I was sent this email from Melody Berger. It looks like a great project. I just got done reading an interview with Bitch, from the music group Bitch & Animal, a Dialogic favorite!
-------------------------------------------------------
Hello!
My name is Melody Berger and I'm a senior majoring in Women's Studies at Temple University in Philadelphia. This past year I created a feminist magazine for teens/young women, and our first issue is online now!
Check it out:
F-Word
(and forward zee link like mad, por favor? linking is nice too...)
And, yes, as the subject line indicates... a couple of days ago the National Review featured the F-WORD on one of their blogs, with a little directive for everyone to get really pissed off about it. I feel validated as an activist now. :-)
Please help me spread the word!
Peace~
Melody
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Query: Seeking Opinions About Film
(I'm developing a film course and thinking about possible movies to be used in the course--here are some themes for classes and films I'm thinking about--I would appreciate any comments, suggestions or complaints--feel free to suggest films, new themes, or critical works. Its an introductory film course and I'm going to shape the course around lectures/clips about classics and showings of contemporary examples. What I want to do is give a sense of the development of cinema, its essential function as a profit-making venture, how it reflects social concerns and the basic ways of analysing the art of filmmaking. A third of the course would be about technique/art/business of filmmaking, a third about the genres of film, and third about the historical/social/political power of film. Any suggestion is appreciated, I've already incorporated some suggestions from my last query--thanks to those that responded.)
Cinematography:
Visions of Light: The Art of Cinematography Directed by Todd McCarthy. American Film Institute, 1992: 95 minutes. {Easily one of the best films I have ever seen about making films. A history of cinematography that is gripping and beautiful—as soon as it was over, I wanted to start from the beginning again.}
Comedy:
But I Am Cheerleader
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Groundhog’s Day
Office Space
Saved
Crime (Gangster):
Belly
City of God
Gangs of New York
The Godfather
Miller’s Crossing
Slam
Dialogue/Language:
The Coen Brothers Films
Cuckoo
I Heart Huckabees
Schizopolis
Digital Film and Special Effects:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Jurassic Park
Matrix
Sin City
Documentary:
Control Room
The Corporation
Dark Days
Dig!
Independent Media in a Time of War
Laramie Project
Metallica: Some Kind of Monster
Super Size Me
The Thin Blue Line
Weather Underground
Fantasy:
Being John Malkovich
Excalibur
Fight Club
King Arthur
Horror:
Exorcist
Night of the Living Dead
Scream
Silence of the Lambs
Military Film:
Apocalypse Now
Blackhawk Down
Three Kings
Troy
Narrative Structure:
Chicago
Memento
Pulp Fiction
Royal Tennenbaums
Run Lola Run
Science Fiction:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Bladerunner
Brazil
Starship Troopers
Social Realism:
Boys Don’t Cry
Boyz N the Hood
Do the Right Thing
Iron Jawed Angels
Matewan
Monsoon Wedding
Norma Rae
Teen (High School):
Breakfast Club
Dazed and Confused
Elephant
Foxfire
Over the Edge
Western:
American Cinema: The Western
Ballad of Little Jo
Dead Man
Skins
Unforgiven
Cinematography:
Visions of Light: The Art of Cinematography Directed by Todd McCarthy. American Film Institute, 1992: 95 minutes. {Easily one of the best films I have ever seen about making films. A history of cinematography that is gripping and beautiful—as soon as it was over, I wanted to start from the beginning again.}
Comedy:
But I Am Cheerleader
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Groundhog’s Day
Office Space
Saved
Crime (Gangster):
Belly
City of God
Gangs of New York
The Godfather
Miller’s Crossing
Slam
Dialogue/Language:
The Coen Brothers Films
Cuckoo
I Heart Huckabees
Schizopolis
Digital Film and Special Effects:
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Jurassic Park
Matrix
Sin City
Documentary:
Control Room
The Corporation
Dark Days
Dig!
Independent Media in a Time of War
Laramie Project
Metallica: Some Kind of Monster
Super Size Me
The Thin Blue Line
Weather Underground
Fantasy:
Being John Malkovich
Excalibur
Fight Club
King Arthur
Horror:
Exorcist
Night of the Living Dead
Scream
Silence of the Lambs
Military Film:
Apocalypse Now
Blackhawk Down
Three Kings
Troy
Narrative Structure:
Chicago
Memento
Pulp Fiction
Royal Tennenbaums
Run Lola Run
Science Fiction:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Bladerunner
Brazil
Starship Troopers
Social Realism:
Boys Don’t Cry
Boyz N the Hood
Do the Right Thing
Iron Jawed Angels
Matewan
Monsoon Wedding
Norma Rae
Teen (High School):
Breakfast Club
Dazed and Confused
Elephant
Foxfire
Over the Edge
Western:
American Cinema: The Western
Ballad of Little Jo
Dead Man
Skins
Unforgiven
The Scratchies
Finally a series of Blog awards that just might make a little bit of sense. Vote for your favorites:
The Scratchies
The Scratchies
What is a Muckraker?
What is a Muckraker?
Eric Schlosser: The Fine Art of Muckraking
Fast Food Nation and McDonaldization
Michelle Leder: How the Other Half Banks
Kembrew Mcleod: Freedom of Expression
Rebecca Solnit: The Silence of the Lambswool Cardigan
What is the Meaning of Radical Democracy?
Daniel Brook: How Sweden Tweaked the Washington Consensus
Eric Schlosser: A Writer’s Life
US Prison Boom
Audio Interview of Wendell Berry
Mark Engler: Six Essays on War and Peace
Why Wendell Berry Matters
Ron Powers: The Apocalypse of Adolescence
T.C. Boyle, Orion, Wendell Berry, Fear, Local Economy, James Howard Kunstler, Prozac, and A Friend of the Earth
Eric Schlosser: The Fine Art of Muckraking
Fast Food Nation and McDonaldization
Michelle Leder: How the Other Half Banks
Kembrew Mcleod: Freedom of Expression
Rebecca Solnit: The Silence of the Lambswool Cardigan
What is the Meaning of Radical Democracy?
Daniel Brook: How Sweden Tweaked the Washington Consensus
Eric Schlosser: A Writer’s Life
US Prison Boom
Audio Interview of Wendell Berry
Mark Engler: Six Essays on War and Peace
Why Wendell Berry Matters
Ron Powers: The Apocalypse of Adolescence
T.C. Boyle, Orion, Wendell Berry, Fear, Local Economy, James Howard Kunstler, Prozac, and A Friend of the Earth
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Critical Art Ensemble: When Thought Becomes a Crime
When Taste Politics Meet Terror: The Critical Art Ensemble on Trial
Critical Art Ensemble: Performative Critics of Corporate Bio-Technology Practices
US Government's Attacks on Performance Group Critical Art Ensemble
When Thought Becomes a Crime
US Government Paranoia in Action: FBI Abducts Artist, Seizes Art
Park, Paula. “Buffalo Case Highlights MTAs: Material transfer agreements can be misunderstood or considered an annoyance, say officials.” The Scientist (August 9, 2004)
Critical Art Ensemble's Online Performative Critiques:
Critical Art Ensemble. “Cult of the New Eve.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “Flesh Machine.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “Gen Terra: Transgenic Solutions for a Greener World.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “Society For Reproductive Anachronisms.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “The Therapeutic State.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
Critical Art Ensemble, Beatriz da Costa and Claire Pentecost. Contestational Biology.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
Critical Art Ensemble, Beatriz da Costa and Shyh-shiun. “Free Range Grain.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
Books by Critical Art Ensemble Available Online:
Critical Art Ensemble. Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media. (Autonomedia, 2001)
---. Electronic Civil Disobedience & Other Unpopular Ideas. (Autonomedia, 1996)
---. The Electronic Disturbance (Autonomedia, 2000)
---. Flesh Machine: Cyborgs, Designer Babies and New Eugenic Consciousness. (Autonomedia, 1998)
---. Molecular Invasion. (Autonomedia, 2002)
Action Site Set Up to Help Defend Critical Art Ensemble
Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund
Critical Art Ensemble: Performative Critics of Corporate Bio-Technology Practices
US Government's Attacks on Performance Group Critical Art Ensemble
When Thought Becomes a Crime
US Government Paranoia in Action: FBI Abducts Artist, Seizes Art
Park, Paula. “Buffalo Case Highlights MTAs: Material transfer agreements can be misunderstood or considered an annoyance, say officials.” The Scientist (August 9, 2004)
Critical Art Ensemble's Online Performative Critiques:
Critical Art Ensemble. “Cult of the New Eve.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “Flesh Machine.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “Gen Terra: Transgenic Solutions for a Greener World.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “Society For Reproductive Anachronisms.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
---. “The Therapeutic State.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
Critical Art Ensemble, Beatriz da Costa and Claire Pentecost. Contestational Biology.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
Critical Art Ensemble, Beatriz da Costa and Shyh-shiun. “Free Range Grain.” (2004: Online Visual and Textual Project)
Books by Critical Art Ensemble Available Online:
Critical Art Ensemble. Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media. (Autonomedia, 2001)
---. Electronic Civil Disobedience & Other Unpopular Ideas. (Autonomedia, 1996)
---. The Electronic Disturbance (Autonomedia, 2000)
---. Flesh Machine: Cyborgs, Designer Babies and New Eugenic Consciousness. (Autonomedia, 1998)
---. Molecular Invasion. (Autonomedia, 2002)
Action Site Set Up to Help Defend Critical Art Ensemble
Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund
PBS and NPR Threatened
(Courtesy of Melissa Purdue, Brian Okstad and Anna Froula)
Notice from Move On:
You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check the footnotes if you don't believe us.)
A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Oscar the Grouch.
Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS:
The Petition
If we can reach 250,000 signatures by the end of the week, we'll put Congress on notice. After you sign the petition, please pass this message along to any friends, neighbors or co-workers who count on NPR and PBS.
The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year -- $100 million -- and end funding altogether within two years [1]. In particular, the loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Sesame Street," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur" and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships.
This shameful vote is only the latest partisan assault on public TV and radio. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which exists to shield public TV and radio from political pressure, is now chaired by Kenneth Tomlinson, a staunch Republican close to the White House. Tomlinson has already forced one-sided conservative programs on the air, even though Tomlinson's own surveys show that most people consider NPR "fair and balanced" and they actually trust public broadcasting more than commercial network news [2].
Tomlinson also spent taxpayer dollars on a witch hunt to root out "liberal bias," including a secret investigation of Bill Moyers and PBS' popular investigative show, "NOW." Even though the public paid for the investigation, Tomlinson has refused to release the findings [3].
The lawmakers who proposed the cuts aren't just trying to save money in the budget -- they're trying to decimate any news outlets who question those in power. This is an ideological attack on our free press.
Talk about bad timing. Every day brings another story about media consolidation. Radio, TV stations and newspapers are increasingly controlled by a few massive corporate conglomerates trying to maximize profits at the expense of quality journalism. Now more than ever, we need publicly funded media who will ask hard questions and focus on stories that affect real people, instead of Michael Jackson and the runaway bride.
As the House and Senate consider this frightening effort to kill public broadcasting, they need to hear from its owners -- you.
Make Some Noise!
Thank you for all you do,
--Noah, Wes, Jennifer, Eli and the MoveOn.org Team
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005
P.S. You can learn more about the threat to public broadcasting from our
friends at Free Press
Sources:
1. "Public Broadcasting Targeted By House," Washington Post, June 10, 2005
2. "CPB's 'Secrets and Lies': Why the CPB Board Hid its Polls Revealing Broad Public Support for PBS and NPR," Center for Digital Democracy, April
27, 2005
3. "Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases," New York Times, May 2, 2005
More on this proposed legislation:
Public Broadcasting Targeted By House Panel Seeks to End CPB's Funding Within 2 Years
Notice from Move On:
You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check the footnotes if you don't believe us.)
A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Oscar the Grouch.
Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS:
The Petition
If we can reach 250,000 signatures by the end of the week, we'll put Congress on notice. After you sign the petition, please pass this message along to any friends, neighbors or co-workers who count on NPR and PBS.
The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year -- $100 million -- and end funding altogether within two years [1]. In particular, the loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Sesame Street," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur" and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships.
This shameful vote is only the latest partisan assault on public TV and radio. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which exists to shield public TV and radio from political pressure, is now chaired by Kenneth Tomlinson, a staunch Republican close to the White House. Tomlinson has already forced one-sided conservative programs on the air, even though Tomlinson's own surveys show that most people consider NPR "fair and balanced" and they actually trust public broadcasting more than commercial network news [2].
Tomlinson also spent taxpayer dollars on a witch hunt to root out "liberal bias," including a secret investigation of Bill Moyers and PBS' popular investigative show, "NOW." Even though the public paid for the investigation, Tomlinson has refused to release the findings [3].
The lawmakers who proposed the cuts aren't just trying to save money in the budget -- they're trying to decimate any news outlets who question those in power. This is an ideological attack on our free press.
Talk about bad timing. Every day brings another story about media consolidation. Radio, TV stations and newspapers are increasingly controlled by a few massive corporate conglomerates trying to maximize profits at the expense of quality journalism. Now more than ever, we need publicly funded media who will ask hard questions and focus on stories that affect real people, instead of Michael Jackson and the runaway bride.
As the House and Senate consider this frightening effort to kill public broadcasting, they need to hear from its owners -- you.
Make Some Noise!
Thank you for all you do,
--Noah, Wes, Jennifer, Eli and the MoveOn.org Team
Tuesday, June 14th, 2005
P.S. You can learn more about the threat to public broadcasting from our
friends at Free Press
Sources:
1. "Public Broadcasting Targeted By House," Washington Post, June 10, 2005
2. "CPB's 'Secrets and Lies': Why the CPB Board Hid its Polls Revealing Broad Public Support for PBS and NPR," Center for Digital Democracy, April
27, 2005
3. "Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases," New York Times, May 2, 2005
More on this proposed legislation:
Public Broadcasting Targeted By House Panel Seeks to End CPB's Funding Within 2 Years
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Al Giordano: Chronology of an Authentic Netwar
(Because he was not posting on the MJ decision, Michael Hawkins had the time to alert his reader to this important report on the Bolivian uprising.)
Bolivia: Chronology of an Authentic Netwar
"In case you blinked – because it all happened so fast – I’ve prepared this summary of the action-packed series of breaking news reports from Luis Gómez and our entire team in Bolivia, and the considerable helping hand lent them from diverse points in our América and around the world.
As during previous hours of crisis, the lies got swatted down, the truths were shone bright, new advances were made in how to wage a popular Netwar, and Authentic Journalists drove, in recent days, the coverage of most Commercial Media organizations to be more truthful than ever before when reporting events in Latin America…"
Check out more reports from the NarcoSphere
Bolivia: Chronology of an Authentic Netwar
"In case you blinked – because it all happened so fast – I’ve prepared this summary of the action-packed series of breaking news reports from Luis Gómez and our entire team in Bolivia, and the considerable helping hand lent them from diverse points in our América and around the world.
As during previous hours of crisis, the lies got swatted down, the truths were shone bright, new advances were made in how to wage a popular Netwar, and Authentic Journalists drove, in recent days, the coverage of most Commercial Media organizations to be more truthful than ever before when reporting events in Latin America…"
Check out more reports from the NarcoSphere
Morgan Spurlock: 30 Days
(Courtesy of Andy Johnson and Melissa Purdue)
Andy says:
Teaching anything related to living wage, poverty, class, business?
If so, you might want to watch 30 DAYS tonight (Wednesday) at 10:00pm on FX Channel. In this episode (the premiere), Morgan Spurlock (of SUPER SIZE ME) and his wife try to live on minimum wage for 30 days. Subsequent episodes feature a Christian living with a Muslim family for 30 days, and other such challenges.
The "Minimum Wage" episode should be a great resource for those of you using NICKEL & DIMED in your classes. It might come in handy, too, for all of us when we finish our PhDs and go on the job market. "Yes, I'm Dr. Johnson; would you like fries with that?"
Find out more about the show here:
30 Days
Andy says:
Teaching anything related to living wage, poverty, class, business?
If so, you might want to watch 30 DAYS tonight (Wednesday) at 10:00pm on FX Channel. In this episode (the premiere), Morgan Spurlock (of SUPER SIZE ME) and his wife try to live on minimum wage for 30 days. Subsequent episodes feature a Christian living with a Muslim family for 30 days, and other such challenges.
The "Minimum Wage" episode should be a great resource for those of you using NICKEL & DIMED in your classes. It might come in handy, too, for all of us when we finish our PhDs and go on the job market. "Yes, I'm Dr. Johnson; would you like fries with that?"
Find out more about the show here:
30 Days
Monday, June 13, 2005
Michael's Mega Film Resource Site
Michael Benton has just started a film resource site (it is under construction and a work in progress). He would be interested in suggestions, sources and film reviews (he's going to develop it as a resource for his students and the online community-at-large):
Michael's Mega Film Resource Site
Michael's Mega Film Resource Site
Frank Rich: Can Anyone in the Media Make the Connection?
(Courtesy of Harry's post on Spectacle Politics at Scratchings)
Don't Follow the Money
by Frank Rich
New York Times
...
Though Nixon aspired to punish public broadcasting by cutting its funding, he never imagined that his apparatchiks could seize the top executive positions at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Nor did he come up with the brilliant ideas of putting journalists covertly on the administration payroll and of hiring an outside P.R. firm (Ketchum) to codify an enemies list by ranking news organizations and individual reporters on the basis of how favorably they cover a specific administration policy (No Child Left Behind). President Bush has even succeeded in emasculating the post-Watergate reform that was supposed to help curb Nixonian secrecy, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media's center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much "gotcha" journalism. That's a rather absurd premise given that no "gotcha" journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.
Only once during the Deep Throat rollout did I see a palpable, if perhaps unconscious, effort to link the White House of 1972 with that of 2005. It occurred at the start, when ABC News, with the first comprehensive report on Vanity Fair's scoop, interrupted President Bush's post-Memorial Day Rose Garden news conference to break the story. Suddenly the image of the current president blathering on about how hunky-dory everything is in Iraq was usurped by repeated showings of the scene in which the newly resigned Nixon walked across the adjacent White House lawn to the helicopter that would carry him into exile.
But in the days that followed, Nixon and his history and the long shadows they cast largely vanished from the TV screen. In their place were constant nostalgic replays of young Redford and flinty Holbrook. Follow the bait-and-switch.
Entire Editorial
Don't Follow the Money
by Frank Rich
New York Times
...
Though Nixon aspired to punish public broadcasting by cutting its funding, he never imagined that his apparatchiks could seize the top executive positions at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Nor did he come up with the brilliant ideas of putting journalists covertly on the administration payroll and of hiring an outside P.R. firm (Ketchum) to codify an enemies list by ranking news organizations and individual reporters on the basis of how favorably they cover a specific administration policy (No Child Left Behind). President Bush has even succeeded in emasculating the post-Watergate reform that was supposed to help curb Nixonian secrecy, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media's center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much "gotcha" journalism. That's a rather absurd premise given that no "gotcha" journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.
Only once during the Deep Throat rollout did I see a palpable, if perhaps unconscious, effort to link the White House of 1972 with that of 2005. It occurred at the start, when ABC News, with the first comprehensive report on Vanity Fair's scoop, interrupted President Bush's post-Memorial Day Rose Garden news conference to break the story. Suddenly the image of the current president blathering on about how hunky-dory everything is in Iraq was usurped by repeated showings of the scene in which the newly resigned Nixon walked across the adjacent White House lawn to the helicopter that would carry him into exile.
But in the days that followed, Nixon and his history and the long shadows they cast largely vanished from the TV screen. In their place were constant nostalgic replays of young Redford and flinty Holbrook. Follow the bait-and-switch.
Entire Editorial
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Thinking About Wendell Berry
My students are practicing writing/thinking about authorial perspective this week.
Since all 5 of my students (yes, that is right, I'm actually teaching a writing class with just 5 students!) are from Kentucky, I gathered together a collection of Wendell Berry's online writings for them study in order to understand how an author develops their position through a series of texts and for them to begin learning how to synthesize and respond to a single author's collection of works (in preparation for later, more complex readings/responses on multiple authors writing about important issues)
“The Agrarian Standard.” Orion (2002)
“Christianity and the Survival of Creation.” Cross Currents (Summer 1993)
A Citizen’s Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Orion (March/April 2003)
“Conserving Communities.”
“The Failure of War.” Yes (Winter 2002)
“A Few Words in Favor of Edward Abbey.” (1985)
“For the Love of the Land.” Sierra Magazine (May/June 2002)
“Getting Along With Animals.” The New Farm (September/October 1979):
“Global Problems, Local Solutions.” Resurgence (May/June 2001)
“Health is Membership.” (Delivered as a speech at a conference, "Spirituality and Healing", at Louisville, Kentucky, on October 17, 1994)
“The Idea of a Local Economy.” Orion (2002)
“In Distrust of Movements.” Resurgence (January/February 2000)
“The Joys of Sales Resistance”
“Lest We Forget.” (Excerpt from a Short Story: 1992):
“Life is a Miracle: Classification in Science.” Whole Earth Review (Fall 2000)
“Peaceableness Toward Enemies: Some Notes on the Gulf War.” (1991)
“The Pleasures of Eating.”
“The Prejudice Against Country People.” Progressive (April 2002):
“Private Property and Common Wealth.”
“Thoughts in the Presence of Fear.” Orion (2001)
“Visions for Rural Kentucky.” Whole Earth Review (Winter 1998)
Lannan Readings & Conversations: Wendell Berry with Jack Shoemaker
Wendell Berry: Compromise, Hell!
Wendell Berry: Excerpts from “The Work of Local Culture”
Mark Engler: Why Wendell Berry Matters
T.C. Boyle, Orion, Wendell Berry, Fear, Local Economy, James Howard Kunstler, Prozac, and A Friend of the Earth
Since all 5 of my students (yes, that is right, I'm actually teaching a writing class with just 5 students!) are from Kentucky, I gathered together a collection of Wendell Berry's online writings for them study in order to understand how an author develops their position through a series of texts and for them to begin learning how to synthesize and respond to a single author's collection of works (in preparation for later, more complex readings/responses on multiple authors writing about important issues)
“The Agrarian Standard.” Orion (2002)
“Christianity and the Survival of Creation.” Cross Currents (Summer 1993)
A Citizen’s Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Orion (March/April 2003)
“Conserving Communities.”
“The Failure of War.” Yes (Winter 2002)
“A Few Words in Favor of Edward Abbey.” (1985)
“For the Love of the Land.” Sierra Magazine (May/June 2002)
“Getting Along With Animals.” The New Farm (September/October 1979):
“Global Problems, Local Solutions.” Resurgence (May/June 2001)
“Health is Membership.” (Delivered as a speech at a conference, "Spirituality and Healing", at Louisville, Kentucky, on October 17, 1994)
“The Idea of a Local Economy.” Orion (2002)
“In Distrust of Movements.” Resurgence (January/February 2000)
“The Joys of Sales Resistance”
“Lest We Forget.” (Excerpt from a Short Story: 1992):
“Life is a Miracle: Classification in Science.” Whole Earth Review (Fall 2000)
“Peaceableness Toward Enemies: Some Notes on the Gulf War.” (1991)
“The Pleasures of Eating.”
“The Prejudice Against Country People.” Progressive (April 2002):
“Private Property and Common Wealth.”
“Thoughts in the Presence of Fear.” Orion (2001)
“Visions for Rural Kentucky.” Whole Earth Review (Winter 1998)
Lannan Readings & Conversations: Wendell Berry with Jack Shoemaker
Wendell Berry: Compromise, Hell!
Wendell Berry: Excerpts from “The Work of Local Culture”
Mark Engler: Why Wendell Berry Matters
T.C. Boyle, Orion, Wendell Berry, Fear, Local Economy, James Howard Kunstler, Prozac, and A Friend of the Earth
Brainwashing Camp For Gay Kids
(Tennesse Guerilla Woman originally posted this at Feminist Blogs)
The leader of the camp "Love in Action":
"I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery."
Read More About Zack's Imprisonment
Former Client of Love in Action Speaks Out
Queer Action Coalition is a blog set up to fight these ministries.
Zack's Blog which stops on the last day nefore he was sent to the camp.
Local Memphis, TN news report on Love in Action:
Scared Straight
Ded Space with some thoughts on the Zach situation
The leader of the camp "Love in Action":
"I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery."
Read More About Zack's Imprisonment
Former Client of Love in Action Speaks Out
Queer Action Coalition is a blog set up to fight these ministries.
Zack's Blog which stops on the last day nefore he was sent to the camp.
Local Memphis, TN news report on Love in Action:
Scared Straight
Ded Space with some thoughts on the Zach situation
US Casualities Map
(courtesy of Rox Populi who posted it at Feminist Blogs)
Breakdown of the statistics of US Casualities Map
Breakdown of the statistics of US Casualities Map
The Happy Tutor: Ordered Liberty in Corporate Life
"Interesting that raping the worker, consumer, and planet are not presented as examples of immorality in corporate life. No, what is immoral is sexual misconduct. A good capitalist keeps it in his pants. His wallet, I mean."
The Happy Tutor on "Ordered Liberty in Corporate Life"
The Happy Tutor on "Ordered Liberty in Corporate Life"
Chris Hedges and Jeff Sharlet: Observing the "Soldiers of Christ"
A couple of days ago I posted about a NOW TV interview featuring Chris Hedges On the Rise to Political Power of the Dominionists which was following up on an earlier post about a pair of excellent articles in the May 2005 issue of Harper's called the The Soldiers of Christ. Now, thanks to a comment from Bill, I have found out that Jeff Sharlet's "Soldiers of Christ I: Inside America's Most Powerful Megachurch and Chris Hedges' Soldiers of Christ II: Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters are now availble online at Harper's website.
These are "must read" essays to understand the "far" right religious control freaks and what their plans are for our country--and why we should be worried!
Also check out an earlier piece in Harper's by Jeff Sharlett in which he examines how the Magic of State is supported by corporate entertainment:
How Clear Channel Programs America
Another must read, is in the June 2005 issue of Harper's, is Karl Meyer's "Forty Years in the Sand," a history of the 20th century British occupation of Iraq and the lessons we should have learned from their experiences ... chilling in the historical similarities.
Harper's magazine is one of the best publications for progressives. Every issue has articles that interest me and I usually read it cover-to-cover. You can't beat a subscription either--12 issues for only $16.97!
These are "must read" essays to understand the "far" right religious control freaks and what their plans are for our country--and why we should be worried!
Also check out an earlier piece in Harper's by Jeff Sharlett in which he examines how the Magic of State is supported by corporate entertainment:
How Clear Channel Programs America
Another must read, is in the June 2005 issue of Harper's, is Karl Meyer's "Forty Years in the Sand," a history of the 20th century British occupation of Iraq and the lessons we should have learned from their experiences ... chilling in the historical similarities.
Harper's magazine is one of the best publications for progressives. Every issue has articles that interest me and I usually read it cover-to-cover. You can't beat a subscription either--12 issues for only $16.97!
BBC News: China Seeks to Eliminate Dissident Blogs
Can they control information like this? I see it as impossible, but I am more concerned about the implications of any success on their part as other, more democratic societies, might find reasons to subject blogs to control for various reasons...
Could blogging become a new symbol of resistance?
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Courtesy of Melissa Purdue)
"China wants more control over blogs: The Chinese government has announced plans to police web forums, chat rooms and blogs alongside other websites."
BBC News
...
"The authorities hope to push the most outspoken online sites to migrate abroad where they will become inaccessible to those inside China because of the Chinese filtering systems," it added.
Known as the Great Firewall, the filtering system used by the Chinese government is not entirely unbreachable; for every new restriction and technical door that it slams shut, the Chinese people find a hack, a workaround or an entirely new way of communicating.
According to official figures, about 75% of sites have already complied with the new procedure.
In May, many bloggers received e-mails telling them to register or face having their blogs declared illegal.
But one anonymous China-based blogger told Reporters Without Borders that when he phoned the MII to register he was told not to bother because "there was no chance of an independent blog getting permission to publish".
Entire Article
Could blogging become a new symbol of resistance?
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Courtesy of Melissa Purdue)
"China wants more control over blogs: The Chinese government has announced plans to police web forums, chat rooms and blogs alongside other websites."
BBC News
...
"The authorities hope to push the most outspoken online sites to migrate abroad where they will become inaccessible to those inside China because of the Chinese filtering systems," it added.
Known as the Great Firewall, the filtering system used by the Chinese government is not entirely unbreachable; for every new restriction and technical door that it slams shut, the Chinese people find a hack, a workaround or an entirely new way of communicating.
According to official figures, about 75% of sites have already complied with the new procedure.
In May, many bloggers received e-mails telling them to register or face having their blogs declared illegal.
But one anonymous China-based blogger told Reporters Without Borders that when he phoned the MII to register he was told not to bother because "there was no chance of an independent blog getting permission to publish".
Entire Article
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Swerve Left on the Patriot Act Hearings
"I just saw something...totally inappropriate. No mic on and no record being kept. But I think as we are lecturing foreign governments about the conduct of their behavior with regard to opposition -- when I see the behavior I saw here today as an American -- I'm really troubled about what kind of lesson this is going to teach to other countries in the world about how they ought to conduct an open society that allows for an opposition with rights. I'm sorry, I'm very offended."
James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, A witness at the Patriot Act hearings on the handling of the event
More from Karlo at Swerve Left
James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, A witness at the Patriot Act hearings on the handling of the event
More from Karlo at Swerve Left
Immanuel Wallerstein: Playing With Fire
Commentary No. 162, June 1, 2005
by Immanuel Wallerstein
"Playing With Fire: the U.S., Iraq, Iran"
When you're a powerful country, it's hard not to play with fire. But the Bush regime has been particularly reckless. Take for example the triangle Iran, Iraq, the United States. The history is well-known. The first famous CIA intervention anywhere was in Iran, way back in 1953. At that time, Iran had a prime minister named Mohamed Mossadegh, a secular middle-class politician who had the audacity to nationalize Iranian oil. The shah went into exile. Great Britain and the U.S. were quite unhappy about this and they backed, indeed inspired, a military coup to arrest Mossadegh and restore the shah to his throne. From then on, the shah's Iran became a close ally of the United States. Shah Reza Pahlevi's regime was authoritarian and very repressive but this didn't bother the U.S. since he was a pillar of pro-U.S. forces in the Middle East.
Finally, the shah's regime was overthrown by a popular uprising in 1979 and the shah went into exile once again. This time the dominant forces turned out to be not secular nationalists but Islamic militants led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. An Islamic republic was proclaimed. And within a year, Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy and kept those they found there prisoners for 444 days. The U.S., needless to say, was quite unhappy once again. Iran proclaimed the U.S. the Great Satan, and the U.S. in turn now considered Iran a total enemy. President Carter's attempt to liberate the U.S. embassy prisoners by force turned out to be a fiasco. And President Reagan got them out only by making a secret deal, returning frozen Iranian assets for their release.
The U.S. decided the best way to handle the Iranians was to encourage the president of Iraq, one Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran, which he did in 1980. Iran is of course a largely Shia Muslim country. And Iraq has a very large number of Shia Muslims who however have been kept from participation in power by Sunni Arab politicians since Iraq's creation as a modern sovereign state. In 1983, Pres. Reagan sent one Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein, to encourage him in his war efforts, to offer him direct and indirect forms of assistance (including some elements of biological warfare), to remove Iraq from the U.S. list of states aiding terrorist groups, and in general to coddle Saddam. The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, was extremely costly to both sides in both casualties and money, and finally ended in exhaustion, with the troops back at the starting-point. It was a military truce, but of course the political enmity persisted.
Saddam Hussein, as we know, found it difficult to repay the debts he had contracted in order to conduct this war, especially Iraq's large debts to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He decided to cancel the debts and satisfy long-standing nationalist claims in one fell swoop by invading Kuwait in 1990. Now at last the U.S. turned against Saddam Hussein, leading a U.N.-sanctioned coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait with, among other things, the tacit support of Iran. The war ended with various kinds of double crosses. Saddam had sent much of his air force to Iran to keep it safe from U.S. bombing. After the war ended, Iran refused to return the planes. The Shia in Iraq rose up in rebellion against Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, but the U.S. refused to help them after the truce with Saddam, although the U.S. eventually did enforce a no-fly zone over Shia areas - too late, however, to prevent Saddam from his revenge on the Shia rebels.
Everyone was a bit unhappy with the de facto truce betwen 1991 and 2001. The neo-cons in the U.S. felt that the U.S. had been humiliated by the fact that Saddam remained in power. Saddam was unhappy because of a U.S.-led economic boycott and U.N.-decreed limitations on Iraq's sovereignty concerning the sale of oil. Iraqi Shia (and Kurds) were unhappy because Saddam was still in power, and the U.S. had let them down. And Iran was unhappy because Saddam was still in power, because the Iraqi Shia were still suffering, and because the U.S. was still too much a force in the region.
When September 11 occurred, the neo-cons seized the opportunity to get Bush to focus on a war on Iraq. As we know, the invasion would finally occur in 2003, resulting in the overthrow of Saddam. At the time, George W. Bush denounced the "axis of evil" - a trio of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The U.S. had now decided to be against both the Iraqi and the Iranian regimes simultaneously, but to take on Iraq militarily first. It is quite clear that in 2003 the Bush regime considered it only a matter of time before the U.S. took on Iran.
What President Bush seemed to expect in 2003 is that the U.S. would be able to install, rather rapidly, a friendly regime in Iraq, and then proceed to force a showdown with Iran. What they did not expect was a quite powerful resistance movement in Iraq, one which they now seem unable to contain seriously. What they did not expect was effective political pressure from the Shia to hold early elections that would give the Shia a majority in the government. What they did not expect was that the U.S. military would be so overstretched that there is now no way the U.S. can seriously consider undertaking any kind of military action to change the regime in Iran.
And least of all did they expect that it would be Iran that would be in a position to be the great diplomatic victor of the U.S. invasion. Take what happened on May, 15, 2005. The U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad, during which she spent her brief time half scolding, half pleading with the new Iraqi government, and all this is public. She said that the Iraqis should try to be more "inclusive," the code word for making more space for Sunni Arabs in the government. She cautioned against "severe" de-Baathification, meaning the inclusion in power of at least some of those who supported Saddam Hussein. Presumably, Rice thinks this might undermine the resistance to U.S. occupation and make it possible to reduce U.S. troop commitment to Iraq (the better to use them against Iran?). Curious turnaround where the U.S. Secretary of State is pleading on behalf of at least some ex-Baathists. And, as far as one can tell, to half-deaf ears. The analyses of the present Iraqi government, or rather its priorities, seem to be different.
Two days later, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Khazzeri, arrived for a far more successful four-day visit. He was greeted at the airport by Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, himself a Sunni and a Kurd, who broke into fluent Farsi. After three days, Iraq and Iran signed an agreement to end hostilities between them, in which the new Iraqi government agreed with Iran that the Iraq-Iran war was initiated by Saddam Hussein. The two countries renewed criticisms of Israel. If Bush thinks the new Iraqi government is going to join the U.S. in a crusade against Iran, that other member of the "axis of evil," he clearly has another think coming.
Relations between Iraq and Iran have now become normal, en route to becoming friendly. This is not what the neo-cons had envisaged when they launched the drive for a U.S.-led "democratization" of the Middle East. When the U.S. forces leave Iraq (probably sooner rather than later), Iran will still be around, and (thanks to the U.S.) stronger than ever.
Commentary Link
by Immanuel Wallerstein
"Playing With Fire: the U.S., Iraq, Iran"
When you're a powerful country, it's hard not to play with fire. But the Bush regime has been particularly reckless. Take for example the triangle Iran, Iraq, the United States. The history is well-known. The first famous CIA intervention anywhere was in Iran, way back in 1953. At that time, Iran had a prime minister named Mohamed Mossadegh, a secular middle-class politician who had the audacity to nationalize Iranian oil. The shah went into exile. Great Britain and the U.S. were quite unhappy about this and they backed, indeed inspired, a military coup to arrest Mossadegh and restore the shah to his throne. From then on, the shah's Iran became a close ally of the United States. Shah Reza Pahlevi's regime was authoritarian and very repressive but this didn't bother the U.S. since he was a pillar of pro-U.S. forces in the Middle East.
Finally, the shah's regime was overthrown by a popular uprising in 1979 and the shah went into exile once again. This time the dominant forces turned out to be not secular nationalists but Islamic militants led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. An Islamic republic was proclaimed. And within a year, Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy and kept those they found there prisoners for 444 days. The U.S., needless to say, was quite unhappy once again. Iran proclaimed the U.S. the Great Satan, and the U.S. in turn now considered Iran a total enemy. President Carter's attempt to liberate the U.S. embassy prisoners by force turned out to be a fiasco. And President Reagan got them out only by making a secret deal, returning frozen Iranian assets for their release.
The U.S. decided the best way to handle the Iranians was to encourage the president of Iraq, one Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran, which he did in 1980. Iran is of course a largely Shia Muslim country. And Iraq has a very large number of Shia Muslims who however have been kept from participation in power by Sunni Arab politicians since Iraq's creation as a modern sovereign state. In 1983, Pres. Reagan sent one Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein, to encourage him in his war efforts, to offer him direct and indirect forms of assistance (including some elements of biological warfare), to remove Iraq from the U.S. list of states aiding terrorist groups, and in general to coddle Saddam. The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, was extremely costly to both sides in both casualties and money, and finally ended in exhaustion, with the troops back at the starting-point. It was a military truce, but of course the political enmity persisted.
Saddam Hussein, as we know, found it difficult to repay the debts he had contracted in order to conduct this war, especially Iraq's large debts to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He decided to cancel the debts and satisfy long-standing nationalist claims in one fell swoop by invading Kuwait in 1990. Now at last the U.S. turned against Saddam Hussein, leading a U.N.-sanctioned coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait with, among other things, the tacit support of Iran. The war ended with various kinds of double crosses. Saddam had sent much of his air force to Iran to keep it safe from U.S. bombing. After the war ended, Iran refused to return the planes. The Shia in Iraq rose up in rebellion against Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, but the U.S. refused to help them after the truce with Saddam, although the U.S. eventually did enforce a no-fly zone over Shia areas - too late, however, to prevent Saddam from his revenge on the Shia rebels.
Everyone was a bit unhappy with the de facto truce betwen 1991 and 2001. The neo-cons in the U.S. felt that the U.S. had been humiliated by the fact that Saddam remained in power. Saddam was unhappy because of a U.S.-led economic boycott and U.N.-decreed limitations on Iraq's sovereignty concerning the sale of oil. Iraqi Shia (and Kurds) were unhappy because Saddam was still in power, and the U.S. had let them down. And Iran was unhappy because Saddam was still in power, because the Iraqi Shia were still suffering, and because the U.S. was still too much a force in the region.
When September 11 occurred, the neo-cons seized the opportunity to get Bush to focus on a war on Iraq. As we know, the invasion would finally occur in 2003, resulting in the overthrow of Saddam. At the time, George W. Bush denounced the "axis of evil" - a trio of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The U.S. had now decided to be against both the Iraqi and the Iranian regimes simultaneously, but to take on Iraq militarily first. It is quite clear that in 2003 the Bush regime considered it only a matter of time before the U.S. took on Iran.
What President Bush seemed to expect in 2003 is that the U.S. would be able to install, rather rapidly, a friendly regime in Iraq, and then proceed to force a showdown with Iran. What they did not expect was a quite powerful resistance movement in Iraq, one which they now seem unable to contain seriously. What they did not expect was effective political pressure from the Shia to hold early elections that would give the Shia a majority in the government. What they did not expect was that the U.S. military would be so overstretched that there is now no way the U.S. can seriously consider undertaking any kind of military action to change the regime in Iran.
And least of all did they expect that it would be Iran that would be in a position to be the great diplomatic victor of the U.S. invasion. Take what happened on May, 15, 2005. The U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad, during which she spent her brief time half scolding, half pleading with the new Iraqi government, and all this is public. She said that the Iraqis should try to be more "inclusive," the code word for making more space for Sunni Arabs in the government. She cautioned against "severe" de-Baathification, meaning the inclusion in power of at least some of those who supported Saddam Hussein. Presumably, Rice thinks this might undermine the resistance to U.S. occupation and make it possible to reduce U.S. troop commitment to Iraq (the better to use them against Iran?). Curious turnaround where the U.S. Secretary of State is pleading on behalf of at least some ex-Baathists. And, as far as one can tell, to half-deaf ears. The analyses of the present Iraqi government, or rather its priorities, seem to be different.
Two days later, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Khazzeri, arrived for a far more successful four-day visit. He was greeted at the airport by Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, himself a Sunni and a Kurd, who broke into fluent Farsi. After three days, Iraq and Iran signed an agreement to end hostilities between them, in which the new Iraqi government agreed with Iran that the Iraq-Iran war was initiated by Saddam Hussein. The two countries renewed criticisms of Israel. If Bush thinks the new Iraqi government is going to join the U.S. in a crusade against Iran, that other member of the "axis of evil," he clearly has another think coming.
Relations between Iraq and Iran have now become normal, en route to becoming friendly. This is not what the neo-cons had envisaged when they launched the drive for a U.S.-led "democratization" of the Middle East. When the U.S. forces leave Iraq (probably sooner rather than later), Iran will still be around, and (thanks to the U.S.) stronger than ever.
Commentary Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)