10.1.11
Retreat
In the aftermath of this past weekend's tragedy in Arizona, many people have been pointing fingers at our political leaders over their incidiary language and "toxic rhetoric." Because our political spectacle has become a proper fiasco, and gotten to a point where violent language is not only acceptable, but ubiquitous, we now find ourselves in a place where we do not know whether or not one person's violent actions have been influenced by the language they hear from our leaders. That is a truly scary thought.
People have specifically focused on Sarah Palin's map, featured on her website with cross hairs placed over the districts of Democratic congress members who voted for health care reform, Ms. Giffords included. When Palin posted the image back in March, she included the message: "Commonsense Conservatives and lovers of America: Don't retreat, instead RELOAD!" It is indeed a terrorizing image, one that induces fear and repulsion at the sight of it. It is insolent, small-minded, and exactly what is wrong with our status quo.
People have specifically focused on Sarah Palin's map, featured on her website with cross hairs placed over the districts of Democratic congress members who voted for health care reform, Ms. Giffords included. When Palin posted the image back in March, she included the message: "Commonsense Conservatives and lovers of America: Don't retreat, instead RELOAD!" It is indeed a terrorizing image, one that induces fear and repulsion at the sight of it. It is insolent, small-minded, and exactly what is wrong with our status quo.
Sarah Palin is a lost cause. But whether she is culpable for the shootings in Arizona is inscrutable; it's a bit unfair to say that she is directly responsible for such a deliberate attack. However, she IS a central figure in our mainstream political circus, and her words have a significant resonance with those who hear them, as do the words of all of our leaders. I'm glad that this tragedy in Arizona has brought to light the great casualness with which we treat violence and violent rhetoric, of all things.
It is sad that it takes something so terrible happening in order for people to realize their mistakes, but perhaps this examination of the way we use our language, and the damage we can inflict with mere words, will have a real and powerful effect on our nation's leaders. And maybe this time they'll retreat, instead of reloading to fire another round of hateful speech. Because I think we all would rather live in a world that values peace and understanding, not violence.
associated press
7.1.11
Insanity, Made to Order
It seems as if those rascally republicans in the House of Representatives haven't missed a beat in laying a thick layer of hateful crazy onto the capitol since taking power earlier this week. They've already taken a number of damaging, damning actions and are threatening to do much more to our environment, our health care, and to our voter's directly.
It's hard to choose from the array of craziness just which measure proposed by the republicans is the craziest. Is it the exhaustive, but ultimately futile promise to repeal a health care reform law that the American people actually favor when words like "ObamaCare," "Government Option," and "Death Panels" are excluded from the rhetoric, and the true intention of the bill is explained? After all, a new finding by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal of the health care reform law would actually increase our federal deficit by $230 billion. It is only the thick-pocketed favorite children of the insurance industries who so fervently defend this repeal (see Fox News' 5 Reasons Repealing ObamaCare Won't Increase the Deficit -ha!).
Then there is the republicans' outright assault on the environment. In just one week, they've managed to eliminate the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, declared that greenhouse gases should not be subject regulation under the Clean Air Act (despite the Supreme Court ruling them so back in 2007), announced intentions to block funding for government agencies who support cap and trade, and ultimately pushed to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gases and methane emissions. Meanwhile, the head of the house committee on oversight and government reform has reached out to energy companies and other business executives, asking them how they would like the government to be re-shaped.
But perhaps the insanity plat-du-jour is the blatant and vile racism that the republicans have shown towards citizens in the District of Columbia and in other U.S. Territories. Despite paying full federal taxes, residents in Washington, D.C. are not provided with any full representation in Congress. The one representative that they do have, Eleanor Holmes Norton, was stripped of her already limited voting rights in congress by House Republicans this week. Previously, the D.C. representative was allowed to vote on amendments and procedure, and could serve on committees, but could not vote to enact legislation. However, the Republicans in power have squashed even those limited rights that were previously allowed to the DC representative. And it is more than just a little suspicious that D.C., along with another 5 U.S. territories denied voting rights, is a Democratic area with a large number of minority constituents.
This is just the first week of the next two years of Republicans holding power in the House of Representatives. Over the course of this next Congressional session, we may anticipate more of such outrageous behavior. We could also maybe anticipate that the Republicans will continue, with the help of Fox News and other media puppets, to twist the truth and interject fearful, hateful language to further confuse and frustrate the American People. But perhaps we can also anticipate that this extremism will result in a powerful whip effect from progressives in the U.S., and that our citizens will become more informed, and thus more powerful to rally against this carefully pitched, well disguised agenda of the Republican lunatics.
It's hard to choose from the array of craziness just which measure proposed by the republicans is the craziest. Is it the exhaustive, but ultimately futile promise to repeal a health care reform law that the American people actually favor when words like "ObamaCare," "Government Option," and "Death Panels" are excluded from the rhetoric, and the true intention of the bill is explained? After all, a new finding by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that repeal of the health care reform law would actually increase our federal deficit by $230 billion. It is only the thick-pocketed favorite children of the insurance industries who so fervently defend this repeal (see Fox News' 5 Reasons Repealing ObamaCare Won't Increase the Deficit -ha!).
Then there is the republicans' outright assault on the environment. In just one week, they've managed to eliminate the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, declared that greenhouse gases should not be subject regulation under the Clean Air Act (despite the Supreme Court ruling them so back in 2007), announced intentions to block funding for government agencies who support cap and trade, and ultimately pushed to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gases and methane emissions. Meanwhile, the head of the house committee on oversight and government reform has reached out to energy companies and other business executives, asking them how they would like the government to be re-shaped.
But perhaps the insanity plat-du-jour is the blatant and vile racism that the republicans have shown towards citizens in the District of Columbia and in other U.S. Territories. Despite paying full federal taxes, residents in Washington, D.C. are not provided with any full representation in Congress. The one representative that they do have, Eleanor Holmes Norton, was stripped of her already limited voting rights in congress by House Republicans this week. Previously, the D.C. representative was allowed to vote on amendments and procedure, and could serve on committees, but could not vote to enact legislation. However, the Republicans in power have squashed even those limited rights that were previously allowed to the DC representative. And it is more than just a little suspicious that D.C., along with another 5 U.S. territories denied voting rights, is a Democratic area with a large number of minority constituents.
This is just the first week of the next two years of Republicans holding power in the House of Representatives. Over the course of this next Congressional session, we may anticipate more of such outrageous behavior. We could also maybe anticipate that the Republicans will continue, with the help of Fox News and other media puppets, to twist the truth and interject fearful, hateful language to further confuse and frustrate the American People. But perhaps we can also anticipate that this extremism will result in a powerful whip effect from progressives in the U.S., and that our citizens will become more informed, and thus more powerful to rally against this carefully pitched, well disguised agenda of the Republican lunatics.
14.12.10
The Crackdown
The backlash to the WikiLeaks release of United States' diplomatic wires by many political figures and talking heads has been harsh, at best (at worst, it has been reckless and violent). Despite being convicted of no crimes, WikiLeaks has had its funds frozen from its bank in Switzerland, and its post office box closed in Australia. The company PayPal, which had previously been processing Wikileaks' donations, has refused to continue to support the organization and has dropped Wikileaks from its service. Apple has removed the Wikileaks Application from its App store. All around the world, Wikileaks is being condemned as a treacherous group, even being likened to a terrorist organization. Sarah Palin has suggested that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, "be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden [read: let him go]."
Meanwhile, Avaaz.org, your #1 source for petition-signing, is inviting citizens of the world to lend their voice to a cause- to stop the crackdown on WikiLeaks. The website asserts that:
The vicious intimidation campaign against WikiLeaks is a dangerous attack on freedom of expression and the press. Top US politicians have branded WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, and urged corporations to shut it down. Commentators have even suggested assassinating its staff.
Whatever we think of WikiLeaks, legal experts say it has likely broken no laws, and the group works with leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel) to carefully vet what it publishes - so far less than 1% of the cables leaked to it.
We urgently need a massive public outcry to defend our basic democratic freedoms. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown -- let's reach 1 million voices this week!
The petition has already been signed by over 600,000 people. Help get it to a million here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?slideshow
Meanwhile, Avaaz.org, your #1 source for petition-signing, is inviting citizens of the world to lend their voice to a cause- to stop the crackdown on WikiLeaks. The website asserts that:
The vicious intimidation campaign against WikiLeaks is a dangerous attack on freedom of expression and the press. Top US politicians have branded WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, and urged corporations to shut it down. Commentators have even suggested assassinating its staff.
Whatever we think of WikiLeaks, legal experts say it has likely broken no laws, and the group works with leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel) to carefully vet what it publishes - so far less than 1% of the cables leaked to it.
We urgently need a massive public outcry to defend our basic democratic freedoms. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown -- let's reach 1 million voices this week!
The petition has already been signed by over 600,000 people. Help get it to a million here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?slideshow
7.12.10
The Power of Truth
The whistle-blowing organization Wikileaks has come under intense pressure recently in what is quickly and globally becoming an information battlefield. Wikileaks is being fervently cast away by various internet servers in Europe as well as in the U.S. It has had its funds frozen from its bank in Switzerland, and its post office box closed in Australia. The company PayPal, which had previously been processing Wikileaks' donations, has refused to continue to support the organization and has dropped Wikileaks from its service. All around the world, Wikileaks is being condemned as a treacherous group, even being likened to a terrorist organization. Sarah Palin has suggested that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, "be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden [read: let him go]"
These actions and statements from governments, private companies, and talking heads are an astounding denial and rejection of what Wikileaks ultimately stands to represent- the truth. The organization is being bombarded with hatred and fear, because officials are terrified of what it might reveal. As activist Naomi Klein stated today via her twitter account, "Few societies have defended their own ignorance as aggressively or as enthusiastically as ours."
And indeed, the general response to the leaked documents from Wikileaks has been aggressive and intense. The organization is being censored on the internet, cut off from its funds, even cut off from its mail, though it has not been subpoenaed or convicted of any crime. This is simply a not-for-profit organization that was simply making information available to the public- information that is pertinent to our lives and that we therefor have a right to access.
But there is growing support for the organization as well, with movements such as I am Wikileaks springing up around social media websites. I am Wikileaks vows to continue providing an outlet for the whistle-blowers, should their censorship intensify. And Wikileaks itself has found something of a secure server for now. They can be found at http://www.wikileaks.ch/, and the CEO of the Swiss provider now hosting them has said that "Wikileaks should be treated like any of our other clients. We would only stop hosting them if they broke Swedish law or failed to pay their bills."
And Mr. Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who was arrested in London earlier today, wrote an op-ed for the Australian in which he asserts that:
Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.
People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.
This episode is a testament to the power of truth. Wikileaks has only released 1% of the 250,000 diplomatic wires it has received, and already look at the backlash it has created. Consider what would happen if all of the documents were released at once. What type of international frenzy would there be? It goes to show that just the tiniest bit of truth can have profound, reverberating consequences, making its power far stronger than that of apathetic ignorance. So perhaps Rupert Murdoch was right when he said, "in the struggle between truth and secrecy, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."
These actions and statements from governments, private companies, and talking heads are an astounding denial and rejection of what Wikileaks ultimately stands to represent- the truth. The organization is being bombarded with hatred and fear, because officials are terrified of what it might reveal. As activist Naomi Klein stated today via her twitter account, "Few societies have defended their own ignorance as aggressively or as enthusiastically as ours."
And indeed, the general response to the leaked documents from Wikileaks has been aggressive and intense. The organization is being censored on the internet, cut off from its funds, even cut off from its mail, though it has not been subpoenaed or convicted of any crime. This is simply a not-for-profit organization that was simply making information available to the public- information that is pertinent to our lives and that we therefor have a right to access.
But there is growing support for the organization as well, with movements such as I am Wikileaks springing up around social media websites. I am Wikileaks vows to continue providing an outlet for the whistle-blowers, should their censorship intensify. And Wikileaks itself has found something of a secure server for now. They can be found at http://www.wikileaks.ch/, and the CEO of the Swiss provider now hosting them has said that "Wikileaks should be treated like any of our other clients. We would only stop hosting them if they broke Swedish law or failed to pay their bills."
And Mr. Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who was arrested in London earlier today, wrote an op-ed for the Australian in which he asserts that:
Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.
People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.
This episode is a testament to the power of truth. Wikileaks has only released 1% of the 250,000 diplomatic wires it has received, and already look at the backlash it has created. Consider what would happen if all of the documents were released at once. What type of international frenzy would there be? It goes to show that just the tiniest bit of truth can have profound, reverberating consequences, making its power far stronger than that of apathetic ignorance. So perhaps Rupert Murdoch was right when he said, "in the struggle between truth and secrecy, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."
30.11.10
Media Heroes
The Nation Magazine has published a list of 30 top media heroes, as voted for and appointed by its readers. Surprisingly (or maybe not so much), although the pole was coming from a progressive online blog, many of the top spots went to TV personalities, mostly from MSNBC. I'm not so sure how I feel about MSNBC getting so much credit from liberal-progressive readers, but I'm at least glad that Amy Goodman made it to the [almost] top of the list:
1. Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)
2. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!)
3. Glenn Greenwald (Salon)
4. Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone and more)
5. Bill Moyers (formerly PBS)
6. Jon Stewart (The Daily Show)
7. Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)
8. Jeremy Scahill (The Nation)
9. Paul Krugman (New York Times)
10. Stephen Colbert (Colbert Report)
11. Chris Hayes (The Nation, MSNBC)
12. Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker and more)
13. Chris Hedges (The Nation and more)
14. Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post)
15. Jane Hamsher (FireDogLake)
16. Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks)
17. Naomi Klein (The Nation)
18. Dylan Rattigan (MSNBC)
19. Bill Maher (HBO)
20. Frank Rich (New York Times)
21. David Sirota (syndicated columnist)
22. Thom Hartmann (radio)
23. Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)
24. Digby -- i.e. Heather Parton (blogger)
25. Greg Palast (writer)
26. Ed Schultz (MSNBC)
27. Laura Flanders (GRIT TV and more)
28. Allison Kilkenny-Jamie Kilstein (Citizen Radio team)
29. Sam Seder (Huffington Post and Majority Report)
30. Jim Hightower (The Nation and more)
Also recieving honorable mention were Markos Moulistas, Lawrence O'Donnell, Katrina vandenHeuvel, Eric Boehlert, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Marcy Wheeler, Robert Scheer, Helen Thomas, Dean Baker, Yves Smith, Nick Kristof, Ezra Klein, Atrios, Mike Malloy, Max Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Robert Fisk, Melissa Harris-Perry, David Swanson, Nate Silver, Ali Abuniman, Gail Collins, Dave Weigel, Eugene Robinson.
Kudos to these various journalists for having the cahones to tell it like it is! What do you say? Who are some of YOUR personal media heroes who perhaps did not make the list?
1. Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)
2. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!)
3. Glenn Greenwald (Salon)
4. Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone and more)
5. Bill Moyers (formerly PBS)
6. Jon Stewart (The Daily Show)
7. Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)
8. Jeremy Scahill (The Nation)
9. Paul Krugman (New York Times)
10. Stephen Colbert (Colbert Report)
11. Chris Hayes (The Nation, MSNBC)
12. Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker and more)
13. Chris Hedges (The Nation and more)
14. Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post)
15. Jane Hamsher (FireDogLake)
16. Cenk Uygur (The Young Turks)
17. Naomi Klein (The Nation)
18. Dylan Rattigan (MSNBC)
19. Bill Maher (HBO)
20. Frank Rich (New York Times)
21. David Sirota (syndicated columnist)
22. Thom Hartmann (radio)
23. Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)
24. Digby -- i.e. Heather Parton (blogger)
25. Greg Palast (writer)
26. Ed Schultz (MSNBC)
27. Laura Flanders (GRIT TV and more)
28. Allison Kilkenny-Jamie Kilstein (Citizen Radio team)
29. Sam Seder (Huffington Post and Majority Report)
30. Jim Hightower (The Nation and more)
Also recieving honorable mention were Markos Moulistas, Lawrence O'Donnell, Katrina vandenHeuvel, Eric Boehlert, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Marcy Wheeler, Robert Scheer, Helen Thomas, Dean Baker, Yves Smith, Nick Kristof, Ezra Klein, Atrios, Mike Malloy, Max Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Robert Fisk, Melissa Harris-Perry, David Swanson, Nate Silver, Ali Abuniman, Gail Collins, Dave Weigel, Eugene Robinson.
Kudos to these various journalists for having the cahones to tell it like it is! What do you say? Who are some of YOUR personal media heroes who perhaps did not make the list?
23.11.10
Change of Heart?
Has the Catholic world gotten a new Pope? I don't recall seeing a tower of black smoke billowing from Vatican City, but it seems like the former Benedict XVI- you know, the one who said last year that condoms increase the AIDS problem in Africa- has disappeared and been divinely replaced by a Pope who has some sort of a grasp on reality.
It seems difficult to believe that a Pope would have any semblance of sensibility when it comes to issues of dirty, scary, sinful s-e-x, but it seemed as if the public health fairy had knocked him on his highly-hatted head when comments that he made on HIV and condom use were publiziced this past weekend. The comments came from a book which is to be published by Ignatious Press, titled "Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and Signs of the Times." In it, Pope Benedict addresses the controversial issue of contraception and the AIDS epidemic by saying that there MAY be SOME situations where condom use is SORT OF accepted.
Whoa. That's a big step, no? The Vatican actually endorsing condom use? Ok well no not exactly. What the Pope REALLY said was that condom use is the "first step" on a sort of moral ladder... that using condoms in cases of, say, prostitution, is a way of assuming responsibility and acknowledging that what one is doing is wrong. Sure. Leave it to the Vatican to instill some sort of plaguing guilt on what would otherwise have been a solid ethical lesson. Here's Benny's words, in context:
"There could be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitue uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants."
It seems tricky, but somewhere in there is a light of hope for AIDS activists and others around the world who see condoms as a solid, albeit not exclusive, means of combatting the disease. Because even though his holiness spoke in very vague and confusing language, his statement was a reversal of the Church's typical outright denunciation of contraceptives. And for an institution that bases its belief system on a 2,000 year old moral code, in which global epidemics and HIV did not exist, these statements made by their glorified leader are quite a miraculous step forward.
It seems difficult to believe that a Pope would have any semblance of sensibility when it comes to issues of dirty, scary, sinful s-e-x, but it seemed as if the public health fairy had knocked him on his highly-hatted head when comments that he made on HIV and condom use were publiziced this past weekend. The comments came from a book which is to be published by Ignatious Press, titled "Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and Signs of the Times." In it, Pope Benedict addresses the controversial issue of contraception and the AIDS epidemic by saying that there MAY be SOME situations where condom use is SORT OF accepted.
Whoa. That's a big step, no? The Vatican actually endorsing condom use? Ok well no not exactly. What the Pope REALLY said was that condom use is the "first step" on a sort of moral ladder... that using condoms in cases of, say, prostitution, is a way of assuming responsibility and acknowledging that what one is doing is wrong. Sure. Leave it to the Vatican to instill some sort of plaguing guilt on what would otherwise have been a solid ethical lesson. Here's Benny's words, in context:
"There could be single cases that can be justified, for instance when a prostitue uses a condom, and this can be a first step towards a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to develop again the awareness of the fact that not all is allowed and that one cannot do everything one wants."
It seems tricky, but somewhere in there is a light of hope for AIDS activists and others around the world who see condoms as a solid, albeit not exclusive, means of combatting the disease. Because even though his holiness spoke in very vague and confusing language, his statement was a reversal of the Church's typical outright denunciation of contraceptives. And for an institution that bases its belief system on a 2,000 year old moral code, in which global epidemics and HIV did not exist, these statements made by their glorified leader are quite a miraculous step forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)