Vice-President Dick Cheney's Pre-1991 Rise To Power

The current U.S. Vice-President, former U.S. Secretary of Defense and Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, gained experience representing Chevron’s special Wyoming interests when he served as Wyoming’s Republican Congressional Representative between 1979 and 1989 and voted for limiting the size of the windfall profit taxes on Chevron’s profits. As Wyoming’s only representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, Vice-President Cheney also voted against the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights for women, opposed busing to achieve racial desegregation in the public schools and voted in favor of draft registration, continued military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras and prayer in the public schools.

In addition, Cheney voted against a nuclear moratorium, against a nuclear arms freeze and against a proposal requiring the U.S. president to notify Congress within 48 hours of the start of any secret intelligence operation. In 1989, Current Biography noted that then-Secretary of Defense Cheney believed “that the president’s ability to implement foreign policy had been hampered by repeated congressional attempts to impose restrictions on the White House” and that Cheney “sided with the House’s so-called conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats on every one of the 50 votes in which the two groups joined forces.”

Cheney first acquired the political power to serve transnational oil company interests during the Nixon-Watergate era. And by 1990 the power of then-Pentagon Czar Cheney included the power to influence the allocation of public funds to U.S. cultural institutions and artistic and literary individuals. Former Secretary of Defense Cheney’s wife, Lynne Vincent-Cheney, was the chairperson of the national Endowment for the Humanities (which dishes out public grant money each year in the U.S. cultural world) in the early 1990s, for instance.

The husband of former National Endowment for the Humanities Chairperson Lynne Vincent-Cheney was quick to order huge numbers of U.S. military forces to mass both in Panama and near the borders of Kuwait and Iraq, after George W. Bush’s father (former U.S. President Bush I) named him Secretary of Defense in March 1989. Yet during the Vietnam War era the staunchly pro-war and politically conservative Dick Cheney did not risk his own life on the battlefield. After graduating from the University of Wyoming at the age of 24, Cheney went into Republican Party politics instead of the U.S. military and did not personally fight in the Indochina War that he helped prolong, by serving as former President Nixon’s Deputy White House press counselor. Unlike many 1990s [and 21st-century] antiwar activists like Ron Kovic, former Secretary of Defense and current U.S. Vice-President Cheney lacks any kind of military combat experience.

The U.S. civilian responsible for coordinating the 1991 U.S. military attack on Iraq was born in Nebraska in 1941, grew up in Wyoming, attended Yale University for three semesters before dropping out and graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1965. After receiving academic recognition and an internship recommendation from NYU’s Center for Education in Politics, Cheney secured the job in 1969 which enabled him to quickly jump into Washington D.C. Establishment circles. He was hired as a special assistant to President Nixon’s Office of Economic Opportunity Director Donald Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld, a former Republican Congressional Representative from Illinois, became Nixon’s White House press counselor in 1970, Cheney followed Rumsfeld into the White House as Rumsfeld’s deputy. When Rumsfeld became Nixon’s Cost-of-Living Council director in 1971, Cheney was named Rumsfeld’s Assistant Director for Operations. In 1973, however, Cheney gave up his government job to become a 32-year-old vice-president of Bradley Woods & Co., which is, according to Current Biography, “a Washington-based investment firm that advises private industry on legislative issues.”

After Nixon was forced to resign because of his Watergate affair crimes in August 1974, however, Cheney’s “Godfather-Rabbi” called upon the 33-year-old to again become his “deputy” when President Gerald Ford appointed Rumsfeld to head his presidential transition team. When Rumsfeld was named by Ford to become the new U.S. President’s special assistant, Rumsfeld again brought Cheney along with him as “deputy” to the President’s special assistant. According to Current Biography, during the first year of the Ford Presidency “in all but title, Rumsfeld was White House chief of staff and Cheney was his alter ego.” When Rumsfeld was named Ford’s Secretary of Defense in November 1975, Cheney succeeded him as White House Chief of Staff. Nearly 14 years later, Cheney, himself, was named U.S. Defense Secretary—despite his health problem of having had three heart attacks before reaching the age of 50. Cheney’s “Godfather-Rabbi,” Rumsfeld, meanwhile, sat on the board of directors of Sears Roebuck, Kellogg Company, Union Camp, Vulcan Materials and the RAND Corporation military research think-tank during the 1990s (after sitting on the board of directors of G.D. Searle & Co., Eastern Airlines, Bendix Corporation and the People’s Energy Corporation in the 1980s).

(Downtown 12/12/90)

[And when Rumsfeld’s “alter ego” became U.S. Vice-President in 2001, Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon as U.S. Secretary of Defense again during the early years of the administration of former President Bush I’s son, George W. Bush.]

Next: U.S. Mass Media Collaboration With The CIA Historically

Is Columbia University's 21st-Century Campus Expansion Project Legal?

The Columbia University administration wants to expand its campus into a West Harlem residential neighborhood that’s north of West 125th Street. Yet there is apparently some legal basis for arguing that elite private universities like Columbia should not be allowed to locate in residential districts as a matter of right. Some city governments, for instance, have been allowed to legally exclude universities like Columbia from expanding their campuses into residential neighborhoods when the campus expansion projects weren’t in the public interest or were primarily for business purposes.

Next: Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Pre-1991 Rise To Power

`Let Me Die Standing Up'

Let me die standing up with my fist in the air
And not live on my knees enslaved or in fear
Let me die standing up living righteously
Resisting the laws of the oligarchy.

Let me die standing up in revolt against wrong
And not live passively while they wage unjust war
Let me die standing up and not bow to their greed
Let me answer their hate with my love and beliefs.

Let me die standing up living with dignity
And not sell my soul for the sake of money
Let me die standing up speaking out only truth
And not meekly submit to the lies of the brutes.

Let me go to my grave fighting to be free
And not try to survive by obeying the thieves
Let me die standing up, honest to myself
Yes, I’d rather not live if I have to bow down.


To listen to "Let Me Die Standing Up," you can click on the following music site link:

http://www.last.fm/music/Bob+A.+Feldman/Protest+Folk+Songs/Let+Me+Die+Standing+Up

The Let Me Die Standing Up protest folk song was written in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

Next: Is Columbia University’s 21st-Century Campus Expansion Project Legal?

1968 Columbia Strike Leader Gilbert's November 25, 2004 Statement

One of the anti-war leaders of the 1968 Columbia Student Strike, Columbia SDS co-founder David Gilbert http://www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/davidgilbert/ , is still imprisoned at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York. Following the publication of his 2004 book, No Surrender: Writings from an anti-imperialist political prisoner, Gilbert issued the following statement on November 25, 2004, which he titled “No Surrender and the Losses of 10/20/81:”

“The warm reception for my book is most welcome. I hope the title hasn't caused any misunderstanding. No Surrender comes from the Nazim Hikmet poem about prison, which opens the book, on never giving up one's principles, spirit, and zest for life. I did not at all mean to refer to a military concept or in any way to glorify the shoot-out that led to my incarceration.

“I feel terrible about the deaths, the wounds, the fractured lives and families that resulted from that action. I've said this (and talked more specifically about the errors I made) in the few interviews I've done over the years, but perhaps my regrets and apologies haven't been heard clearly because of all I've also had to say about the colossal violence of the social system and the brutal attacks on the Black Liberation Movement. However, my relationship to the deaths on 10/21/81 is very direct, so I need to address those losses very directly. Such a statement is especially needed because during trial, feeling very embattled and defending armed struggle as an abstract principle. I failed to publicly express regrets about the individuals who had been killed and wounded.

“I feel terrible about the loss of life and the pain and suffering for the families of the two officers and guard who were killed. [I am not mentioning them by name out of respect for the wishes of the families.] Whatever the historical context for us, these three men just happened to be on duty that day. So it must have been an especially bitter loss for their families.

“In another sad repercussion three days later, longtime Black liberation activist Mtayari Sundiata was killed by police. All the losses are more anguishing because they resulted from the grievous mistakes we made.

“My own family was badly hurt; they never got to make choices about the risks I would take but they suffered the consequences. Yet as hard as it's been for us, we've still been able to maintain a strong, tangible connection. The families of those who died were left with far more devastating losses: children growing up without fathers, mothers carrying on without husbands, families without a chance to share joys or ever again to hug their loved ones.

“In any struggle, no matter how intense, we must never lose our feeling for each and every human being. The only reason to become an activist is love, love for the preciousness of life and for the rainbow colors of human potential. Those same values mandate that we take the greatest care and responsibility in how we fight for social change.

“I proudly stand by my broad history of struggle and by solidarity with the Black liberation movement; my actions on 10/21/81 were wrong, and I deeply apologize for their role in the tragic loss of lives.”

[David Gilbert is a North American political prisoner and longtime anti-imperialist. On October 20, 1981, he and other comrades were captured at Nyack, NY during an attempted expropriation by a unit of the Black Liberation Army and other white revolutionaries (known as the Revolutionary Armed Task Force - RATF). During the expropriation attempt, 3 officers were killed. Charged and convicted of felony murder, David is serving a 75 year (minimum) to life sentence. While in prison, David has been actively involved in the struggle against AIDS, and has remained a staunch opponent of oppression still dedicated to human liberation.]

Next: Let Me Die Standing Up lyrics

Interviewing `Time' Magazine's Managing Editor In The 1990s

Downtown spoke with Time magazine’s then-managing editor, Henry Muller, in 1990 about Newsweek’s criticism of his magazine’s June 11, 1990 Scott Turow cover story. Muller adamantly denied that Time magazine would ever use its cover to promote products being marketed by other Time Warner media institutions it owns.

“Newsweek only criticized us for not mentioning that Scott Turow’s first book was published by Warner—which we mentioned the next week,” Muller said. “It didn’t accuse us of using the cover story to promote the book and movie.”

Muller also declared that “One of the salient points of the Times’ article was that Newsweek was clearly engaged in intra-mural fighting. And that Newsweek’s motives for criticizing Time were dubious and self-serving.” (Of course, since the New York Times was a business partner with Time Warner in its Time Distributors operation in 1990, some cynics might also go so far as to argue that the Times article itself was self-serving).

Downtown asked Muller why Time magazine didn’t initially mention that the author it put on its cover was first published by another division of Time Warner. “Our policy is that we only mention Time Warner corporate connections in all business and press action stories. But not in our review or movie sections or in news stories. We have never mentioned corporate connections in our review columns,” answered Muller. “Before Time merged with Warner, this was our policy. Our long-standing policy was not to mention the corporate ownership of movies and books we review.”

Would Time magazine mention that Madonna records were produced and distributed by another division of Time Warner in 1990 if it decided to put Madonna on its cover? “If we do a `people’ item on Madonna—it depends. You have to see the actual story. It depends on the nature of the story. Is it a review? Or is it in-between?” Muller replied.

Downtown asked Muller what effect the Time Warner merger had on Time magazine’s editorial independence [during the early 1990s]. According to Muller, Time magazine’s editorial independence was “not in any way…affected by the merger. We’ve probably done 20 or 30 stories that have a corporate connection. And they all demonstrated our total independence in writing. We’ve written about Paretti [a 1990 business controversy involving Time Warner] and cable deals. We’ve got a 100 percent record of independence.”

In his 1988 Beyond Malice book, however, the former Time-Life broadcast chairman, Richard Clurman, wrote:

“Very few people or organizations are capable of ongoing public confessional or disclosures about themselves. When I covered the press for Time, my editors wanted intensive reporting and criticism of others. But it was taken for granted that when I had to write about some development at Time Inc., itself, I would shift to the spare repose of a corporate press release.”

Asked by Downtown whether it should be mentioned in Time magazine that the chairman of the Executive Committee of Time Warner’s corporate board in the early 1990s, J. Richard Munro, was also a member of the Mobil Corporation oil company’s board of directors, Muller answered:

“Why should it be? Let me give a more direct example. General Motors is a heavy advertiser in Time. Should we write that General Motors is an advertiser in Time every time we mention General Motors in a news story?”

When Downtown noted that there’s a difference between a company advertising in Time magazine and a company like Mobil having its director heading Time Warner, in terms of possible conflict of interest, Muller denied the possibility of any conflict of interest. “We’ve made our reputation on being independent. The only question that matters is `Does your product have integrity or doesn’t it? Nobody’s going to compromise with Time’s independence,” said Muller.

Downtown asked Muller whether there was any internal debate at Time magazine before it was decided to put the author of a Time Warner-published book on its front cover. “There was no internal debate. The judgment was made by our book reviewer that this merited a cover story. Everybody has standing instructions around here to pursue journalistic responsibilities without regard to corporate ownership,” Muller replied. “And today it is a point of view backed up by a `helluva’ track record. Except for that initial mistake [i.e. not publishing an article on the Time Warner merger the week it was announced], we haven’t done anything journalistically wrong in our coverage of Time Warner.”

The Time magazine Managing Editor vigorously denied that Time magazine would ever be influenced by Time Warner business considerations. “I don’t think Time people would put up with any kind of corporate interference. Nobody’s dumb enough to compromise on that. This is basic. My responsibility is to preserve the integrity of Time. It’s nutty to think that anyone at Time would start to try to interfere with Time’s editorial integrity for business reasons,” Muller insisted.

Muller claimed that the separation of the business side of Time from its editorial side “had probably strengthened since the merger. We’re more independent. I am passionate about this,” said Muller.

Asked whether he thought it was archaic to worry about one company owning both a newspaper and a television station in one city or both magazines and cable TV stations, Muller replied: “Whether the San Francisco Chronicle should be allowed to own a TV station, I’m not prepared to answer. My one job is to make sure the independence of our magazine is preserved. The only thing I can say with total confidence is that Time magazine is more independent than ever. We would never act as a catalog to market Time Warner products.”

Would Muller resist corporate pressure to make Time magazine a catalog? “I would—though there’s never been any pressure.”

When Downtown mentioned to Muller that perhaps omitting coverage of Time Warner business activities or omitting coverage of people who raised media monopolization issues was a more likely journalistic sin than publishing articles in response to Time Warner business needs, Muller said: “There’s no omission. We’ve printed articles on cable regulation and on the Time Warner-Paretti deal. You wouldn’t find a better story in Newsweek on Time Warner. We wrote about problems with Entertainment Today. We’re in nobody’s pocket.”

(Downtown 10/24/90)

But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting in the 21st-century for Time magazine to do more frequent cover-story articles about U.S. political prisoners, the number of Iraqi civilians actually killed as a result of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East since 2003 or the anti-war folks in the U.S. who have questioned the U.S. government’s official story of what actually happened on September 11, 2001 in Downtown Manhattan.


Next: 1968 Columbia Student Strike Leader Gilbert’s November 25, 2004 Statement

Time Warner and 1990s Media Monopolization

According to the March 27, 1989 issue of The Nation magazine, Time Inc.’s management initially told Time magazine’s business section editors and writers “not to cover the merger story” after Time Inc. purchased Warner Communications in 1989.

Henry Muller was the managing editor of Time magazine during the early 1990s. He graduated from Stanford University in 1968 [and also sat next to former Stanford University Provost Condi Rice on the Carnegie Corporation of New York foundation board of trustees in the 1990s], after having worked for Time Inc.’s Life magazine as a student intern during the 1960s. According to Muller, “The Editor-in-Chief did not want to do a story” on the Time Warner merger only because of deadline considerations. “Our deadline is on a Saturday and the merger news was announced on a Saturday.” But he has told reporters that he was “mistaken” not to cover the Time Warner merger story.

Yet according to George Winslow, a freelance writer who writes about the mass media, “Time Inc. released the news on Saturday to avoid wide coverage” of the Time Warner merger and “Newsweek beat them to the punch. Time wasn’t critical with many aspects of the merger—even those aspects that affected Time Inc. stockholders.”

In The Nation magazine’s March 27, 1989 issue, writer Richard Pollack criticized the Time Inc.-Warner Communications mass media merger for expressing a business trend that “daily accelerates the country’s terminal homogenitization.” Pollack also noted that Ohio’s then-U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum “was concerned about the merger’s impact on media diversity” and had “asked the Justice Department to review the antitrust implications.”

Time Warner has sometimes been criticized for using Time magazine to promote the products being marketed by other Time Warner media institutions it owns. In its June 18, 1990 issue, for instance, the New York Times observed that:

“Newsweek magazine has taken Time magazine to task over Time’s cover story on novelist Scott Turow, whose paperback publisher is owned by Time Warner and whose first book was turned into a movie produced by Time Warner subsidiary Warner Brothers.”

Newsweek had reported the following in its “periscope section”:

“What responsibility does the magazine group of Time Warner have to let its readers know that a film it praises in a news story was produced by the movie part of the corporation? None, if you ask the company. Last week’s curious cover story in Time was about Presumed Innocent author Scott Turow, whose new book The Burden of Proof has received mixed reviews. The article offered lavish details about the upcoming movie version of Presumed Innocent but neglected to mention Warner Bros. made the movie. Time spokeswoman Jennifer Epstein said the magazine did not have a responsibility to report the corporate connection and denied there was a conflict of interest. She also said Time never identifies which movie company made a film.”

(Downtown 10/24/90)

Next: Interviewing Time Magazine’s Managing Editor In The 1990s

Time Warner/Time Inc.'s Historic Political Role

The late 1990 cheerleading role that Time magazine played in supporting the U.S. military build-up in Saudi Arabia [like its early 2003 cheerleading role in supporting the 21st-century U.S. military intervention in Iraq] is not inconsistent with Time Inc.’s historic role. In his The Powers That Be book, David Halberstam characterized the role that Time magazine played in generating support for the mid-1960s U.S. military build-up in Vietnam:

“Throughout the Vietnam War, Time did much of its heavy-duty advocacy through the Press section, attacking anyone critical of the war, praising anyone who liked it, and it was frequently and often brutally employed.”

Halberstam’s book also noted how the U.S. president who prolonged U.S. military intervention in Indochina after 1968—before being forced to resign over the “Watergate Affair” in 1974—was promoted by Time magazine in the 1950s:

“Certainly Time, during the crucial early years of Nixon’s career, took pain to portray him as the bright young fellow on the rise, filled with all the best of American virtues. `Fighting Quaker,’ Time typically titled an early cover story.”

Before Henry Luce died, there was some fear in Time Inc. management circles that the media corporation would have difficulty surviving without Luce’s autocratic leadership. For this reason, according to Halberstam’s book, news of Luce’s 1958 heart attack was suppressed by Time magazine “for fear that it would harm the Time Inc. stock.” But after Luce’s death in 1967, Time Inc. prospered and purchased Warner Communications in 1989 for $14 billion to form the Time Warner global media conglomerate.

(Downtown 10/24/90)

Next: Time Warner and 1990s Media Monopolization