Is same sex marriage a recent phenomenon? Actually, it isn't. Let me explain.
On Tuesday, the odd legal team of David Boies and Ted Olsen (who opposed each other in the infamous Bush vs Gore debacle) will try to build on their previous victories in striking down Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, they're going for the jugular at the US Supreme Court and trying to legalize same sex marriage everywhere in America.
But for those who think this is a civil rights movement of recent vintage, it may come as a shock that the battle has been going on for more than two centuries in America. And in the early 1800s, two women actually got away with it and set the precedent. Let me explain.
In the recently published book Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America by Rachel Hope Cleves, we learn a surprising fact.
Charity Bryant and Sylvia Drake used a loophole in Vermont's
common-law marriage statute and lived as a married couple from 1807 to
1851. In fact, Bryant had had at least two lesbian lovers before she
settled down with Drake. This is an incredibly moving and sentimental
story of love at its purest by two women who were both teachers and
tailors by trade, poets by hobby, and deeply religious by practice.
Remarkably, their marriage was tolerated by the community they lived in
and prospered. Sadly, much of their shared correspondence was burned so
we will never know the true extent of how deeply they were into each
other. But the writer does specify that when Vermont formally legalized
civil unions and later gay and lesbian marriage, many legislators noted
Charity and Sylvia's marriage as their precedent. It was truly a surprising
story for me and a delight to read.
That's right, folks, gay marriage is two hundred years old. Let's hope it becomes a permanent fixture in the States just as it is here in Canada. It doesn't bother me, and I don't can't understand why it bothers anyone.
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Dead (or dead)
Although pains were taken to hide the identity of the SEAL Team Six officer who took part in last year's raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, his true name was revealed today. Regardless of the propriety of this or whether he should have written the account at all, the implication he makes -- that the goal of the raid was to kill Obama period, not to kill only if he resisted capture -- is worrisome. That one can do whatever he or she wants to achieve a goal.
To be very brief: I don't mind Osama being dead, to be honest. But it would have been more satisfying to see him stand trial for the crimes he committed in Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Pakistan, as well as in the United States. I believe no expense should be spared at rounding up the rest of the gang -- but it should be done with an aim to justice, not revenge.
To be very brief: I don't mind Osama being dead, to be honest. But it would have been more satisfying to see him stand trial for the crimes he committed in Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan and Pakistan, as well as in the United States. I believe no expense should be spared at rounding up the rest of the gang -- but it should be done with an aim to justice, not revenge.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Latest Fed decision, and de Tocqueville on bombastic simpletons
The US Fed dropped its usual pretentiousness and the technocratic language often used in its statements on interest rate decisions and was remarkably clear in yesterday's decision, in which it pledged (by a vote of 7 to 3 with two abstentions) to keep the rate banks charge each other at the previously stated target of 0 to ¼% for at least the next two years. Short version: The economy in the States is growing but much slower than anticipated. How bad is it? I was shocked to learn the other day that over 50 million people in America are on food stamps -- one in six!
The rationale for a target zone is that banks can't really charge zero interest. Otherwise the administration fees on money market funds would actually cause the safest paper equivalents to lose the principal. But in the wake of yesterday's decision, the actual target rate for interbank loans was at 0.17%, even lower than the long term loan rate in Japan which is 0.3%. And the rate in London is at 0.2%. When money is that cheap and no one is borrowing. not even banks from each other, something is wrong with our fundamentals. And given how interconnected our economies are, long term slag in the US or the EU is bound to affect Canada -- our AAA rating is not in danger by a long shot but we'll need to get more creative and not just rely on resources or a low dollar like we used to.
How was it possible that things have gotten to this? Well a lot of it has to do with politicians and media pundits offering simplistic solutions to the most complex problems and stripping off people who might find appeal in one concept or policy plank, but would retch if they knew what the whole platform was. Add up enough peels and you get a majority and carte blanche. And what should be priorities get shackled off for other things of less importance. Eventually, the chickens come home to roost.
Certainly investing in the military industrial complex and law enforcement over and above the priorities of ordinary people who don't have the power to object or fight back (and the power brokers banking that they never will) is part of the problem. But so is the problem of charisma.
There are people out there who remember when Mrs Thatcher was called "Scrooge with a painted face" -- a reference to her slashing school lunch programs in the UK. Investing in education is meaningless if kids or teenagers go to school hungry.
Similarly, it's hypocritical for the "pro-life" crowd to fight to restrict or even ban abortions while at the same time slashing funding to programs such as WIC (the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program) -- in effect telling women, you have to have the baby and you're on your own raising it. That is the exact opposite of humanity -- and why while I'm pro-life I will never join any pro-life group that undermines parents' rights to raise their children with dignity.
It's almost impossible to listen to talk radio these days without laughing. Most shows on the right and even many on the left are so out to lunch they don't even take five minutes to check all of the facts. If they did, their positions could be mollified just enough that there could be the beginnings of some kind of consensus that could bridge the chasm that now exists.
Reading through the classic tome Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, I found this interesting section about what is often called style over substance or being just plain bombastic. One paragraph that explains such morons as Glen Beck or Rob Ford on the right; Keith Olbermann or Dick Daley on the left:
At least there is some satisfaction that at long last cuts in military procurement is actually on the table and will take place in drastic form in the US if the poison pill kicks in on December 23rd. It will no doubt anger the right but one has to start somewhere and it needs to be in the areas where both the right and left find "third rail" issues.
The rationale for a target zone is that banks can't really charge zero interest. Otherwise the administration fees on money market funds would actually cause the safest paper equivalents to lose the principal. But in the wake of yesterday's decision, the actual target rate for interbank loans was at 0.17%, even lower than the long term loan rate in Japan which is 0.3%. And the rate in London is at 0.2%. When money is that cheap and no one is borrowing. not even banks from each other, something is wrong with our fundamentals. And given how interconnected our economies are, long term slag in the US or the EU is bound to affect Canada -- our AAA rating is not in danger by a long shot but we'll need to get more creative and not just rely on resources or a low dollar like we used to.
How was it possible that things have gotten to this? Well a lot of it has to do with politicians and media pundits offering simplistic solutions to the most complex problems and stripping off people who might find appeal in one concept or policy plank, but would retch if they knew what the whole platform was. Add up enough peels and you get a majority and carte blanche. And what should be priorities get shackled off for other things of less importance. Eventually, the chickens come home to roost.
Certainly investing in the military industrial complex and law enforcement over and above the priorities of ordinary people who don't have the power to object or fight back (and the power brokers banking that they never will) is part of the problem. But so is the problem of charisma.
There are people out there who remember when Mrs Thatcher was called "Scrooge with a painted face" -- a reference to her slashing school lunch programs in the UK. Investing in education is meaningless if kids or teenagers go to school hungry.
Similarly, it's hypocritical for the "pro-life" crowd to fight to restrict or even ban abortions while at the same time slashing funding to programs such as WIC (the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program) -- in effect telling women, you have to have the baby and you're on your own raising it. That is the exact opposite of humanity -- and why while I'm pro-life I will never join any pro-life group that undermines parents' rights to raise their children with dignity.
It's almost impossible to listen to talk radio these days without laughing. Most shows on the right and even many on the left are so out to lunch they don't even take five minutes to check all of the facts. If they did, their positions could be mollified just enough that there could be the beginnings of some kind of consensus that could bridge the chasm that now exists.
Reading through the classic tome Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, I found this interesting section about what is often called style over substance or being just plain bombastic. One paragraph that explains such morons as Glen Beck or Rob Ford on the right; Keith Olbermann or Dick Daley on the left:
[T]hey hope to catch the eye of the crowd at once and easily keep it fixed on themselves, an object in which they often succeed. For the crowd seeks nothing in poetry but objects of vast dimensions; it has neither the time to measure the object set before it accurately nor the trained taste to sense how easily they are out of proportion. Writer and public join in corrupting each other. (Vol II, Part I, Ch. 18)The second volume was written in 1840 (Part I was 1835). Over 170 years later, it adequately explains the sinkhole politics have become in much of the free world.
At least there is some satisfaction that at long last cuts in military procurement is actually on the table and will take place in drastic form in the US if the poison pill kicks in on December 23rd. It will no doubt anger the right but one has to start somewhere and it needs to be in the areas where both the right and left find "third rail" issues.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Banned Books Week, 2009
It's that time of year again -- the American Library Association holds its annual "Banned Books Week" to draw attention to the issue of censorship by the most dangerous special interest group of all: Narrow minded and bigoted parents. The ALA says last year of 2008 wasn't actually that bad, only 513 "challenges" were registered, one of the lowest in years -- but the issue is still very much there.
This isn't child pornography we're talking about. We don't prohibit people from reading Mein Kampf or The Anarchist's Cookbook -- so what is it the big hangup with so many books out there? Don't we want to instill in children the ability to think?
Here's the "Top Ten List" for last year of 2008 -- and you won't believe the reasons listed. Actually, these are the kinds of books I think children should be reading.
This isn't child pornography we're talking about. We don't prohibit people from reading Mein Kampf or The Anarchist's Cookbook -- so what is it the big hangup with so many books out there? Don't we want to instill in children the ability to think?
Here's the "Top Ten List" for last year of 2008 -- and you won't believe the reasons listed. Actually, these are the kinds of books I think children should be reading.
10. Flashcards of My Life, by Charise Mericle Harper
Reasons: sexually explicit and unsuited to age group
9. The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group
8. Uncle Bobby's Wedding, by Sarah S. Brannen
Reasons: homosexuality and unsuited to age group
7. Gossip Girl (series), by Cecily von Ziegesar
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group
6. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: drugs, hmosexuality, nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, suicide, and unsuited to age group
5. Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolfo Anaya
Reasons: occult/satanism, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, and violence
4. Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
Reasons: occult/satanism, religious viewpoint, and violence
3. TTYL; TTFN; L8R, G8R (series), by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group
2. His Dark Materials trilogy, by Philip Pullman
Reasons: political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, and violence
And the most challenged library book of 2008 is:
1. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
Reasons: anti-ethnic, anti-family, homosexuality, religious viewpoint, and unsuited to age group
Monday, June 1, 2009
Bible Camp: An Outsider's Look
A couple of years back, a student at Brown University decided to take a semester off and do a first-hand investigation of one of the most controversial schools in America -- the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Now, the author, one Kevin Roose, has published his diary of the experience called The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University.
It didn't come quite out as Roose expected. He says that in the end, when he finally fessed up to his fellow students about his ruse, they actually were quite understanding and forgave him. The book clears up some of the more wild misconceptions about Liberty and other ultra right-wing schools.
But there is no question that the discipline codes come out of a Puritan era and are simply out of step. Even students at military academies have more freedom both on and off-campus than "fundies." Consider the following -- I'm not making these up:
It didn't come quite out as Roose expected. He says that in the end, when he finally fessed up to his fellow students about his ruse, they actually were quite understanding and forgave him. The book clears up some of the more wild misconceptions about Liberty and other ultra right-wing schools.
But there is no question that the discipline codes come out of a Puritan era and are simply out of step. Even students at military academies have more freedom both on and off-campus than "fundies." Consider the following -- I'm not making these up:
- Possession and/or use of tobacco: 6 reprimands + $25 fine
- Improper personal contact (anything beyond hand-holding): 4 reprimands + $10 fine
- Attendance at, possession or viewing of, an R-rated movie: 12 reprimands + $50 fine
- Spending the night with a person of the opposite sex: 30 reprimands + $500 fine + 30 hours community service
This is truly Bible Boot Camp, to be sure -- and some students are of the kind where they are saving not just sex for marriage, but their first kiss; some men who have no knowledge of the female anatomy and some women who are way too devout. Others, thank God, are far less sheltered.
But everyone does have to take the mandatory Bible courses -- from the Falwell perspective. And courses in creationism, including whether Noah's Ark was big enough to hold the dinosaurs. (One presumes the correct answer on the test was "true," although if one takes the ark's measurements literally it would have been far smaller than the size of a World War II aircraft carrier.)
It's an interesting book, but it does shed light on the fact evangelicalism is a growing force among young people.
And while quite a few evangelicals did vote for Obama last fall (bolstered by a large chunk of the youth vote), four times as many still voted for McCain despite their misgivings about how "Republican" the Senator from Arizona is. The movement not going away any time soon ...
... and it is growing in Canada as well. Graduates of both accredited and unaccredited "divinity" programs are dominating the airwaves more and more, and selling a brand of politics quite at odds with the social consensus that has held Canada together for the past forty years. The conclusion is that we progressives need to sort out which of the evangelicals share our values and co-opt them to "spread the word" about social justice and shared values, before it's too late.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
WaPo shutters book section
A couple of months back, the highly regarded Christian Science Monitor announced they were ending their daily print format and switching to a weekly news magazine with updated online content. Now, WaPo is ending their standalone book review section, Book World, and moving the content to other sections in the paper. That leaves the NYT and the San Francisco Chronicle with the only widely read book review sections left in the US.
The Fourth Estate is dying the death it so richly deserves.
But canning book review sections is a lousy way to save costs while bailing out of the storm. How do we expect people to think when the crisis is over? As for the CS Monitor, it also had great editorial content as well as pointed book and movie reviews -- changing to a weekly format debases its credibility and doesn't leave much room for those reviews.
All hail, Web 2.x!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The Fourth Estate is dying the death it so richly deserves.
But canning book review sections is a lousy way to save costs while bailing out of the storm. How do we expect people to think when the crisis is over? As for the CS Monitor, it also had great editorial content as well as pointed book and movie reviews -- changing to a weekly format debases its credibility and doesn't leave much room for those reviews.
All hail, Web 2.x!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Cafés: Another canary in the economic coalmine
Ah, France. The verdant fields covered with vineyards, wheat, and cattle. The castles and churches. And in the cities, culture as vibrant as the countryside. Especially those cafés and bistros.
About 78% fewer cafés now than in 1960, according to an article in today's print edition of the NYT. From a peak of 200,000 there are only about 44,000 left. And the current slump has put the remaining shops on tenterhooks. It's gotten so bad that some shops have dropped the price for coffee down to just €1 (about $1.25 US) -- and still no one's buying. And we're not talking about corporate giants like Starbucks ™ or McDonalds ™ but mom and pop shops, the independent places that give both town and country their unique characters, not to mention the numerous neighbourhoods in Paris. It's not just France. Across the EU, and here in North America, some long time favourites have disappeared in favour of cookie cutter establishments and even they're in trouble.
Not that I have a vendetta against Starbucks, but when was the last time you saw a struggling artist perform there?
How truly sad that when times are tough, many of the places where the greatest ideas are fostered are the first to go. Theatres, art movie houses, nightclubs. It makes one wonder if while the right may have lost the battle of economic ideas they have won the war on culture.
The greatest acts of our time got their start in nightclubs and busking on the streets. Then some idiots thought we'd rather listen to boy and girl bands and gave DJs the shakedown to make sure they got airplay and the music industry was turned totally upside down. Imagine how much better, more wholesome, more innovative, the music industry would be if we never heard of Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, the Spice Girls, Michael Bublé (yes, him -- it's my right not to like his music any more than I don't like Don Cherry's Saturday night rantings) and instead we heard more of the independents.
And of course, let's not forget, the first installment of the most successful books of our time, Harry Potter, was mostly written in a coffee shop in Edinburgh.
No, I'm not arguing for mass subsidies for the small guy. What I am saying is that people should every so often try one of the little guys rather than just going to Timmy's or Dunkin or Starbucks by habit. If they're not able to survive, then there isn't much chance for other small retail outlets either.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
About 78% fewer cafés now than in 1960, according to an article in today's print edition of the NYT. From a peak of 200,000 there are only about 44,000 left. And the current slump has put the remaining shops on tenterhooks. It's gotten so bad that some shops have dropped the price for coffee down to just €1 (about $1.25 US) -- and still no one's buying. And we're not talking about corporate giants like Starbucks ™ or McDonalds ™ but mom and pop shops, the independent places that give both town and country their unique characters, not to mention the numerous neighbourhoods in Paris. It's not just France. Across the EU, and here in North America, some long time favourites have disappeared in favour of cookie cutter establishments and even they're in trouble.
Not that I have a vendetta against Starbucks, but when was the last time you saw a struggling artist perform there?
How truly sad that when times are tough, many of the places where the greatest ideas are fostered are the first to go. Theatres, art movie houses, nightclubs. It makes one wonder if while the right may have lost the battle of economic ideas they have won the war on culture.
The greatest acts of our time got their start in nightclubs and busking on the streets. Then some idiots thought we'd rather listen to boy and girl bands and gave DJs the shakedown to make sure they got airplay and the music industry was turned totally upside down. Imagine how much better, more wholesome, more innovative, the music industry would be if we never heard of Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, the Spice Girls, Michael Bublé (yes, him -- it's my right not to like his music any more than I don't like Don Cherry's Saturday night rantings) and instead we heard more of the independents.
And of course, let's not forget, the first installment of the most successful books of our time, Harry Potter, was mostly written in a coffee shop in Edinburgh.
No, I'm not arguing for mass subsidies for the small guy. What I am saying is that people should every so often try one of the little guys rather than just going to Timmy's or Dunkin or Starbucks by habit. If they're not able to survive, then there isn't much chance for other small retail outlets either.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Banned Books Week 2008
It's that time of year again -- Banned Books Week. It actually starts on September 27th and runs to October 4th. According to the American Library Association, more than 400 books were declared morally objectionable by various interests, some from the left (to be fair) but the vast majority from the right. here are the top ten most challenged books for the last year, 2007:
10: The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky.
9: It's Perfectly Normal, by Robert Harris.
8: I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou.
7: TTYL, by Lauren Maracle.
6: The Color Purple, by Alice Walker.
5: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain.
4: The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman.
3: Olive's Ocean, by Kevin Henkes.
2: The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier.
1: And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell.
When we ban books, we suppress the imagination. We tell children they don't need an imagination, just their Bibles and their preachers who misinterpret them. It's time to say enough is enough and to vote out politicians who are against books and the arts and stop lining the pockets of those who support censorship in all its forms.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
10: The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky.
9: It's Perfectly Normal, by Robert Harris.
8: I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou.
7: TTYL, by Lauren Maracle.
6: The Color Purple, by Alice Walker.
5: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain.
4: The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman.
3: Olive's Ocean, by Kevin Henkes.
2: The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier.
1: And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell.
When we ban books, we suppress the imagination. We tell children they don't need an imagination, just their Bibles and their preachers who misinterpret them. It's time to say enough is enough and to vote out politicians who are against books and the arts and stop lining the pockets of those who support censorship in all its forms.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
In memoriam: Aleksandr Solzhenistyn
If you've read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich or The Gulag Archipelago, then you know who Aleksandr Solzhenistyn was. Along with the late Andrei Sakharov, he spoke out defiantly about the Soviet Union's system of dealing with dissidents. For a time, Solzhenistyn was stripped of his Soviet citizenship for his beliefs and he lived in exile in the States; it was only in 1990 that he was "rehabilitated" under Gorbachev's glasnost policies and permitted to return to his homeland, which he did in 1994. At home, he was one of the few allowed to open criticize what Russian "democracy" had evolved into, which is really the rule of the oligarchs.
To be fair, he was also rather a superpatriot, defending the Russian Orthodox Church's ability to stop evangelicals from entering the country and could also be accused of a certain amount of anti-Semitism. However, he was also absolutely right to condemn the West for its complacency in a changing world; that its demise could very well come through its arrogance and not because of a rise in Communism or terrorism.
Mr. Solzhenistyn died today outside of Moscow at the age of 89. He was the oldest Nobel laureate in the Literature category. The world of the printed word is quite empty without him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
To be fair, he was also rather a superpatriot, defending the Russian Orthodox Church's ability to stop evangelicals from entering the country and could also be accused of a certain amount of anti-Semitism. However, he was also absolutely right to condemn the West for its complacency in a changing world; that its demise could very well come through its arrogance and not because of a rise in Communism or terrorism.
Mr. Solzhenistyn died today outside of Moscow at the age of 89. He was the oldest Nobel laureate in the Literature category. The world of the printed word is quite empty without him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Canada Day: A cute short story
It's Canada Day CXLI, or as it's known in Québec, Moving Day. In honour of the occasion, I offer this link to one of my favourite short stories from elementary school, Patrick Waddington's The Street that Got Mislaid. Is it possible such missing lanes still exist in Montréal or the other great cities and towns in this great land of ours we call Canada? I wouldn't deny the possibility.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
So what if Dumbledore was gay?
The religious right seems to have worked itself up into a lather over the bombshell last week from J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, where she stated matter of fact that one of the protagonists -- Albus Dumbledore -- was gay. On top of their already hating Potter for promoting Satanism (which Rowling clearly debunked in Deathly Hallows, where it became quite clear that the Three Musketeers were Christians all along), this must have been more ammunition in their cause to censor everything they don't like.
But what seems to have been lost is an important point: Yes, Dumbledore was gay; but he took his responsibilities seriously and his powers responsibly. And while he spent most of his career working with children and teenagers, he never abused them and did not tolerate professors under his command who even tried. So many on the right -- and even on the left -- want to make the connection between homosexuality and child abuse. And the link is not and has never been there. Most child abusers are heterosexual, not homosexual. And child abuse comes in many forms -- even the mental cruelty and manipulation that so many suffer, like Harry did at the hands of his aunt and uncle who were very straight.
So what if the headmaster was gay? Just because I'm personally opposed to gay marriage doesn't mean I try to avoid gay and lesbian couples or people who I know to be homosexual -- I work with them, go to dinner with them and get along with them just as with straight people. It's the proper thing to do. It's time we all got along because we've seen what happens when we try to divide people like the religious right wants. As Rowling wrote in Goblet of Fire, "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." [p. 627, UK edition]
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But what seems to have been lost is an important point: Yes, Dumbledore was gay; but he took his responsibilities seriously and his powers responsibly. And while he spent most of his career working with children and teenagers, he never abused them and did not tolerate professors under his command who even tried. So many on the right -- and even on the left -- want to make the connection between homosexuality and child abuse. And the link is not and has never been there. Most child abusers are heterosexual, not homosexual. And child abuse comes in many forms -- even the mental cruelty and manipulation that so many suffer, like Harry did at the hands of his aunt and uncle who were very straight.
So what if the headmaster was gay? Just because I'm personally opposed to gay marriage doesn't mean I try to avoid gay and lesbian couples or people who I know to be homosexual -- I work with them, go to dinner with them and get along with them just as with straight people. It's the proper thing to do. It's time we all got along because we've seen what happens when we try to divide people like the religious right wants. As Rowling wrote in Goblet of Fire, "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." [p. 627, UK edition]
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Words of hope for Burma
As the Burmese butchers try everything they can to put down the Saffron Revolution, including concocting reports of a so-called "pro government" rally, I offer these words of hope to the people in Burma -- in the hopes that somehow, their filters will miss this and other blogs. The words come from a couple of lines in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:
"Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realise that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises up against them and strikes back!" (UK edition, p. 477)
So, once again, along with all other decent people in the outside world, we ask nothing more than for the leadership in Burma to lay down their arms, peacefully; and allow Daw Aung Sung Suu Kyi to take her rightful place as Prime Minister. If not -- I pray God strikes the junta down before someone else does.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
"Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realise that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises up against them and strikes back!" (UK edition, p. 477)
So, once again, along with all other decent people in the outside world, we ask nothing more than for the leadership in Burma to lay down their arms, peacefully; and allow Daw Aung Sung Suu Kyi to take her rightful place as Prime Minister. If not -- I pray God strikes the junta down before someone else does.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Tehran upset Rushdie knighted
So the Iranian government is upset that Queen Elizabeth II has decided to knight Salman Rushdie in the "June list."
Tought noogies, Tehran. It's the decision of the Firm, not the Guardians. He was bound to get the honour sooner or later. The only two surprises were a) J.K. Rowling still hasn't been knighted herself although she deserved to be a long time ago; and b) Rushdie received the title from the Queen -- and not the Prime Minister in his annual "Christmas list."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tought noogies, Tehran. It's the decision of the Firm, not the Guardians. He was bound to get the honour sooner or later. The only two surprises were a) J.K. Rowling still hasn't been knighted herself although she deserved to be a long time ago; and b) Rushdie received the title from the Queen -- and not the Prime Minister in his annual "Christmas list."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
In memoriam: Kurt Vonnegut Jr. 1922-2007
You either loved him or you hated him, but there's no doubt Kurt Vonnegut Jr. -- author, social commentator, comedian, actor -- was a huge influence to the baby boomers and Generation X (the latter of which I belong to). The world does feel a lot emptier without him this morning.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
OJ, still vindictive wife abuser
Some new information has come out today about what was in OJ Simpson's ill-fated book, If I Did It. In a chapter that Newsweek managed to obtain, Mr. Simpson now says that "if" he did it, there was an accomplice that he names "Charlie" -- which is interesting, since the Los Angeles District Attorney at the time totally dismissed out of hand that there was any second suspect in the case. According to Simpson, Charlie was actually an unwilling aide to the fact and begged OJ to stop. There are also some interesting details about the bloody socks and why there were no other clothes, the racket that woke up Brian "Kato" Kaelin, and something else significant -- that Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown's pal (and who was actually returning the glasses of Nicole's mother, not Nicole's as has always been reported), tried to save her life and even threatened to use karate on OJ.
What's more alarming is that Simpson uses the language of a classic wife abuser, always denying responsibility, always blaming his victim -- Nicole -- for being responsible for provoking the attacks. He's especially angry with her repeatedly committing adultery, although if even half of what is said about his treatment of her is true, her dalliances would have been completely justifiable. I think all of us remember that 911 call where OJ broke into Nicole's home and was shouting at her in violation of a court order (and how it took nearly a minute for the dispatcher to realize that "OJ" was the same one as the football player / broadcaster / actor / comedian, wasting precious moments for the police to break it up). I also remember one piece of evidence introduced where OJ complained to Nicole about filing a joint income tax return when their divorce had long been finalized -- dated less than a week before the murder.
Was that the motive for the murder, financial irregularities? Or the fact that she was at the wrong end of a drug deal gone terribly wrong (there was evidence she was experimenting with hard drugs)? Or the fact that he directly accused Ron Goldman of being there for the specific purpose of having an affair with Nicole? And, if what OJ is saying about Goldman standing up for both himself and Nicole is in fact true, then Goldman comes out as a true hero. Further, if the account is true, Goldman and Kato were at least acquaintances because Kato waved at the former before leaving the scene -- and immediately before the murders.
It's not just that OJ wrote the book that bothers me (why that is I explained here). What bothers me is his overall attitude towards women in general. I don't think it's the football that conditioned him to hate women, rather his sense that he was entitled to his entitlements. He felt he had paid his dues to society (or rather, society owed him because of his multiple talents) and here was this woman who wanted to expose him for the creep he really was. So what if she wanted to sleep with Goldman? Nicole and OJ were no longer married, therefore it was no longer OJ's business even if she was the mother of their children.
The scary part? Now that the publishing rights have been returned to Simpson, he's free to publish the book again -- even self-publish it if he chooses (and it's not that expensive anymore, hasn't been for sometime with a good office suite). He set up a trust for his kids specifically so the Brown and Goldman families don't get a penny. And all the while, he's free to pontificate his repulsive attitudes about the female half.
No doubt he's a very talented guy in every other respect. He had a major role in the seminal miniseries Roots, and is such a good actor he was actually considered for the title role in The Terminator. Not to mention his broad knowledge of the game that made him famous.
That's no excuse, however, for his revolting behaviour off the field. It's irrelevant if he "did it" or not. The fact is he has a rap sheet for his abuse. For that reason, and that reason alone, he should be avoided like the plague.
UPDATE (7:09 PM EST, 0009 Monday GMT): You're absolutely right, Justin. It was Ron, not Brian. I've edited accordingly.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
What's more alarming is that Simpson uses the language of a classic wife abuser, always denying responsibility, always blaming his victim -- Nicole -- for being responsible for provoking the attacks. He's especially angry with her repeatedly committing adultery, although if even half of what is said about his treatment of her is true, her dalliances would have been completely justifiable. I think all of us remember that 911 call where OJ broke into Nicole's home and was shouting at her in violation of a court order (and how it took nearly a minute for the dispatcher to realize that "OJ" was the same one as the football player / broadcaster / actor / comedian, wasting precious moments for the police to break it up). I also remember one piece of evidence introduced where OJ complained to Nicole about filing a joint income tax return when their divorce had long been finalized -- dated less than a week before the murder.
Was that the motive for the murder, financial irregularities? Or the fact that she was at the wrong end of a drug deal gone terribly wrong (there was evidence she was experimenting with hard drugs)? Or the fact that he directly accused Ron Goldman of being there for the specific purpose of having an affair with Nicole? And, if what OJ is saying about Goldman standing up for both himself and Nicole is in fact true, then Goldman comes out as a true hero. Further, if the account is true, Goldman and Kato were at least acquaintances because Kato waved at the former before leaving the scene -- and immediately before the murders.
It's not just that OJ wrote the book that bothers me (why that is I explained here). What bothers me is his overall attitude towards women in general. I don't think it's the football that conditioned him to hate women, rather his sense that he was entitled to his entitlements. He felt he had paid his dues to society (or rather, society owed him because of his multiple talents) and here was this woman who wanted to expose him for the creep he really was. So what if she wanted to sleep with Goldman? Nicole and OJ were no longer married, therefore it was no longer OJ's business even if she was the mother of their children.
The scary part? Now that the publishing rights have been returned to Simpson, he's free to publish the book again -- even self-publish it if he chooses (and it's not that expensive anymore, hasn't been for sometime with a good office suite). He set up a trust for his kids specifically so the Brown and Goldman families don't get a penny. And all the while, he's free to pontificate his repulsive attitudes about the female half.
No doubt he's a very talented guy in every other respect. He had a major role in the seminal miniseries Roots, and is such a good actor he was actually considered for the title role in The Terminator. Not to mention his broad knowledge of the game that made him famous.
That's no excuse, however, for his revolting behaviour off the field. It's irrelevant if he "did it" or not. The fact is he has a rap sheet for his abuse. For that reason, and that reason alone, he should be avoided like the plague.
UPDATE (7:09 PM EST, 0009 Monday GMT): You're absolutely right, Justin. It was Ron, not Brian. I've edited accordingly.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Accredit foreign workers now
In the effort to build a more progressive society where everyone plays an equal part -- not one where the working and middle classes serve the upper echelons -- one group is often marginalized: Immigrant, skilled workers who are forced to drive taxis or flip burgers because their foreign credentials aren't recognized. This applies to both people who have full documentation of their skills as well as those who don't have them because they were "left behind" while running from the authorities.
This lack of justice has been a problem that's been going on for decades, but with a greater percentage of the immigrants coming from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia it has only gotten worse. What's even more bizarre is that accrediting authorities don't even want to talk to these people, they have a vested interest in "protecting" those who are already members and don't want "outsiders" from joining the club.
The problem is those immigrants came to Canada on the specific promise their skills would be recognized. By not doing so, we're breaking faith. And, as a consequence, possibly creating another terrorist within our midst.
Today's decision by the Ontario Superior Court in one such case is a step in the right direction. A teacher from Iran who escaped persecution (specifically, because she had the chutzpah to have her class debate the merits of The Satanic Verses) sued the Ontario Teachers' College saying it wouldn't even allow her to take the necessary examinations to become a licenced teacher in the province. The court said that the College discriminated against Fatima Siadit.
She's just one. We've all met the engineer / taxi driver at some point in our lives, or the physician / janitor, and so forth. What is it with Canada that this discrimination continues? We cry about a shortage of skilled labour, yet most of it is right here and ready to go at a second's notice.
For God's sake, just let them take the examinations. They're written in English or French so that should weed out ... well, nobody. If language proficiency is an issue, add the demand they take the TOEFL or the TFI in French (with additional testing to prove spoken proficiency and not merely they've been "taught to the test"), but that's it. We could easily drop the unemployment rate a full percentage point, and raise income tax revenues substantially, by ending this discrimination. If those who run the law societies and medical colleges and so forth resist, let them be stripped of their credentials and forced to push brooms so they feel what it's like.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
This lack of justice has been a problem that's been going on for decades, but with a greater percentage of the immigrants coming from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia it has only gotten worse. What's even more bizarre is that accrediting authorities don't even want to talk to these people, they have a vested interest in "protecting" those who are already members and don't want "outsiders" from joining the club.
The problem is those immigrants came to Canada on the specific promise their skills would be recognized. By not doing so, we're breaking faith. And, as a consequence, possibly creating another terrorist within our midst.
Today's decision by the Ontario Superior Court in one such case is a step in the right direction. A teacher from Iran who escaped persecution (specifically, because she had the chutzpah to have her class debate the merits of The Satanic Verses) sued the Ontario Teachers' College saying it wouldn't even allow her to take the necessary examinations to become a licenced teacher in the province. The court said that the College discriminated against Fatima Siadit.
She's just one. We've all met the engineer / taxi driver at some point in our lives, or the physician / janitor, and so forth. What is it with Canada that this discrimination continues? We cry about a shortage of skilled labour, yet most of it is right here and ready to go at a second's notice.
For God's sake, just let them take the examinations. They're written in English or French so that should weed out ... well, nobody. If language proficiency is an issue, add the demand they take the TOEFL or the TFI in French (with additional testing to prove spoken proficiency and not merely they've been "taught to the test"), but that's it. We could easily drop the unemployment rate a full percentage point, and raise income tax revenues substantially, by ending this discrimination. If those who run the law societies and medical colleges and so forth resist, let them be stripped of their credentials and forced to push brooms so they feel what it's like.
To vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, November 20, 2006
At long last, Rupert Murdoch admits he was wrong about something
That something, of course, was the proposed book and Fox TV special, If I Did It, by Orenthal James Simpson. After over two dozen affiliates of the Fox network said they were not going to air the show and at least one book store chain said they had no intention of stockng the book on its shelves, Murdoch the self-proclaimed "billionaire tyrant" was forced to retract the concept and pulled the plug; offering a written apology to the Goldman and Brown families.
Frankly, I don't know if OJ did it or not. I lean towards not. But, that's not the point. The point here was a guy who wrote a book imagining how he might have done it. This isn't a mystery novel we're talking about. These are two real life people whose lives were cut down. They were friends ... they possibly might have had a special relationship, or just good buddies. Nicole Brown was by no means perfect (from some contemporary accounts at the time she fell in with the drug crowd), but she was also just trying to get on with her life after a pretty rocky marriage with the Juice. As for Ronald Goldman, he was totally innocent. All he was trying to do was return a pair of glasses that Nicole had left behind at a restaurant.
The criminal trial was a total disaster. Few if any remember the judges who presided over the trials of Charles Manson, Sam Berkowitz or Ted Bundy. But everyone still remembers Lance Ito; whose own wife got dragged into the sordid affair when the lead investigator, Mark Fuhrman, made some rather nasty remarks about her. In the end, Simpson got acquitted not because of his stellar legal team or the glove that didn't fit, but because the jury -- after meeting for just four hours -- were convinced his limo driver got his timing wrong about when he picked up OJ the next day. I guess that counts for reasonable doubt, but I don't think anyone thought he was going to be acquitted -- whether he was truly culpable or not.
We all know about the civil trial so I won't retread that. But here's what it comes down to. Any responsible person who was truly innocent would not exploit the murders of those he or she was accused of killing. After vindication, one would sue the government for malicious prosecution and spare no effort to find the real killers; or at least keep reminding people there was still a cold case. OJ didn't sue the LAPD, or the LA District Attorney; even though both dealt with evidence that was in part tampered with. He instead hit the golf course -- and by law his NFL pension of $25,000 a month is protected from the civil damage award levied against him. He'll only ever have to pay if he wins the jackpot in a lottery or casino and he's not that stupid.
Compare that to, say, Guy Paul Morin. After ten years, he was finally cleared of wrongdoing and eventually settled out of court for his legal expenses. The inquiry that followed revealed the cops to be truly inept in their investigation. He still appears occasionally to remind us all that the real killer of Christine Jessop is still out there. He's a real gentleman.
And for once, Rupert has proven he is one too. He actually just one time listened to the outrage of both conservatives and progressives and decided enough is enough.
OJ is not. Even if he's innocent, one doesn't just imagine how he would have killed two people. He would instead "work the refs" and try to get to the bottom of what really happened. The fact he hasn't tells me he is a freak, and people should treat him as such.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Frankly, I don't know if OJ did it or not. I lean towards not. But, that's not the point. The point here was a guy who wrote a book imagining how he might have done it. This isn't a mystery novel we're talking about. These are two real life people whose lives were cut down. They were friends ... they possibly might have had a special relationship, or just good buddies. Nicole Brown was by no means perfect (from some contemporary accounts at the time she fell in with the drug crowd), but she was also just trying to get on with her life after a pretty rocky marriage with the Juice. As for Ronald Goldman, he was totally innocent. All he was trying to do was return a pair of glasses that Nicole had left behind at a restaurant.
The criminal trial was a total disaster. Few if any remember the judges who presided over the trials of Charles Manson, Sam Berkowitz or Ted Bundy. But everyone still remembers Lance Ito; whose own wife got dragged into the sordid affair when the lead investigator, Mark Fuhrman, made some rather nasty remarks about her. In the end, Simpson got acquitted not because of his stellar legal team or the glove that didn't fit, but because the jury -- after meeting for just four hours -- were convinced his limo driver got his timing wrong about when he picked up OJ the next day. I guess that counts for reasonable doubt, but I don't think anyone thought he was going to be acquitted -- whether he was truly culpable or not.
We all know about the civil trial so I won't retread that. But here's what it comes down to. Any responsible person who was truly innocent would not exploit the murders of those he or she was accused of killing. After vindication, one would sue the government for malicious prosecution and spare no effort to find the real killers; or at least keep reminding people there was still a cold case. OJ didn't sue the LAPD, or the LA District Attorney; even though both dealt with evidence that was in part tampered with. He instead hit the golf course -- and by law his NFL pension of $25,000 a month is protected from the civil damage award levied against him. He'll only ever have to pay if he wins the jackpot in a lottery or casino and he's not that stupid.
Compare that to, say, Guy Paul Morin. After ten years, he was finally cleared of wrongdoing and eventually settled out of court for his legal expenses. The inquiry that followed revealed the cops to be truly inept in their investigation. He still appears occasionally to remind us all that the real killer of Christine Jessop is still out there. He's a real gentleman.
And for once, Rupert has proven he is one too. He actually just one time listened to the outrage of both conservatives and progressives and decided enough is enough.
OJ is not. Even if he's innocent, one doesn't just imagine how he would have killed two people. He would instead "work the refs" and try to get to the bottom of what really happened. The fact he hasn't tells me he is a freak, and people should treat him as such.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
2006 Nobel Prize for Literature
... goes to Orhan Pamuk of Turkey, who in the words of the Nobel committee, "in the quest for the melancholic soul of his native city has discovered new symbols for the clash and interlacing of cultures."
Say what???
Say what???
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Banned Books Week 2006
It's that time of year again, when the American Library Association stands up to the religious right and announces which books have been "challenged" the most -- in other words, which books parents or ministers want to have removed for not "comporting with family values."
The top ten list for this year:
1. Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling
2. "The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier
3. Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
4. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck
5. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou
6. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris
8. Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz
9. Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey
10. "Forever" by Judy Blume
Not on the Top Ten list but also frequently cited is another Blume tome, "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" -- a wrenching book about child abuse, as Angelou's "Caged" is; as well as "To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, about a black man who is framed for raping a white woman who in fact was abused by her own father. I guess most of the parents who try to get it pulled are abusing their kids or support chid abuse; and the rest want to make sure their kids blame themselves when it happens to them.
It's no worse here in Canada, where Mockingbird and Merchant of Venice have been banned from the cirriculuum of high schools. Also not seen in many high schools is W.O. Mitchell's
"Who Has Seen the Wind," redacted for its racial overtones. So the hypocrisy exists on both the left and the right.
For what it's worth, Joanne K Rowling, the author of the Potter series, said yesterday she considers being targeted like that a badge of honour. The other authors, I'm sure, would too ... because it ensures people will read those books and even buy them. The free flow of ideas is essential to democracy, and it just makes me mad that parents' groups oppose the very reason why there is a First Amendment (or the equivalent in democratic countries other than the US). So the next time I drive by a book burning session, I'm going to dump the Bible in there too just to give them a taste of their own medicine -- after all, the Scriptures also mentions rapes, child abuse, ritualistic killings, and making bets with Satan.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
The top ten list for this year:
1. Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling
2. "The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier
3. Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
4. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck
5. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou
6. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris
8. Scary Stories series by Alvin Schwartz
9. Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey
10. "Forever" by Judy Blume
Not on the Top Ten list but also frequently cited is another Blume tome, "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" -- a wrenching book about child abuse, as Angelou's "Caged" is; as well as "To Kill A Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, about a black man who is framed for raping a white woman who in fact was abused by her own father. I guess most of the parents who try to get it pulled are abusing their kids or support chid abuse; and the rest want to make sure their kids blame themselves when it happens to them.
It's no worse here in Canada, where Mockingbird and Merchant of Venice have been banned from the cirriculuum of high schools. Also not seen in many high schools is W.O. Mitchell's
"Who Has Seen the Wind," redacted for its racial overtones. So the hypocrisy exists on both the left and the right.
For what it's worth, Joanne K Rowling, the author of the Potter series, said yesterday she considers being targeted like that a badge of honour. The other authors, I'm sure, would too ... because it ensures people will read those books and even buy them. The free flow of ideas is essential to democracy, and it just makes me mad that parents' groups oppose the very reason why there is a First Amendment (or the equivalent in democratic countries other than the US). So the next time I drive by a book burning session, I'm going to dump the Bible in there too just to give them a taste of their own medicine -- after all, the Scriptures also mentions rapes, child abuse, ritualistic killings, and making bets with Satan.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Book review of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"
Sometime yesterday, I reached 20,000 hits on this blog. That's in less than 14 months, and I have to admit even I'm surprised. I'm probably never going to be near what the big guys get on a daily basis, but I'm still satisfied, and I want to say thank you to all my readers.
I just finished reading Alexandra Kitty's book "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" -- about how the Fox News Channel has single-handedly destroyed the principles of responsible journalism, to the point where even respectable mainstream media outlets are now following its tactics, in an attempt to catch up. This is both an expanded version of Robert Greenwald's documentary of the same name; as well as a focused analysis based on Alexandra's previous book, "Don't Believe It!" which I reviewed last year. (I also explain there why I refer to the author by her first name.) Both books are by the Disinformation Company.
This book was published about a year ago, but not much has changed in the world to deflect from Alexandra's criticism. She begins by focusing on how self-described "billionaire tyrant" Rupert Murdoch took over a bunch of stations owned by Metromedia, which along with some other stations was the launching ground for the Fox Broadcasting Company -- or what we now simply call Fox TV. About a year later, Murdoch set his sights on the Washington DC affiliate, WTTG. It was one of the most respected independent TV stations in the country, and had long dominated the ratings in DC with a first-class newscast shown at -- horrors! -- 10 PM. But all that changed one night in August 1988, when in the middle of the newscast they got orders from "head office" to interrupt their newscast and carry the Republican National Convention, which at that moment was showing a fauning tribute (read: propaganda film) about the life and career of Ronald Reagan who was retiring at the end of the year. The news staff at the station, which had long taken pride in their independence, went ballistic but realized they had no choice. From there, it went downhill -- many nights, they were running entire segments from A Current Affair with Maury Povich and presented them as "legitimate" news stories.
(How well do we remember that show. So much was Rupert against West and East Germany reuniting that the night it finally happened -- October 3, 1990 -- ACA ran a story called The Rise of the Fourth Reich.)
He pretty much did the same with other stations in his company, until they fit his neo-conservative, "Democrats are commie pieces of shit" Weltenshaung. It was at this point that he was ready to launch Fox News -- and all hell broke loose.
There are way too many examples that Alexandra cites to count. But there are a few points that underline her thesis:
Alexandra also takes a critical look at many of its personalities, but she saves her harshest criticism -- quite rightly -- for former schoolteacher and Inside Edition alumnus Bill O'Reilly. In fact, two or three entire chapters are reserved for the King of Mean. Apart from his inaccuracies and distortions -- which he always weasels himself out off -- he says "Shut up!", "Like" and "Okay" so many times one could mistake him for any Valley Girl, let alone Moon Unit Zappa. Even when someone does smack him down, he finds a way of fighting back -- and is considered an urban hero. But deep down, Alexandra implicitly suggests O'Reilly is very close to being a sociopath; and his reaction to his infamous interview with Jeremy Glick, the son of one of the 9/11 victims (Glick finally managed to crack the code meet O'Reilly tit for tat after numerous previous guests had stumbled ) as well as Canada's initial resistance to allowing Fox News to be shown in Canada (which had to do with content regulations and not Chrétien's vendetta against Dubya -- content regulations which were later dropped) demonstrates how vulnerable Ted Baxter truly is. Alexandra even says that Billo's antics are the subject of a popular and actual parlour game -- so many drinks for whatever nuances, and soon one passes out from having one too many.
It's long been no secret that, despite its denials, Fox News is the official organ of the Republican National Committee. Alexandra concludes by talking about how the media has to get its spine again -- and to take on Fox for its usually inaccurate portrayal of the world. She brings up a lot of numbers, but the most fascinating one is this: The infamous question about whether Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were in bed together. Among Fox viewers, 78% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats think there was a link. Among those whose main source of news is from Jim Lehrer's Newshour on PBS and/or National Public Radio, 50% of Republicans and zero percent Democrats saw the link. (And NPR, which was around long before Fox, has a reputation for impartiality which is much higher than the CBC and nearly as good as the BBC -- so even the smart Republicans knew Team Fox was full of hooey.)
Long story short, this second book from Alexandra is another clarion call for the basics of responsible and printable journalism. Without the sleaze, the vindictive -- and definitely without the whoosh. But in a couple of places, she does overdo it after having proven her point -- so I give it four and half out of five stars. Definitely worth buying.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Linda
17/08/2006 1:21:04 AM
(http://gypsyscreativegetaway.spaces.live.com/)
Congratulations on your hits! 'Build it and they will come!'
Just moved digs over the month of July so have been out of commission for awhile.
Looks a little different around here since Windows went Live on your space too!
I like the green paint job! LOL! Take care and keep on poli-ticking!
I just finished reading Alexandra Kitty's book "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" -- about how the Fox News Channel has single-handedly destroyed the principles of responsible journalism, to the point where even respectable mainstream media outlets are now following its tactics, in an attempt to catch up. This is both an expanded version of Robert Greenwald's documentary of the same name; as well as a focused analysis based on Alexandra's previous book, "Don't Believe It!" which I reviewed last year. (I also explain there why I refer to the author by her first name.) Both books are by the Disinformation Company.
This book was published about a year ago, but not much has changed in the world to deflect from Alexandra's criticism. She begins by focusing on how self-described "billionaire tyrant" Rupert Murdoch took over a bunch of stations owned by Metromedia, which along with some other stations was the launching ground for the Fox Broadcasting Company -- or what we now simply call Fox TV. About a year later, Murdoch set his sights on the Washington DC affiliate, WTTG. It was one of the most respected independent TV stations in the country, and had long dominated the ratings in DC with a first-class newscast shown at -- horrors! -- 10 PM. But all that changed one night in August 1988, when in the middle of the newscast they got orders from "head office" to interrupt their newscast and carry the Republican National Convention, which at that moment was showing a fauning tribute (read: propaganda film) about the life and career of Ronald Reagan who was retiring at the end of the year. The news staff at the station, which had long taken pride in their independence, went ballistic but realized they had no choice. From there, it went downhill -- many nights, they were running entire segments from A Current Affair with Maury Povich and presented them as "legitimate" news stories.
(How well do we remember that show. So much was Rupert against West and East Germany reuniting that the night it finally happened -- October 3, 1990 -- ACA ran a story called The Rise of the Fourth Reich.)
He pretty much did the same with other stations in his company, until they fit his neo-conservative, "Democrats are commie pieces of shit" Weltenshaung. It was at this point that he was ready to launch Fox News -- and all hell broke loose.
There are way too many examples that Alexandra cites to count. But there are a few points that underline her thesis:
- Fox does very little original journalism. Much of it is cribbed from its competitors. What it is successful at is paring away the complicated stuff and making everything a sense of black vs white -- and it makes clear which is which.
- The network is hypocritical. On the one hand, it condemns violence on network television. But it has no trouble parading erotic film stars as news analysts.
- Nearly everything is turned into a "Fox News Alert," complete with so-called "Fair and Balanced" (i.e. Republican) talking points, and the mandatory whoosh that tells everyone this is important.
- Senior management tells its staff what the focus of the network's coverage will be for the day -- not the other way around, where journalists try to gather information for themselves.
- The economy is always Pollyanna positive, if one believes Neil Cavuto.
- Senior members of the staff are also hacks for the Republicans. John Ellis, a cousin of Dubya, make the Florida call in the 2000 election for Fox News -- and Tony Snow, a staffer for Shrub during his time as Governor of Texas, wound up at the network for a few years before being recalled to the White House. Coincidence? The author thinks not!
- There are only a handful of token Democrats who regularly appear on air -- Alan Colmes and Greta Van Susteren, for example. The rest are blatant sycophants for the Republican Party. Even many Democratic guests who are brought in for the sake of "balance" are the more moderate kind who tend to agree on many Republican talking points.
- The shows themselves, above and being bombastic, are also infomercials touting either the hosts' or their guests' latest books. Think of how many times we've seen Ann Coulter or Judge Kenneth Starr on Fox and you get the picture.
Alexandra also takes a critical look at many of its personalities, but she saves her harshest criticism -- quite rightly -- for former schoolteacher and Inside Edition alumnus Bill O'Reilly. In fact, two or three entire chapters are reserved for the King of Mean. Apart from his inaccuracies and distortions -- which he always weasels himself out off -- he says "Shut up!", "Like" and "Okay" so many times one could mistake him for any Valley Girl, let alone Moon Unit Zappa. Even when someone does smack him down, he finds a way of fighting back -- and is considered an urban hero. But deep down, Alexandra implicitly suggests O'Reilly is very close to being a sociopath; and his reaction to his infamous interview with Jeremy Glick, the son of one of the 9/11 victims (Glick finally managed to crack the code meet O'Reilly tit for tat after numerous previous guests had stumbled ) as well as Canada's initial resistance to allowing Fox News to be shown in Canada (which had to do with content regulations and not Chrétien's vendetta against Dubya -- content regulations which were later dropped) demonstrates how vulnerable Ted Baxter truly is. Alexandra even says that Billo's antics are the subject of a popular and actual parlour game -- so many drinks for whatever nuances, and soon one passes out from having one too many.
It's long been no secret that, despite its denials, Fox News is the official organ of the Republican National Committee. Alexandra concludes by talking about how the media has to get its spine again -- and to take on Fox for its usually inaccurate portrayal of the world. She brings up a lot of numbers, but the most fascinating one is this: The infamous question about whether Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were in bed together. Among Fox viewers, 78% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats think there was a link. Among those whose main source of news is from Jim Lehrer's Newshour on PBS and/or National Public Radio, 50% of Republicans and zero percent Democrats saw the link. (And NPR, which was around long before Fox, has a reputation for impartiality which is much higher than the CBC and nearly as good as the BBC -- so even the smart Republicans knew Team Fox was full of hooey.)
Long story short, this second book from Alexandra is another clarion call for the basics of responsible and printable journalism. Without the sleaze, the vindictive -- and definitely without the whoosh. But in a couple of places, she does overdo it after having proven her point -- so I give it four and half out of five stars. Definitely worth buying.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Linda
17/08/2006 1:21:04 AM
(http://gypsyscreativegetaway.spaces.live.com/)
Congratulations on your hits! 'Build it and they will come!'
Just moved digs over the month of July so have been out of commission for awhile.
Looks a little different around here since Windows went Live on your space too!
I like the green paint job! LOL! Take care and keep on poli-ticking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)