Thursday, April 14, 2011
Jonathan Chait: War on the Weak
War on the Weak: How the GOP came to view the poor as parasites—and the rich as our rightful rulers.
by Jonathan Chait
Newsweek
Last week the Republican Party sounded two distinct voices. First we heard the angry demands of the Tea Party, speaking through its hardline conservative allies in the House, pushing the government to the brink of a shutdown. But then emerged the soothing tones of Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, who fashions himself the intellectual leader of the party, unveiling a budget manifesto he calls the “Path to Prosperity.”
Ryan portrays his goals in reassuringly pecuniary terms—he’s just the friendly neighborhood accountant here to help balance your checkbook. “I have a knack for numbers,” he chirps. ABC News compared him to a character in Dave, the corny 1993 movie about an average Joe who mistakenly assumes the presidency and calls in his CPA buddy—that would be Ryan—to scour the federal budget and bring it into balance. If he has any flaw, he just cares too much about rescuing the country from debt, gosh darn it!
In fact, the two streams—the furious Tea Party rebels and Ryan the earnest budget geek—both spring from the same source. And it is to that source that you must look if you want to understand what Ryan is really after, and what makes these activists so angry.
The Tea Party began early in 2009 after an improvised rant by Rick Santelli, a CNBC commentator who called for an uprising to protest the Obama administration’s subsidizing the “losers’ mortgages.” Video of his diatribe rocketed around the country, and protesters quickly adopted both his call for a tea party and his general abhorrence of government that took from the virtuous and the successful and gave to the poor, the uninsured, the bankrupt—in short, the losers. It sounded harsh, Santelli quickly conceded, but “at the end of the day I’m an Ayn Rander.”
Ayn Rand, of course, was a kind of politicized L. Ron Hubbard—a novelist-philosopher who inspired a cult of acolytes who deem her the greatest human being who ever lived. The enduring heart of Rand’s totalistic philosophy was Marxism flipped upside down. Rand viewed the capitalists, not the workers, as the producers of all wealth, and the workers, not the capitalists, as useless parasites.
John Galt, the protagonist of her iconic novel Atlas Shrugged, expressed Rand’s inverted Marxism: “The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.”
In 2009 Rand began popping up all over the Tea Party movement. Sales of her books skyrocketed, and signs quoting her ideas appeared constantly at rallies. Conservatives asserted that the events of the Obama administration eerily paralleled the plot of Atlas Shrugged, in which a liberal government precipitates economic collapse.
One conservative making that point was Ryan. His citation of Rand was not casual. He’s a Rand nut. In the days before his star turn as America’s Accountant, Ryan once appeared at a gathering to honor her philosophy, where he announced, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” He continues to view Rand as a lodestar, requiring his staffers to digest her creepy tracts.
To Read the Rest of the Article
by Jonathan Chait
Newsweek
Last week the Republican Party sounded two distinct voices. First we heard the angry demands of the Tea Party, speaking through its hardline conservative allies in the House, pushing the government to the brink of a shutdown. But then emerged the soothing tones of Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, who fashions himself the intellectual leader of the party, unveiling a budget manifesto he calls the “Path to Prosperity.”
Ryan portrays his goals in reassuringly pecuniary terms—he’s just the friendly neighborhood accountant here to help balance your checkbook. “I have a knack for numbers,” he chirps. ABC News compared him to a character in Dave, the corny 1993 movie about an average Joe who mistakenly assumes the presidency and calls in his CPA buddy—that would be Ryan—to scour the federal budget and bring it into balance. If he has any flaw, he just cares too much about rescuing the country from debt, gosh darn it!
In fact, the two streams—the furious Tea Party rebels and Ryan the earnest budget geek—both spring from the same source. And it is to that source that you must look if you want to understand what Ryan is really after, and what makes these activists so angry.
The Tea Party began early in 2009 after an improvised rant by Rick Santelli, a CNBC commentator who called for an uprising to protest the Obama administration’s subsidizing the “losers’ mortgages.” Video of his diatribe rocketed around the country, and protesters quickly adopted both his call for a tea party and his general abhorrence of government that took from the virtuous and the successful and gave to the poor, the uninsured, the bankrupt—in short, the losers. It sounded harsh, Santelli quickly conceded, but “at the end of the day I’m an Ayn Rander.”
Ayn Rand, of course, was a kind of politicized L. Ron Hubbard—a novelist-philosopher who inspired a cult of acolytes who deem her the greatest human being who ever lived. The enduring heart of Rand’s totalistic philosophy was Marxism flipped upside down. Rand viewed the capitalists, not the workers, as the producers of all wealth, and the workers, not the capitalists, as useless parasites.
John Galt, the protagonist of her iconic novel Atlas Shrugged, expressed Rand’s inverted Marxism: “The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.”
In 2009 Rand began popping up all over the Tea Party movement. Sales of her books skyrocketed, and signs quoting her ideas appeared constantly at rallies. Conservatives asserted that the events of the Obama administration eerily paralleled the plot of Atlas Shrugged, in which a liberal government precipitates economic collapse.
One conservative making that point was Ryan. His citation of Rand was not casual. He’s a Rand nut. In the days before his star turn as America’s Accountant, Ryan once appeared at a gathering to honor her philosophy, where he announced, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” He continues to view Rand as a lodestar, requiring his staffers to digest her creepy tracts.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Dan Smith: Libya and the Fog of Intervention
Libya and the fog of intervention
by Dan Smith
...
war
What seems more likely, therefore, is that this war, having started, will be fought to the end. One side will win and one side will lose. It will be painful and bloody and whether the outcome will justify the suffering is one more thing we cannot yet know.
The ITNC estimates that 10,000 people have so far died in the Libyan uprising and war. If it is right that there is not a quick way out, many more people will die before the fighting’s over and it will be no surprise if, perhaps with interruptions and ceasefires along the way, that does not happen till the end of the year or later.
challenges and dilemmas on both sides of the argument
For supporters of intervention, this is the challenge of ‘do you really mean it?’, which I looked at in my last blog-post on Libya (10 March). Political leaders like Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama who have supported and led the case for intervention cannot be accused of attempting a cut-price, drive-by intervention. They have at least been serious; force has been used not to make a point but to achieve change. Now the question arises, will they continue to be serious? For months on end?
There is a strong case to make that something had to be done and the western powers could not just stand by and watch Qaddafi reassert his brutal rule. But do they have the stomach for war?
For opponents and sceptics of intervention, the main reservations have been based on
■the limited utility of military force, because the situation will be resolved politically or not at all;
■uncertain legitimacy, because the same European powers now bombing Qaddafi have embraced him when that was more politic;
■contradictory politics, because in the end freedom and sovereignty to underwrite it are not the grant of outside powers’ bombing campaigns.
Every single one of those reservations is sharpened by the uncertainties of the campaign, by the current impasse and by the prospect of continuing war.
But there is also an acute challenge – the challenge of, ‘but what would you do now?’
Now the war has started, which side are you on? Should the intervention stop because the war will be long and bloody? Which means that instead the war will be short, Qaddafi will be victorious, and the aftermath will be bloody – probably as bloody as the war.
Or do you say, we are where we are and we have to see it through?
Both sides of this argument have their case, both have their difficult questions, and neither has a neat answer.
To Read the Entire Post
by Dan Smith
...
war
What seems more likely, therefore, is that this war, having started, will be fought to the end. One side will win and one side will lose. It will be painful and bloody and whether the outcome will justify the suffering is one more thing we cannot yet know.
The ITNC estimates that 10,000 people have so far died in the Libyan uprising and war. If it is right that there is not a quick way out, many more people will die before the fighting’s over and it will be no surprise if, perhaps with interruptions and ceasefires along the way, that does not happen till the end of the year or later.
challenges and dilemmas on both sides of the argument
For supporters of intervention, this is the challenge of ‘do you really mean it?’, which I looked at in my last blog-post on Libya (10 March). Political leaders like Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama who have supported and led the case for intervention cannot be accused of attempting a cut-price, drive-by intervention. They have at least been serious; force has been used not to make a point but to achieve change. Now the question arises, will they continue to be serious? For months on end?
There is a strong case to make that something had to be done and the western powers could not just stand by and watch Qaddafi reassert his brutal rule. But do they have the stomach for war?
For opponents and sceptics of intervention, the main reservations have been based on
■the limited utility of military force, because the situation will be resolved politically or not at all;
■uncertain legitimacy, because the same European powers now bombing Qaddafi have embraced him when that was more politic;
■contradictory politics, because in the end freedom and sovereignty to underwrite it are not the grant of outside powers’ bombing campaigns.
Every single one of those reservations is sharpened by the uncertainties of the campaign, by the current impasse and by the prospect of continuing war.
But there is also an acute challenge – the challenge of, ‘but what would you do now?’
Now the war has started, which side are you on? Should the intervention stop because the war will be long and bloody? Which means that instead the war will be short, Qaddafi will be victorious, and the aftermath will be bloody – probably as bloody as the war.
Or do you say, we are where we are and we have to see it through?
Both sides of this argument have their case, both have their difficult questions, and neither has a neat answer.
To Read the Entire Post
Anthropology/Archaeology: Peace and Conflict Studies Archive
Antropologi: Social and Cultural Anthropology in the News (Norway)
Anthropology Blog Newspaper (Attempt to list and provide as a news feed -- all existing anthropology related blogs: ongoing)
The Archaeology Channel (Oregon: Archaeological Legacy Institute)
Campbell, Howard. "The Drug War Zone." History for the Future (February 15, 2011)
"Caveman." To the Best of Our Knowledge (May 16, 2010)
Coleman, Gabriella. "The Anthropology of Hackers." The Atlantic (September 21, 2010)
---. "Code is Speech: Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest Among Free and Open Source Software Developers." Cultural Anthropology 24.3 (2009: 420-454)
---. "Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking." (February 18, 2013)
---. "Geeks are the New Guardians of Our Civil Liberties." MIT Technology Review (February 4, 2013)
Coleman, Gabriella and Alex Golub. "Hacker practice: Moral genres and the cultural articulation of liberalism." Anthropology Today (2008)
Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff. "Reflections on Youth: From the Past to Postcolony." A. Honwana and P. De Boek, eds., Makers and Breakers, Made and Broken: Children and Youth as Emerging Categories in Postcolonial Africa. (Oxford: James Currey, 2005)
"Facing Time." To the Best Of Our Knowledge (October 10, 2010)
Farmer, Paul. "Bad Blood, Spoiled Milk: Bodily Fluids as Moral Barometers in Rural Haiti (1988)." The Paul Farmer Reader University of California Press, 2010: 33-61.
Farrow, Robert. "The Wicker Man: Games of truth, anthropology, and the death of ‘man’." Metaphilm (June 20, 2005)
Fry, Douglas P. "Peace in Our Time: Steven Pinker offers a curiously foreshortened account of humanity's irenic urges." Bookforum (December/January 2012)
Giles, David HGB. "Dumpster Diving and Smoothies of Wrath." Food Anthropology (January 1, 2006)
Graeber, David. "Debt: The First Five Thousand Years." Mute (February 10, 2009)
---. "Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots: The 'Occupy' movement is one of several in American history to be based on anarchist principles." Al Jazeera (November 30, 2011)
---. "On Bureaucratic Technologies & the Future as Dream-Time." School of Visual Arts (January 19, 2012)
Harvey, David. "Urban Uprisings from Occupy Wall Street to the Paris Commune." Democracy Now (April 30, 2012)
Hunt, Patrick. "The Rosetta Stone." Entitled Opinions (October 12, 2011)
John Hawks Weblog ["I'm an anthropologist, and I study the bones and genes of ancient humans. I was trained as a paleoanthropologist. ``Paleoanthropology'' is more than a speciality within anthropology, or biology. It is an integrated study involving methods and insights from many fields. Unlike many paleoanthropologists, my study extends across the entire span of human evolution, the last 6 million years, as I examine the genetic and environmental causes that made the foundation of our origins. My academic position is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison."]
Kelty, Christopher M. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. (Duke University Press, 2008)
Koerth-Baker, Maggie. "Archaeologists vs. The National Geographic Channel." Boing Boing (April 1, 2014)
Kuldova, Tereza. "Lookism: Why we don't want to be perceived as "ugly" or "different." Antropologi (December 13, 2011)
Lock, Margaret. "Biology and Culture." Ideas (January 2, 2009)
Marshall, Robert. "The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda." Salon (April 4, 2007)
McGuire, Randall. "Introduction." Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley: University of California, 2008: 12-50.
Mullins, Paul. "The Peep Show of Death: Televising Human Remains." Archaeology and Material Culture (March 28, 2014)
Ryan, Christopher and Cacilda Jetha. "Introduction: Another Well-Intentioned Inquisition." Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. (Harper, 2010: 1-15)
Anthropology Blog Newspaper (Attempt to list and provide as a news feed -- all existing anthropology related blogs: ongoing)
The Archaeology Channel (Oregon: Archaeological Legacy Institute)
Campbell, Howard. "The Drug War Zone." History for the Future (February 15, 2011)
"Caveman." To the Best of Our Knowledge (May 16, 2010)
Coleman, Gabriella. "The Anthropology of Hackers." The Atlantic (September 21, 2010)
---. "Code is Speech: Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest Among Free and Open Source Software Developers." Cultural Anthropology 24.3 (2009: 420-454)
---. "Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking." (February 18, 2013)
---. "Geeks are the New Guardians of Our Civil Liberties." MIT Technology Review (February 4, 2013)
Coleman, Gabriella and Alex Golub. "Hacker practice: Moral genres and the cultural articulation of liberalism." Anthropology Today (2008)
Comaroff, Jean and John Comaroff. "Reflections on Youth: From the Past to Postcolony." A. Honwana and P. De Boek, eds., Makers and Breakers, Made and Broken: Children and Youth as Emerging Categories in Postcolonial Africa. (Oxford: James Currey, 2005)
"Facing Time." To the Best Of Our Knowledge (October 10, 2010)
Farmer, Paul. "Bad Blood, Spoiled Milk: Bodily Fluids as Moral Barometers in Rural Haiti (1988)." The Paul Farmer Reader University of California Press, 2010: 33-61.
Farrow, Robert. "The Wicker Man: Games of truth, anthropology, and the death of ‘man’." Metaphilm (June 20, 2005)
Fry, Douglas P. "Peace in Our Time: Steven Pinker offers a curiously foreshortened account of humanity's irenic urges." Bookforum (December/January 2012)
Giles, David HGB. "Dumpster Diving and Smoothies of Wrath." Food Anthropology (January 1, 2006)
Graeber, David. "Debt: The First Five Thousand Years." Mute (February 10, 2009)
---. "Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots: The 'Occupy' movement is one of several in American history to be based on anarchist principles." Al Jazeera (November 30, 2011)
---. "On Bureaucratic Technologies & the Future as Dream-Time." School of Visual Arts (January 19, 2012)
Harvey, David. "Urban Uprisings from Occupy Wall Street to the Paris Commune." Democracy Now (April 30, 2012)
Hunt, Patrick. "The Rosetta Stone." Entitled Opinions (October 12, 2011)
John Hawks Weblog ["I'm an anthropologist, and I study the bones and genes of ancient humans. I was trained as a paleoanthropologist. ``Paleoanthropology'' is more than a speciality within anthropology, or biology. It is an integrated study involving methods and insights from many fields. Unlike many paleoanthropologists, my study extends across the entire span of human evolution, the last 6 million years, as I examine the genetic and environmental causes that made the foundation of our origins. My academic position is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison."]
Kelty, Christopher M. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. (Duke University Press, 2008)
Koerth-Baker, Maggie. "Archaeologists vs. The National Geographic Channel." Boing Boing (April 1, 2014)
Kuldova, Tereza. "Lookism: Why we don't want to be perceived as "ugly" or "different." Antropologi (December 13, 2011)
Lock, Margaret. "Biology and Culture." Ideas (January 2, 2009)
Marshall, Robert. "The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda." Salon (April 4, 2007)
McGuire, Randall. "Introduction." Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley: University of California, 2008: 12-50.
Mullins, Paul. "The Peep Show of Death: Televising Human Remains." Archaeology and Material Culture (March 28, 2014)
Ryan, Christopher and Cacilda Jetha. "Introduction: Another Well-Intentioned Inquisition." Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. (Harper, 2010: 1-15)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
David Hudson: The Civil War @ 150
The Civil War @ 150
by David Hudson
MUBI
"When South Carolina artillerymen opened fire on a small band of federal troops garrisoned in Ft Sumter exactly 150 years ago," writes Scott Collins in the Los Angeles Times, "the American Civil War officially began. Now Hollywood is getting ready to fight the nation's bloodiest conflict all over again with a passel of new sesquicentennial-ready film and TV projects from some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry, including directors Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott and Robert Redford."
Spielberg is currently set to begin shooting Lincoln in the fall, with Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role; Scott and his brother Tony have created CGI-enhanced reenactments for the History Channel's two-hour documentary Gettysburg, airing next month; and Redford's The Conspirator, "with Robin Wright as Mary Surratt, the boarding house proprietor who was accused of aiding John Wilkes Booth in his plot to kill Abraham Lincoln in April 1865," opens on Friday.
You can't write a piece on cinema's treatment of the Civil War without consulting Ken Burns, of course. Last week, PBS re-ran his and his brother Ric's 1990 ten-hour documentary The Civil War, and he tells Collins that this war is still "the most important event in American history. Everything that came before the Civil War led up to it; everything since has been, in many ways, a direct consequence of it."
The New York Times has turned to Burns as well, for a piece in which he elaborates on that argument. Today, he writes, "we ask again whether in our supposedly post-racial, globalized, 21st-century world those now seemingly distant battles of the mid-19th century still have any relevance. But it is clear that the further we get from those four horrible years in our national existence — when, paradoxically, in order to become one we tore ourselves in two — the more central and defining that war becomes. In our less civil society of this moment we are reminded of the full consequences of our failure to compromise in that moment." As for that landmark doc, "It was an emotional archaeology we were all after, less concerned with troop movements than with trying to represent the full fury of that war; we were attracted to its psychological disturbances and conflicted personalities, its persistent dissonance as well as its inspirational moments. We wanted to tell a more accurate story of African-Americans, not as the passive bystanders of conventional wisdom, but as active soldiers in an intensely personal drama of self-liberation. We wished to tell bottom-up stories of so-called ordinary soldiers, North as well as South, to note women's changing roles, to understand the Radical Republicans in Congress, to revel in the inconvenient truths of nearly every aspect of the Civil War."
Back to Collins: "'Hollywood has a frankly terrible history with the Civil War,' said David W Blight, a Yale historian currently on a fellowship at the Huntington Library in Pasadena, whose 2001 book Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory exploded many of the myths associated with the postwar Reconstruction period. A key problem, Blight noted, was the 'Lost Cause' mythology, which was promoted by Southern writers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and depicted the Confederacy as a noble and idyllic civilization vanquished by impossible odds. In some viewers' minds, the notion of sumptuous plantations filled with contented, wisecracking slaves still persists. 'Gone With the Wind laid that down in cinematic terms, so that you can probably never pull its roots out,' Blight said."
To Read the Rest of the Post and to Access the Hyperlinked Resources
by David Hudson
MUBI
"When South Carolina artillerymen opened fire on a small band of federal troops garrisoned in Ft Sumter exactly 150 years ago," writes Scott Collins in the Los Angeles Times, "the American Civil War officially began. Now Hollywood is getting ready to fight the nation's bloodiest conflict all over again with a passel of new sesquicentennial-ready film and TV projects from some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry, including directors Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott and Robert Redford."
Spielberg is currently set to begin shooting Lincoln in the fall, with Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role; Scott and his brother Tony have created CGI-enhanced reenactments for the History Channel's two-hour documentary Gettysburg, airing next month; and Redford's The Conspirator, "with Robin Wright as Mary Surratt, the boarding house proprietor who was accused of aiding John Wilkes Booth in his plot to kill Abraham Lincoln in April 1865," opens on Friday.
You can't write a piece on cinema's treatment of the Civil War without consulting Ken Burns, of course. Last week, PBS re-ran his and his brother Ric's 1990 ten-hour documentary The Civil War, and he tells Collins that this war is still "the most important event in American history. Everything that came before the Civil War led up to it; everything since has been, in many ways, a direct consequence of it."
The New York Times has turned to Burns as well, for a piece in which he elaborates on that argument. Today, he writes, "we ask again whether in our supposedly post-racial, globalized, 21st-century world those now seemingly distant battles of the mid-19th century still have any relevance. But it is clear that the further we get from those four horrible years in our national existence — when, paradoxically, in order to become one we tore ourselves in two — the more central and defining that war becomes. In our less civil society of this moment we are reminded of the full consequences of our failure to compromise in that moment." As for that landmark doc, "It was an emotional archaeology we were all after, less concerned with troop movements than with trying to represent the full fury of that war; we were attracted to its psychological disturbances and conflicted personalities, its persistent dissonance as well as its inspirational moments. We wanted to tell a more accurate story of African-Americans, not as the passive bystanders of conventional wisdom, but as active soldiers in an intensely personal drama of self-liberation. We wished to tell bottom-up stories of so-called ordinary soldiers, North as well as South, to note women's changing roles, to understand the Radical Republicans in Congress, to revel in the inconvenient truths of nearly every aspect of the Civil War."
Back to Collins: "'Hollywood has a frankly terrible history with the Civil War,' said David W Blight, a Yale historian currently on a fellowship at the Huntington Library in Pasadena, whose 2001 book Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory exploded many of the myths associated with the postwar Reconstruction period. A key problem, Blight noted, was the 'Lost Cause' mythology, which was promoted by Southern writers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and depicted the Confederacy as a noble and idyllic civilization vanquished by impossible odds. In some viewers' minds, the notion of sumptuous plantations filled with contented, wisecracking slaves still persists. 'Gone With the Wind laid that down in cinematic terms, so that you can probably never pull its roots out,' Blight said."
To Read the Rest of the Post and to Access the Hyperlinked Resources
Chris Hedges: Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System
Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System
by Chris Hedges
Common Dreams
A nation that destroys its systems of education, degrades its public information, guts its public libraries and turns its airwaves into vehicles for cheap, mindless amusement becomes deaf, dumb and blind. It prizes test scores above critical thinking and literacy. It celebrates rote vocational training and the singular, amoral skill of making money. It churns out stunted human products, lacking the capacity and vocabulary to challenge the assumptions and structures of the corporate state. It funnels them into a caste system of drones and systems managers. It transforms a democratic state into a feudal system of corporate masters and serfs.
Teachers, their unions under attack, are becoming as replaceable as minimum-wage employees at Burger King. We spurn real teachers—those with the capacity to inspire children to think, those who help the young discover their gifts and potential—and replace them with instructors who teach to narrow, standardized tests. These instructors obey. They teach children to obey. And that is the point. The No Child Left Behind program, modeled on the “Texas Miracle,” is a fraud. It worked no better than our deregulated financial system. But when you shut out debate these dead ideas are self-perpetuating.
Passing bubble tests celebrates and rewards a peculiar form of analytical intelligence. This kind of intelligence is prized by money managers and corporations. They don’t want employees to ask uncomfortable questions or examine existing structures and assumptions. They want them to serve the system. These tests produce men and women who are just literate and numerate enough to perform basic functions and service jobs. The tests elevate those with the financial means to prepare for them. They reward those who obey the rules, memorize the formulas and pay deference to authority. Rebels, artists, independent thinkers, eccentrics and iconoclasts—those who march to the beat of their own drum—are weeded out.
“Imagine,” said a public school teacher in New York City, who asked that I not use his name, “going to work each day knowing a great deal of what you are doing is fraudulent, knowing in no way are you preparing your students for life in an ever more brutal world, knowing that if you don’t continue along your scripted test prep course and indeed get better at it you will be out of a job. Up until very recently, the principal of a school was something like the conductor of an orchestra: a person who had deep experience and knowledge of the part and place of every member and every instrument. In the past 10 years we’ve had the emergence of both [Mayor] Mike Bloomberg’s Leadership Academy and Eli Broad’s Superintendents Academy, both created exclusively to produce instant principals and superintendents who model themselves after CEOs. How is this kind of thing even legal? How are such ‘academies’ accredited? What quality of leader needs a ‘leadership academy’? What kind of society would allow such people to run their children’s schools? The high-stakes tests may be worthless as pedagogy but they are a brilliant mechanism for undermining the school systems, instilling fear and creating a rationale for corporate takeover. There is something grotesque about the fact the education reform is being led not by educators but by financers and speculators and billionaires.”
To Read the Rest of the Essay
by Chris Hedges
Common Dreams
A nation that destroys its systems of education, degrades its public information, guts its public libraries and turns its airwaves into vehicles for cheap, mindless amusement becomes deaf, dumb and blind. It prizes test scores above critical thinking and literacy. It celebrates rote vocational training and the singular, amoral skill of making money. It churns out stunted human products, lacking the capacity and vocabulary to challenge the assumptions and structures of the corporate state. It funnels them into a caste system of drones and systems managers. It transforms a democratic state into a feudal system of corporate masters and serfs.
Teachers, their unions under attack, are becoming as replaceable as minimum-wage employees at Burger King. We spurn real teachers—those with the capacity to inspire children to think, those who help the young discover their gifts and potential—and replace them with instructors who teach to narrow, standardized tests. These instructors obey. They teach children to obey. And that is the point. The No Child Left Behind program, modeled on the “Texas Miracle,” is a fraud. It worked no better than our deregulated financial system. But when you shut out debate these dead ideas are self-perpetuating.
Passing bubble tests celebrates and rewards a peculiar form of analytical intelligence. This kind of intelligence is prized by money managers and corporations. They don’t want employees to ask uncomfortable questions or examine existing structures and assumptions. They want them to serve the system. These tests produce men and women who are just literate and numerate enough to perform basic functions and service jobs. The tests elevate those with the financial means to prepare for them. They reward those who obey the rules, memorize the formulas and pay deference to authority. Rebels, artists, independent thinkers, eccentrics and iconoclasts—those who march to the beat of their own drum—are weeded out.
“Imagine,” said a public school teacher in New York City, who asked that I not use his name, “going to work each day knowing a great deal of what you are doing is fraudulent, knowing in no way are you preparing your students for life in an ever more brutal world, knowing that if you don’t continue along your scripted test prep course and indeed get better at it you will be out of a job. Up until very recently, the principal of a school was something like the conductor of an orchestra: a person who had deep experience and knowledge of the part and place of every member and every instrument. In the past 10 years we’ve had the emergence of both [Mayor] Mike Bloomberg’s Leadership Academy and Eli Broad’s Superintendents Academy, both created exclusively to produce instant principals and superintendents who model themselves after CEOs. How is this kind of thing even legal? How are such ‘academies’ accredited? What quality of leader needs a ‘leadership academy’? What kind of society would allow such people to run their children’s schools? The high-stakes tests may be worthless as pedagogy but they are a brilliant mechanism for undermining the school systems, instilling fear and creating a rationale for corporate takeover. There is something grotesque about the fact the education reform is being led not by educators but by financers and speculators and billionaires.”
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Monday, April 11, 2011
Michael Dean Benton: Getting off on John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus -- American sex and sexuality
Getting off on John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus: American sex and sexuality
By Michael Dean Benton
North of Center
It is a common truism that reality can’t be copyrighted, but it can be manufactured, packaged, and marketed. Increasingly in our interconnected and digital world we are confronted by a plethora of images designed to influence us to buy certain realities. No images are more prevalent or artificial than the images of sex as products that circulate throughout American culture. From marketing pitches, to romance novels, to feature films, to internet peep shows: we are a prudish society that feeds on illusions of sex.
In these circulating narratives, from the idealistically romantic fairytales of Hallmark and Hollywood to the mindless sexual Olympics of contemporary pornography, sex is represented as a skill to be mastered in an individualistic quest to be number one. Interpersonal relations are psychological mind games which involve prescribed “rules” for success, and the pursuit of sexual fulfillment becomes a modern variant of bucket-listing as we check off various acts necessary to feel good about ourselves.
If we fail to perform to the level of these constructed fantasies then there is a new pharmaceutical pill (for a price) to make us hard, to renew our vigor, or to chase away our anxieties. If we feel our interpersonal skills need polishing there is always the advice of a new guru, in a multitude of packaged forms, presented for a fee, available to ease your anxieties.
Unrealistic body images, as destructive as they are in the development of our self-image and self-confidence, are doubled in their effect by the unrealistic expectations of contemporary sexual myths. In American society, sexuality is often understood as a private and sacrosanct aspect of our identity. Fragmented, separated, isolated, impermeable, we become easier targets for unrealistic myths and romantic fantasies.
John Cameron Mitchell’s 2006 film Shortbus is an honest exploration of a society that fetishizes sex, but rarely truthfully addresses issues of human sexuality. Despite the uncensored trailer’s emphasis (easily googled), the very real sex in the film is minimal, although very explicit. Instead, Shortbus is a powerful exploration of our psychosexual hang-ups, our collective/individual pain (the setting is post 9/11 New York City), the need for a candid exploration of human sexuality and, most importantly, the redemptive power of human engagement.
By Michael Dean Benton
North of Center
It is a common truism that reality can’t be copyrighted, but it can be manufactured, packaged, and marketed. Increasingly in our interconnected and digital world we are confronted by a plethora of images designed to influence us to buy certain realities. No images are more prevalent or artificial than the images of sex as products that circulate throughout American culture. From marketing pitches, to romance novels, to feature films, to internet peep shows: we are a prudish society that feeds on illusions of sex.
In these circulating narratives, from the idealistically romantic fairytales of Hallmark and Hollywood to the mindless sexual Olympics of contemporary pornography, sex is represented as a skill to be mastered in an individualistic quest to be number one. Interpersonal relations are psychological mind games which involve prescribed “rules” for success, and the pursuit of sexual fulfillment becomes a modern variant of bucket-listing as we check off various acts necessary to feel good about ourselves.
If we fail to perform to the level of these constructed fantasies then there is a new pharmaceutical pill (for a price) to make us hard, to renew our vigor, or to chase away our anxieties. If we feel our interpersonal skills need polishing there is always the advice of a new guru, in a multitude of packaged forms, presented for a fee, available to ease your anxieties.
Unrealistic body images, as destructive as they are in the development of our self-image and self-confidence, are doubled in their effect by the unrealistic expectations of contemporary sexual myths. In American society, sexuality is often understood as a private and sacrosanct aspect of our identity. Fragmented, separated, isolated, impermeable, we become easier targets for unrealistic myths and romantic fantasies.
John Cameron Mitchell’s 2006 film Shortbus is an honest exploration of a society that fetishizes sex, but rarely truthfully addresses issues of human sexuality. Despite the uncensored trailer’s emphasis (easily googled), the very real sex in the film is minimal, although very explicit. Instead, Shortbus is a powerful exploration of our psychosexual hang-ups, our collective/individual pain (the setting is post 9/11 New York City), the need for a candid exploration of human sexuality and, most importantly, the redemptive power of human engagement.
Melanie Klein: Make-up and Hot Pink Toenails- Not Just a Girl Thing
Make-up and Hot Pink Toenails- Not Just a Girl Thing
by Melanie Klein
WIMN's Voices
My toddler son has a thing for all things wheeled. He can easily distinguish a skip loader from a backhoe and a semi-truck from a dump truck. He’s also intrigued by my jewelery box, stacking bracelets high up his pudgy arms. After watching Mommy’s daily morning ritual of applying some eyeshadow and liquid liner on countless occasions, it’s none too surprising that he’s fascinated by my make-up box, eager to smear eyeshadow across his eyelids (forehead, nose and cheeks). My friend’s little boy loved sparkly ballet flats and dollhouses while another’s had a penchant for his sister’s pink tutu and glittered angel wings.
These boys are commonplace-and not represented in mainstream pop culture. There’s no room for these normal explorations in our hyper-segmented world of marketing. And, as a tragic example further down in this post will show, these normal, healthy childhood curiosities and small pleasures are usually quickly beaten out of boys, figuratively and literally.
Given this heavily color-coded world of children’s play, policed through gendered toy ads, catalogs and cartoons, this J. Crew advertisement comes as a breath of fresh air.Without eliciting much fanfare, a young boy and his mother are shown spending “quality time” together by painting their toenails. Hot. Pink.
To Read the Rest of the Post and Access the Advertisement
by Melanie Klein
WIMN's Voices
My toddler son has a thing for all things wheeled. He can easily distinguish a skip loader from a backhoe and a semi-truck from a dump truck. He’s also intrigued by my jewelery box, stacking bracelets high up his pudgy arms. After watching Mommy’s daily morning ritual of applying some eyeshadow and liquid liner on countless occasions, it’s none too surprising that he’s fascinated by my make-up box, eager to smear eyeshadow across his eyelids (forehead, nose and cheeks). My friend’s little boy loved sparkly ballet flats and dollhouses while another’s had a penchant for his sister’s pink tutu and glittered angel wings.
These boys are commonplace-and not represented in mainstream pop culture. There’s no room for these normal explorations in our hyper-segmented world of marketing. And, as a tragic example further down in this post will show, these normal, healthy childhood curiosities and small pleasures are usually quickly beaten out of boys, figuratively and literally.
Given this heavily color-coded world of children’s play, policed through gendered toy ads, catalogs and cartoons, this J. Crew advertisement comes as a breath of fresh air.Without eliciting much fanfare, a young boy and his mother are shown spending “quality time” together by painting their toenails. Hot. Pink.
To Read the Rest of the Post and Access the Advertisement
Cord Jefferson: A Reminder About the Insane Reason Your Government Was Almost Shut Down
A Reminder About the Insane Reason Your Government Was Almost Shut Down
by Cord Jefferson
For a description of the chart and a breakdown of republican lies about Planned Parenthood
by Cord Jefferson
For a description of the chart and a breakdown of republican lies about Planned Parenthood
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Glenn Greenwald: The Washington Post's dependence on the government it covers
The Washington Post's dependence on the government it covers
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon
The Washington Post this morning published a lengthy article detailing the fortune -- and now the trouble -- generated for its parent company, The Washington Post Co., as a result of its acquisition of Kaplan Higher Ed. While The Post continues to lose money, Kaplan -- particularly its sprawling network of for-profit "universities" which the company began building in 2000 -- generates huge profits for the company, profits on which the Post Co. depends almost completely for its sustainability.
Indeed, the newspaper has become little more than a side vanity project for the Post Co. and the Graham family which continues to dominate it; it is now, at its core, in the business of profiting off of lower-income students who pay for diplomas, often obtained via online classes. "The fate of The Post Co. has become inextricably linked with that of Kaplan, where revenue climbed to $2.9 billion in 2010, 61 percent of The Post Co.'s total," the article detailed; "the company is more dependent than ever on a single business,' [CEO Donald] Graham wrote in last year's annual report, adding that the newspaper had never accounted for as large a share of overall company revenue as Kaplan does today."
The article is largely devoted to recounting the corruption and abuses which pervade the for-profit education industry in general and Kaplan in particular (saddling poor people with debt in exchange for nothing of real value). But what I found most notable is how dependent is this industry -- including The Washington Post Co. -- on staying in the good graces of the Federal Government. Because these schools target low-income students, the vast majority of their income is derived from federal loans. Because there have been so many deceptive practices and defaults, the Federal Government has become much more aggressive about regulating these schools and now play a vital role in determining which ones can thrive and which ones fail.
Put another way, the company that owns The Washington Post is almost entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government and the Obama administration -- the entities which its newspaper ostensibly checks and holds accountable. "By the end of 2010, more than 90 percent of revenue at Kaplan’s biggest division and nearly a third of The Post Co.’s revenue overall came from the U.S. government." The Post Co.'s reliance on the Federal Government extends beyond the source of its revenue; because the industry is so heavily regulated, any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.'s business -- a reality of which they are well aware:
Beyond being reliant on federal money and not alienating federal regulators, the Post Co. desperately needs favorable treatment from members of Congress, and has been willing to use its newspaper to obtain it:
The Post is hardly alone among major media outlets in being owned by an entity which relies on the Federal Government for its continued profitability. NBC News and MSNBC were long owned by GE, and now by Comcast, both of which desperately need good relations with government officials for their profits. The same is true of CBS (owned by Viacom), ABC (owned by Disney), and CNN (owned by TimeWarner). For each of these large corporations, alienating federal government officials is about the worst possible move it could make -- something of which all of its employees, including its media division employees, are well aware. But the Post Co.'s dependence is even more overwhelming than most.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon
The Washington Post this morning published a lengthy article detailing the fortune -- and now the trouble -- generated for its parent company, The Washington Post Co., as a result of its acquisition of Kaplan Higher Ed. While The Post continues to lose money, Kaplan -- particularly its sprawling network of for-profit "universities" which the company began building in 2000 -- generates huge profits for the company, profits on which the Post Co. depends almost completely for its sustainability.
Indeed, the newspaper has become little more than a side vanity project for the Post Co. and the Graham family which continues to dominate it; it is now, at its core, in the business of profiting off of lower-income students who pay for diplomas, often obtained via online classes. "The fate of The Post Co. has become inextricably linked with that of Kaplan, where revenue climbed to $2.9 billion in 2010, 61 percent of The Post Co.'s total," the article detailed; "the company is more dependent than ever on a single business,' [CEO Donald] Graham wrote in last year's annual report, adding that the newspaper had never accounted for as large a share of overall company revenue as Kaplan does today."
The article is largely devoted to recounting the corruption and abuses which pervade the for-profit education industry in general and Kaplan in particular (saddling poor people with debt in exchange for nothing of real value). But what I found most notable is how dependent is this industry -- including The Washington Post Co. -- on staying in the good graces of the Federal Government. Because these schools target low-income students, the vast majority of their income is derived from federal loans. Because there have been so many deceptive practices and defaults, the Federal Government has become much more aggressive about regulating these schools and now play a vital role in determining which ones can thrive and which ones fail.
Put another way, the company that owns The Washington Post is almost entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government and the Obama administration -- the entities which its newspaper ostensibly checks and holds accountable. "By the end of 2010, more than 90 percent of revenue at Kaplan’s biggest division and nearly a third of The Post Co.’s revenue overall came from the U.S. government." The Post Co.'s reliance on the Federal Government extends beyond the source of its revenue; because the industry is so heavily regulated, any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.'s business -- a reality of which they are well aware:
The Post Co. realized there were risks attached to being dependent on federal dollars for revenue -- and that it could lose access to that money if it exceeded federal regulatory limits.
"It was understood that if you fell out of grace [with the Education Department], your business might go away," said Tom Might, who as chief executive of Cable One, a cable service provider that is owned by The Post Co., sat in at company-wide board meetings.
Beyond being reliant on federal money and not alienating federal regulators, the Post Co. desperately needs favorable treatment from members of Congress, and has been willing to use its newspaper to obtain it:
Graham has taken part in a fierce lobbying campaign by the for-profit education industry. He has visited key members of Congress, written an op-ed article for the Wall Street Journal and hired for The Post Co. high-powered lobbying firms including Akin Gump and Elmendorf Ryan, at a cost of $810,000 in 2010. The Post has also published an editorial opposing the new federal rules, while disclosing the interests of its parent company.
The Post is hardly alone among major media outlets in being owned by an entity which relies on the Federal Government for its continued profitability. NBC News and MSNBC were long owned by GE, and now by Comcast, both of which desperately need good relations with government officials for their profits. The same is true of CBS (owned by Viacom), ABC (owned by Disney), and CNN (owned by TimeWarner). For each of these large corporations, alienating federal government officials is about the worst possible move it could make -- something of which all of its employees, including its media division employees, are well aware. But the Post Co.'s dependence is even more overwhelming than most.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
Richard Watson: Future Minds
Futurist Richard Watson examines how screen culture is changing the way we think today, and how it will shape our future.
RSAnimate
RSAnimate
ENG 102 Discussion Prompts
Essential Research Resources:
Merriam Webster Word of the Day
Sourcewatch
Factcheck
Politifact
Snopes
Global Voices
Democracy Now
Global Issues
This American Life
====================================================================
Political Compass Test
Matthew Taylor: 21st Century Enlightenment/Richard Watson: Future Minds/"Michael Wesch: A Portal to Media Literacy/Michael Benton: Thinking About 21st Century Multiliteracies."/Eli Pariser: Beware Online Filter Bubbles/Adam Curtis: All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace
This American Life: Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory
Inside Job (documentary)/Richard D. Wolff: Austerity Programs/Public Campaign: Artful Dodgers/Michael Schwalbe: A Primer on Class Struggle/Ronald V. Dellums: Legislating for the People/Dale Maharidge: Someplace Like America/Matt Taibbi: The Real Housewives of Wall Street/Chris Hedges: The Death of the Liberal Class/Bill Moyers Journal: Capitol Crimes/Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz: Benton Harbor's Emergency Financial Manager/Dave Johnson: Actually, "the Rich" Don't "Create Jobs," We Do/Morgenson/Rosner: “Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon”
John Bellamy Foster: Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital/Chris Hedges: Why The United States is Destroying Its Education System/Rachel Maddow: Why a Michigan High School is Ground Zero for US Politics/Jeff Biggers: Chained Ethnic Studies Students Take Over School Board in Tucson/Christian L. Pyle: Adjuncts - The Invisible Majority/The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries/George Carlin: Go Back to Bed America/Mark Memmott: Many Children Still Don't Know Much About History
John Pilger: The War You Don't See
Yochai Benkler: Fear of a Networked Fourth Estate/Wikileaks: Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison/GritTV: Wikileaks Guantanamo Files/Bruce Ackerman: A Statement on Private Manning's Treatment/Yochai Benkler: A Free Irresponsible Press--Wikileaks and the Battle Over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate
Boler, Megan. "Introduction." Digital Media and Democracy. ed. Megan Boler. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008: 1-50./Global Voices: Advocacy/Global Voices: Citizen Media Stories From Around the World/Rising Voices/Technology for Transparency Network/Global Voices: Lingua/Global Voices Podcasts/Timothy Wu: The Master Switch - The Rise and Fall of Information Empires
Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Living/Wesley Houp: Life by Rheotaxis/Alex Steffen: On a Sustainable Future/Eric Schlosser: Why Being a Foodie Isn't Elitist
Melanie Klein: Make-up and Hot Pink Toenails- Not Just a Girl Thing/WIMN website/resources/The Daily Show: Toemageddon 2011/Huffington Post: Slut Walk Sweeps the Nation/Jezebel: A Ten Year Old's Rant to Boys Around the World/Michael Benton: Gender and Sexuality at the Carnegie Center/Chloe Angyal: A Few Words About Reclaiming the Word "Slut"/Jos Pruitt: Racist Psychology Today article claims black women are objectively less attractive than other women/Ernesto Aguilar: Four Brief Critiques of SlutWalk’s Whiteness, Privilege and Unexamined Power Dynamics (read comments from Roc and Vaudree that critique Aguilar's claims)/Joanna Chiu: SlutWalk: Does The Media Make the Message?/Tamura Lomax: SlutWalk - A Black Feminist Comment on Media, Messages and Meaning/Sasha: Brief Guide to Not Being a Douchey Misogynist
Gaddafi Accused of Using Cluster Munitions/Beau Grosscup: Cluster Munitions and State Terrorism/"Governments Kill."
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha: Sex at Dawn/:"Leanna Wolfe: On Kittens and the Very Invented Culture of Polyamory"/Barry Smiler: There's No Such Thing as Polyamory
Hate Comes to Orange County/Tea Partiers and Republican Allies Flaunt Their Racist Colors/Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights: Tea Party Nationalism
To the Best of Our Knowledge: Travel
Intelligence Squared: Is America to Blame for Mexico's Drug War/Democracy Now: Mexico - Majority of Guns Come From U.S., Hearing Begins on U.S. Efforts To Sell Weapons To Cartels
Common Sense with Dan Carlin: Pyrrhic Schadenfreude/Tim Wise: Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry/Bill Shein: It's Time for Change, Not Celebration/Danny Schecter: Nailing Osama -- The Media's Delight/Maureen Dowd: "Killing Evil Doesn't Make Us Evil"/National Security Archive: The Osama Bin Laden File/Diane Roberts: Osama bin Laden was not found using torture/Noam Chomsky: There Is Much To Say/David Sirota: The Real Problem with Bin Laden Killing Video Games - Once again, the Pentagon is co-opting electronic entertainment to sell us on the military
Washington Post: Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists/Greta Christina: Atheists and Anger/Jennifer Michael Hecht: A History of Doubt/Ian Murphy: Militant Atheist for Congress
Colman McCarthy, et al: A Class on Nonviolence
Astroturf Organizations Spreading Propaganda: "Don't Make Me Pay"/Coal Cares (Satire)/Democracy Now: The Yes Men/Critical Art Ensemble: BioCom
Bruce Levine: Toward a Healthy Society/Chalmers Johnson: Our Managed Democracy/Dana Priest: Top Secret America/Jane Mayer: The Secret Sharer - Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state?/Moynihan/Shane: For Anarchist, Details of Life as F.B.I. Target/Bill Moyers on His Legendary Journalism Career: "Democracy Should Be a Brake on Unbridled Greed and Power"/Scott Crow/Mike German: FBI to Expand Domestic Surveillance Powers as Details Emerge of Its Spy Campaign Targeting Activists
Merriam Webster Word of the Day
Sourcewatch
Factcheck
Politifact
Snopes
Global Voices
Democracy Now
Global Issues
This American Life
====================================================================
Political Compass Test
Matthew Taylor: 21st Century Enlightenment/Richard Watson: Future Minds/"Michael Wesch: A Portal to Media Literacy/Michael Benton: Thinking About 21st Century Multiliteracies."/Eli Pariser: Beware Online Filter Bubbles/Adam Curtis: All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace
This American Life: Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory
Inside Job (documentary)/Richard D. Wolff: Austerity Programs/Public Campaign: Artful Dodgers/Michael Schwalbe: A Primer on Class Struggle/Ronald V. Dellums: Legislating for the People/Dale Maharidge: Someplace Like America/Matt Taibbi: The Real Housewives of Wall Street/Chris Hedges: The Death of the Liberal Class/Bill Moyers Journal: Capitol Crimes/Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz: Benton Harbor's Emergency Financial Manager/Dave Johnson: Actually, "the Rich" Don't "Create Jobs," We Do/Morgenson/Rosner: “Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon”
John Bellamy Foster: Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital/Chris Hedges: Why The United States is Destroying Its Education System/Rachel Maddow: Why a Michigan High School is Ground Zero for US Politics/Jeff Biggers: Chained Ethnic Studies Students Take Over School Board in Tucson/Christian L. Pyle: Adjuncts - The Invisible Majority/The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries/George Carlin: Go Back to Bed America/Mark Memmott: Many Children Still Don't Know Much About History
John Pilger: The War You Don't See
Yochai Benkler: Fear of a Networked Fourth Estate/Wikileaks: Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison/GritTV: Wikileaks Guantanamo Files/Bruce Ackerman: A Statement on Private Manning's Treatment/Yochai Benkler: A Free Irresponsible Press--Wikileaks and the Battle Over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate
Boler, Megan. "Introduction." Digital Media and Democracy. ed. Megan Boler. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008: 1-50./Global Voices: Advocacy/Global Voices: Citizen Media Stories From Around the World/Rising Voices/Technology for Transparency Network/Global Voices: Lingua/Global Voices Podcasts/Timothy Wu: The Master Switch - The Rise and Fall of Information Empires
Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Living/Wesley Houp: Life by Rheotaxis/Alex Steffen: On a Sustainable Future/Eric Schlosser: Why Being a Foodie Isn't Elitist
Melanie Klein: Make-up and Hot Pink Toenails- Not Just a Girl Thing/WIMN website/resources/The Daily Show: Toemageddon 2011/Huffington Post: Slut Walk Sweeps the Nation/Jezebel: A Ten Year Old's Rant to Boys Around the World/Michael Benton: Gender and Sexuality at the Carnegie Center/Chloe Angyal: A Few Words About Reclaiming the Word "Slut"/Jos Pruitt: Racist Psychology Today article claims black women are objectively less attractive than other women/Ernesto Aguilar: Four Brief Critiques of SlutWalk’s Whiteness, Privilege and Unexamined Power Dynamics (read comments from Roc and Vaudree that critique Aguilar's claims)/Joanna Chiu: SlutWalk: Does The Media Make the Message?/Tamura Lomax: SlutWalk - A Black Feminist Comment on Media, Messages and Meaning/Sasha: Brief Guide to Not Being a Douchey Misogynist
Gaddafi Accused of Using Cluster Munitions/Beau Grosscup: Cluster Munitions and State Terrorism/"Governments Kill."
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha: Sex at Dawn/:"Leanna Wolfe: On Kittens and the Very Invented Culture of Polyamory"/Barry Smiler: There's No Such Thing as Polyamory
Hate Comes to Orange County/Tea Partiers and Republican Allies Flaunt Their Racist Colors/Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights: Tea Party Nationalism
To the Best of Our Knowledge: Travel
Intelligence Squared: Is America to Blame for Mexico's Drug War/Democracy Now: Mexico - Majority of Guns Come From U.S., Hearing Begins on U.S. Efforts To Sell Weapons To Cartels
Common Sense with Dan Carlin: Pyrrhic Schadenfreude/Tim Wise: Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry/Bill Shein: It's Time for Change, Not Celebration/Danny Schecter: Nailing Osama -- The Media's Delight/Maureen Dowd: "Killing Evil Doesn't Make Us Evil"/National Security Archive: The Osama Bin Laden File/Diane Roberts: Osama bin Laden was not found using torture/Noam Chomsky: There Is Much To Say/David Sirota: The Real Problem with Bin Laden Killing Video Games - Once again, the Pentagon is co-opting electronic entertainment to sell us on the military
Washington Post: Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists/Greta Christina: Atheists and Anger/Jennifer Michael Hecht: A History of Doubt/Ian Murphy: Militant Atheist for Congress
Colman McCarthy, et al: A Class on Nonviolence
Astroturf Organizations Spreading Propaganda: "Don't Make Me Pay"/Coal Cares (Satire)/Democracy Now: The Yes Men/Critical Art Ensemble: BioCom
Bruce Levine: Toward a Healthy Society/Chalmers Johnson: Our Managed Democracy/Dana Priest: Top Secret America/Jane Mayer: The Secret Sharer - Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state?/Moynihan/Shane: For Anarchist, Details of Life as F.B.I. Target/Bill Moyers on His Legendary Journalism Career: "Democracy Should Be a Brake on Unbridled Greed and Power"/Scott Crow/Mike German: FBI to Expand Domestic Surveillance Powers as Details Emerge of Its Spy Campaign Targeting Activists
Susan Dominus: Suzanne Collins’s War Stories for Kids
Suzanne Collins’s War Stories for Kids
by Susan Dominus
The New York Times
Back in 2009, the literary agent Rosemary Stimola sat down to read “Mockingjay,” the third, highly anticipated book in a wildly popular trilogy of young adult novels by Suzanne Collins. Stimola, who represents Collins, read eagerly until she came to one of the last chapters, in which a firebombing kills thousands of civilians caught in a revolutionary war, including one heartbreakingly innocent and beloved young character. The book was then a computer file, not yet the blockbuster it would become upon its release last August. Changes could still be made. Stimola picked up the phone and called Collins.
“No!” Stimola wailed. “Don’t do it.”
She was reacting as a reader, not a career adviser, but perhaps in the back of her mind she was imagining the emotions the plot twist might provoke in the book’s youthful fans: depression rather than inspiration, desolation rather than triumph. The capacity of young-adult literature for dark messaging has been expanding since the early ’70s, but this poignant loss seemed almost unbearable.
“Oh, but it has to be,” Collins told her. Stimola, paraphrasing, recalled the explanation Collins offered her over the phone: “This is not a fairy tale; it’s a war, and in war, there are tragic losses that must be mourned.”
Collins, a 48-year-old mother of two, spent much of her adult life writing for children’s television, dreaming up plot lines for shows like “Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!” a Nick Jr. cartoon aimed at preschoolers. But in the “Hunger Games” trilogy, she revealed an outsize imagination for suffering and brutality. The books juxtapose the futuristic fantasy of a gleaming, high-tech capital and early-industrial life in the 12 half-starved districts it controls. In a ritual known as the Reaping, two adolescents from each of these oppressed districts are selected at random to participate in the Hunger Games, an annual televised match in which children battle one another and mutated beasts to the death, like Roman gladiators in a glitzy reality-TV contest. The trilogy’s heroine, Katniss, 16 years old when the series begins, has the tough-girl angst of an S.E. Hinton teenager and is too focused on survival to spend much time on familiar Y.A. preoccupations like cliques and crushes. On the very first page, she stares at the family’s pet cat, recalling, matter-of-factly, her aborted attempt to “drown him in a bucket.” By the last book, she is leading a revolution.
You could predict that adolescents — who keep slasher films in business — would find the “Hunger Games” trilogy mesmerizing. More surprising is how many adults, bookstore owners report, buy the books for themselves or to read with their children. Collins has said that the premise for “The Hunger Games” came to her one evening when she was channel-surfing and flipped from a reality-television competition to footage from the war in Iraq. An overt critique of violence, the series makes warfare deeply personal, forcing readers to contemplate their own roles as desensitized voyeurs.
By the time “Mockingjay” appeared, “The Hunger Games” had become part of a kind of publishing holy trinity, taking its place alongside J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter ” series and Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight.” When “Mockingjay” was released at midnight, some bookstores kept their doors open for those readers who could not wait until the break of day to discover the fate of their favorite characters. As soon as the hype of the last book died down, speculation about the film version of “The Hunger Games” (slated for release next March) began to build. The casting of Katniss — whom The Atlantic called “the most important female character in recent pop culture history”— inspired a frenzy of online commentary. Last month, when Lionsgate announced that Jennifer Lawrence (of “Winter’s Bone”) would play Katniss, so many opinionated fans lighted up the blogosphere with objections (too old! too blond!) that the film’s director, Gary Ross, gave an interview to Entertainment Weekly assuring them that Collins was herself committed to the choice.
To Read the Interview
by Susan Dominus
The New York Times
Back in 2009, the literary agent Rosemary Stimola sat down to read “Mockingjay,” the third, highly anticipated book in a wildly popular trilogy of young adult novels by Suzanne Collins. Stimola, who represents Collins, read eagerly until she came to one of the last chapters, in which a firebombing kills thousands of civilians caught in a revolutionary war, including one heartbreakingly innocent and beloved young character. The book was then a computer file, not yet the blockbuster it would become upon its release last August. Changes could still be made. Stimola picked up the phone and called Collins.
“No!” Stimola wailed. “Don’t do it.”
She was reacting as a reader, not a career adviser, but perhaps in the back of her mind she was imagining the emotions the plot twist might provoke in the book’s youthful fans: depression rather than inspiration, desolation rather than triumph. The capacity of young-adult literature for dark messaging has been expanding since the early ’70s, but this poignant loss seemed almost unbearable.
“Oh, but it has to be,” Collins told her. Stimola, paraphrasing, recalled the explanation Collins offered her over the phone: “This is not a fairy tale; it’s a war, and in war, there are tragic losses that must be mourned.”
Collins, a 48-year-old mother of two, spent much of her adult life writing for children’s television, dreaming up plot lines for shows like “Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!” a Nick Jr. cartoon aimed at preschoolers. But in the “Hunger Games” trilogy, she revealed an outsize imagination for suffering and brutality. The books juxtapose the futuristic fantasy of a gleaming, high-tech capital and early-industrial life in the 12 half-starved districts it controls. In a ritual known as the Reaping, two adolescents from each of these oppressed districts are selected at random to participate in the Hunger Games, an annual televised match in which children battle one another and mutated beasts to the death, like Roman gladiators in a glitzy reality-TV contest. The trilogy’s heroine, Katniss, 16 years old when the series begins, has the tough-girl angst of an S.E. Hinton teenager and is too focused on survival to spend much time on familiar Y.A. preoccupations like cliques and crushes. On the very first page, she stares at the family’s pet cat, recalling, matter-of-factly, her aborted attempt to “drown him in a bucket.” By the last book, she is leading a revolution.
You could predict that adolescents — who keep slasher films in business — would find the “Hunger Games” trilogy mesmerizing. More surprising is how many adults, bookstore owners report, buy the books for themselves or to read with their children. Collins has said that the premise for “The Hunger Games” came to her one evening when she was channel-surfing and flipped from a reality-television competition to footage from the war in Iraq. An overt critique of violence, the series makes warfare deeply personal, forcing readers to contemplate their own roles as desensitized voyeurs.
By the time “Mockingjay” appeared, “The Hunger Games” had become part of a kind of publishing holy trinity, taking its place alongside J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter ” series and Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight.” When “Mockingjay” was released at midnight, some bookstores kept their doors open for those readers who could not wait until the break of day to discover the fate of their favorite characters. As soon as the hype of the last book died down, speculation about the film version of “The Hunger Games” (slated for release next March) began to build. The casting of Katniss — whom The Atlantic called “the most important female character in recent pop culture history”— inspired a frenzy of online commentary. Last month, when Lionsgate announced that Jennifer Lawrence (of “Winter’s Bone”) would play Katniss, so many opinionated fans lighted up the blogosphere with objections (too old! too blond!) that the film’s director, Gary Ross, gave an interview to Entertainment Weekly assuring them that Collins was herself committed to the choice.
To Read the Interview
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Joseph Stiglitz: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
By Joseph E. Stiglitz
Vanity Fair
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.
Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
By Joseph E. Stiglitz
Vanity Fair
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.
Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Juan Cole: An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
by Juan Cole
The Nation
As I expected, now that Qaddafi’s advantage in armor and heavy weapons is being neutralized by the UN allies’ air campaign, the liberation movement is regaining lost territory. Liberators took back Ajdabiya and Brega (Marsa al-Burayqa), key oil towns, on Saturday into Sunday morning, and seemed set to head further West. This rapid advance is almost certainly made possible in part by the hatred of Qaddafi among the majority of the people of these cities. The Buraiqa Basin contains much of Libya’s oil wealth, and the Transitional Government in Benghazi will soon again control 80 percent of this resource, an advantage in their struggle with Qaddafi.
I am unabashedly cheering the liberation movement on, and glad that the UNSC-authorized intervention has saved them from being crushed. I can still remember when I was a teenager how disappointed I was that Soviet tanks were allowed to put down the Prague Spring and extirpate socialism with a human face. Our multilateral world has more spaces in it for successful change and defiance of totalitarianism than did the old bipolar world of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR often deferred to each other’s sphere of influence.
The United Nations-authorized intervention in Libya has pitched ethical issues of the highest importance, and has split progressives in unfortunate ways. I hope we can have a calm and civilized discussion of the rights and wrongs here.
On the surface, the situation in Libya a week and a half ago posed a contradiction between two key principles of Left politics: supporting the ordinary people and opposing foreign domination of them. Libya’s workers and townspeople had risen up to overthrow the dictator in city after city—Tobruk, Dirna, al-Bayda, Benghazi, Ajdabiya, Misrata, Zawiya, Zuara, Zintan. Even in the capital of Tripoli, working-class neighborhoods such as Suq al-Jumah and Tajoura had chased out the secret police. In the two weeks after February 17, there was little or no sign of the protesters being armed or engaging in violence.
The libel put out by the dictator, that the 570,000 people of Misrata or the 700,000 people of Benghazi were supporters of “al-Qaeda,” was without foundation. That a handful of young Libyan men from Dirna and the surrounding area had fought in Iraq is simply irrelevant. The Sunni Arab resistance in Iraq was for the most part not accurately called ‘al-Qaeda,’ which is a propaganda term in this case. All of the countries experiencing liberation movements had sympathizers with the Sunni Iraqi resistance; in fact opinion polling shows such sympathy almost universal throughout the Sunni Arab world. All of them had at least some fundamentalist movements. That was no reason to wish the Tunisians, Egyptians, Syrians and others ill. The question is what kind of leadership was emerging in places like Benghazi. The answer is that it was simply the notables of the city. If there were an uprising against Silvio Berlusconi in Milan, it would likely unite businessmen and factory workers, Catholics and secularists. It would just be the people of Milan. A few old time members of the Red Brigades might even come out, and perhaps some organized crime figures. But to defame all Milan with them would be mere propaganda.
Then Muammar Qaddafi’s sons rallied his armored brigades and air force to bomb the civilian crowds and shoot tank shells into them. Members of the Transitional Government Council in Benghazi estimate that 8000 were killed as Qaddafi’s forces attacked and subdued Zawiya, Zuara, Ra’s Lanuf, Brega, Ajdabiya, and the working class districts of Tripoli itself, using live ammunition fired into defenseless rallies. If 8000 was an exaggeration, simply “thousands” was not, as attested by Left media such as Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! As Qaddafi’s tank brigades reached the southern districts of Benghazi, the prospect loomed of a massacre of committed rebels on a large scale.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
by Juan Cole
The Nation
As I expected, now that Qaddafi’s advantage in armor and heavy weapons is being neutralized by the UN allies’ air campaign, the liberation movement is regaining lost territory. Liberators took back Ajdabiya and Brega (Marsa al-Burayqa), key oil towns, on Saturday into Sunday morning, and seemed set to head further West. This rapid advance is almost certainly made possible in part by the hatred of Qaddafi among the majority of the people of these cities. The Buraiqa Basin contains much of Libya’s oil wealth, and the Transitional Government in Benghazi will soon again control 80 percent of this resource, an advantage in their struggle with Qaddafi.
I am unabashedly cheering the liberation movement on, and glad that the UNSC-authorized intervention has saved them from being crushed. I can still remember when I was a teenager how disappointed I was that Soviet tanks were allowed to put down the Prague Spring and extirpate socialism with a human face. Our multilateral world has more spaces in it for successful change and defiance of totalitarianism than did the old bipolar world of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR often deferred to each other’s sphere of influence.
The United Nations-authorized intervention in Libya has pitched ethical issues of the highest importance, and has split progressives in unfortunate ways. I hope we can have a calm and civilized discussion of the rights and wrongs here.
On the surface, the situation in Libya a week and a half ago posed a contradiction between two key principles of Left politics: supporting the ordinary people and opposing foreign domination of them. Libya’s workers and townspeople had risen up to overthrow the dictator in city after city—Tobruk, Dirna, al-Bayda, Benghazi, Ajdabiya, Misrata, Zawiya, Zuara, Zintan. Even in the capital of Tripoli, working-class neighborhoods such as Suq al-Jumah and Tajoura had chased out the secret police. In the two weeks after February 17, there was little or no sign of the protesters being armed or engaging in violence.
The libel put out by the dictator, that the 570,000 people of Misrata or the 700,000 people of Benghazi were supporters of “al-Qaeda,” was without foundation. That a handful of young Libyan men from Dirna and the surrounding area had fought in Iraq is simply irrelevant. The Sunni Arab resistance in Iraq was for the most part not accurately called ‘al-Qaeda,’ which is a propaganda term in this case. All of the countries experiencing liberation movements had sympathizers with the Sunni Iraqi resistance; in fact opinion polling shows such sympathy almost universal throughout the Sunni Arab world. All of them had at least some fundamentalist movements. That was no reason to wish the Tunisians, Egyptians, Syrians and others ill. The question is what kind of leadership was emerging in places like Benghazi. The answer is that it was simply the notables of the city. If there were an uprising against Silvio Berlusconi in Milan, it would likely unite businessmen and factory workers, Catholics and secularists. It would just be the people of Milan. A few old time members of the Red Brigades might even come out, and perhaps some organized crime figures. But to defame all Milan with them would be mere propaganda.
Then Muammar Qaddafi’s sons rallied his armored brigades and air force to bomb the civilian crowds and shoot tank shells into them. Members of the Transitional Government Council in Benghazi estimate that 8000 were killed as Qaddafi’s forces attacked and subdued Zawiya, Zuara, Ra’s Lanuf, Brega, Ajdabiya, and the working class districts of Tripoli itself, using live ammunition fired into defenseless rallies. If 8000 was an exaggeration, simply “thousands” was not, as attested by Left media such as Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! As Qaddafi’s tank brigades reached the southern districts of Benghazi, the prospect loomed of a massacre of committed rebels on a large scale.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
Monday, April 04, 2011
Rand Wilson: Rite Aid Workers’ Strike in Cleveland Sparks Nationwide Protest
Rite Aid Workers’ Strike in Cleveland Sparks Nationwide Protest
by Rand Wilson
In These Times
Last Friday, more than two dozen Rite Aid drugstores across the country had some unexpected visitors. Activists in 10 states converged on 30 stores on April 1 to protest the company's unfair labor practices and management's efforts to impose unaffordable healthcare costs on employees.
Workers at six Cleveland Rite Aid stores—whose employees are members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 880—have been on strike since March 14. After nearly a year of fruitless contract negotiations, the strike started because Rite Aid management committed dozens of unfair labor practices, violating members' rights through illegal threats, harassment, retaliation, surveillance and refusing to bargain in good faith.
Rite Aid resorted to these illegal tactics in Ohio as part of a nationwide effort to convince workers to move into a more expensive company health insurance plan. Many Rite Aid retail employees are paid such low wages that if their union accepted Rite Aid's plan, they would be forced to decline company coverage and instead rely on taxpayer provided benefits such as Medicaid for their medical needs.
According to UFCW Local 880's Carl Ivka, "Rite Aid wants to shift the cost of health care benefits onto the backs of the workers and onto the backs of the taxpayers in order to help recoup huge losses caused by poor management decisions. Yet the poor performance of the company executives has not affected their compensation in the least. The new president of Rite Aid received a compensation package that is higher than that of his predecessor, one that pays him $4.5 million, an amount that translates into $2,163.46 per hour."
To Read the Rest of the Article
by Rand Wilson
In These Times
Last Friday, more than two dozen Rite Aid drugstores across the country had some unexpected visitors. Activists in 10 states converged on 30 stores on April 1 to protest the company's unfair labor practices and management's efforts to impose unaffordable healthcare costs on employees.
Workers at six Cleveland Rite Aid stores—whose employees are members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 880—have been on strike since March 14. After nearly a year of fruitless contract negotiations, the strike started because Rite Aid management committed dozens of unfair labor practices, violating members' rights through illegal threats, harassment, retaliation, surveillance and refusing to bargain in good faith.
Rite Aid resorted to these illegal tactics in Ohio as part of a nationwide effort to convince workers to move into a more expensive company health insurance plan. Many Rite Aid retail employees are paid such low wages that if their union accepted Rite Aid's plan, they would be forced to decline company coverage and instead rely on taxpayer provided benefits such as Medicaid for their medical needs.
According to UFCW Local 880's Carl Ivka, "Rite Aid wants to shift the cost of health care benefits onto the backs of the workers and onto the backs of the taxpayers in order to help recoup huge losses caused by poor management decisions. Yet the poor performance of the company executives has not affected their compensation in the least. The new president of Rite Aid received a compensation package that is higher than that of his predecessor, one that pays him $4.5 million, an amount that translates into $2,163.46 per hour."
To Read the Rest of the Article
The Ramones Live: 26 Songs In 54 Minutes
The Ramones Live: 26 Songs In 54 Minutes
All Songs Considered
Hear a monumental concert from one of America's best bands in their prime. The Ramones live at New York City's Palladium, January 7, 1978. 26 songs in 54 minutes all set to a series of cheap sci-fi movie trailers. What could be better?
All Songs Considered
Hear a monumental concert from one of America's best bands in their prime. The Ramones live at New York City's Palladium, January 7, 1978. 26 songs in 54 minutes all set to a series of cheap sci-fi movie trailers. What could be better?
THE RAMONES from Zoltan on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)