Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
John Feffer: Governments Kill
Governments Kill
By John Feffer
Institute for Policy Studies
We make a bargain with our governments. We pay taxes and expect a set of government services in return. And in return for a guarantee of some measure of security, we grant the government a monopoly on legitimate violence. In theory, then, we forswear mob rule and paramilitary organizations, we occasionally accept the death penalty as an appropriate punishment, we delegate the responsibility to declare and prosecute war to our legislative and executive branches, and we put guns into the hands of the army and the police.
Governments, in other words, kill on our behalf. This arrangement is a form of social contract, which means that governments are basically contract killers. Some states, like Nazi Germany, use the tremendous power of arms and bureaucracy to transform their territories into slaughterhouses. Regimes that are merely authoritarian can be equally brutal but display a greater selectivity in their tyranny. In our more decorous democracies, meanwhile, we perfume our conversations with words like "justice" and "national security" to mask the odor of death.
Americans have never been entirely comfortable with this bargain. We have a long tradition of taking the law into our own hands, beginning with our own hallowed revolution. During the Reconstruction period, lynch mobs were a continuation of the Civil War by other means. More recently, a variety of paramilitary organizations have flourished, from the racist Posse Comitatus chapters that sprang up in the late 1960s to more recent anti-immigrant militias like the Minutemen. Even suburban soccer moms have zealously defended their "right" to bear arms. On the other side of the spectrum, meanwhile, a broad-based coalition has challenged the government's "right" to kill citizens through the death penalty. And an equally diverse movement has protested the government's waging of wars overseas.
It would perhaps be naïve to expect that a government, invested with the exclusive legal power to kill people, would use that power only within the borders of the country that it administrates. At some point in the distant future, a world government might assume the privilege of the monopoly on legitimate violence and discipline individual countries for their violent outbursts -- in the same way that individual governments currently sanction their citizens if they fire off submachine guns in malls. For the time being, however, we live in a semi-regulated environment in which governments use violence to secure their borders and, occasionally, territories that lie beyond.
States committing acts of violence were much in the news this week, particularly in the Middle East. Turkish forces have been bombing targets in northern Iraq for a week after a series of attacks by Kurdish rebels in southeastern Turkey. Israeli aircraft launched raids in Gaza after coordinated attacks along the Israeli-Egypt border left eight Israelis dead. The Syrian government continues to crack down on protesters, with a death toll passing 2,200 after several months of resistance. And NATO forces bombed selected targets around Tripoli as rebel forces streamed into the Libyan capital for a final assault on Moammar Gaddafi's stronghold.
Quick test: which of these uses of violence are legitimate?
Some people treat the issue as they would a sports game, always rooting for the home team no matter how dirty they might play. If you support Israel, then Israeli actions are by definition right. Pacifists also have a simple answer: there are no legitimate uses of state violence. But states are unlikely to adopt pacifism unless forced to (as the United States forced Japan after World War II). Aside from the partisan and the pacifist arguments, those who support the legitimate use of state violence will claim self-defense or promise the prevention of a greater violence like genocide. But these, too, are tricky justifications. Turkey believes that it is acting in self-defense, but so do the Libyan and Syrian governments. And military intervention to stop genocide – the stated purpose of NATO's action against Libya – can have mixed motives, and it is not easy to define genocide before the fact.
One popular way of determining the legitimacy of these exercises of violence is to invoke democracy. Democratic governments, as opposed to authoritarian regimes, legitimately use violence because there has been an opportunity for citizens to freely form a social contract with the government. Turkey and Israel are democratic countries, and thus their use of force is legitimate. Ditto with NATO’s attack on Libyan targets. Democratic countries use violence in a self-limited way. As political philosopher John Keane writes in Violence and Democracy, "Ideally conceived, democracies understand themselves as systems of lawful power-sharing, whose actors are attuned to the dangers of violence – and to the mutual benefits of non-violence." As such, Keane argues, democracies progressively "democratize violence" by subjecting it to rules, procedures, consent. When democracies use violence overseas, they only do so against undemocratic forces such as tyrants or terrorist groups. Democracies, according to one of the few postulates of international relations, don't go to war with one another.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
By John Feffer
Institute for Policy Studies
We make a bargain with our governments. We pay taxes and expect a set of government services in return. And in return for a guarantee of some measure of security, we grant the government a monopoly on legitimate violence. In theory, then, we forswear mob rule and paramilitary organizations, we occasionally accept the death penalty as an appropriate punishment, we delegate the responsibility to declare and prosecute war to our legislative and executive branches, and we put guns into the hands of the army and the police.
Governments, in other words, kill on our behalf. This arrangement is a form of social contract, which means that governments are basically contract killers. Some states, like Nazi Germany, use the tremendous power of arms and bureaucracy to transform their territories into slaughterhouses. Regimes that are merely authoritarian can be equally brutal but display a greater selectivity in their tyranny. In our more decorous democracies, meanwhile, we perfume our conversations with words like "justice" and "national security" to mask the odor of death.
Americans have never been entirely comfortable with this bargain. We have a long tradition of taking the law into our own hands, beginning with our own hallowed revolution. During the Reconstruction period, lynch mobs were a continuation of the Civil War by other means. More recently, a variety of paramilitary organizations have flourished, from the racist Posse Comitatus chapters that sprang up in the late 1960s to more recent anti-immigrant militias like the Minutemen. Even suburban soccer moms have zealously defended their "right" to bear arms. On the other side of the spectrum, meanwhile, a broad-based coalition has challenged the government's "right" to kill citizens through the death penalty. And an equally diverse movement has protested the government's waging of wars overseas.
It would perhaps be naïve to expect that a government, invested with the exclusive legal power to kill people, would use that power only within the borders of the country that it administrates. At some point in the distant future, a world government might assume the privilege of the monopoly on legitimate violence and discipline individual countries for their violent outbursts -- in the same way that individual governments currently sanction their citizens if they fire off submachine guns in malls. For the time being, however, we live in a semi-regulated environment in which governments use violence to secure their borders and, occasionally, territories that lie beyond.
States committing acts of violence were much in the news this week, particularly in the Middle East. Turkish forces have been bombing targets in northern Iraq for a week after a series of attacks by Kurdish rebels in southeastern Turkey. Israeli aircraft launched raids in Gaza after coordinated attacks along the Israeli-Egypt border left eight Israelis dead. The Syrian government continues to crack down on protesters, with a death toll passing 2,200 after several months of resistance. And NATO forces bombed selected targets around Tripoli as rebel forces streamed into the Libyan capital for a final assault on Moammar Gaddafi's stronghold.
Quick test: which of these uses of violence are legitimate?
Some people treat the issue as they would a sports game, always rooting for the home team no matter how dirty they might play. If you support Israel, then Israeli actions are by definition right. Pacifists also have a simple answer: there are no legitimate uses of state violence. But states are unlikely to adopt pacifism unless forced to (as the United States forced Japan after World War II). Aside from the partisan and the pacifist arguments, those who support the legitimate use of state violence will claim self-defense or promise the prevention of a greater violence like genocide. But these, too, are tricky justifications. Turkey believes that it is acting in self-defense, but so do the Libyan and Syrian governments. And military intervention to stop genocide – the stated purpose of NATO's action against Libya – can have mixed motives, and it is not easy to define genocide before the fact.
One popular way of determining the legitimacy of these exercises of violence is to invoke democracy. Democratic governments, as opposed to authoritarian regimes, legitimately use violence because there has been an opportunity for citizens to freely form a social contract with the government. Turkey and Israel are democratic countries, and thus their use of force is legitimate. Ditto with NATO’s attack on Libyan targets. Democratic countries use violence in a self-limited way. As political philosopher John Keane writes in Violence and Democracy, "Ideally conceived, democracies understand themselves as systems of lawful power-sharing, whose actors are attuned to the dangers of violence – and to the mutual benefits of non-violence." As such, Keane argues, democracies progressively "democratize violence" by subjecting it to rules, procedures, consent. When democracies use violence overseas, they only do so against undemocratic forces such as tyrants or terrorist groups. Democracies, according to one of the few postulates of international relations, don't go to war with one another.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Dale Maharidge -- Someplace Like America
Dale Maharidge -- Someplace Like America
University of California Press Blog
... Dale Maharidge, author of Someplace Like America: Tales from the New Great Depression, talks about his experiences reporting on working-class America for the last three decades. Maharidge describes the emerging class of “new homeless” in the country, the symbolic significance of Youngstown, Ohio, and why Bruce Springsteen took interest in the project.
He also talks about the practice of “immersion journalism,” which has landed Maharidge in some dangerous situations over the years: ending up in a de facto slave camp in Texas, getting a gun pulled on him, and living in an abandoned grain elevator for three days. Finally, he speaks about the attack on unions in Wisconsin, and why this story is more important than ever.
To Listen to the Interview
More resources:
New film inspired by Something Like America
University of California Press Blog
... Dale Maharidge, author of Someplace Like America: Tales from the New Great Depression, talks about his experiences reporting on working-class America for the last three decades. Maharidge describes the emerging class of “new homeless” in the country, the symbolic significance of Youngstown, Ohio, and why Bruce Springsteen took interest in the project.
He also talks about the practice of “immersion journalism,” which has landed Maharidge in some dangerous situations over the years: ending up in a de facto slave camp in Texas, getting a gun pulled on him, and living in an abandoned grain elevator for three days. Finally, he speaks about the attack on unions in Wisconsin, and why this story is more important than ever.
To Listen to the Interview
More resources:
New film inspired by Something Like America
Democracy Now: Phyllis Bennis - As Fighting Continues in Tripoli, A Look at Role of the U.S., NATO and Oil Firms in Libya Uprising
As Fighting Continues in Tripoli, A Look at Role of the U.S., NATO and Oil Firms in Libya Uprising
Democracy Now
Fighting continues in parts of Tripoli, the capital of Libya, where rebels are reportedly battling with Muammar Gaddafi’s forces outside his heavily fortified compound. Reports by the Libyan Rebel Council that Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, had been captured were contradicted late Monday when he emerged amongst supporters in front of foreign journalists in Tripoli. The International Criminal Court had claimed he had been in the custody of anti-Gaddafi fighters for the past 24 hours. The rebels have also claimed that two of Gaddafi’s other sons were detained but have provided no evidence. Meanwhile, details have emerged that U.S. and NATO forces played a key role in the Libyan rebel push into Tripoli, carrying out 17 Predator drone strikes and 38 air strikes since August 10. Overall, the U.S. has carried out 1,210 air strikes and 101 Predator drone strikes in Libya since April 1. NATO says it will keep up pressure on Gaddafi and that its "mission is not over yet." We are joined by Phyllis Bennis, who is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s written several books, including Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the U.N. Defy U.S. Power and Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Democracy Now
Fighting continues in parts of Tripoli, the capital of Libya, where rebels are reportedly battling with Muammar Gaddafi’s forces outside his heavily fortified compound. Reports by the Libyan Rebel Council that Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, had been captured were contradicted late Monday when he emerged amongst supporters in front of foreign journalists in Tripoli. The International Criminal Court had claimed he had been in the custody of anti-Gaddafi fighters for the past 24 hours. The rebels have also claimed that two of Gaddafi’s other sons were detained but have provided no evidence. Meanwhile, details have emerged that U.S. and NATO forces played a key role in the Libyan rebel push into Tripoli, carrying out 17 Predator drone strikes and 38 air strikes since August 10. Overall, the U.S. has carried out 1,210 air strikes and 101 Predator drone strikes in Libya since April 1. NATO says it will keep up pressure on Gaddafi and that its "mission is not over yet." We are joined by Phyllis Bennis, who is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s written several books, including Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the U.N. Defy U.S. Power and Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer.
To Watch/Listen/Read
Making Contact: A Report Back from the World Water Forum
A Report Back from the World Water Forum
Making Contact (National Radio Project)
One billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and at least thirty one countries are now facing water scarcity. Those are some of the problems that corporate ministers and government officials converged on Istanbul to talk about last March. Or was it? On this edition, we’ll hear from organizers who are working for the right to water on a global level. They tell us about the failures of private water management, and alternatives to corporate control.
Featuring:
Jeff Conant, Food and Water Watch International research and communications coordinator; Margarita Lopez, Union of Public Service Workers in Colombia president; Mary Ann Manahan, Focus on the Global South research associate; Al-Hassan Adam, Africa Water Network coordinator; Maude Barlow, The Council of Canadians National chairperson; Winona Hauter, Food and Water Watch executive director.
To Listen to the Episode
Making Contact (National Radio Project)
One billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and at least thirty one countries are now facing water scarcity. Those are some of the problems that corporate ministers and government officials converged on Istanbul to talk about last March. Or was it? On this edition, we’ll hear from organizers who are working for the right to water on a global level. They tell us about the failures of private water management, and alternatives to corporate control.
Featuring:
Jeff Conant, Food and Water Watch International research and communications coordinator; Margarita Lopez, Union of Public Service Workers in Colombia president; Mary Ann Manahan, Focus on the Global South research associate; Al-Hassan Adam, Africa Water Network coordinator; Maude Barlow, The Council of Canadians National chairperson; Winona Hauter, Food and Water Watch executive director.
To Listen to the Episode
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Great Directors: Doug Cummings on Krzysztof Kieslowski
Krzysztof Kieslowski
by Doug Cummings
Senses of Cinema
A filmmaker preoccupied with similarities and paradoxes, Krzysztof Kieslowski’s own career seems to have slowly inverted over the years from one centered on political realities to one of effervescent abstraction. Upon closer examination, however, both ends of his career focus on human individuals struggling to reconcile daily life with its cultural myths—be they Communist propaganda, Biblical proverbs, or French revolutionary slogans. If the people and characters of his films are rarely explicitly aware of their ideological projects, the viewers often are, through Kieslowski’s considerable filmmaking savvy and marketing conceits. A powerful storyteller, Kieslowski undermined the ordered world of his documentary descriptions and high-concept anthologies with the complex, often disillusioning lives of his central protagonists—a dialectical portrait of life oscillating between pessimistic deconstruction and an affection for human resilience.
After World War II, due to his father’s ongoing struggle with tuberculosis, Kieslowski’s family moved through many small towns and sanatoria in the Regained Territories of Communist Poland. With very little money to spare (his mother was an office clerk), Kieslowski’s parents would send him and his sister to sanatoria for children (“preventoria”) to take advantage of the free room and board. For his part, Kieslowski, who also suffered from weak lungs, remembered spending a lot of time in bed, reading books and learning that “there was more to life than material things which you can touch or buy in shops.” (1)
A non-committed student, Kieslowski simply wanted to begin a career. His father persuaded him to enrol in the local firemen’s college during his teenage years—a trick of reverse psychology which exposed him to a difficult profession and successfully ignited his desire for an education.
Kieslowski’s father finally succumbed to illness and died at the age of 47. A distant uncle directed the College for Theatre Technicians in Warsaw, so Kieslowski enrolled. He subsequently fell in love with the theatre and decided to become a director, but in order to enter the program, first had to complete studies in another field. He chose film directing because he thought it would be related to the theatre, but failed his entrance exams to Lódz Film School two successive years in a row. During this time, he starved himself and faked psychological instability to avoid military service, which reminded him of the regimented life of the firemen’s college. He supported his family through various jobs, from office positions to theatrical tailoring (where he met many actors who would later work for him), and dabbled in poetry and drawing.
After his third annual attempt, Kieslowski was finally admitted to the school. Lódz had been one of the few Polish towns spared from bombardment during the war. The film school was founded in 1948 for Stalinist propaganda, but it had developed a reputation for its liberal curriculum, which included rare screenings of international cinema and courses in film theory, as well as the production of fiction and documentary films. The school launched the careers of such filmmakers as Andrzej Munk, Andrzej Wajda, Roman Polanski, Krzyzstof Zanussi, and Jerzy Skolimowski.
The Lódz curriculum was certainly Kieslowski’s first serious exposure to cinema. “A number of films have stayed in my memory simply because they’re beautiful,” he later recalled. “I always said that I never wanted to be anybody’s assistant but that if, for example, Ken Loach were to ask me, then I’d willingly make him coffee. I saw Kes at film school and I knew then that I’d willingly make coffee for him.” (2)
Three Colors: White
In what was to be one of several key disillusionments which would affect the course of his career (including the firemen’s college, he would also abandon documentary filmmaking and, ultimately, filmmaking altogether before the end of his life), Kieslowski was no longer enthused by the theatre—a golden age beginning in 1956 had, according to him, petered out by 1962. (3) His training at Lódz thus became the foundation for his career. (Several of his student films are now available on the Region 1 DVD of White.)
After writing a thesis entitled “Reality and the Documentary Film” which proposed that reality was stranger—and much more dramatic—than fiction, he graduated in 1968, during a time of heated political dissent and resistance. Internal rivalries within the Party prompted an ideological clampdown on cultural events and the resulting student demonstrations, violently repressed, were blamed on Zionist instigators. Many Jews were expelled from Poland, including members of the intelligentsia and even some of the faculty at Lódz Film School.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
by Doug Cummings
Senses of Cinema
A filmmaker preoccupied with similarities and paradoxes, Krzysztof Kieslowski’s own career seems to have slowly inverted over the years from one centered on political realities to one of effervescent abstraction. Upon closer examination, however, both ends of his career focus on human individuals struggling to reconcile daily life with its cultural myths—be they Communist propaganda, Biblical proverbs, or French revolutionary slogans. If the people and characters of his films are rarely explicitly aware of their ideological projects, the viewers often are, through Kieslowski’s considerable filmmaking savvy and marketing conceits. A powerful storyteller, Kieslowski undermined the ordered world of his documentary descriptions and high-concept anthologies with the complex, often disillusioning lives of his central protagonists—a dialectical portrait of life oscillating between pessimistic deconstruction and an affection for human resilience.
After World War II, due to his father’s ongoing struggle with tuberculosis, Kieslowski’s family moved through many small towns and sanatoria in the Regained Territories of Communist Poland. With very little money to spare (his mother was an office clerk), Kieslowski’s parents would send him and his sister to sanatoria for children (“preventoria”) to take advantage of the free room and board. For his part, Kieslowski, who also suffered from weak lungs, remembered spending a lot of time in bed, reading books and learning that “there was more to life than material things which you can touch or buy in shops.” (1)
A non-committed student, Kieslowski simply wanted to begin a career. His father persuaded him to enrol in the local firemen’s college during his teenage years—a trick of reverse psychology which exposed him to a difficult profession and successfully ignited his desire for an education.
Kieslowski’s father finally succumbed to illness and died at the age of 47. A distant uncle directed the College for Theatre Technicians in Warsaw, so Kieslowski enrolled. He subsequently fell in love with the theatre and decided to become a director, but in order to enter the program, first had to complete studies in another field. He chose film directing because he thought it would be related to the theatre, but failed his entrance exams to Lódz Film School two successive years in a row. During this time, he starved himself and faked psychological instability to avoid military service, which reminded him of the regimented life of the firemen’s college. He supported his family through various jobs, from office positions to theatrical tailoring (where he met many actors who would later work for him), and dabbled in poetry and drawing.
After his third annual attempt, Kieslowski was finally admitted to the school. Lódz had been one of the few Polish towns spared from bombardment during the war. The film school was founded in 1948 for Stalinist propaganda, but it had developed a reputation for its liberal curriculum, which included rare screenings of international cinema and courses in film theory, as well as the production of fiction and documentary films. The school launched the careers of such filmmakers as Andrzej Munk, Andrzej Wajda, Roman Polanski, Krzyzstof Zanussi, and Jerzy Skolimowski.
The Lódz curriculum was certainly Kieslowski’s first serious exposure to cinema. “A number of films have stayed in my memory simply because they’re beautiful,” he later recalled. “I always said that I never wanted to be anybody’s assistant but that if, for example, Ken Loach were to ask me, then I’d willingly make him coffee. I saw Kes at film school and I knew then that I’d willingly make coffee for him.” (2)
Three Colors: White
In what was to be one of several key disillusionments which would affect the course of his career (including the firemen’s college, he would also abandon documentary filmmaking and, ultimately, filmmaking altogether before the end of his life), Kieslowski was no longer enthused by the theatre—a golden age beginning in 1956 had, according to him, petered out by 1962. (3) His training at Lódz thus became the foundation for his career. (Several of his student films are now available on the Region 1 DVD of White.)
After writing a thesis entitled “Reality and the Documentary Film” which proposed that reality was stranger—and much more dramatic—than fiction, he graduated in 1968, during a time of heated political dissent and resistance. Internal rivalries within the Party prompted an ideological clampdown on cultural events and the resulting student demonstrations, violently repressed, were blamed on Zionist instigators. Many Jews were expelled from Poland, including members of the intelligentsia and even some of the faculty at Lódz Film School.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Ideas: How To Think About Science #7 - Arthur Zajonc on Goethe Way of Knowing and the Discoveries of Modern Physics
Episode 7 - Arthur Zajonc
Ideas (Canada: CBC)
One of Arthur Zajonc's inspirations is the great German poet Goethe. Goethe died nearly two centuries ago. Arthur Zajonc works at the cutting edge of contemporary quantum physics. But it is the old poet, Zajonc thinks, who can best show us how we ought to contemplate the puzzling discoveries of modern physics. In this episode, physicist Arthur Zajonc talks to David Cayley about Goethe's way of knowing, about the philosophical challenge of contemporary physics, and about the role of contemplation in science. And since his name so closely resembles the name of his subject, you also hear many unintentional rhymes as Zajonc discusses science.
To Listen to the Episode
Ideas (Canada: CBC)
One of Arthur Zajonc's inspirations is the great German poet Goethe. Goethe died nearly two centuries ago. Arthur Zajonc works at the cutting edge of contemporary quantum physics. But it is the old poet, Zajonc thinks, who can best show us how we ought to contemplate the puzzling discoveries of modern physics. In this episode, physicist Arthur Zajonc talks to David Cayley about Goethe's way of knowing, about the philosophical challenge of contemporary physics, and about the role of contemplation in science. And since his name so closely resembles the name of his subject, you also hear many unintentional rhymes as Zajonc discusses science.
To Listen to the Episode
Donald Richie: Red Beard (Japan: Akira Kurasowa, 1965)
Red Beard
By Donald Richie
The Current
After finishing High and Low (1963), director Akira Kurosawa recalls, “I started looking around for something else to do and quite by accident picked up [the novel] Red Beard by Shugoro Yamamoto. At first I thought it would make a good script for [fellow director] Horikawa but as I wrote I grew so interested that I knew I would have to direct it myself.
“The script is quite different from the novel. One of the major characters, the young girl, is not even found in the book. While I was writing I kept remembering Dostoevsky and I tried to show the same thing that he showed in the character of Nelli in The Insulted and the Injured.
“I had something special in mind when I made this film because I wanted to make something that my audience would want to see, something so magnificent that people would just have to see it. To do this we all worked harder than ever, tried to overlook no detail, were willing to undergo any hardship. It was really hard work [and the film took longer before the cameras than any other Japanese film including Seven Samurai—almost two years] and I got sick twice. Mifune and Kayama each got sick once . . .”
The story:
At the end of the Tokugawa period a young man, Noboru Yasumoto (Yuzo Kayama) returns to Edo after several years’ study at the Dutch medical schools in Nagasaki. Told to make a formal call at the Koishikawa Public Clinic and pay his respects to its head Kyojio Niide, commonly called Red Beard (Toshiro Mifune), he learns that he is to stay there and work as an intern. Since he had hoped to be attached to the court medical staff and had certainly never considered working in a public clinic, the news is a great shock. He refuses, purposely breaks the hospital rules, will not wear a uniform, and further trespasses by lounging around a forbidden area, the small pavilion where a beautiful but insane patient (Kyoko Kagawa) is kept.
Like the hero of Sashiro Sugata, like the detective in Stray Dog, and the shoe manufacturer in High and Low, the young doctor learns: Red Beard too is the story of an education. Kayama learns that medical theory (illusion) is different from a man dying (reality); that—as the film later reveals—what he had always thought about himself (upright, honest, hard-working) must now be reconciled with what he finds himself to also be (arrogant, selfish, insincere); and most importantly, that evil itself is the most humanly common thing in this world; that good is uncommon.
To Read the Rest
By Donald Richie
The Current
After finishing High and Low (1963), director Akira Kurosawa recalls, “I started looking around for something else to do and quite by accident picked up [the novel] Red Beard by Shugoro Yamamoto. At first I thought it would make a good script for [fellow director] Horikawa but as I wrote I grew so interested that I knew I would have to direct it myself.
“The script is quite different from the novel. One of the major characters, the young girl, is not even found in the book. While I was writing I kept remembering Dostoevsky and I tried to show the same thing that he showed in the character of Nelli in The Insulted and the Injured.
“I had something special in mind when I made this film because I wanted to make something that my audience would want to see, something so magnificent that people would just have to see it. To do this we all worked harder than ever, tried to overlook no detail, were willing to undergo any hardship. It was really hard work [and the film took longer before the cameras than any other Japanese film including Seven Samurai—almost two years] and I got sick twice. Mifune and Kayama each got sick once . . .”
The story:
At the end of the Tokugawa period a young man, Noboru Yasumoto (Yuzo Kayama) returns to Edo after several years’ study at the Dutch medical schools in Nagasaki. Told to make a formal call at the Koishikawa Public Clinic and pay his respects to its head Kyojio Niide, commonly called Red Beard (Toshiro Mifune), he learns that he is to stay there and work as an intern. Since he had hoped to be attached to the court medical staff and had certainly never considered working in a public clinic, the news is a great shock. He refuses, purposely breaks the hospital rules, will not wear a uniform, and further trespasses by lounging around a forbidden area, the small pavilion where a beautiful but insane patient (Kyoko Kagawa) is kept.
Like the hero of Sashiro Sugata, like the detective in Stray Dog, and the shoe manufacturer in High and Low, the young doctor learns: Red Beard too is the story of an education. Kayama learns that medical theory (illusion) is different from a man dying (reality); that—as the film later reveals—what he had always thought about himself (upright, honest, hard-working) must now be reconciled with what he finds himself to also be (arrogant, selfish, insincere); and most importantly, that evil itself is the most humanly common thing in this world; that good is uncommon.
To Read the Rest
Haskell Wexler: One Scene - The Cranes Are Flying
One Scene: The Cranes Are Flying
By Haskell Wexler
Current
I first saw Mikhail Kalatozov’s The Cranes Are Flying in Chicago in 1957. The film’s cinematography, by the great Sergei Urusevsky, has been a major influence on my career. The shot in the film that stands out most for me starts at about twenty-five minutes in. It begins handheld, when the character Veronica looks out the window of a bus, and continues out into a vast crowd of people. Then there’s a fast lateral movement going out of the bus and past a car, which could be just a great handheld move or was perhaps done on an improvised dolly. We can see a wide street through the crowd. Veronica stops for a beat of three seconds at the edge of the boulevard—at this moment, a crane seat was slipped under Sergei. The camera then cranes up to see the tanks and a wide view of the crowd.
To Read the Rest of the Description and Watch the Shot
By Haskell Wexler
Current
I first saw Mikhail Kalatozov’s The Cranes Are Flying in Chicago in 1957. The film’s cinematography, by the great Sergei Urusevsky, has been a major influence on my career. The shot in the film that stands out most for me starts at about twenty-five minutes in. It begins handheld, when the character Veronica looks out the window of a bus, and continues out into a vast crowd of people. Then there’s a fast lateral movement going out of the bus and past a car, which could be just a great handheld move or was perhaps done on an improvised dolly. We can see a wide street through the crowd. Veronica stops for a beat of three seconds at the edge of the boulevard—at this moment, a crane seat was slipped under Sergei. The camera then cranes up to see the tanks and a wide view of the crowd.
To Read the Rest of the Description and Watch the Shot
Monday, August 22, 2011
Philippa Glanville: The Dichotomies of Drink
The dichotomies of drink
The National Archives Podcast Series (United Kingdom)
Presented by Philippa Glanville, Senior Research Fellow at the V&A Museum. The event was held at The National Archives to accompany our temporary on-site exhibition, which she curated, entitled, Drink: the History of Alcohol 1690-1920.
To Listen to the Presentation
The National Archives Podcast Series (United Kingdom)
Presented by Philippa Glanville, Senior Research Fellow at the V&A Museum. The event was held at The National Archives to accompany our temporary on-site exhibition, which she curated, entitled, Drink: the History of Alcohol 1690-1920.
To Listen to the Presentation
Sunday, August 21, 2011
John Shaw: The problem of the poor -- faith, science and poverty in 19th century Britain
The problem of the poor: faith, science and poverty in 19th century Britain
The National Archives Podcast Series (United Kingdom)
Dr. John Shaw discusses Victorian attitudes to the poor and how they developed over the 19th century. As the Church tried to decide whether charity was the solution or part of the problem, Victorian science afraid of 'degeneration' in Britain began to suggest some sinister solutions of its own.
To Listen to the Podcast
The National Archives Podcast Series (United Kingdom)
Dr. John Shaw discusses Victorian attitudes to the poor and how they developed over the 19th century. As the Church tried to decide whether charity was the solution or part of the problem, Victorian science afraid of 'degeneration' in Britain began to suggest some sinister solutions of its own.
To Listen to the Podcast
Stephen Lendman: Egyptians Again Rally for Change
Egyptians Again Rally for Change
by Stephen Lendman
MWC News
Before and after Mubarak was ousted, Egypt's military arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and disappeared thousands, a practice continuing to ruthlessly stay in power and prevent change.
Moreover, thousands arrested are being tried in military courts, denying them due process or judicial fairness. Allowed only court-appointed counsel, attorneys get minutes with clients to review charges before presenting their case in proceedings.
In addition, multiple defendants are tried simultaneously. Ten thousand or more were sentenced in recent months, some to death, and lawyers can't appeal. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) attorney Adel Ramadan said nothing under Mubarak was like this. The ruling junta is much more extreme, cracking down ruthlessly against challenges to its authority.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) issued a July 4 press release, stating "its utter and complete rejection of trying civilians before military courts, especially those arrested for using their legitimate right to expression."
Many activists were tried and convicted, including Michael Nabil, sentenced to three years in military prison for posting, "Army and people, never hand in hand." Another activist, Amr elBeheiry, got five years for demonstrating in Tahrir Square.
ANHRI said military proceedings "lack the bare minimum of fair trial standards....It is not an overstatement to say that (Egypt's) judiciary (isn't) the only sector that has not witnessed any changes after the revolution."
On June 29, Amnesty International (AI) Cairo representatives witnessed security forces attacking demonstrators, "firing tear gas randomly, beating protesters with sticks and firing shotguns." As a result, many hundreds were hurt, AI saying:
"This heavy-handed response is reminiscent of the violence in January and is a chilling reminder of" what protesters face. Field Marshall Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, Mubarak's former defense minister, now heads the military junta's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, ruling as a de facto head of state/dictator.
Mubarak may be gone, but nothing changed. In fact, things now are worse, including extreme brutality and severe repression, exceeding what went on earlier. As a result, angry Egyptians are reacting.
On July 1, tens of thousands rallied in Cairo, responding to earlier in the week crackdowns against protesters. Security forces attacked them with tear gas, rubber bullets and live fire. According to eye-witnesses, hundreds were injured and several or more died.
Called the "Friday of Retribution," crowds also turned out in Alexandria, Suez, and elsewhere, protesting for rights demanded but not achieved. Many want a second revolution that works this time. Months after Mubarak's ouster, nothing changed.
Strikes also continue for wage, benefits, ending corruption, and other demands not met. Thousands of striking Suez Canal workers cut off Port Tawfik district electricity, saying they'll stay out as long as it takes, despite harsh military reprisals.
To Read the Rest of the Article
by Stephen Lendman
MWC News
Before and after Mubarak was ousted, Egypt's military arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and disappeared thousands, a practice continuing to ruthlessly stay in power and prevent change.
Moreover, thousands arrested are being tried in military courts, denying them due process or judicial fairness. Allowed only court-appointed counsel, attorneys get minutes with clients to review charges before presenting their case in proceedings.
In addition, multiple defendants are tried simultaneously. Ten thousand or more were sentenced in recent months, some to death, and lawyers can't appeal. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) attorney Adel Ramadan said nothing under Mubarak was like this. The ruling junta is much more extreme, cracking down ruthlessly against challenges to its authority.
The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) issued a July 4 press release, stating "its utter and complete rejection of trying civilians before military courts, especially those arrested for using their legitimate right to expression."
Many activists were tried and convicted, including Michael Nabil, sentenced to three years in military prison for posting, "Army and people, never hand in hand." Another activist, Amr elBeheiry, got five years for demonstrating in Tahrir Square.
ANHRI said military proceedings "lack the bare minimum of fair trial standards....It is not an overstatement to say that (Egypt's) judiciary (isn't) the only sector that has not witnessed any changes after the revolution."
On June 29, Amnesty International (AI) Cairo representatives witnessed security forces attacking demonstrators, "firing tear gas randomly, beating protesters with sticks and firing shotguns." As a result, many hundreds were hurt, AI saying:
"This heavy-handed response is reminiscent of the violence in January and is a chilling reminder of" what protesters face. Field Marshall Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, Mubarak's former defense minister, now heads the military junta's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, ruling as a de facto head of state/dictator.
Mubarak may be gone, but nothing changed. In fact, things now are worse, including extreme brutality and severe repression, exceeding what went on earlier. As a result, angry Egyptians are reacting.
On July 1, tens of thousands rallied in Cairo, responding to earlier in the week crackdowns against protesters. Security forces attacked them with tear gas, rubber bullets and live fire. According to eye-witnesses, hundreds were injured and several or more died.
Called the "Friday of Retribution," crowds also turned out in Alexandria, Suez, and elsewhere, protesting for rights demanded but not achieved. Many want a second revolution that works this time. Months after Mubarak's ouster, nothing changed.
Strikes also continue for wage, benefits, ending corruption, and other demands not met. Thousands of striking Suez Canal workers cut off Port Tawfik district electricity, saying they'll stay out as long as it takes, despite harsh military reprisals.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Jonathan Rosenbaum: Desperate Measures [OUT OF SIGHT & THE BRIGANDS: CHAPTER VII]
Desperate Measures [OUT OF SIGHT & THE BRIGANDS: CHAPTER VII]
by Jonathan Rosenbaum
Chicago Reader
Which would you rather see? A Hollywood thriller with hot stars whose director is so alienated from his material that he’s reduced to a kind of ingenious doodling while his characters disintegrate? Or a witty, despairing French-Russian-Italian-Swiss art movie set in 16th-century Georgia, Stalinist Georgia, contemporary Georgia, and contemporary Paris, whose writer-director is so much in command of his materials that he can plant the same actors in all four settings yet provide a seamless continuity?
My question is mainly rhetorical because it’s already been decided for most people reading this. Out of Sight, a major Universal release written by Scott Frank and directed by Steven Soderbergh, is playing all over town and will be around for weeks; The Brigands: Chapter VII, written and directed by Otar Iosseliani, doesn’t even have a U.S. distributor and is playing for only one week at Facets Multimedia Center before disappearing indefinitely.
I saw these movies on successive days and couldn’t give you a coherent synopsis of either one to save my life — not only because both pictures leap about in time with willful abandon, but also because they have much more to say in terms of style than in terms of plot. Both films strongly convey the estrangement of exiles — literal exile in the case of Iosseliani, a Georgian based in Paris, and vocational exile in the case of Soderbergh, hired this time not as an auteur but only as a journeyman director. He appears alienated from the story and cast he’s been assigned and from the reason (as opposed to the way) the pieces in his jigsaw puzzle are supposed to fit together. By contrast, Iosseliani — a wry, poetic filmmaker with about a dozen features to his credit — seems alienated from most ideas of human progress and maybe from human behavior as well, though when it comes to filmmaking he seems right at home.
Both movies last a little longer than two hours and require total immersion as well as frequent readjusting of when and where you are in the overall patchwork construction. I enjoyed both for most of their running times, but Out of Sight engaged me less and less, until by the end I no longer cared which of the characters lived or died. Not even the engaging Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, Albert Brooks, Don Cheadle, and Ving Rhames or the talented secondary cast can survive the abbreviations and last-minute shoehorning their characters receive. The Brigands, which has no stars that I recognize, has characters that persisted for me throughout, even when they were transposed to different eras and identities — a 16th-century king (Amiran Amiranachvili), for instance, becomes an early-20th-century pickpocket and a contemporary homeless Parisian. The film engaged me more and more as I watched it, though not because I cared which characters lived or died. This is mainly because of the camera setups: Soderbergh is obliged by commercial practice to shoot close-ups as well as medium and long shots, thereby signaling which characters are more worthy of our attention; Iosseliani is free to omit close-ups and shoot all his characters in medium and long shots, thereby displaying an equal amount of affection or contempt for all of them.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
by Jonathan Rosenbaum
Chicago Reader
Which would you rather see? A Hollywood thriller with hot stars whose director is so alienated from his material that he’s reduced to a kind of ingenious doodling while his characters disintegrate? Or a witty, despairing French-Russian-Italian-Swiss art movie set in 16th-century Georgia, Stalinist Georgia, contemporary Georgia, and contemporary Paris, whose writer-director is so much in command of his materials that he can plant the same actors in all four settings yet provide a seamless continuity?
My question is mainly rhetorical because it’s already been decided for most people reading this. Out of Sight, a major Universal release written by Scott Frank and directed by Steven Soderbergh, is playing all over town and will be around for weeks; The Brigands: Chapter VII, written and directed by Otar Iosseliani, doesn’t even have a U.S. distributor and is playing for only one week at Facets Multimedia Center before disappearing indefinitely.
I saw these movies on successive days and couldn’t give you a coherent synopsis of either one to save my life — not only because both pictures leap about in time with willful abandon, but also because they have much more to say in terms of style than in terms of plot. Both films strongly convey the estrangement of exiles — literal exile in the case of Iosseliani, a Georgian based in Paris, and vocational exile in the case of Soderbergh, hired this time not as an auteur but only as a journeyman director. He appears alienated from the story and cast he’s been assigned and from the reason (as opposed to the way) the pieces in his jigsaw puzzle are supposed to fit together. By contrast, Iosseliani — a wry, poetic filmmaker with about a dozen features to his credit — seems alienated from most ideas of human progress and maybe from human behavior as well, though when it comes to filmmaking he seems right at home.
Both movies last a little longer than two hours and require total immersion as well as frequent readjusting of when and where you are in the overall patchwork construction. I enjoyed both for most of their running times, but Out of Sight engaged me less and less, until by the end I no longer cared which of the characters lived or died. Not even the engaging Jennifer Lopez, George Clooney, Albert Brooks, Don Cheadle, and Ving Rhames or the talented secondary cast can survive the abbreviations and last-minute shoehorning their characters receive. The Brigands, which has no stars that I recognize, has characters that persisted for me throughout, even when they were transposed to different eras and identities — a 16th-century king (Amiran Amiranachvili), for instance, becomes an early-20th-century pickpocket and a contemporary homeless Parisian. The film engaged me more and more as I watched it, though not because I cared which characters lived or died. This is mainly because of the camera setups: Soderbergh is obliged by commercial practice to shoot close-ups as well as medium and long shots, thereby signaling which characters are more worthy of our attention; Iosseliani is free to omit close-ups and shoot all his characters in medium and long shots, thereby displaying an equal amount of affection or contempt for all of them.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Tim Wu: Who Controls the Master Switch?
It is an underacknowledged truism that, just as you are what you eat, how and what you think depends on what information you are exposed to. How do you hear the voice of political leaders? Whose pain do you feel? And where do your aspirations, your dreams of good living, come from? All of these are products of the information environment.
My effort to consider this process is also an effort to understand the practical realities of free speech, as opposed to its theoretical life. We can sometimes think that the study of the First Amendment is the same as the study of free speech, but in fact it forms just a tiny part of the picture. Americans idealize what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called the "marketplace of ideas," a space where every member of society is, by right, free to peddle his creed. Yet the shape or even existence of any such marketplace depends far less on our abstract values than on the structure of the communications and culture industries. We sometimes treat the information industries as if they were like any other enterprise, but they are not, for their structure determine4s who gets heard. It is in this context that Fred Friendly, onetime CBS news president, made it clear that before any question of free speech comes the question of "who controls the master switch." (13)
Cory Doctorow's Review of Timothy Wu's The Master Switch
Mountain Stage: Marcia Ball; Cracker; Hill Country Revue; Maia Sharp; Other Lives
Mountain Stage
Marcia Ball - Drawing from masters like Professor Longhair and Etta James, Texas-born Marcia Ball has patented a blend of rolling New Orleans piano, Louisiana Swamp rock and smoldering Texas blues. After becoming one of the standard bearers of the Austin music scene, she went on to play clubs and festivals throughout the U.S. and Europe. The singer/pianist has also recorded with Irma Thomas, Tracy Nelson, Lou Ann Barton and Angela Strehli, and appeared on NBC’s "Today Show" and "The Late Show with David Letterman." She also was featured in the Clint Eastwood-directed "Piano Blues" which was included in Martin Scorsese’s "The Blues" series which aired on PBS in 2003. Released in 2008, "Peace, Love & BBQ" (three of Ball’s favorite things) was produced by the late Stephen Bruton and featured guests Dr. John, Wayne Toups, Tracy Nelson and Terrance Simien. Ball penned eight of the disc’s 13 tracks.
Hill Country Revue - While the Mississippi Allstars take a much-deserved break, members Cody Dickinson and Chris Chew have embarked on a project called Hill Country Revue. Formed by Cody in 2008, it features Chew, Kirk Smithhart (who was awarded The Albert King award for "Best Guitarist" by the Blues Foundation when he was 19), Ed "Hot" Cleveland and Dan Coburn (Dixie Hustler). The band’s debut, "Make a Move," features material written by Garry Burnside, youngest son of legendary Mississippi bluesman R.L. Burnside. With a mix of raw blues and classic Southern rock, the band has labeled itself "the modern blues band for the new generation."
Cracker - Combining a post-punk mind set with country-tinged roots rock, Cracker emerged as one of the first great bands of the ‘90s. Signed to Virgin Records, the group cracked the mainstream market with songs like "Low," from 1993's gold-certified "Kerosene Hat." After nine releases, the current lineup features longtime drummer Frank Funaro (The Dictators, Joey Ramone) and bassist Sal Maida (Roxy Music, Sparks). "I See the Light" (from Cracker’s 1992 self-titled release) is currently featured in the new Jack Black spoof, "Year One." Meanwhile, "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" from the band’s new release, "Sunrise In The Land Of Milk And Honey," is nearing the Top 10 on the Triple A chart. This September marks the 5th Annual Cracker Camper Van Beethoven Campout in Pioneertown, CA.
Maia Sharp - The daughter of country songwriter Randy Sharp, Maia Sharp captured the attention of manager/record label mogul Miles Copeland who, in 1977, signed her to his new Ark 21 label. Since then, her tunes have been recorded by Cher, Kim Richey, Bonnie Raitt, Carole King, the Dixie Chicks, Art Garfunkel, Keb’ Mo’, Terri Clark, and Trisha Yearwood. Before she was a teenager, Sharp was already mastering piano, guitar and saxophone and, following in the footsteps of her father, was soon performing original material in local clubs. Her releases garnered praise and airplay, and in 2005, Bonnie Raitt’s "Souls Alike" contained three of Sharp’s songs including the single "I Don't Want Anything To Change." After tapping her for part of her touring band, Raitt offered: "Maia is making some of the most innovative and soulful music around with songs that are head and shoulders above the rest. She has become one of my favorite artists."
Other Lives - Based in Stillwater, OK, Other Lives draws inspiration from modern classicists like Johann Johannsson and Arvo Part to folksy, Midwestern rock. Together for five years, Other Lives signed to the California-based TBD label (whose small roster includes Radiohead and Underworld). With production by long-time Beck producer Joey Waronker, the band’s first single "Black Table" was used in the 2008 season premiere of "Grey's Anatomy.
To Listen to the MP3 of the Show
Marcia Ball - Drawing from masters like Professor Longhair and Etta James, Texas-born Marcia Ball has patented a blend of rolling New Orleans piano, Louisiana Swamp rock and smoldering Texas blues. After becoming one of the standard bearers of the Austin music scene, she went on to play clubs and festivals throughout the U.S. and Europe. The singer/pianist has also recorded with Irma Thomas, Tracy Nelson, Lou Ann Barton and Angela Strehli, and appeared on NBC’s "Today Show" and "The Late Show with David Letterman." She also was featured in the Clint Eastwood-directed "Piano Blues" which was included in Martin Scorsese’s "The Blues" series which aired on PBS in 2003. Released in 2008, "Peace, Love & BBQ" (three of Ball’s favorite things) was produced by the late Stephen Bruton and featured guests Dr. John, Wayne Toups, Tracy Nelson and Terrance Simien. Ball penned eight of the disc’s 13 tracks.
Hill Country Revue - While the Mississippi Allstars take a much-deserved break, members Cody Dickinson and Chris Chew have embarked on a project called Hill Country Revue. Formed by Cody in 2008, it features Chew, Kirk Smithhart (who was awarded The Albert King award for "Best Guitarist" by the Blues Foundation when he was 19), Ed "Hot" Cleveland and Dan Coburn (Dixie Hustler). The band’s debut, "Make a Move," features material written by Garry Burnside, youngest son of legendary Mississippi bluesman R.L. Burnside. With a mix of raw blues and classic Southern rock, the band has labeled itself "the modern blues band for the new generation."
Cracker - Combining a post-punk mind set with country-tinged roots rock, Cracker emerged as one of the first great bands of the ‘90s. Signed to Virgin Records, the group cracked the mainstream market with songs like "Low," from 1993's gold-certified "Kerosene Hat." After nine releases, the current lineup features longtime drummer Frank Funaro (The Dictators, Joey Ramone) and bassist Sal Maida (Roxy Music, Sparks). "I See the Light" (from Cracker’s 1992 self-titled release) is currently featured in the new Jack Black spoof, "Year One." Meanwhile, "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" from the band’s new release, "Sunrise In The Land Of Milk And Honey," is nearing the Top 10 on the Triple A chart. This September marks the 5th Annual Cracker Camper Van Beethoven Campout in Pioneertown, CA.
Maia Sharp - The daughter of country songwriter Randy Sharp, Maia Sharp captured the attention of manager/record label mogul Miles Copeland who, in 1977, signed her to his new Ark 21 label. Since then, her tunes have been recorded by Cher, Kim Richey, Bonnie Raitt, Carole King, the Dixie Chicks, Art Garfunkel, Keb’ Mo’, Terri Clark, and Trisha Yearwood. Before she was a teenager, Sharp was already mastering piano, guitar and saxophone and, following in the footsteps of her father, was soon performing original material in local clubs. Her releases garnered praise and airplay, and in 2005, Bonnie Raitt’s "Souls Alike" contained three of Sharp’s songs including the single "I Don't Want Anything To Change." After tapping her for part of her touring band, Raitt offered: "Maia is making some of the most innovative and soulful music around with songs that are head and shoulders above the rest. She has become one of my favorite artists."
Other Lives - Based in Stillwater, OK, Other Lives draws inspiration from modern classicists like Johann Johannsson and Arvo Part to folksy, Midwestern rock. Together for five years, Other Lives signed to the California-based TBD label (whose small roster includes Radiohead and Underworld). With production by long-time Beck producer Joey Waronker, the band’s first single "Black Table" was used in the 2008 season premiere of "Grey's Anatomy.
To Listen to the MP3 of the Show
Eyewitness to Norwegian Massacre: Survivor Recalls Attack at Island Youth Camp; Norway Attacks Reveal Growing Violent, Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe; Glenn Greenwald: Norway Attacks Expose U.S. Media’s Double Standard on "Terrorism"
Democracy Now
Eyewitness to Norwegian Massacre: Survivor Recalls Attack at Island Youth Camp
Norwegian police have widened their investigation into Friday’s mass killing after the alleged shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, told a court in Oslo on Monday that he had "two further cells" in his organization. During the hearing, Breivik accepted responsibility for the attacks but denied charges of terrorism. Norwegian media reports that if he is convicted of crimes against humanity, he could receive a 30-year sentence. At least 76 people were killed and 96 others wounded when Breivik allegedly set off a bomb outside government buildings in Oslo and then opened fire on a Labour Party summer camp for youth activists. We are joined from Oslo by Ali Esbati, one of the survivors of the shooting. He is an economist who was at the camp on Norway’s Utoya Island to give a workshop and escaped the shooting by diving into the water. "I saw a young girl, 18 or 19, who had been shot, and she kept repeating that 'If I die here, please remember that you're all fantastic, and keep up your struggle.’"
To Access this Episode
Norway Attacks Reveal Growing Violent, Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe
Anders Behring Breivik, who has admitted to the mass shooting and bombing in Norway, has been described as an anti-Islamic, right-wing extremist who claimed to be acting in order to save Norway and Europe from "Marxist and Muslim colonization." To discuss the prevalence and legitimacy of these views, we speak with Kari Helene Partapuoli, the director of the Norwegian Center Against Racism. She says Breivik’s ideology was shaped in part by the Norwegian Defence League and the group Stop the Islamisation of Norway. “He didn’t just go on a shooting spree. He was also shaped by this political environment on the right wing,” says Partapuoli.
To Access the Episode
Glenn Greenwald: Norway Attacks Expose U.S. Media’s Double Standard on "Terrorism"
Numerous news outlets and commentators initially blamed the attacks in Norway on Islamic militants. Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline that read, "'Al-Qaeda' Massacre: Norway’s 9/11." In the United States, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal also initially blamed "jihadists," reporting that "Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Meanwhile, on the Washington Post’s website, Jennifer Rubin wrote, "This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists." To discuss the media coverage of the attacks, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger who has written about the media coverage of the attacks in Norway for Salon.com. “When it became apparent that Muslims were not involved and that, in reality, it was a right-wing nationalist with extremely anti-Muslim, strident anti-Muslim bigotry as part of his worldview, the word 'terrorism' almost completely disappeared from establishment media discourse. Instead, he began to be referred to as a 'madman' or an 'extremist,'" says Greenwald. “It really underscores, for me, the fact that this word 'terrorism,' that plays such a central role in our political discourse and our law, really has no objective meaning. It’s come to mean nothing more than Muslims who engage in violence."
To Access the Episode
Eyewitness to Norwegian Massacre: Survivor Recalls Attack at Island Youth Camp
Norwegian police have widened their investigation into Friday’s mass killing after the alleged shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, told a court in Oslo on Monday that he had "two further cells" in his organization. During the hearing, Breivik accepted responsibility for the attacks but denied charges of terrorism. Norwegian media reports that if he is convicted of crimes against humanity, he could receive a 30-year sentence. At least 76 people were killed and 96 others wounded when Breivik allegedly set off a bomb outside government buildings in Oslo and then opened fire on a Labour Party summer camp for youth activists. We are joined from Oslo by Ali Esbati, one of the survivors of the shooting. He is an economist who was at the camp on Norway’s Utoya Island to give a workshop and escaped the shooting by diving into the water. "I saw a young girl, 18 or 19, who had been shot, and she kept repeating that 'If I die here, please remember that you're all fantastic, and keep up your struggle.’"
To Access this Episode
Norway Attacks Reveal Growing Violent, Anti-Muslim Sentiment in Europe
Anders Behring Breivik, who has admitted to the mass shooting and bombing in Norway, has been described as an anti-Islamic, right-wing extremist who claimed to be acting in order to save Norway and Europe from "Marxist and Muslim colonization." To discuss the prevalence and legitimacy of these views, we speak with Kari Helene Partapuoli, the director of the Norwegian Center Against Racism. She says Breivik’s ideology was shaped in part by the Norwegian Defence League and the group Stop the Islamisation of Norway. “He didn’t just go on a shooting spree. He was also shaped by this political environment on the right wing,” says Partapuoli.
To Access the Episode
Glenn Greenwald: Norway Attacks Expose U.S. Media’s Double Standard on "Terrorism"
Numerous news outlets and commentators initially blamed the attacks in Norway on Islamic militants. Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline that read, "'Al-Qaeda' Massacre: Norway’s 9/11." In the United States, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal also initially blamed "jihadists," reporting that "Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms." Meanwhile, on the Washington Post’s website, Jennifer Rubin wrote, "This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists." To discuss the media coverage of the attacks, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger who has written about the media coverage of the attacks in Norway for Salon.com. “When it became apparent that Muslims were not involved and that, in reality, it was a right-wing nationalist with extremely anti-Muslim, strident anti-Muslim bigotry as part of his worldview, the word 'terrorism' almost completely disappeared from establishment media discourse. Instead, he began to be referred to as a 'madman' or an 'extremist,'" says Greenwald. “It really underscores, for me, the fact that this word 'terrorism,' that plays such a central role in our political discourse and our law, really has no objective meaning. It’s come to mean nothing more than Muslims who engage in violence."
To Access the Episode
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)