FOX NEWS REPORTS PENDING SHOWDOWN BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE AND MARY FRANCES BERRY

Fox News | The Fox News All-Stars (Brit Hume and panel)

[HardStarboard]

That picture says it all - obviously a Berkely Socio/Commu/Liberal/Pinko undereducated, overrated minority type!

I may be racial-profiling.......sorry

[Let's Roll]

"...she's maintaining that she's entitled to full term on her own."

They did point out on FOX that no government commission operates that way - in other words, you are appointed to fulfill someones unexpired term and then you are done unless the sitting president re-appoints you. Something that GWB is obviously not going to do.

When I think of the way Mary Frances Berry manufactured outrageous allegations concerning oppressed black voting in Florida - so outrageous that she couldn't even find anyone who would lie and back up her charges and the way she is behaving now, I think she's crazy - just plain delusional on steroids.

[OrioleFan]

The American Indian Movement has been after the YMCA for several years. The YMCA has a set of published guidelines on proper use of the Native American theme. It is acknowledged that there were several programs that got out of hand (face painting, whooping, dress - the Hollywood stereotype). That was the basic problem for the YMCA. Then the US Civil Rights Commission decided to weigh in on the subject of teams and team mascots; a statement that had nothing to do with the YMCA. However, the statement caused the YMCA to call it quits (my opinion). Here's the USCCR statement:

Statement of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the Use of Native American Images and Nicknames as Sports Symbols

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights calls for an end to the use of Native American images and team names by non-Native schools. The Commission deeply respects the rights of all Americans to freedom of expression under the First Amendment and in no way would attempt to prescribe how people can express themselves. However, the Commission believes that the use of Native American images and nicknames in school is insensitive and should be avoided. In addition, some Native American and civil rights advocates maintain that these mascots may violate anti-discrimination laws. These references, whether mascots and their performances, logos, or names, are disrespectful and offensive to American Indians and others who are offended by such stereotyping. They are particularly inappropriate and insensitive in light of the long history of forced assimilation that American Indian people have endured in this country.

Since the civil rights movement of the 1960s many overtly derogatory symbols and images offensive to African-Americans have been eliminated. However, many secondary schools, post-secondary institutions, and a number of professional sports teams continue to use Native American nicknames and imagery. Since the 1970s, American Indian leaders and organizations have vigorously voiced their opposition to these mascots and team names because they mock and trivialize Native American religion and culture.

It is particularly disturbing that Native American references are still to be found in educational institutions, whether elementary, secondary or post-secondary. Schools are places where diverse groups of people come together to learn not only the "Three Rs," but also how to interact respectfully with people from different cultures. The use of stereotypical images of Native Americans by educational institutions has the potential to create a racially hostile educational environment that may be intimidating to Indian students. American Indians have the lowest high school graduation rates in the nation and even lower college attendance and graduation rates. The perpetuation of harmful stereotypes may exacerbate these problems.

The stereotyping of any racial, ethnic, religious or other groups when promoted by our public educational institutions, teach all students that stereotyping of minority groups is acceptable, a dangerous lesson in a diverse society. Schools have a responsibility to educate their students; they should not use their influence to perpetuate misrepresentations of any culture or people. Children at the elementary and secondary level usually have no choice about which school they attend. Further, the assumption that a college student may freely choose another educational institution if she feels uncomfortable around Indian-based imagery is a false one. Many factors, from educational programs to financial aid to proximity to home, limit a college student's choices. It is particularly onerous if the student must also consider whether or not the institution is maintaining a racially hostile environment for Indian students.

Schools that continue to use Indian imagery and references claim that their use stimulates interest in Native American culture and honors Native Americans. These institutions have simply failed to listen to the Native groups, religious leaders, and civil rights organizations that oppose these symbols. These Indian-based symbols and team names are not accurate representations of Native Americans. Even those that purport to be positive are romantic stereotypes that give a distorted view of the past. These false portrayals prevent non-Native Americans from understanding the true historical and cultural experiences of American Indians. Sadly, they also encourage biases and prejudices that have a negative effect on contemporary Indian people. These references may encourage interest in mythical "Indians" created by the dominant culture, but they block genuine understanding of contemporary Native people as fellow Americans.

The Commission assumes that when Indian imagery was first adopted for sports mascots it was not to offend Native Americans. However, the use of the imagery and traditions, no matter how popular, should end when they are offensive. We applaud those who have been leading the fight to educate the public and the institutions that have voluntarily discontinued the use of insulting mascots. Dialogue and education are the roads to understanding. The use of American Indian mascots is not a trivial matter. The Commission has a firm understanding of the problems of poverty, education, housing, and health care that face many Native Americans. The fight to eliminate Indian nicknames and images in sports is only one front of the larger battle to eliminate obstacles that confront American Indians. The elimination of Native American nicknames and images as sports mascots will benefit not only Native Americans, but all Americans. The elimination of stereotypes will make room for education about real Indian people, current Native American issues, and the rich variety of American Indian cultures in our country.

April 16, 2001

[Republic]

That was one enlightening post....geeeeeez. Having watched berry on CSPAN, I am not surprised she would back such a nutty idea. She saddens me..the chip on her shoulder is so big that it takes her down, big time.

[RnMomof7]

Who pays this panel? A little defunding is in order..you do your job or you take a hike!

[Howlin]

Don't we wish.

[blackbart1]

This is so rich and will be fun to watch. It just gives GW another chance to show his leadership and that he is a manly man and can't be intimidated into letting this girly lib have her way.

[Howlin]

She's more of a butch liberal, if you ask me. :-)

[Drango]

KPFA in Berkley California?

Nope...the parent oranization in DC I think? Here is a rathel long inside baseball type article from "Current"-
www.current.org/rad/rad004p.html

...............

Originally published in Current, March 6, 2000

By Steve Behrens

The chairman and executive director of the Pacifica Foundation are leaving, but the remainder of its national leaders seem to have clenched their jaws in determination to pursue its strategy of audience building.

Mary Frances Berry, chairman since 1997, announced at a board meeting Feb. 27 that she'll leave the board when her term expires in September, and she introduced Vice Chairman David Acosta, of Houston, as her successor.

Berry also said that Lynn Chadwick would resign as executive direcctor as of March 1 and would be replaced for the next year by Bessie Wash, g.m. of WPFW in Washington. Berry and Chadwick did not return Current's calls seeking comments.

The board sat generally still and quiet for two hours as several dozen activists took turns hotly condemning their policies during a public comment session at the end of the board's meeting last week in Arlington, Va.

Acknowledging her disrespect for the Pacifica Board, angry Los Angeles activist Lyn Gerry speaks with her back to the board during an extended public comment session.

.

"I can only think it must be the power of evil acting through you," said Alice Chan, the first speaker, and only a few speakers were more conciliatory. "Pacifica's job is not to succeed in the radio business," commented a Washington activist. "I need assurances that free thought didn't get high ratings and it's gone," said a teenager from San Francisco.

Berry, who said she would focus on "healing" the rift in Pacifica during her last months in office, told the critics, "I will try to listen more carefully to you and other people."

But the board earlier declined to consider rescinding the "dirty laundry rule" under which Chadwick had fired longtime correspondent Larry Bensky last year, and which has raised fervent criticism of censorship in Pacifica's newsroom. Tomas Moran, the only board member allied with the critics, asked the board to rescind the rule against discussing internal Pacifica disputes on the air, but there was no second to his motion.

The activists' anger reflected the deepening rift between Pacifica and its critics, who are producing a weekly alternative newscast in competition with Pacifica Network News.

Audience: growing, but too small

Pacifica released ratings data for its five public radio stations, quoting double-edged remarks by audience analyst David Giovannoni.

The chain has more listeners than ever; its average audience is up 33 percent in one year; its weekly cume audience is up 28 percent in five years; and its listener-hours were up nearly 50 percent in five years, according to data given to the board.

But in Giovannoni's written statement he stressed the negative: Pacifica's audience is relatively small in the massive metro areas where it owns stations. It has a weekly cume of 800,000 and an average audience of 40,000 at any moment, but the listening areas have a combined population of 40 million. His conclusion: "Pacifica has crossed the line from 'under-performance' to 'irrelevance.'"

In the context of the larger population, Pacifica's audience was not enough to have significant impact, Giovannoni said. "For most Americans, Pacifica simply does not exist. In fact, for most of Pacifica's listeners, it is not a lifeline of ideas and information. It is merely an hour-or-two per week add-on to their NPR and commercial radio listening," he wrote.

The audience analyst went beyond numbers to comment that Pacifica "is a faded reflection of its proud history . . . an anachronism on the FM band, arrested in its development by a small group of people who are similarly stuck in time."

He praised Pacifica's national leaders who "have attempted to rejuvenate its grand mission by applying proven broadcasting practices."

For Tomas Moran, a Pacifica Board member who ordinarily focuses his activism on homeless issues in the Bay Area, "proven broadcasting practices" are the problem, not the solution.

At a "teach-in" in a Washington church basement the previous night, Moran urged activists to look critically at Pacifica's use of ratings as a key measure of success "because it's very easy to find non-progressive programming to meet that narrow goal."

Pacifica also released its own analysis of the Arbitrons. A press release said its Washington and Houston stations, which have the reputation of working most harmoniously with the national management, "have the highest shares in the network and have experience the strongest growth." Indeed, the Washington and Houston shares were 1.3 and 1.1 percent of listeners last fall, but the rebellious KPFA in Berkeley was close at 0.9 percent, according to Pacifica's numbers.

Of the five stations, the ones in Washington and Houston also showed the fastest cume growth over the last five years, in part because they were the newest stations of the five, and they had the most to gain. But over the latest year, fall 1998 to fall 1999, the less obedient stations KPFA and WBAI grew about as fast as the Houston station in average audience. And that was fast: 39 percent in Berkeley, 45 percent in New York and 44 percent in Houston.

Altogether, the five stations added 33 percent to their average audience during that year and 9 percent to their cumes. In time spent listening, the audience of standout WBAI spent 36 percent more time with it last fall than in fall 1998.

Hand-to-hand combat

Though the board took criticism stoically, two members said they're resigning before their terms expire. June Makela, who was not present, left a statement endorsing Pacifica's goal of audience building and comparing the critics' tactics to those of "right-wing hate groups." William Lucy said he did not have time for "hand-to-hand combat and trench warfare."

Board member Ken Ford, of Washington, will succeed Acosta as vice chairman, and the board elected five new board members, including Washington broadcasting investor Bertram M. Lee; John M. Murdock, a Washington attorney; Valerie Chambers of Houston; and two New Yorkers, Leslie Cagan and Beth S. Lyons.

These days, Pacifica is embattled at every turn. Several lawsuits are pending. Some 40 stringers are striking against Pacifica Network News in protest of the dirty-laundry policy. A weekly alternative broadcast, Free Speech Radio will send out its fifth edition this week in competition with PNN. Some 20 stations are carrying the substitute instead. In Santa Barbara, Calif., KCSB cancelled PNN in support of the stringers' strike.

Observers are witnessing the critics' relentless Internet outreach campaign, which Makela called "the great Northern California e-mail machine."

Teams of prominent progressives are taking sides--and therefore, flak--for and against Pacifica. Last August, a list including Alice Walker, Jerry Brown, Angela Davis, Joan Baez, Noam Chomsky and Pete Seeger objected to Pacifica's lockout of KPFA staff, saying it has "abandoned and betrayed" its mission. They urged Berry and Chadwick to quit.

Then, last month, prominent leftist Saul Landau, a professor at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, came back with an "Appeal to All Progressives," asserting that "the honest debate over Pacifica has degenerated into an ugly spectacle of Pacifica-bashing and defamation." He collected signatures from many progressives, including Ed Asner, Jerry Brown, Marcus Raskin, former Sen. James Abourezk, and former Twin Cities pubcaster Jack Willis.

The Landau appeal was hardly a ringing defense of Pacifica. "I have little good to say about the Pacifica Board or executive director," he wrote, "but the war against it may lead to the death of our only alternative radio."

Within days, a chastising reply was on the Internet, signed by FAIR founder Jeff Cohen, former Pacifica host Jim Hightower, producer David Barsamian, poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti and others. They concluded: "It's too easy to dismiss as 'Pacifica-bashing' what is truly a grassroots effort to return community control and shared institutional power to a progressive institution that was founded to preserve both."

[RnMomof7]

I can dream can't I??? :>)

[Commie Basher]

If Bush does back down, I'll expect Freepers to apologize to the Libertarians -- at least Harry Browne stands by what HE says!

Dubya: Son of "Read My Hips"

Yeah, I voted for Dubya, -- but I held my nose!

[Notwithstanding]

I am not sure (this sort of thing is on my Constitutional Law exam next week - I should know this!!!). Here is a summary from a well-respected law book:

c. Removal of federal executives: The power to remove federal executive officers basically rests with the President. The President may remove any executive appointee without cause. The only exceptions are that the President must have cause in order to remove:

(1) an officer who is appointed pursuant to a statute specifying the length of the term of office; or

(2) an officer who performs a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

Example: The President may remove an ambassador at any time, without cause.

i. Removal by Congress: Conversely, Congress may not remove an executive officer. This is true whether the officer is a "principal" or "inferior" one. [Bowsher v. Synar] However, Congress can to some extent limit the power of the President to remove an officer, if Congress specifies a term of office and then provides that removal is allowable only for cause. (Example: Congress may say that the Special Prosecutor – an executive officer – may only be removed by the Executive Branch for "good cause" or other inability to perform his duties. [Morrison v. Olson])

ii. Impeachment: Separately, Congress may remove any executive officer by impeachment, discussed below.

[Sgt_Schultze]

The power play might be to eject the offending wench and appoint an Hispanic woman to the comission. Bush43 has been trying to make inroads to Hispanics - that might help. It would have the advantage of forcing democratics to fight her appointment risking electoral backlash.

[Elsie]

.....ore, Barry Paris, Anne Rice, Sapphire, Meryle Secrest, Scott Spencer, Nicho......

What?!?

[the bottle let me down]

Bet this means that even back then, Clinton knew Gore would lose.

Hard to say. Clinton was nortoriously slow in appointing people. First he had to run ideas by hillary for approval. Then they had to make sure that the racial and gender balance of the appointees was correct.

[the bottle let me down]

According to NRO:

Berry's support of Wilson has a personal dimension. Although she's been on the commission since the 1980s, Berry's current term began when she succeeded Connie Horner, whom the first President Bush had picked for the commission in the final hours of his presidency. Horner's term expired on December 5, 1998 — but President Clinton didn't get around to putting Berry in that slot until January 26, 1999. The White House clerk's office, staffed by career bureaucrats, insists that Berry's term ends in December 2004. Berry, however, says it concludes on January 26, 2005 — just a few days after the end of President George W. Bush's term.

[Howlin]

at least Harry Browne stands by what HE says!

What does that mean, that he says what he said? Harry Browne has NEVER been in any position to put his money where his mouth is/was.

That being said, I have great confidence in Bush.

[the bottle let me down]

Best solution available, abolish the commission in its entirety. There is no need for it.

No politician will ever vote to abolish anything that has the words "Civil Rights" in its name.

[Notwithstanding]

MORE:

Example: The President may remove an ambassador at any time, without cause.

i. Removal by Congress: Conversely, Congress may not remove an executive officer. This is true whether the officer is a "principal" or "inferior" one. [Bowsher v. Synar] However, Congress can to some extent limit the power of the President to remove an officer, if Congress specifies a term of office and then provides that removal is allowable only for cause. (Example: Congress may say that the Special Prosecutor – an executive officer – may only be removed by the Executive Branch for "good cause" or other inability to perform his duties. [Morrison v. Olson])

ii. Impeachment: Separately, Congress may remove any executive officer by impeachment, discussed below.

.

Since this appointment has a time limit of 6 years (and perhasp because she performs a quasi-judicial function) the President must have cause to fire her. Her stunt on this matter may very well seal her doom - such defiance is insubordination.