no longer "liberal" enough?"

It is not a matter of being "liberal" enough. It is a matter of having a proper analytical tools to diagnose the problem correctly. Misdiagnose the problem and all the fixes in the world are useless.

The liberals - from JFK to Gore, Kerry, Obama, Moyers, Al Franken, etc... still work from the assumption that the US has some special god-chosen role to play in intervening violently or coercively in other nations affairs, because only we know what's best for them, and our motivations are always selfless and pure. I have yet to meet a liberal that asks the right questions. In their view, the US never commits crimes, only mistakes.

Around the world, "liberal" means a believer in social liberties combined with laissez-faire capitalism. For example, the party of big business in Australia is called the "Liberal Party", and the regime of unfettered global capitalism is called "neoliberalism" - a household word everywhere except the US. US liberals generally fit this description well.

On the domestic front, the "liberal" is usually a wealthy elitist who is more interested in saving a few whales and a good bottle of Chardonnay over the interests of the working class. I can't recall when a "liberal" has taken a strong stand for the worker - only a small minority of self-described "liberals" support repealing the anti-worker McCarthy-era Davis-Bacon act, universal healthcare, or a living wage.

We do have a few good politicians in the Democratic Party - Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Conyers and maybe a few others. But a better word for them is "radical". "Radical" means "one who gets to the roots of a matter - same origin as "radish" - not "extremist".

I think that the real failer of the people of this country and the system. Is that after all that as been revealed about the lies of this administration, they are still there.
The wheels of justice just don't turn slow. "They are at a complete, dead stop!"

PJD,

I see where you're coming from, but I think you have Moyers miscast. You mention that he doesn't say "lie" in his recent program on the run-up to the war or use the terms "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". My issue with this sort of analysis is that it comes down in the end more to a question of tonality and style rather than substance--basically, he didn't use the words you wanted to hear in a given moment. Moreover, I have heard Moyers utter the L word both back on his old program NOW and on his current Journal on PBS. I'm almost positive he spoke of Administration lies in his recent interview with Jon Stewart and last week with that NYU professor. (I'm hedging slightly cause I'd have to go back and read transcript--I don't sit around checking off buzz words the same way you apparently do.)

As an admirer of Chomsky, Zinn, Pinter, and even that radical Cockburn--a figure that many lefties love to pummel, I agree that Moyers is cut of a different mold, yet I'd argue he's still closer to those figures in mind and spirit than to the mainstream liberals you correctly identify in a later post. Moyers just occupies a different place in the socio-cultural landscape--he's the old, reflective sage who asks the question and waits for you to draw the conclusion--and so his bearing and language just might not conform to your (frankly circumscribed) sense of who a progressive is.

Lastly, Moyers is certainly aware of the corporate control of the media. (And by the way, I agree with you that the BBC and European media generally, are much more probing and hard-hitting than the neutered American press). In discussing Moyers' commentary about PBS, you segueway from "private contributions" to "corporate underwriting" as if there's no distinction. There's a HUGE distincton. Private contribution is what I do when I give my measly little contribution to Oregon Public Broadcasting every year as one of the little guys. Corporate underwriting... explains itself. Apples and Oranges. And where Moyers is coming from on this issue is that federal public funding often unfortunately comes with strings attached. When the Republicans controlled Congress, they had a visceral hatred for Moyers (they saw him as as a kind of left-wing bogey-man) and essentially worked to have his one-hour program NOW taken off the air or cut back. Because of the power of the federal purse with PBS due to public funding, politicians can have influence and this influence can be inherently dangerous. (I have mixed feelings on this issue, I'm not sure jettisoning public funding is a good idea.) But you see, there's a larger context here that I don't think you get.

Sorry, that was more long-winded than I intended.

Before the Iraq war started, I remember Hussein challenging Bush to fight, mano a mano. Bush pretended such a thing was beneath comment. Of course it was. Putting *his* single life at risk was outrageous, while putting the lives of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis and Americans at risk in his stead was the reasonable path to take. I am intrigued, to this day, that, in a democracy, we still value the life of ONE leader of hundreds of thousands of lives of the masses. Isn't the point of a democracy that WE, THE PEOPLE are the government and the loss of a president is insignificant? We can always pull another leader from among the people. A true democracy has no head to cut off. We are all, potentially, heads. What kind of a democratic leader isn't willing to offer up his or her life in exchange for the welfare of ten citizens, let alone hundreds of thousands? Bush is a macho guy when *everyone else's* life is on the line, but a shameful coward when it is his own hide. Of course, we all realize that.

We Hoosiers are proud (or is it horrified? I can never remember which) to be the home of Eugene V. Debs, who went to prison protesting war under the Wilson administration. Debs said, "Let the capitalists do their own fighting and furnish their own corpses and there will never be another war on the face of the earth." Isn't it about time that we put the likes of Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz on the front lines? Let the executives from Haliburton shoulder a rifle in Iraq. I believe we would have an immediate plan for withdrawal that would probably be put into action long before it required a mass movement.

I see that someone has come up with the notion of an embedded documentary team following Prince Harry on his tour of duty in Iraq. The aim of the finished film being to create a 'propaganda coup' for the UK and US troops. I doubt that will work. We're too wise to the notion of being 'spun' yet another version of events there and it's unlikely to paint anything like the real picture of daily life for any serving soldier out there. Far better, far funnier and far more defiant is the 'I'm Harry' T-Shirt project that has taken on an apparently almost mythical status across the web. I'm Spartacus, I'm Harry, We're all Harry now is a simple enough message. The insurgents, the extremists use the web (our web/their web) to PR their views and foment the fear, so we thought hang on - why are we running scared of their threats? Spartacus we thought. Confuse the Enemy. And that great bond of numbers. Hence www.imharry.com and the project. There are a few very relevant factors in the message, some subtle, some obvious. But the over-riding message was the bravery beyond the call of duty. Harry's got that and we're with him, we're all with him. The US soldiers have that. Always have. And - in reality by joining the 'I'M HARRY' campaign we the public, we the families, we the people are trying to stand alongside all the serving soldiers in Iraq as a consequence. Each individual one. 'I'M HARRY' makes you think, it gets people talking and gets our soldiers back on the international agenda. Oh and it sticks two fingers up at the enemy.In the meantime each and every sale of the T-Shirt - trademarked and copyright registered - raises money for the Army Charity - the Army Benevolent Fund. It's caught something - something original, something new, something that makes a difference- call it zeitgeist - call it mood -call it attitude - but it puts a smile on the face of those wearing the shirt and and a pride in sharing the message. It's been photographed all over the world, in Baghdad and Basra, in the US, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, India, South Africa, and of course Europe.We're proud of it. Any questions - www.imharry.com or imharry@btinternet.com.

"I'm Abdul", "I'm Muhammad", "I'm Hussein", "I'm Salwa", "I'm Amira", Who wears my t-shirt?

"Because of the power of the federal purse with PBS due to public funding, politicians can have influence and this influence can be inherently dangerous."

Like I wrote, the obvious solution to this is a dedicated tax that goes to public broadcasting and nothing else. This is just like the federal gasoline excise tax goes to the highway trust fund and nothing else, or the radio and TV tax in the UK goes to the BBC and nothing else.

As far as private individual contributions, this is by necessity going to have to include corporations or rich sponsors. As the US theaters who are unable to put on certain productions like "My Name is Rachael Corrie" demonstrate, the rich individual benefactors still have influence on the content. Also, how "public" are these PBS/NPR broadcasters who increasingly sell themselves as "membership" radio or TV, with it's implicatons that it's well-heeled, high-level contributors have access to deciding content?

Only a dedicated, "blind" public funding source can assure journalistic independence.