“You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train:”
Howard Zinn, The United States, And The 20th Century

As the 2004 presidential election draws to a close amidst charges of election fraud, images of Red versus Blue States dominating our media landscape, and the prospect of another four years of the Bush administration at the helm of the U.S. republic (or is it “empire”?), author, activist, and historian Howard Zinn may be the most single most important figure for Americans to consider as they seek to chart a political course for the next several years. For those of us who endured rote lectures, mimeographed worksheets, and dry-as-toast textbooks during our high school history years, Zinn is the must-read author of A People’s History Of The United States, an exhaustive, exciting, and widely-read revisionist account of U.S. history, now celebrating more than two decades in print.

This past year, independent film-makers Deb Ellis (a Burlington, Vermont resident) and Denis Mueller put the finishing touches on an eighty minute documentary focusing on Zinn’s life and his times, a powerful piece of filmmaking that provides “an excellent introduction to a man whose thoughts on war, peace, and dissent have become increasingly influential in ever more confusing times,” to quote none other than TV Guide.com.

The film captures the essence of Zinn’s masterwork A People’s History, in which the historian presents what he calls a “bottom up” perspective on the U.S. past. He tells, for example, the story of Columbus’ “discovery” of the Americas from the Arawaks’ point of view; the writing and ratification of the 1787-88 U.S. Constitution from the viewpoint of slaves, women, and other dispossessed social groups; and the history of the “westward movement” from the angle of the Cherokee and the Choctaw, forcibly moved from the southeastern seaboard to what became the Oklahoma territory by the U.S. army during the 1830s. His book, unabashedly political in nature, is an eye-opening account of historical moments ignored by traditional quote-unquote “objective” history textbooks, which emphasize “one damn thing after another,” with little attention paid to the historiographical debates that make history so remarkably interesting.

Zinn claims in his book’s opening chapter that “Objectivity” is a convenient collective myth taught to keep us from recognizing that history (literally, the stories we tell about ourselves – who we are, where we have been, and were we might be going) is “contested.” What we remember and how we remember it (and what we forget), in other words, is not simply an academic exercise designed to fill time during the school day. History matters, more so than we might realize, and Ellis and Mueller wisely include this important bit of wisdom early on in their filmic re-telling of Zinn’s life.

And people matter, too. Zinn’s critics often accuse him of simply airing the U.S.’s dirty laundry, promoting cynicism among young Americans, and demonstrating disrespect for the U.S. as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth. In his book, Zinn argues that all of the most important positive historical transformations that have unfolded in the United States – extending political rights, expanding economic opportunities, ending war and injustice - have not begun with powerful politicians (largely rich, white, and male), cagey corporations, and other elites who control the status quo for their own advantage, but with regular Americans who organize to demand the kinds of changes needed to make a society more democratic and humane. It is in the chronicling of ordinary people’s movements - abolitionists, suffragettes, union workers, farmers, students – that Zinn finds his greatest hope and source of strength, and he argues that we should all look there, too. To quote a well-known ditty: “We are the leaders we’ve been waiting for.”

And Howard Zinn’s own life, as Ellis and Mueller’s film demonstrates, has been a marrying of idealistic leadership with practical political realities. From his childhood in New York City slums; to his Depression-Era working class organizing in U.S. ship yards; to his World War II experiences in the military as an Air Force bombardier; to his on-the-street work during the civil rights movement and Vietnam War protests; to his writings and speeches as a historian, an activist, and, above all else, a humanist, Zinn has demonstrated an unfailing commitment to America’s highest ideals – “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – not just to enhance elites’ wealth and power, but to work for a better society for all.

If ever we needed a film to remind us, here and now, about what makes America a truly great nation, it is “You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train.” Don’t miss it. Order your own copy through Icarus films at http://www.frif.com.

Never Let Me Go:
Adele Nicols’ Jazz Triumph

I first heard Adele Nicols perform at the Purple Moon Pub in Waitsfield three years ago, when she hosted an open mike night there. I was a musician new to Vermont, looking for a place to listen and play. Tucked into the northwest corner of one of Vermont’s coziest establishments, surrounded by a piano keyboard, an acoustic guitar, and a few microphones, Nicols – a piano teacher, mother, and long time Valley resident - seemed completely at home. With a big smile on her face, she belted out song after song – folk, blues, jazz, and ended her set with a powerful cover of one of the most beautiful and challenging of the 20th century’s folk songs – Joni Mitchell’s “Case of You,” a memorable cut from the acoustic diva’s remarkable recording “Blue.” Needless to say, Nicols’ wide range impressed me. Anyone who had the chutzpah to cover a Joni Mitchell tune, especially one so challenging, certainly got my attention.

Even more so, now that I’ve had the past few months to listen to Adele Nicols’ debut CD “Never Let Me Go.” Her ten song collection is a beautiful tribute to the jazz genre, one that showcases Nicols’ many musical gifts. As she sings on “I’m Old Fashioned,” track 4 of the CD, Nicols is a jazz traditionalist in the best sense of the term, selecting tunes that spotlight some of the finest and most revered moments in the history of the jazz – “Fly Me To The Moon,” for example. But, in true jazz fashion, she re-interprets many of the standards with a stripped-down and accessible ease that invites closer listen. Those of us who have grown accustomed to Sinatra’s upbeat and clubby version of “Fly Me To The Moon” may be startled, at first, when listening to Nicols’ much more lazy and almost Zen-like re-invention of the song “Old Blue Eyes” made famous. Upon repeated spins, though, my musical mind has created a new space for Nicols’ version – one that invites a new appreciation of the Sinatra’s take, even as I acknowledge Nicols’ re-creation of the song into something uniquely and wonderfully her own.

And this, of course, is the beauty of jazz – a genre defined by the musical melting down of old standards into new and imaginative recordings. For lovers of jazz music, Nicols’ “Never Let Me Go” serves up a whole pile of fabulous tunes, old and new. She opens the CD with “Dearly Beloved,” a nice invocation that sets an inviting tone for the collection as a whole, especially after she drops into a wonderful scat-like groove midway through the song. The upbeat and bouncy “Joy Spring” follows, highlighting Nicols’ vocal prowess and the talent of her back-up band, and she gets to the title song on track #3 – contemplative and thoughtful. She throws in the wonderful “You’d Be So Nice To Come Home To” and the pensive “A Foggy Day” to round out the CD’s mood as a whole, plus some surprises that I won’t spoil for you here. The best thing to do is grab a copy of this collection and listen!

Even if you don’t call yourself a jazz lover, Nicols’ CD listens like an open book. Her work is yet another fine reminder that we live in a Valley community marked by an incredible array of talented artists. Where can you buy this fabulous CD? Try Tempest Books, Warren Store, Easy Street Cafe, or buy it online at http://www.cdbaby.com and http://www.AdeleNicols.com.

PS - I’ll be spinning tracks from Nicols’ CD, plus those from a wide array of Vermont artists, on a new WMRW LP radio show (95.1 on your FM dial) called “Green Mountain Globe-A-Local,” beginning this month on Mad River Valley’s newest community radio station. Happy holidays!

Historian, media educator, and musician Rob Williams lives in Waitsfield. Reach him through www.robwilliamsmedia.com.

St. Michael’s College journalism professor David Mindich has written a startling new book – part research, part journalism - called Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don’t Follow The News. In this brisk but scholarly 127 page study, he argues that young Americans are expressing a profound disinterest in cultivating what veteran TV anchorman Walter Cronkite calls the “news habit.” This “illiteracy,” Mindich concludes, poses serious dangers for our democracy.

To research his book, Mindich interviewed young Americans across the country. Who did he find? “Intelligent, thoughtful, and socially engaged young people” whose lack of current events knowledge exhibited “a gulf between idealism and thoughtfulness and the willingness to keep up with the news.” Tuned Out’s statistics seem to bear out Mindich’s central assertion: only 21% of 18-22 year old Americans claim to read the newspaper every day (down from 46% thirty years ago), while only 33% of eligible voters between 18-22 years of age voted in the 2000 presidential election. (Of course, these numbers must now be re-considered given the significant increase in 18-22 year old voters during the election.)

What accounts for young Americans’ disinterest in the news? Mindich’s book points to a number of reasons. First, the big picture. A combination of technological transformations (the coming of cable, digital, Internet, and satellite media outlets) and political changes (The FCC’s so-called “deregulation” of the U.S. media landscape on behalf of large corporations), have allowed Big Media companies to buy up hundreds of the country’s radio and television stations and other “news” outlets, gutting local news staffs, and, in the name of profit maximization, replacing “hard” investigative journalism with so-called “soft” news – think Monica-gate, O.J., or Laci Peterson. An aside - anyone who has watched CNN or FOX recently knows that referring to these programs as “news” outlets does the term “news” a grave disservice.

These large-scale historical changes, in turn, have shaped young Americans’ notions about what constitutes “news.” As they avail themselves of exciting new digital media options for communication, entertainment, and information gathering, young people express a lack of trust in traditional news outlets because they are “biased.” In this post-Seinfeld culture, moreover, where the image continues to erode the word’s epistemological power and fewer Americans read regularly, it perhaps should come as no surprise that many young people reject the well-coiffed fluff and shouting exhibited by the corporate “news” outlets, and turn to “The Onion,” Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” blogs, and other programs and venues that use humor, irony, and intimacy to comment on the day’s events.

And, in an odd way, Mindich’s book implicitly delivers some hopeful news. Young Americans are beginning to recognize, as must we all, that “Objectivity” and “Truth” (note the capital letters) are suspect, that ALL news sources are biased, and, to be an informed citizen, one must obtain information from a wide variety of sources, preferably ones that offer alternative and detailed points of view on the day’s events and are not owned by giant multinational corporations.

And, as Mindich wisely suggests, the fact that 18-24 year old Americans don’t always vote in large percentages or know the names of all of our Supreme Court Justice is worrisome, but it doesn’t mean that they are necessarily apathetic, cynical, disengaged, or disinterested. In fact, we know that high school and college students, spurred on by new graduation requirements and their own interests, are engaging in community service and service learning projects in record numbers – a sure sign that they are civically engaged and interested in shaping our collective future.

So – what can all of us do in this 21st century news and media culture to encourage more literate American citizens? Mindich offers several viable solutions: requiring public schools, colleges and universities to incorporate the teaching of civics and journalism into existing academic programs; encouraging news outlets to more thoughtfully engage young people and invest more heavily in local news for all citizens; pressuring the FCC and media corporations to provide more local and public programming; and suggesting that parents and families make news discussions an important part of their daily lives together.

To these, I would suggest supporting comprehensive media education initiatives for both classrooms and communities across the country. By teaching ourselves and our young people how to access, analyze, evaluate and produce media in a variety of forms, we will deepen our understanding of how media work on us, and provide ourselves with the knowledge and skills necessary to sustain our fragile 21st century democratic republic. Mindich has written an important book – recommended reading for anyone interested in the nature of U.S. news/journalism, citizenship, media, education and politics.

This article first appeared in “Mothering” magazine’s
Nov/Dec 2004 issue

Reclaiming Our Stories:
Media Literacy Education for the New Millennium

We live in the midst of the most media-saturated society in world history. Americans spend between ten and twelve hours a day consuming media through ever-sophisticated technological delivery systems, including (on average) three televisions and radios, two VCRs and CD players, one computer and video game player, and the bewildering variety of newspapers, comic books, magazines, and books and other print media that surround us.

As we enter the 21st century, this situation might call for celebration – more media theoretically means more voices, more diversity, and more channels for information, entertainment, and education. A closer look, however, reveals a more disturbing reality. Most of the stories told in our media culture – by some estimates, as much as 90% of our media content - are ultimately owned by a handful of giant transnational corporations, including Time/Warner, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Vivendi, and Sony.

Veteran media critic George Gerbner explains that whomever is telling the stories within a culture has enormous power to shape how people think, act, and, of course, buy. For the first time in human history, most of the stories about people, life, and values are told not by parents, schools, churches or others in the community who have something to tell, Gerbner notes, but by a group of distant conglomerates that have little to tell and everything to sell.

As a result, our 21st century world has ceded much of the cultural story-telling process to a small number of large media corporations whose primary concern is not our society’s health or our children’s well-being. Instead, their #1 goal is profit maximization; the tools of their trade are media messages and content embedded within the worlds of the Internet, video games, television, and other media technologies; and their energy is directed at expensive efforts all designed to mold our young people into brand-loyal consumers of corporately-produced lifestyles, goods, and behaviors from as early an age as possible.

Spending more than one trillion marketing dollars yearly, Big Media companies and their Fortune 500 allies use media to target our children with a wide variety of products, wrapping their appeals in suggestive stories that model compulsive consumerism; push sugar, caffeine, nicotine and other addictive products; and advertise precocious sexual, violent and other kinds of anti-social behavior. Parents, teachers, and care-givers now find themselves on the front lines of a struggle over stories – as corporate media owners wage increasingly sophisticated advertising, branding, and marketing campaigns to win the hearts and minds of our children from ever younger ages.

At it’s best, education provides people with the knowledge, skills, and confidence to teach them how to become more healthy, more wealthy, and more wise, as well as fostering a sense of compassion and mission to do good work within the larger communities to which we all belong. How do we help ourselves and our children make sense of the troublesome nature of our 21st century media culture, without dismissing media’s power and importance in our lives? One powerful answer is “media literacy,” an educational approach that seeks to give media users greater freedom by teaching them how to access, analyze, evaluate and produce media.

“Literacy” traditionally refers to one’s ability to “read and write” with print-based media sources – books and newspapers, for example. This new century demands that we expand our definition of “literacy” to include a wide variety of media: computers, video games, television, and the Internet, to name several. All of us can practice “reading” messages and stories across multiple media platforms, as well as “writing” (producing) our own media in multiple forms.

We must also take the “media” in “media literacy” seriously, recognizing that most of our media outlets are owned by powerful industries that not only produce products, but promote certain sets of values (including ones that often run counter to our own as parents, teachers, and citizens) and play a significant role in shaping our culture. We can begin practicing media literacy education in our classrooms and communities by daily asking fundamental questions about media, and teaching our children to do the same. Asking questions helps demystify media’s power, allows us to understand the trade-offs (the goods and the bads) inherent in any media experience, and gives us the tools necessary to understand the deeply-rooted ways media influence our thoughts and behaviors.

Let’s begin by asking, early and often in our classrooms and communities, these five essential sets of media literacy questions.

1. How does this media make you feel?

Remember the frightening flying monkeys in “The Wizard of Oz”? Or the first time a book’s descriptive moment made you chuckle? Or the thrill that came with playing a new video game for the first time? Media make us laugh and cry, and can often scare or even disorient us (Think of Christopher Nolan’s movie “Memento,” a story told in 10 minute flashback chunks, or the six o’clock news, a pastiche of disconnected events punctuated by ads for aspirin and automobiles). Commercials, political advertising, and other powerful media experiences operate primarily at an emotional level and are often designed to create certain sets of feelings and then transfer them onto the desired idea, product, or behavior. Asking young people to think more deeply about how media moves them emotionally is a powerful way to help them understand media’s unique power.

A little background on the human brain is helpful here. Both music and images are processed in our brain’s reptilian and limbic system, the seat of our emotions. We consciously process eight frames of image per second, while our 21st century media travel much more quickly (U.S. television moves at the approximate rate of 30 frames per second, for example, while movies travel at 24 frames per second). Thus, much of our media travels too quickly for first-time reflection. Using a VCR or a DVR (digital video recorder) to slow down, repeatedly view, and actively discuss media experiences help our children make more sense out of what they’re feeling. Beginning with their emotions is a useful way to open up conversations about media’s power.

2. What kinds of realities does this media construct? What stories does this media tell? What are the “untold stories” here?

Start with analyzing advertisements, the lifeblood of our media culture, and, on a per second basis, the most expensive media of all. Americans daily witness as many as 3,000 ad messages, and every one makes a devastatingly simple claim, insisting that “to be you gotta buy.” Through constant repetition, ads work to “normalize” harmful ideas, products, and behaviors. Think of the ways in which the alcohol and tobacco industries use media to glamorize beer and cigarette consumption – through Hollywood movies, television commercials, and Internet marketing.

Or take an allegedly more “user friendly” product like soda, which teens drink at the rate of two cans per day. Coca Cola’s charming digital polar bear campaign, targeting young kids for a decade now, makes drinking soda look like a family-friendly bonding experience, while Mountain Dew’s edgier teen-targeted ads links consumption to a wide array of at-risk activities – heli-blading off a skyscraper roof, for example. It all looks fun, but the ads forget to tell us that drinking soda is linked to a whole range of unhealthy outcomes, from obesity and type II diabetes (thanks to 10 teaspoons of sugar, one of the world’s cheapest substances to manufacture, per can) to attention deficit and mild addiction (courtesy of caffeine, an FDA-regulated drug) to tooth and bone decay (due to soda’s displacing more healthy drinks – water, milk and natural fruit juices – in growing bodies).

While we pay up to $2.00 a pop (at the airport) for this unhealthy cocktail, it costs Coke and Pepsi pennies per can to make, allowing them to pour their tremendous profits back into huge marketing budgets, including aggressively negotiating of exclusive “pouring rights” agreements in cash-strapped public schools. By teaching our young people to explore and publicize these inconvenient “realities” in the media stories told by the soda, alcohol, tobacco industries (as well as other powerful marketers), we empower them to make wiser choices about their own health and wealth.

3. What kinds of production techniques and branding strategies does this media use?

Advertisers, the public relations industry, and other powerful media makers spend tremendous amounts of time, energy, and money carefully creating media to influence the ways we think, behave, and buy. One way is to “deconstruct” or analyze branding strategies, like fast-food giant McDonald’s underwriting “Sesame Street.” What does Kroc’s company have to gain from underwriting a popular children’s program? The answer – plenty of public good will and, more importantly, children’s attention while they watch. Examining production techniques – camera angles, lighting, editing, music and sound effects, colors, font styles, symbols - can develop both children’s aesthetic awareness and their media savvy, helping them become more careful and “literate” media consumers.

We can teach children, for example, that a simple photograph of a fast food cheeseburger - a juicy-looking beef patty on a gorgeous sesame seed bun, sporting a thick layer of cheese and seemingly fresh vegetables - is the product of hours of careful construction by professional “food photographers.” The individual sesame seeds are glued on by hand, the “cheese” is a waxy substitute, the beef patty has been pried open to appear much larger than the bun, and the vegetables have been bathed with a glue and oil mixture to ensure a high-gloss “shine.”

This analysis applies to any beauty advertisement, as well – hours of expensive make-up make any magazine model look larger than life, and digital technology can clean up any defects or airbrush any blemishes, even to the point of removing people’s pores or combining body parts from different models together! A wide variety of expensive toys and fashion accessories – gadgets and gizmos, clothes, shoes, hair and make-up products – are also peddled to kids using sophisticated production techniques and branding strategies. Young people find deconstructing media techniques quite provocative, particularly when combined with a bit of background research.

Movie previews, designed to make a feature film look as exciting as possible in one minute or less, are also great for studying production techniques. Analyze a thirty-second film “trailer” frame by frame to study editing, lighting and camera angle decisions, or focus on music, special FX, and voice-over choices, and then run the movie trailer again in “real time” to see how all the production techniques work in concert. These kinds of media activities are both fun and eye-opening for young people.

4. What kinds of value messages does this media send?

All media transmit value messages. Asking children to consider, in an age-appropriate manner, what kinds of values media promote can help them build better judgment and develop an ethical framework for cooperative social interactions and pro-social behavior. All of us can remember childhood books and movies that modeled widely admired personal qualities. Celebrating media that promote these kinds of values – video games that promote cooperative and peaceful problem-solving, for example, or enjoyable books that also tackle developmentally appropriate social dilemmas (sharing toys, making a new friend, or dealing with a loved one’s death) are all useful media texts for discussing values.

Conversely, discussing a violent movie or television program in a supportive context leads to conversations about the nature of violence, as well as how our media tend to promote certain kinds of violence (like individual shootings and stabbings) while ignoring other more systemic types of violence (like domestic abuse or poverty). Looking at messages embedded in fashion magazine covers leads to remarkable discussions about self-worth, sex, relationships, dating, fashion, and a whole host of other socially-relevant topics, many of which are completely ignored by popular media. Watching or reading the news raises questions about media’s priorities – is Celebrity X’s marriage more newsworthy than the school play, the city council meeting, or the week-end community concert? Who within media circles determines which stories and values are most important and why, and do their decisions reflect the values embraced by your family, school, faith group, or community?

5. Who (or what) owns this media you are consuming?

This question bears repeated asking. Most media are owned by commercial interests, and media companies are among the world’s most influential and powerful corporations. Researching questions of media ownership, production, and distribution is vital to fully understanding media’s influence.

Remember the 2004 Super Bowl, America’s most-watched annual media event? Critics made a huge fuss over pop stars Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson’s breast-baring half-time show, occurring as it did on a publicly-owned and commercially-licensed network while millions of young children watched. Largely ignored in subsequent “indecency” debates, including the halls of Congress, were more fundamental (and less censorious) questions of media ownership, as well as a discussion of the ways corporate conglomerates continually “push the envelope” in terms of acceptable broadcast “norms” to enrich their own pockets.

Let’s follow the money. The Super Bowl is broadcast by commercial broadcast network CBS, which charged close to 3 million dollars just to AIR a 30 second commercial, including close to a dozen alcohol ads designed to appeal to underage potential drinkers (Who else but middle school boys are most suited to the kind of potty humor in a Budweiser ad featuring Clydesdale horse flatulence barbequing a woman’s face?). CBS is owned by parent company Viacom, which also owns Music Television (MTV). Conveniently, MTV got the call from CBS to produce the Super Bowl half time show, an event that included foul-mouthed rapper Kid Rock strutting his stuff while wrapped in an American flag, scantily clad female dancers clumsily gyrating on stage, and the now-infamous “tempest in a B cup.”

So…who benefited from this spectacle, which occurred, let’s not forget, on television airwaves owned by the American public? Justin Timberlake won two Grammys the following week. Online hits to Janet Jackson’s web site went through the roof, just in time for her new CD release. Sunburst nipple ring sales skyrocketed. MTV, which has a vested financial interest in marketing edgy pop videos that “cut through the clutter” by sensationalizing provocative behavior, reaped the benefits of all the publicity. Meanwhile, Congressional debates about “indecency” during winter 2004 derailed a national conversation about a much more important issue - monopolistic media ownership.

What’s truly “indecent,” in other words, is a U.S. media culture beholden to such a small number of large corporate players. Rewind the tape for a moment. When the FCC, chaired by “free marketeer” Michael Powell (Colin’s son), issued a June 2, 2003 decision that might make it possible for a single corporate entity to own up to 8 radio stations, 3 television stations, and 1 newspaper in any given “market” (that’s a “community” to most of us), they received close to three million letters from concerned Americans on all sides of the political spectrum. (Name any other political issue on which the National Rifle Association and the National Organization for Women agree.) By fall 2003, Congress heard one message loud and clear – U.S. citizens care about creating a more democratic media culture that honors genuine localism and true diversity instead of homogenous content, endless commercials, and the corporate bottom line.

The good news here is that Americans are beginning to understand that media ownership is a political issue, and that media literacy education can help us understand and change what’s wrong about our media culture, even as we celebrate what’s right about it. The five sets of questions above are powerful starting places, but we can help ourselves and our young people learn about media in myriad other ways, as well.

As parents, teachers, and citizens, we can provide our children with the knowledge, skills, and resources they need to make their own media. Alongside books, films, and musical instruments, let us lay digital and video cameras, web site design programs, desktop and ‘zine-making technology, 3D computer simulations and other multimedia programs. When media literacy education is combined with these powerful tools, our children can tell their own stories in new and dynamic ways, rather than simply consume the pre-packed stories of large corporations interested in enriching their own profit margins by using media to encourage compulsive consumerism, brand loyalty, and self-destructive behavior.

As a classroom teacher, I look forward to the day when we graduate seniors from U.S. high schools who are adept at both mathematics and movie-making, history and video editing, and science and web page design. And, as a parent and a citizen, I look forward to the day when continued continental collaboration among like-minded individuals and organizations witnesses us reclaiming our story-telling culture from a powerful few on behalf of the many. With growing interest in media literacy education throughout the United States, that day may come sooner than we think.

U.S. Media and 911’s Unanswered Questions:
An Interview with Vermont U.S. Senate Candidate Craig Hill

On November 2, Vermonters who went to the polls may have noticed Craig Hill’s name on the ballot as a Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Hill, a 53 year old Montpelier resident and father of two who runs a commercial lighting business, ran his senatorial campaign to raise public awareness about what he calls the treasonous actions committed by Bush administration officials on September 11, 2001. His new 25 minute video, “Treason, Inc.,” summarizes the visual evidence he’s collected, and is available at his web site: www.hillsenatenow.org.

Q. How did you become interested in exploring questions related to the 911 tragedy?

A. I first became aware of 911 anomalies about two months later, when I received in an email that related a timeline of the day’s events and asked why air defense was non-existent. My older daughter and I read the timeline on a weekly radio program, and soon became inundated with reams of e-mails detailing more eyebrow-raising information. By January 2002, I was certain Bush had allowed 9/11 to occur; by spring that year, it became clear to me that his administration may have orchestrated it. Then I began to collect visual evidence, which led to the creation of my “Treason, Inc.” video and the Senatorial campaign I ran to promote the video and raise the issue of treason - no small federal issue.

Q. In your “Treason, Inc.” video, you argue that the “official” story about the 911 tragedy - 4 different airplanes hijacked by 19 Al-Qaeda-backed terrorists who flew them into pre-selected targets at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center - is simply false. Let’s start with the Pentagon attack - what alternative scenario do you propose?

A. The FAA announced (and never retracted) that the 757 that supposedly slammed into the Pentagon disappeared from their radar over the Ohio-Kentucky border near West Virginia at app. 8:57 a.m., and never re-appeared except as a tinier blip over West Virginia at app. 9:21 before disappearing again, until it, or something else, appeared 50 miles outside of DC. The Pentagon’s Brigadier-General Montague Winfield unwittingly informed the media later that afternoon that a plane had gone down that morning - along the Ohio-Kentucky border. There’s no reason such a report would have been made, let alone announced by a Pentagon spokesman, unless a plane had gone down there.

What hit the Pentagon was not a plane but a “missile,” as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld himself later let slip. This is obvious when you study both the video and still footage from the Pentagon site – the missile’s mark can be seen by the steam contrail in the Pentagon security camera photo, the smallish holes that ran through the three interior corridors of the building, and by the complete lack of debris in the photos of the rubble and on the lawn in front of the building. If a 757 commercial airliner had hit the Pentagon, there would have been 60 tons of debris on the front lawn.

Q. And what about the World Trade Center attacks? Didn’t we all see two commercial airplanes hit the Towers before they both collapsed?

A. While I don’t know exactly what kind of planes we saw hit the buildings, there are reports by eyewitnesses, including a FOX news reporter who provided live footage I include in the “Treason, Inc.” video, that one plane had no windows and was adorned with a bulbous object on its underside that clearly shot out some sort of explosive before it hit the South Tower. The other one does not look quite large enough to be a 767 and it, too, shot out at least one explosive before it, too, hit the North Tower. These images come from the original videos taken that day. It’s also seems clear that the Towers themselves were dropped by a series of controlled explosions along the flanks of the building, and not by the airplane crashes themselves. I’ve provided detailed visual evidence of this in the video.

Q. In “Treason, Inc.,” you suggest that Bush administration officials secretly engineered the events surrounding “911.” What specific evidence do you have for this conclusion?

A. The best non-visual evidence is this: Whether you believe the “official conspiracy theory” that a man in a cave in Asia did it or not, the only person who had the authority to ground the most efficient and effective air defense in the world for one hour and fifty-one minutes that morning was the Commander-in-Chief or, as I prefer to call him, Traitor One.

Q. What about other unanswered questions? Where did the passengers on the four commercial airplanes go, for example?

A. One of the most bizarre facts of that day is that two Flight 11s left Boston, one with passengers aboard from Gate 26 and the other with none aboard from Gate 32. Boston newspaper coverage observed that family members who went to the latter gate to see their loved ones off were told to go to the former gate instead. Officially the Flight 11 that hit the WTC left from Gate 32. The only thing I am sure of is that they’re all dead, and that the Bush administration is culpable.

Q. How can people obtain a copy of your video “Treason, Inc.” and watch for themselves?

A. The video I’ve compiled features more than 40 instances of visual evidence, any one of which qualifies as an individual act of treason—25 minutes the Bush administration and the media don’t want you to see. “Treason, Inc” is available at cost via my website http://www.hillsenatenow.org.

Fall 2004, Wednesdays 4:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Instructor: Rob Williams, Ph.D.
Telephone: 802-279-3364 Email: robw@acmecoalition.org

COURSE SYLLABUS

Introduction & Rationale

This course introduces teachers to strategies for integrating the effective use of media analysis and production into their existing curriculum, focusing on the development of students’ literacy, communication and reasoning skills. Participants will increase their awareness of media influence on the attitudes and behaviors of K-12 students as they increase their understanding of the complex functions of the mass media.

Because media culture can be a considerably powerful force in a child’s life, some scholars and educators argue that if children are given the critical thinking skills and an active sense of participation, media culture can be a productive tool in the classroom. Media literacy pedagogy involves asking questions about media messages concerning authorship, intention, point of view, and construction methods, and learning how to create media messages using a range of tools. As an extension of the traditional literacies, media literacy is defined as the ability to access, analyze, and produce communication in a variety of forms, and is easily integrated with basic communication literacies - writing, reading, speaking, listening - all of which emphasize both the production and consumption of messages.

Through discussions, readings, screenings, group projects, role playing, independent research and other work, teachers will gain knowledge about the complex roles of mass media in the lives of American children. Participants will develop activities and projects that integrate critical viewing skills and video production activities into their existing curricula and subject areas, and better appreciate the underlying philosophy, practices and controversies in the field of media education.

Learning Objectives:

1. Students will increase their awareness and understanding of the concepts and techniques of media literacy education, and gain a basic knowledge of the sociopolitical, cultural and economic forces that drive media industries.

2. Students will examine the media environment and its portrayal of gender, race, violence, consumerism, alcohol, tobacco, and news.

3. Students will learn what children of different ages know about mass media, including their ability to discriminate between non-fictional and fictional formats, their ability to detect persuasive intent, and their understanding of the economic and political functions of media in society.

4. Students will strengthen their own skills in critically analyzing news, documentary, fiction and other genres of print and image based popular media texts.

5. Students will gain specific knowledge of available resource materials for the critical analysis of television and print media, and develop original lesson plans that integrate media analysis and production into their existing curricula.

Overall Course Requirements:

* Punctuality and attendance are expected at all class meetings. In case of an unavoidable late arrival or absence, please notify the instructor in advance. Repeated tardiness or absence will affect your learning, your classmates, and your grade. (10 points per class.)

* Preparation and participation are a vital and necessary part of this class. Students must be current with the readings and assignments in order to effectively engage in class discussion and debate.

* All written work must be submitted on the date due; late work will result in a lower grade (One full grade per week late). Papers and assignments must be word-processed, double-spaced and proofread/edited. Assessment will be based on clarity of expression, evidence of reflection, development, support and justification of position or ideas, and appropriate writing mechanics (grammar, punctuation, spelling, language usage).

Required Reading:

Anderson, M.T., Feed (F)

McKibben, Bill, The Age of Missing Information (MI)

Silverblatt, Art, Media Literacy: Keys to Intepreting Media Messages (ML)

Stauber, John, Toxic Sludge is Good For You (TS)

Optional:
Plus additional articles & handouts provided during the course.

Course Schedule:

Week #1 Introduction to the Course
ML: General Principles and Specific Persuasive Techniques

Week #2 Media Literacy: What Is It Anyway?
“Those who tell the culture’s stories hold the power in society. Today, television tells most of the stories to most of the people most of the time.” - George Gerbner
Reading Due: MI, pp 3-86; Silverblatt, Preface and Chapter 1
Writing Due: “Media Memoir”

Week #3 Kids & TV: Developing Attitudes, Values & Worldview
“The average American child spends approximately 28 hours a week watching television. In a year’s time, American school children spend twice as much time watching television as they spend in the classroom.” - American Medical Association
Reading Due: MI, pp 87-167; Silverblatt, Chapters 2 and 3
Project Due: Expressive Media Memoir

Week #4 Media Economics: Who Has Power? Who Has Voice?
“The media’s job is to sell audiences to advertisers.” - Humphrey McQueen
Reading Due: MI, pp 168-252; Silverblatt, Chapters 4 and 5
Writing Due: Silverblatt Book Response (1st of 2)

Week #5 Advertising & PR: Not So Subtle Messages!
“We believe children make brand decisions very early that they will carry into their adult lives.” - Ann Moore, publisher, Sports Illustrated for Kids
Reading Due: TS, pp 1-76; Silverblatt, Chapters 6 and 7
In Class: Advertising Project
Writing Due: MI Book Response

Week #6 Representation in the Media: Equality & Justice For All?
“TV subtly tells me that some people are more important than others.” - Jay Davis
Reading Due: TS, pp 77-142; Silverblatt, Chapter 8
Writing Due: Ad Analysis

Week #7 Consumerism & The Planet: Challenging Our Commercial Culture
“There is enough in the world for man’s needs, but not for man’s greed.” - Gandhi
Reading Due: TS, pp 143-206, Silverblatt, Chapters 9 and 10
Writing Due: Editorial Analysis

Week #8 Power Rangers, Mortal Kombat, MTV, and Ahnold… The Effects of Media Violence
“Media violence has been shown to facilitate aggressive and antisocial behavior, desensitize viewers to future violence, and increase viewer perception that the world is a mean and dangerous place.” - American Academy of Pediatrics
Reading Due: Feed, Part 1
Writing Due: Silverblatt, Book Response (2nd of 2)

Week #9 Infotainment & Docudramas: Analyzing the News in the Media
“53% of Americans say they would be most inclined to trust television if they received conflicting reports of the same news story from radio, magazines, newspapers, and TV.” - Roper Starch Worldwide 1997 survey
Reading Due: Feed, Part 2
Writing Due: TS Book Response

Week #10 Gender: Body Image, Self Esteem & the Media
“A nation of people who felt good about themselves would be bad news for advertisers.”
- Jean Kilbourne, The Media Foundation
Reading Due: Feed, Part 3
Writing Due: Fairy Tale News Report

Week #11 Media As Pusher: The Alcohol & Tobacco Industries
“Image advertising by the alcohol and tobacco industry exploits the needs that young people have for autonomy, independence and acceptance.” - Barry McCaffrey, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reading Due: Feed, Part 4
Writing Due: Feed Book Response

Week #12 Thanksgiving Break - No Class! J

Week #13 Media Production: Empowering Students To Have Their Say
“Research shows that children are less likely to be influenced by media messages if they have developed skills to refute such messages.” - Dr. Marjorie Hogan, AAP
Reading Due: Handout Articles
In Class: PSA project
Writing Due: PSA Reflection

Week #14 Media Literacy Education: What Is Our Role?
“TV advertisers alone spend roughly $700 million a year advertising directly to children and adolescents.” - American Academy of Pediatrics
Reading Due: Handout Articles
Writing Due: Unit Projects; (Optional) Self Evaluation
* Bring a SASE for project returns

Summary of Evaluation:

Classroom Attendance/Participation: 25%
Weekly Papers: 25%
PSA: 25%
Unit Project: 25%

Description of Assignments:

1. Media Memoir: Write a 2 page reflection on your childhood experience with media. How did your family use media when you were growing up? Focus on one or two mediums, ie: newspapers, radio, television, books, music, etc. This is a reflective piece, written in the first person, and is intimate, descriptive, and detailed.

2. Expressive Media Memoir: This is a 3-dimensional interpretive creation using such mediums as wire, clay, found objects, wood, metal, mixed media, etc. These can be representational or abstract and should illustrate a telling incident, series of experiences or emotion(s) connected to your personal media history. (Have fun!)

3. Book Responses: Write a 5 paragraph (a paragraph = at least 5 sentences) paper reflecting on and reacting to each of the books read in the course. What stood out for you? Did something move you to action? How do you relate the piece to your own teaching or work? How does this affect your vision of education or society? Develop, support and justify your position.

4. Ad/Editorial Analysis: Choose a popular print advertisement or tape a television commercial to analyze, and then, the following week, do the same for a short newspaper or magazine editorial. Deconstruct the image, text and messages using the key media literacy questions learned in class to examine the ways in which images construct meaning. Include the hard copy or videotape of the ad and editorial. Aim for 5 paragraphs.

5. Fairy Tale News Story: Select a current news story/article and retell the story as a fairy tale, OR, retell a fairy tale as a news story. Focus on the style and constructs of the genre you choose. Aim for 5 paragraphs.

6. PSA Reflection: This is a 5 paragraph journal-like reflection on your experience of creating your PSA. I am not looking for a summary of your work as much as I am wanting you to think through how and if you will include video production in your own classroom. What are the challenges and obstacles to doing such work? How and why include this kind of student expression? Is there a political context to consider?

7. Unit Project: Develop an extended unit or series of lesson plans (at least one week) that integrates media literacy into your existing curriculum. You may make use of existing resource materials or design your own. The project/paper must include:

x your grade level and subject area
x instructional objectives
x your rationale: Why include media literacy in the curriculum? Describe your teaching philosophy and justify why this unit is valuable for students.
x specific goals from the Vermont Frameworks of Standards
x knowledge, skills and attitudes promoted by the activities: What will students gain from this experience?
x sequence of activities: What will happen in the classroom? Describe the major activities you plan to implement, including a descriptive list of materials needed, sample materials, worksheets, video, images, audio, etc.
x criteria for evaluating student learning/performances/products: How will you know if the experience is successful? What will students produce that will help you determine if they learned something valuable from the experience?
x your expectations of student responses: Based on your teaching experience, how do you expect your students to respond to these activities? What aspects will they enjoy the most? What will be hardest for them? you?

You will informally share your project at the last class meeting.

8. Participation and Attendance: You are expected to attend every class and be actively engaged in the class discussions and exercises. In small and large groups you will have numerous opportunities to engage in reflective dialogue, debate and activities. An engaged participant comes to class prepared, arrives on time, listens actively, responds reflectively and inquisitively, challenges and expands perspectives, takes risks and supports others.

9. Self Evaluation (Optional): Write a 5 paragraph summary of your learning and growth during the course. What was significant for you? How have you changed since experiencing something read/viewed/discussed in this class? What is your role in promoting the ideas and concepts of media literacy?

Notes:

- Assignments may be tailored to individual needs and circumstances. Please feel free to suggest alternatives to the stated assignments, especially if you believe that your learning would be enhanced or furthered through a topic more pertinent to your situation. (For instance, the unit project could be in the form of a parent education program or community outreach.)

- This syllabus is a working document and may be altered during the course depending on student feedback and needs, or instructor decisions.

Smokin’ Acoustic Music: The First Ever Great Grass Harvest
The Eclipse Theater; Route 100; Waitsfield
Friday, Oct 15 – Sunday, Oct 17

For any lover of good music, we can all point to past moments when it appears that the musical stars are all in alignment; moments when we simply can’t conceive of notes falling together the way they do; moments when we can’t believe our incredibly good luck, to be immersed in an aural experience so invigorating as to take away the breath, to cause an astonished jaw to drop, to bring on that knowing glance with your smiling neighbor, the one who loves music as much as you do – “did you just hear THAT?”

This week-end will be full of such moments at Waitsfield’s Eclipse Theater, a funky multimedia venue that is playing host to their first (and what I can only hope will be their annual) “Great Grass Fest.” The three night event features some of the best local and national acoustic acts in the country, a wide array of talented musicians who will all descend on the Mad River Valley with their stringed instruments to rip it up and let their fingers fly.

Appearing on Friday night is the Jazz Mandolin Project, one of the hottest acoustic trios to ever emerge from the Green Mountains. Fronted by mandolin virtuoso Jamie Masefield, JMP’s musical mojo ranges so widely as to be virtually unclassifiable. The band is at home in just about any genre, from jazz to rock to folk to celtic to gypsy to even strains of classical, and their four CDs are proof of a remarkable musical track record. These guys have shared the stage with some of acoustic music’s finest jam bands, as well, including String Cheese Incident, Rusted Root, and members of Phish. Masefield does for the mandolin what Bela Fleck has done for the banjo – if you haven’t yet seen JMP live, don’t miss ‘em on Friday night.

If JMP isn’t enough for you, fair listener, then consider the Great Grass Festival’s biggest headliner. Playing on both Friday and Saturday night is Railroad Earth, a New Jersey-based sextet that, like JMP, is pushing the acoustic music envelope to the benefit of us all. Since forming some three years ago, Railroad Earth has released two CDs of tunes built around the remarkable energy of their live shows. Now they are touring with a new studio recording called The Good Life (and yes, there is a song on the CD that alludes to the famous Helen and Scott Nearing experiment, one that became, in written form, a popular countercultural bible for an entire generation). “This was the first record where we had even less of an idea of what might happen before we went into the studio,” explains the band’s muse, singer/songwriter/guitarist Todd Sheaffer. “We weren’t drawing from any material that we’d ever played live. This record was all fresh material, written, arranged, and recorded in the studio.” Die hard Railroad Earth listeners need not worry, though – the band still burns it up on a number of tracks, despite the aura of a more tightly-crafted and produced sound to complement the fabulous freneticism of their live performances.

And then there is Tony Furtado, a legend in acoustic circles, who appears Saturday night. He began his career as a banjo prodigy at age 19, adapted his finger picking sensibilities to the slide guitar, and then started throwing down vocalizations of tunes, as well. The result – as heard on his latest CD These Chains – is a pleasure to the ear. Newcomers to Furtado’s singer/songwriter approach might be surprised to learn that he’s played, as a multi-instrumentalist, with the likes of Bela Fleck, Earl Scruggs, Alison Krauss, Jerry Douglas, and Kelly Joe Phelps. On These Chains, he sounds like the seasoned pro he is, spinning out songs that revolve around classic Americana themes; wandering, love lost, and finding one’s way in a troubled world.

Add to the roster Drew Emmitt, the Slip, Smoking Grass (featuring Vermont fiddle hotshot Patrick Ross), and a host of local Mad River Valley bluegrass faves’ like the Mad Mountain Scramblers, and you couldn’t ask for a better week-end of acoustic music…anywhere!

Find out more about the Great Grass Harvest at http://www.eclipsetheater.com, or call 802.496.7787.

Weapons of Mass Deception (WMDs):
Big Media’s (Non) Coverage of the Iraq War
http://www.embeddedwmd.com/

c. 2004 / www.robwilliamsmedia.com

By now, many Americans seemed to have figured out that the Bush administration’s case for the unilateral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was built on a number of grossly flawed (at best) or intentionally deceptive (at worst) claims. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, despite more than 18 months of searching. No links between the Hussein regime and Al-Qaeda have been established.

But the lessons learned from the U.S. mainstream news media’s (non) coverage of the Iraqi War are just beginning to emerge, and we ignore them at our peril. “There were two wars going on in Iraq,” explains independent filmmaker Danny Schechter in the introduction to his excellent new documentary “Weapons of Mass Deception.” “One was fought with soldiers, bombs, shock and awe. The other was fought alongside it with cameras, satellites, and armies of journalists.”

As Schechter correctly asserts, a healthy democratic republic depends on vibrant debate by a free press. In the case of the Iraqi War, the press proved compliant at best, stenographically repeating what “official” sources said while doing little investigative work of their own. Schechter goes even further, charging that the U.S. media aided and abetted the Bush administration’s effort to build public support for the war instead of aggressively asking the hard questions. “Information shapes opinions and impressions,” notes Schechter. “How wars are covered or covered up is key.”

Schechter’s film places U.S. news coverage of the Iraqi War in a larger historical and aesthetic context, noting that the very idea of “covering” war is a deeply problematic notion. “We have never shown the viewer what it is really like, and how horrible war is. Partly you can’t show it because the camera can’t capture it, but even on a certain level the camera can capture it and we won’t show it,” explains ABC Nightline News’ John Donvan. “There are certain kinds of close ups we won’t show, there are certain blood spatters and dead children whom we won’t show people partly because it violates long standing practice - don’t put gore on television.”

Once the U.S. media accepted the Pentagon’s new policy of “embedding” journalists, Schechter asserts, things went from bad to worse. Instead of getting hard-hitting news coverage about controversial policy decisions or information about US/Iraqi casualties, U.S. news viewers end up with one of two motifs. “War as Video Game” displayed hi-tech images of alleged “smart” bombs doing their dangerous work with goofy comments from perky and well-coiffed newsroom anchors.
Meanwhile, “The Lifestyle of War” motif featured “embeds” delivering human interest stories about how U.S. tanks are gassed up, or how American G.I.s poop in the desert. (The revelatory answer to this second question – they sit on their army-issued shovels). This hardly qualifies as “news,” but, as Schecter documents, it was SOP when it came to coverage of the conflict.

Meanwhile, independent journalists who refused to toe the Pentagon party line often became targets of “friendly fire,’ as in the infamous case of the U.S. military shelling the Palestine Hotel, packed to the gills with indie journalists.The U.S. news media also largely ignored any substantial coverage of both American and global opposition to the war, preferring instead to simplistically capture street protests and demonstrations because they made for appealing video footage to capture prime time eyeballs.

“If you want to know why the war was packaged and reported the way it was, you have to know something about our American media system,” Schechter says, getting to the root of the problem midway through his film. “It is a system that is dominated by just a handful of companies. What they represent today is a merger of news biz and show biz. What they represent is a consumer culture to them the war was a product. They sold it and we bought it.” Chilling words – war packaged as consumer culture.

Danny Schechter’s “WMDs” is the first full-length filmic treatment of a subject as explosive as the Iraq War itself – how the U.S. news media engineered public support for a controversial war instead of doing its job. “Just as there is an investigation now into the failure in the intelligence community,” notes Schechter, “we need an investigation into the failure of the journalistic community.” His new film is a provocative starting place for such a task.

Mainstream media coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election contest took yet another remarkable twist two weeks ago, when the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced plans to pre-empt all of its national programming to air Carleton Sherwood’s anti-Kerry attack film “Stolen Honor” on all 62 of it’s affiliate stations across the country. Sinclair’s shenanigans are but the latest example of Big Media using the publicly-owned television airwaves to broadcast blatantly partisan political propaganda – violating any pretense of “fair and balanced” election coverage. Meanwhile, more progressive journalists and thinkers, many of them shut out of mainstream media outlets, continue to use independent DVDs to explore their opposition to the current administration. Just in time for Election Day, here are three election season films you’ve probably never heard of, but that are worth watching.

Liberty Bound/www.libertybound.com/

Is the United States bound for liberty – or does she just have liberty bound? This is the question at the heart of independent filmmaker Christine Rose’s new documentary. After the 911 tragedy, she hopped into her van and crisscrossed the country on her “own journey of discovery.” “’Liberty Bound’ was produced out of my desire to respond to the insanity and fear that has gripped our country since 9/11,” she explains. “I became the journalist; talking to American citizens about their experiences, feelings, and fears.”

Rose’s remarkable energy and unique brand of storytelling permeate her film, which features interviews with Michael Ruppert, Michael Parenti, and Howard Zinn, as well as conversations with Americans who’ve been intimidated by the Secret Service for simple acts of questioning – sending an e-mail, turning around during a Bush speech, or having a philosophical discussion about freedom on a train. In putting “Liberty Bound” together, Rose served as a one woman crew – writer, director, producer, and publicist – and the result is a deeply personal and provocative look at the post-911 political landscape.

Bush Family Fortunes/ http://www.gregpalast.com/

Independent investigative journalist Greg Palast is one of the most important voices in news today, and yet few Americans have heard his name because his stories are rarely picked up by Big Media “news” outlets. It was Palast who broke the story about the rigged 2000 Election in Florida, and went on to publish his findings in a book entitled The Best Democracy Money Can Buy after CBS and other major news networks turned a blind eye to his reporting. Now, he’s back with a new DVD entitled “Bush Family Fortunes,” which chronicles the often-disturbing personal and professional links forged by the Bush dynasty during the past several decades, with a focus, as you might expect, on the White House’s current semi-elected occupant.

While I applaud Palast’s courage as a journalist, his film suffers from a number of aesthetic flaws. The biggest problem with it, though, involves the timing of its release. So much of Palast’s case against the Bush gang has already been persuasively presented in other independent films, like Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911,” Robert Kane Pappas’ “Orwell Rolls In His Grave,” and Robert Greenwalt’s “Outfoxed.” When stacked up against these heavies, “Bush Family Fortunes” seems a bit of a rehash.

A Patriot Act/ http://tvnewslies.org/html/mark_crispin_miller

NYU media critic Mark Crispin Miller’s new DVD A Patriot Act is one of the most unusual and unique political films I’ve seen in a long while. The author of The Bush Dyslexicon and Cruel and Unusual, Miller presents a bitingly thoughtful case against the current administration as a one man multimedia “theater-in-the-round” stage performance with video/audio clips to assist him in his analysis. He ranges widely, from deconstructing Bush’s use of language, to exploring the intentions of the Constitution’s Framers, to connecting Team Bush’s fundamentalist religious zealotry with pre-Enlightenment witch hunts of old. It is a thinking person’s film, but Miller is a compelling stage presence, who is, at moments, absolutely mesmerizing.

“It’s not just the money. It’s not just the oil. It’s much, much worse,” proclaims the tag line of Miller’s new DVD. If you are an undecided voter, these films may provide some last minute insights before you cast your ballot on November 2. And, depending on how the election swings, they may have longer shelf lives than their creators intended.