Is the Bush Administration Manipulating “Terror!!!” Again?
The All Spin Zone
This is an interesting analysis of the plot to blow up planes and the Bush admistrations role in exposing/mucking-up the investigation.
Read it Here
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Two Friends at Natural Bridge, Kentucky (in the Red River Gorge)
(I just spent the last couple of days in Virginia which included a spectacular kayaking trip down the Shenandoah River... unfortunately I had to use a disposable waterproof camera for that trip, so no pictures yet, but I do have this great picture of two friends in awe of the cliffs at Red River Gorge.)
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Nikki Finke: Too Fast and Too Furious
(A Jewish author examines the hypocrisy of Hollywood in regards to the Gibson scandal--Gibson is definitely to be condemned for his Anti-Semitism, but Finke considers what the Hollywood powers ignore in the interest of profits and why they might be so eager to attack in this case.)
Too Fast and Too Furious: Not just Mel, but sanctimonious Hollywood, too
By NIKKI FINKE
LA Weekly
...
But Gibson was a special case in Hollywood’s eyes. Oh, not because of envy of his $850 million net worth, or his Oscars, or his successful production company that is free from the dictatorial financing, producing and distributing of those monopolies known as studios and that is as close to being a studio, complete with film library, as any actor/director/producer hyphenate enjoys. Rather, after Mel’s DUI arrest and the Internet seepage of his anti-Semitic barrage, Industry power players speaking anonymously began condemning Gibson as “the apple that doesn’t fall far from the tree,” the spitting image of his father, Hutton Gibson, a famous anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.
As the days progressed and the scandal unfolded, Hollywood VIPs became emboldened with their “j’accuse” finger-pointing. Yes, those who put their names out there should be applauded. But let’s get past their bravery and look at the bullshit. Some declared that Gibson’s transgressions were so awful he should be shunned by show biz, he and his company blacklisted, his projects dropped or declared off-limits. Which is why I must ask, Who among Hollywood isn’t flawed? Haven’t this industry’s constant calls for artistic freedom also meant separating talent’s failure as human beings from their success as creators of art? And why are Gibson’s anti-Semitic drunken statements more horrific than all the other host of sins that Hollywood denizens commit on an almost daily basis?
Sex and drug scandals, misogyny toward women, intolerance toward gays, prejudice against racial and ethnic groups other than Jews, celebration of violence, abuse of underlings, and on and on: All are part and parcel of the business of entertainment, where pricks get ahead precisely because of their abominable behavior. This is a town that has no notion of personal responsibility, much less corporate responsibility.
For crissakes, it took a hostile Congress and the threat of a federal crackdown before show-biz leaders grudgingly acknowledged back in 2000 that they may have “stepped over the line” in advertising violent entertainment to children — or took the responsibility of considering ways to better keep adult-oriented products out of young hands. Before that, Industry execs defiantly defended peddling violent crap rated for mature audiences to children as young as 10 — that is, until their despicable marketing tactics were documented in a stinging Federal Trade Commission report. (One revelation was internal corporate plans to use Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H Clubs and school newspapers to sell products that the industry itself deemed appropriate only for mature audiences.) Not a single film-studio executive accepted the invitation to attend the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s daylong hearings in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, which claimed 15 lives and called into question the effects on kids of violent entertainment its makers won’t even allow in their own homes.
Mel Gibson may have made drunken anti-Semitic slurs in 2006, but there’s a parallel to the entertainment industry’s last big scandals putting bigotry against Jews front and center. Back in 1990, during the negotiations for the Matsushita electronics giant to buy MCA, the Hollywood media giant that owned Universal Studios, the media reported the Japanese company’s little-known policy of participating in an Arab-led boycott of Israel, which barred it from conducting any direct trade with the Jewish state. It was widely assumed that Matsushita’s refusal to change its policy would kill any sale, because MCA’s chairman, Lew Wasserman, and its president, Sidney Sheinberg, were two of America’s leading and substantial supporters of Jewish and Israeli causes. It didn’t. The deal went through.
There was also the case of Giancarlo Parretti, the Italian entertainment mogul always operating one step ahead of Interpol. In the midst of lining up financing for his attempted buyout of MGM/UA for $1.2 billion, he was quoted making anti-Semitic remarks. Hollywood remained mute and, in the end, everybody did business with him. Nor did it deter the media giant Time Warner from joining Parretti’s MGM/UA bid or rising to Parretti’s defense. “I would think,” then–Time Warner co-chairman Steve Ross told the media, “that if studio people are quoted and they’re not disclosing who they are, that in itself must mean something, especially since most major studios have contacted Mr. Parretti and/or Warner Bros. to negotiate a deal of their own.” What a parallel when Gibson’s longtime agent, ICM’s Ed Limato, also outed some competitors, who, he told The New York Times, were openly assailing Gibson after having tried and failed to woo him. “For some people in my business to publicly try to destroy Mel Gibson because of this incident the other night I find very hypocritical,” he said.
That is why I have always made a terrible joke that Hollywood would do business with Hitler if he made money for them. Gibson’s scandal goes way beyond just the issue of his own anti-Semitism, but it plumbs the deeper truths about the dark way that the entertainment business conducts itself. The Descent that’s over the edge here is not just Lionsgate’s, or Mel Gibson’s: It’s Hollywood’s as well.
To Read the Entire Essay
Too Fast and Too Furious: Not just Mel, but sanctimonious Hollywood, too
By NIKKI FINKE
LA Weekly
...
But Gibson was a special case in Hollywood’s eyes. Oh, not because of envy of his $850 million net worth, or his Oscars, or his successful production company that is free from the dictatorial financing, producing and distributing of those monopolies known as studios and that is as close to being a studio, complete with film library, as any actor/director/producer hyphenate enjoys. Rather, after Mel’s DUI arrest and the Internet seepage of his anti-Semitic barrage, Industry power players speaking anonymously began condemning Gibson as “the apple that doesn’t fall far from the tree,” the spitting image of his father, Hutton Gibson, a famous anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.
As the days progressed and the scandal unfolded, Hollywood VIPs became emboldened with their “j’accuse” finger-pointing. Yes, those who put their names out there should be applauded. But let’s get past their bravery and look at the bullshit. Some declared that Gibson’s transgressions were so awful he should be shunned by show biz, he and his company blacklisted, his projects dropped or declared off-limits. Which is why I must ask, Who among Hollywood isn’t flawed? Haven’t this industry’s constant calls for artistic freedom also meant separating talent’s failure as human beings from their success as creators of art? And why are Gibson’s anti-Semitic drunken statements more horrific than all the other host of sins that Hollywood denizens commit on an almost daily basis?
Sex and drug scandals, misogyny toward women, intolerance toward gays, prejudice against racial and ethnic groups other than Jews, celebration of violence, abuse of underlings, and on and on: All are part and parcel of the business of entertainment, where pricks get ahead precisely because of their abominable behavior. This is a town that has no notion of personal responsibility, much less corporate responsibility.
For crissakes, it took a hostile Congress and the threat of a federal crackdown before show-biz leaders grudgingly acknowledged back in 2000 that they may have “stepped over the line” in advertising violent entertainment to children — or took the responsibility of considering ways to better keep adult-oriented products out of young hands. Before that, Industry execs defiantly defended peddling violent crap rated for mature audiences to children as young as 10 — that is, until their despicable marketing tactics were documented in a stinging Federal Trade Commission report. (One revelation was internal corporate plans to use Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H Clubs and school newspapers to sell products that the industry itself deemed appropriate only for mature audiences.) Not a single film-studio executive accepted the invitation to attend the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s daylong hearings in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, which claimed 15 lives and called into question the effects on kids of violent entertainment its makers won’t even allow in their own homes.
Mel Gibson may have made drunken anti-Semitic slurs in 2006, but there’s a parallel to the entertainment industry’s last big scandals putting bigotry against Jews front and center. Back in 1990, during the negotiations for the Matsushita electronics giant to buy MCA, the Hollywood media giant that owned Universal Studios, the media reported the Japanese company’s little-known policy of participating in an Arab-led boycott of Israel, which barred it from conducting any direct trade with the Jewish state. It was widely assumed that Matsushita’s refusal to change its policy would kill any sale, because MCA’s chairman, Lew Wasserman, and its president, Sidney Sheinberg, were two of America’s leading and substantial supporters of Jewish and Israeli causes. It didn’t. The deal went through.
There was also the case of Giancarlo Parretti, the Italian entertainment mogul always operating one step ahead of Interpol. In the midst of lining up financing for his attempted buyout of MGM/UA for $1.2 billion, he was quoted making anti-Semitic remarks. Hollywood remained mute and, in the end, everybody did business with him. Nor did it deter the media giant Time Warner from joining Parretti’s MGM/UA bid or rising to Parretti’s defense. “I would think,” then–Time Warner co-chairman Steve Ross told the media, “that if studio people are quoted and they’re not disclosing who they are, that in itself must mean something, especially since most major studios have contacted Mr. Parretti and/or Warner Bros. to negotiate a deal of their own.” What a parallel when Gibson’s longtime agent, ICM’s Ed Limato, also outed some competitors, who, he told The New York Times, were openly assailing Gibson after having tried and failed to woo him. “For some people in my business to publicly try to destroy Mel Gibson because of this incident the other night I find very hypocritical,” he said.
That is why I have always made a terrible joke that Hollywood would do business with Hitler if he made money for them. Gibson’s scandal goes way beyond just the issue of his own anti-Semitism, but it plumbs the deeper truths about the dark way that the entertainment business conducts itself. The Descent that’s over the edge here is not just Lionsgate’s, or Mel Gibson’s: It’s Hollywood’s as well.
To Read the Entire Essay
Harold Myerson: The Greatest Good for the Smallest Number
The Greatest Good for the Smallest Number: The Republican Congress doesn’t like to legislate, and it shows
By HAROLD MEYERSON
LA Weekly
If the Republican Congress has a guiding principle, it must be that the government that governs least governs worst.
By now, the modus operandi of this Congress is clearly established: First, ignore a national problem, either because doing something about it would annoy your betters (be they the president or the guys who write your campaign checks) or because your ideology, which states that government should do nothing except help the rich get richer, blocks you from doing anything except helping the rich get richer. Thus, the Congress has performed no oversight or conducted any investigations of a government project that’s gone bad (the war) and another that didn’t go at all (the rescue of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina). Thus, the Congress has done nothing about medical costs and the rising number of Americans with no insurance.
But there come times — usually just before elections — when public demand and fear of electoral wipeout force the Congress to act. Which brings us to the Congress’ modus vivendi: Address public needs just enough to survive elections, but in a way that still benefits your betters. That explains the Republicans’ prescription-drug program, Medicare Part D, which picks up some of the costs of seniors’ medications. A major factor in keeping drug prices high is Medicare Part D itself, which forbids the government from negotiating lower prices from the pharmaceutical companies, which are, of course, a mainstay of Republican campaign finance.
And it explains the latest masterpiece from the Republican House — the bill, passed at 1:30 a.m. last Saturday, that raises the minimum wage, and also makes cuts in the estate tax so large as to guarantee the defunding of half the government should this bill ever make it through the Senate. On the wage side of the equation, the bill would raise the federal minimum from $5.15 an hour — the subbasement level at which it’s languished since 1997; the lowest level in terms of purchasing power that the minimum wage has been at in the past 50 years — to $7.25, a raise that would be phased in over the next three years. On the estate-tax side, the measure would schedule reductions to go in place by 2011 that would decrease the tax from 55 percent on the largest estates to the rate of capital-gains taxes (currently 15 percent) for estates worth between $10 million and $25 million, and to 30 percent for estates larger than $25 million.
According to the calculations of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, the number of workers who would benefit directly from the wage hike — that is, whose hourly wage is under $7.25 — is 6.6 million. The number of estates that would benefit from the reduction in taxes in the year it would take effect (2011) is 8,200. The workers, on average, would gain about $1,200 a year. The beneficiaries of the estate-tax reduction would gain, on average, $1.4 million. For what the Tax Policy Center estimates to be the richest eligible estates, the 900 worth more than $20 million in that year, the gain, on average, would be $5.6 million.
Who still believes in John Stuart Mill? The goal of House Republicans, apparently, is the greatest good for the smallest number.
To Read the Rest of the Article
By HAROLD MEYERSON
LA Weekly
If the Republican Congress has a guiding principle, it must be that the government that governs least governs worst.
By now, the modus operandi of this Congress is clearly established: First, ignore a national problem, either because doing something about it would annoy your betters (be they the president or the guys who write your campaign checks) or because your ideology, which states that government should do nothing except help the rich get richer, blocks you from doing anything except helping the rich get richer. Thus, the Congress has performed no oversight or conducted any investigations of a government project that’s gone bad (the war) and another that didn’t go at all (the rescue of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina). Thus, the Congress has done nothing about medical costs and the rising number of Americans with no insurance.
But there come times — usually just before elections — when public demand and fear of electoral wipeout force the Congress to act. Which brings us to the Congress’ modus vivendi: Address public needs just enough to survive elections, but in a way that still benefits your betters. That explains the Republicans’ prescription-drug program, Medicare Part D, which picks up some of the costs of seniors’ medications. A major factor in keeping drug prices high is Medicare Part D itself, which forbids the government from negotiating lower prices from the pharmaceutical companies, which are, of course, a mainstay of Republican campaign finance.
And it explains the latest masterpiece from the Republican House — the bill, passed at 1:30 a.m. last Saturday, that raises the minimum wage, and also makes cuts in the estate tax so large as to guarantee the defunding of half the government should this bill ever make it through the Senate. On the wage side of the equation, the bill would raise the federal minimum from $5.15 an hour — the subbasement level at which it’s languished since 1997; the lowest level in terms of purchasing power that the minimum wage has been at in the past 50 years — to $7.25, a raise that would be phased in over the next three years. On the estate-tax side, the measure would schedule reductions to go in place by 2011 that would decrease the tax from 55 percent on the largest estates to the rate of capital-gains taxes (currently 15 percent) for estates worth between $10 million and $25 million, and to 30 percent for estates larger than $25 million.
According to the calculations of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, the number of workers who would benefit directly from the wage hike — that is, whose hourly wage is under $7.25 — is 6.6 million. The number of estates that would benefit from the reduction in taxes in the year it would take effect (2011) is 8,200. The workers, on average, would gain about $1,200 a year. The beneficiaries of the estate-tax reduction would gain, on average, $1.4 million. For what the Tax Policy Center estimates to be the richest eligible estates, the 900 worth more than $20 million in that year, the gain, on average, would be $5.6 million.
Who still believes in John Stuart Mill? The goal of House Republicans, apparently, is the greatest good for the smallest number.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Zoketsu Norman Fischer: The Mystery of the Uselessness of Art
(Courtesy of Okir)
"Yet, at bottom, there remains the mystery of the uselessness of art, of the shifting and unmade quality of it, and of the tremendous need that we have for the unmade and the undone, no matter how unstable or accidental our experience of it may be. The experience of it is precious and life changing always."
--Zoketsu Norman Fischer
"Yet, at bottom, there remains the mystery of the uselessness of art, of the shifting and unmade quality of it, and of the tremendous need that we have for the unmade and the undone, no matter how unstable or accidental our experience of it may be. The experience of it is precious and life changing always."
--Zoketsu Norman Fischer
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
This is one of the best plays I have seen--David Colbert gives a searing, convincing, emotional performance as Hedwig... Petra DeLuca is charming as a disaffected, angry, yet engaged associate... and the band simply kicks ass.
Believe me--you have to see this, whether you are in Lexington (through the 20th), or when it stops by your locale...
Believe me--you have to see this, whether you are in Lexington (through the 20th), or when it stops by your locale...
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Robert L. Borsage: Triumph Of The New Moral Center
Triumph Of The New Moral Center
Robert L. Borosage
Campaign for America's Future
Ned Lamont's stunning upset of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary race on Tuesday sends shock waves through the dead sea of American politics.
Lamont did the impossible—this virtual unknown beat in his own party's primary an 18-year incumbent with universal name recognition, a $12 million campaign war chest and the support of Washington insiders, the punditry and the corporate lobbies.
His victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman prided himself on being the president's leading Democratic ally in touting the war. After his defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president.
Lamont's victory was propelled by a rising tide of progressive energy—activists who are tired of losing elections to the right and disgusted with cautious politicians who duck and cover rather than stand and fight. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman exemplified those Democrats who establish their "independence" by pushing off the causes of their own party and embracing the right's agenda. His voters didn't abandon him; he abandoned them long ago. After his defeat, incumbents in both parties may begin to listen more closely to their voters and less avidly to their donors.
Lamont's victory was fueled by a new generation coming into politics with a passion—and organizing over the Web. Over the past year, the Washington establishment has scorned them as extreme and mocked them for failing to win anything. After Tuesday, there will be no more "bring em on" challenges issued to the bloggers.
Most important, Lamont represents a new moral center in American politics—a challenge to the failed status quo and a demand for a new direction that a growing majority of Americans are searching for. Bring an end to the disastrous occupation in Iraq and bring the troops home with honor. Change priorities to invest in our schools, in universal pre-kindergarten, in modern infrastructure. Champion affordable national health care for all. These are not issues from the "edges of our politics," as Lieberman suggests, but ideas whose time has come.
To Read the Rest of Position
Robert L. Borosage
Campaign for America's Future
Ned Lamont's stunning upset of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary race on Tuesday sends shock waves through the dead sea of American politics.
Lamont did the impossible—this virtual unknown beat in his own party's primary an 18-year incumbent with universal name recognition, a $12 million campaign war chest and the support of Washington insiders, the punditry and the corporate lobbies.
His victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman prided himself on being the president's leading Democratic ally in touting the war. After his defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president.
Lamont's victory was propelled by a rising tide of progressive energy—activists who are tired of losing elections to the right and disgusted with cautious politicians who duck and cover rather than stand and fight. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman exemplified those Democrats who establish their "independence" by pushing off the causes of their own party and embracing the right's agenda. His voters didn't abandon him; he abandoned them long ago. After his defeat, incumbents in both parties may begin to listen more closely to their voters and less avidly to their donors.
Lamont's victory was fueled by a new generation coming into politics with a passion—and organizing over the Web. Over the past year, the Washington establishment has scorned them as extreme and mocked them for failing to win anything. After Tuesday, there will be no more "bring em on" challenges issued to the bloggers.
Most important, Lamont represents a new moral center in American politics—a challenge to the failed status quo and a demand for a new direction that a growing majority of Americans are searching for. Bring an end to the disastrous occupation in Iraq and bring the troops home with honor. Change priorities to invest in our schools, in universal pre-kindergarten, in modern infrastructure. Champion affordable national health care for all. These are not issues from the "edges of our politics," as Lieberman suggests, but ideas whose time has come.
To Read the Rest of Position
Maurice Blanchot: The Madness of the Day
(Courtesy of Bob Gluck and Wood's Lot)
From The Madness of the Day, by Maurice Blanchot, trans. Lydia Davis
I am not learned; I am not ignorant. I have known joys. That is saying too little: I am alive, and this life gives me the greatest pleasure. And what about death? When I die (perhaps any minute now), I will feel immense pleasure. I am not talking about the foretaste of death, which is stale and often disagreeable. Suffering dulls the senses. But this is the remarkable truth, and I am sure of it: I experience boundless pleasure in living, and I will take boundless satisfaction in dying.
I have wandered: I have gone from place to place. I have stayed in one place, lived in a single room. I have been poor, then richer, then poorer than many people. As a child I had great passions, and everything I wanted was given to me. My childhood has disappeared, my youth his behind me. It doesn't matter. I am happy about what has been. I am pleased by what is, and what is to come suits me well enough.
Is my life better than other peoples lives? Perhaps. I have a roof over my head and many do not. I do not have leprosy, I am not blind, I see the world—what extraordinary happiness! I see this day, and outside it there is nothing. Who could take that away from me? And when this day fades, I will fade along with it—a thought, a certainty, that enraptures me.
I have loved people. I have lost them. I went mad when that blow struck me, because it is hell. But there was no witness to my madness, my frenzy was not evident: only my innermost being was mad. Sometimes I became enraged. People would say to me, Why are you so calm? But I was scorched from head to foot; at night I would run through the streets and howl; during the day I would work calmly.
From The Madness of the Day, by Maurice Blanchot, trans. Lydia Davis
I am not learned; I am not ignorant. I have known joys. That is saying too little: I am alive, and this life gives me the greatest pleasure. And what about death? When I die (perhaps any minute now), I will feel immense pleasure. I am not talking about the foretaste of death, which is stale and often disagreeable. Suffering dulls the senses. But this is the remarkable truth, and I am sure of it: I experience boundless pleasure in living, and I will take boundless satisfaction in dying.
I have wandered: I have gone from place to place. I have stayed in one place, lived in a single room. I have been poor, then richer, then poorer than many people. As a child I had great passions, and everything I wanted was given to me. My childhood has disappeared, my youth his behind me. It doesn't matter. I am happy about what has been. I am pleased by what is, and what is to come suits me well enough.
Is my life better than other peoples lives? Perhaps. I have a roof over my head and many do not. I do not have leprosy, I am not blind, I see the world—what extraordinary happiness! I see this day, and outside it there is nothing. Who could take that away from me? And when this day fades, I will fade along with it—a thought, a certainty, that enraptures me.
I have loved people. I have lost them. I went mad when that blow struck me, because it is hell. But there was no witness to my madness, my frenzy was not evident: only my innermost being was mad. Sometimes I became enraged. People would say to me, Why are you so calm? But I was scorched from head to foot; at night I would run through the streets and howl; during the day I would work calmly.
The President is committed to...
I just got this as part of an automated message response to a letter I wrote to the president about the Israeli-Lebanon conflict:
"On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence. We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions. The President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values."
I guess in politics the three strike rule doesn't mean you are out?
"On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence. We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions. The President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values."
I guess in politics the three strike rule doesn't mean you are out?
Yatesville Lake in Eastern Kentucky
My favorite place to camp in Kentucky. It is about 2 hrs from Lexington, KY.
Directions:
I-64 East to 23 South to KY 32
Turn right on 32 and follow it 4.7 miles to KY 3215.
Turn right on 3215 and follow 2 miles to the campground.
Stop at the entrance and tell them you would like a boat camping site. They will provide you with a map--my favorites are B1, B7-11
To get your stuff to the site you have three options:
1) Gate to ranger/staff road access. You can't drive on this but you can walk your stuff in--about 3/10 of a mile.
2) Ask for directions to the primitive camping sites--at the back of each is a trail that goes down a hill to the campsites (B1 to the left--B7-B11 to the right). This is much closer than the gate, but involves a small hill (which is steep--but kids go up and down it all the time)
if you are doing either of those options you might want to completely load up on ice after you have gotten your coolers to the campsite
3) You can rent little Johnson motor boats at the Marina (last year they were 30 dollars a day) and boat your stuff out to the sites (they are only 10-30 feet from the water). When you get to the sites look for the blue paint marks on the trees which mark each site. The sites you hit first will be the higher numbers, so work your way to the one you have reserved. It is not quite as important that you get the lower numbers in this case because you are not worried about walking distance. If you have your own boat there is a launch site (with parking for your vehicle) right next to the camp sites.
Yatesville's boat camping sites are an under-used and under-appreciated camping spot. One of the best things about them is that they are nowhere near RVs (sorry my RV friends, they are convenient, but they are an intrusion on the setting and some are quite loud with their various generators). Be prepared for beautiful camp sites, with postcard-picture views and clean swimming waters right in front of your campsite (the campsites are in a no-wake zone and loud, annoying jet-boats are not permitted on the lake). There is good fishing and the lake is huge. I have never had a hassle there and the people there are generally friendly (the ones I talk to in the primitive/boat camps--RV folk seem somewhat cut off from that type of interaction.
It costs 12 dollars a day for one campsite (you can have up to six adults in a campsite and umpteen kiddies--last time we got two sites for 5 adults and three kids)
Directions:
I-64 East to 23 South to KY 32
Turn right on 32 and follow it 4.7 miles to KY 3215.
Turn right on 3215 and follow 2 miles to the campground.
Stop at the entrance and tell them you would like a boat camping site. They will provide you with a map--my favorites are B1, B7-11
To get your stuff to the site you have three options:
1) Gate to ranger/staff road access. You can't drive on this but you can walk your stuff in--about 3/10 of a mile.
2) Ask for directions to the primitive camping sites--at the back of each is a trail that goes down a hill to the campsites (B1 to the left--B7-B11 to the right). This is much closer than the gate, but involves a small hill (which is steep--but kids go up and down it all the time)
if you are doing either of those options you might want to completely load up on ice after you have gotten your coolers to the campsite
3) You can rent little Johnson motor boats at the Marina (last year they were 30 dollars a day) and boat your stuff out to the sites (they are only 10-30 feet from the water). When you get to the sites look for the blue paint marks on the trees which mark each site. The sites you hit first will be the higher numbers, so work your way to the one you have reserved. It is not quite as important that you get the lower numbers in this case because you are not worried about walking distance. If you have your own boat there is a launch site (with parking for your vehicle) right next to the camp sites.
Yatesville's boat camping sites are an under-used and under-appreciated camping spot. One of the best things about them is that they are nowhere near RVs (sorry my RV friends, they are convenient, but they are an intrusion on the setting and some are quite loud with their various generators). Be prepared for beautiful camp sites, with postcard-picture views and clean swimming waters right in front of your campsite (the campsites are in a no-wake zone and loud, annoying jet-boats are not permitted on the lake). There is good fishing and the lake is huge. I have never had a hassle there and the people there are generally friendly (the ones I talk to in the primitive/boat camps--RV folk seem somewhat cut off from that type of interaction.
It costs 12 dollars a day for one campsite (you can have up to six adults in a campsite and umpteen kiddies--last time we got two sites for 5 adults and three kids)
Christopher Hayes: Economic Populism Proves Popular
Economic Populism Proves Popular: To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
By Christopher Hayes
In These Times
When Oregon voters head to the polls this fall they’ll have 13 ballot initiatives to consider, everything from parental notification for teenage abortion to strict tax-caps. But they won’t get a chance to vote to limit interest rates on payday loans. A coalition of progressive groups called Our Oregon had hoped to gather enough petitions to put the issue on the ballot, but they never got the chance: Once Republican lawmakers caught wind of the plan, they became so scared of its potential political impact that they passed the proposed referendum word-for-word in the state House.
State House Majority Leader Wayne Scott, who voted against the bill, was blunt about his colleagues’ motives. “We should come clean [about] what we’re really doing today,” Scott said on the House floor. “We’re not passing the bill to protect people; we’re passing the bill to protect ourselves.”
Payday loans are short-term, high-interest loans. Borrowers receive an immediate cash payment and, in exchange, write a post-dated check that can be cashed once they receive their next paycheck. The interest rates are far, far higher than loans through commercial banks, up to 500 percent (and in some cases, as high as 900 percent). Most perniciously, the loans can be rolled over for additional fees, which means customers can end up paying more interest than the principal they’d originally borrowed. In the last few years the industry has exploded: From 2000 to 2003, the number of payday lenders more than doubled, and the industry’s sales quadrupled to $40 billion.
In response, states from Florida to Arkansas to Illinois have been cracking down on payday lenders, imposing strict disclosure regulations, limits on the number of rollovers and interest caps. Until recently, Oregon was one of only seven states with no such caps, and the lack of regulation served as a magnet for the industry, with out-of-state companies flocking in to set up shop.
As payday lending exploded, so too did horror stories about cyclical debt and eye-popping interest rates. Portland resident Maryann Olson, a 58-year old retired nurse on disability, didn’t have the $150 she needed to buy orthopedic shoes, so she took out a payday loan. Several months later, she owed $1,900 to six different lenders. After housing and medical costs, she had so little money left over to pay down her debt, she says she “was going out to other payday loaners, trying to rob from Peter to pay Paul.”
Social service agencies around the state began noticing more and more of their clients in situations like Olson’s. Angela Martin, Our Oregon’s director of economic-fairness campaigns, says that at the Oregon Food Bank, where she previously worked, the fastest-growing type of clientele was working families. “They couldn’t make room for the grocery bill,” she says, “because they had to pay the payday lender.”
So beginning in 2004, a coalition of faith-based social service agencies, along with Oregon State PIRG and the Oregon Food Bank, started pushing in the state legislature for bills that would have limited interest rates and rollovers. Thanks in large part to the hundreds of thousands of dollars the industry spends on lobbying, the opposition was stiff. The bill passed the Democratic-controlled Senate last year, but in the Republican-controlled House, Speaker Karen Minnis wouldn’t allow it a hearing.
Then last fall Our Oregon started plotting its election-year strategy. “Most of the major political groups hadn’t really been tracking” the payday lending issue, says Our Oregon Strategic Consultant Kevin Looper. “But when we started Our Oregon, we wanted two things out of it—permanent coalition building capacity, and to fill in the gap we saw strategically, which was all around advancing basic economic fairness.”
So the coalition commissioned a poll. “We got really great, clean-ballot language that said we’ll limit the interest rates on payday loans,” says Looper. “We polled on it, and it literally polled off the charts. Our pollster said, ‘I never see polls like this.’ It’s just unbelievably rare to find an issue that’s 70-30, and you win every one of the demographic groups.” Including, Looper says, registered Republicans.
“Who the heck can be on the side of charging 521 percent interest rates for people that are vulnerable and desperate? I feel personally for the people that are in that spot, and I must say I also like the box it puts conservatives in politically.”
One of those boxed in was Minnis, who Our Oregon targeted with actions in her district that called attention to the fact she’d taken $13,500 from the industry and blocked the reforms. When the governor called a special session in April to deal with school funding, it was Minnis who demanded her colleagues put the payday lending bill on the agenda as well.
Republican lawmakers “were caught between a rock and a hard place,” says Martin. “Registered Republicans out in the community said, ‘Wait a minute, this is good legislation.’”
To Read the Rest of This Article
Make sure to check out the comments at the end of the article--illuminating...
By Christopher Hayes
In These Times
When Oregon voters head to the polls this fall they’ll have 13 ballot initiatives to consider, everything from parental notification for teenage abortion to strict tax-caps. But they won’t get a chance to vote to limit interest rates on payday loans. A coalition of progressive groups called Our Oregon had hoped to gather enough petitions to put the issue on the ballot, but they never got the chance: Once Republican lawmakers caught wind of the plan, they became so scared of its potential political impact that they passed the proposed referendum word-for-word in the state House.
State House Majority Leader Wayne Scott, who voted against the bill, was blunt about his colleagues’ motives. “We should come clean [about] what we’re really doing today,” Scott said on the House floor. “We’re not passing the bill to protect people; we’re passing the bill to protect ourselves.”
Payday loans are short-term, high-interest loans. Borrowers receive an immediate cash payment and, in exchange, write a post-dated check that can be cashed once they receive their next paycheck. The interest rates are far, far higher than loans through commercial banks, up to 500 percent (and in some cases, as high as 900 percent). Most perniciously, the loans can be rolled over for additional fees, which means customers can end up paying more interest than the principal they’d originally borrowed. In the last few years the industry has exploded: From 2000 to 2003, the number of payday lenders more than doubled, and the industry’s sales quadrupled to $40 billion.
In response, states from Florida to Arkansas to Illinois have been cracking down on payday lenders, imposing strict disclosure regulations, limits on the number of rollovers and interest caps. Until recently, Oregon was one of only seven states with no such caps, and the lack of regulation served as a magnet for the industry, with out-of-state companies flocking in to set up shop.
As payday lending exploded, so too did horror stories about cyclical debt and eye-popping interest rates. Portland resident Maryann Olson, a 58-year old retired nurse on disability, didn’t have the $150 she needed to buy orthopedic shoes, so she took out a payday loan. Several months later, she owed $1,900 to six different lenders. After housing and medical costs, she had so little money left over to pay down her debt, she says she “was going out to other payday loaners, trying to rob from Peter to pay Paul.”
Social service agencies around the state began noticing more and more of their clients in situations like Olson’s. Angela Martin, Our Oregon’s director of economic-fairness campaigns, says that at the Oregon Food Bank, where she previously worked, the fastest-growing type of clientele was working families. “They couldn’t make room for the grocery bill,” she says, “because they had to pay the payday lender.”
So beginning in 2004, a coalition of faith-based social service agencies, along with Oregon State PIRG and the Oregon Food Bank, started pushing in the state legislature for bills that would have limited interest rates and rollovers. Thanks in large part to the hundreds of thousands of dollars the industry spends on lobbying, the opposition was stiff. The bill passed the Democratic-controlled Senate last year, but in the Republican-controlled House, Speaker Karen Minnis wouldn’t allow it a hearing.
Then last fall Our Oregon started plotting its election-year strategy. “Most of the major political groups hadn’t really been tracking” the payday lending issue, says Our Oregon Strategic Consultant Kevin Looper. “But when we started Our Oregon, we wanted two things out of it—permanent coalition building capacity, and to fill in the gap we saw strategically, which was all around advancing basic economic fairness.”
So the coalition commissioned a poll. “We got really great, clean-ballot language that said we’ll limit the interest rates on payday loans,” says Looper. “We polled on it, and it literally polled off the charts. Our pollster said, ‘I never see polls like this.’ It’s just unbelievably rare to find an issue that’s 70-30, and you win every one of the demographic groups.” Including, Looper says, registered Republicans.
“Who the heck can be on the side of charging 521 percent interest rates for people that are vulnerable and desperate? I feel personally for the people that are in that spot, and I must say I also like the box it puts conservatives in politically.”
One of those boxed in was Minnis, who Our Oregon targeted with actions in her district that called attention to the fact she’d taken $13,500 from the industry and blocked the reforms. When the governor called a special session in April to deal with school funding, it was Minnis who demanded her colleagues put the payday lending bill on the agenda as well.
Republican lawmakers “were caught between a rock and a hard place,” says Martin. “Registered Republicans out in the community said, ‘Wait a minute, this is good legislation.’”
To Read the Rest of This Article
Make sure to check out the comments at the end of the article--illuminating...
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Iris Marion Young, 1949-2006: “U. of C. professor had passion for social justice”
(Courtesy of I Cite)
Iris Marion Young, 1949-2006: “U. of C. professor had passion for social justice”
University of Chicago News Office
Iris Marion Young, a leading philosopher called by a colleague “one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter-century,” died in her home Tuesday, Aug. 1 after a year-and-a-half long fight with cancer. She was 57.
Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago since 2000, was known for her work on theories of justice, democratic theory and feminist theory.
“When Iris came to the University she had already established herself as one of the most important feminist thinkers in the world,” said Associate Professor Patchen Markell, a colleague of Young’s in the University of Chicago’s Political Science department. “She was absolutely unsurpassed in her ability to combine a very high level of philosophical analysis with relevance to contemporary political issues, and to the experiences of women and men who cared about social injustice.”
Young was born January 2, 1949 in New York City. She studied philosophy as an undergraduate at Queens College, where she graduated with honors in 1970, before she went on to earn her masters and doctorate in philosophy in 1974 from Pennsylvania State University.
Early on, Young built a reputation for her teaching and writing on global justice; democracy and difference; continental political theory; ethics and international affairs; and gender, race and public policy. But it was her 1990 book Justice and the Politics of Difference that propelled her to the international stage. It was in that text, a staple in classrooms the world over, that Young critically analyzed the basic concepts underlying most theories of justice, argued for a new conception of justice and urged for the affirmation rather than the suppression of social group difference. More recently she had been working on the issue of political responsibility, and especially on the question of how to conceive of responsibility for large-scale structural injustices that can’t easily be traced back to the doings of any single person or group.
“There is no question in my mind that she is one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter-century,” said Cass Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago’s Law School and in Political Science. “She was unexcelled in the world in feminist and leftist political thought, and her work will have an enduring impact.”
To Read the Rest of Obituary
Iris Marion Young, 1949-2006: “U. of C. professor had passion for social justice”
University of Chicago News Office
Iris Marion Young, a leading philosopher called by a colleague “one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter-century,” died in her home Tuesday, Aug. 1 after a year-and-a-half long fight with cancer. She was 57.
Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago since 2000, was known for her work on theories of justice, democratic theory and feminist theory.
“When Iris came to the University she had already established herself as one of the most important feminist thinkers in the world,” said Associate Professor Patchen Markell, a colleague of Young’s in the University of Chicago’s Political Science department. “She was absolutely unsurpassed in her ability to combine a very high level of philosophical analysis with relevance to contemporary political issues, and to the experiences of women and men who cared about social injustice.”
Young was born January 2, 1949 in New York City. She studied philosophy as an undergraduate at Queens College, where she graduated with honors in 1970, before she went on to earn her masters and doctorate in philosophy in 1974 from Pennsylvania State University.
Early on, Young built a reputation for her teaching and writing on global justice; democracy and difference; continental political theory; ethics and international affairs; and gender, race and public policy. But it was her 1990 book Justice and the Politics of Difference that propelled her to the international stage. It was in that text, a staple in classrooms the world over, that Young critically analyzed the basic concepts underlying most theories of justice, argued for a new conception of justice and urged for the affirmation rather than the suppression of social group difference. More recently she had been working on the issue of political responsibility, and especially on the question of how to conceive of responsibility for large-scale structural injustices that can’t easily be traced back to the doings of any single person or group.
“There is no question in my mind that she is one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter-century,” said Cass Sunstein, the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago’s Law School and in Political Science. “She was unexcelled in the world in feminist and leftist political thought, and her work will have an enduring impact.”
To Read the Rest of Obituary
Wild Fairy Mushrooms (Raven Run)
(Wild Fairy Mushrooms are difficult to capture on film as they are constantly shifting in and out of our reality...)
Music for Peace 2006 (Lexington--Sunday Evenings)
Music for Peace
What: Informal gatherings to make music for peace
When: Sunday evenings from 6:00 until about 8:00 p.m.
Where: the gazebo at Woodland Park, Lexington
Description: On Sunday evening, bring your guitar, your drum, your voice, your hands to clap along, your legs to dance. If you’d rather just listen, that’s great too. Bring your supper. On occasion, there will be treats (just as fresh, Kentucky watermelon).
What: Informal gatherings to make music for peace
When: Sunday evenings from 6:00 until about 8:00 p.m.
Where: the gazebo at Woodland Park, Lexington
Description: On Sunday evening, bring your guitar, your drum, your voice, your hands to clap along, your legs to dance. If you’d rather just listen, that’s great too. Bring your supper. On occasion, there will be treats (just as fresh, Kentucky watermelon).
Courteny E. Martin: Megachurches Court Cool to Attract Teens
Megachurches Court Cool to Attract Teens
by Courtney E. Martin
Alternet
...
The Christian rock band played about five songs, showered in red, white and pink state-of-the-art lighting and periodic rolling clouds from the fog machine. Teenagers knelt down, stood in the aisles with their hands raised and rocked out at the foot of the stage, singing along; the lyrics of each song were projected on three giant television screens. One young woman spontaneously choreographed some kind of contemporary praise dance off in a corner, mixing Twyla Tharp modern with the Harlem shake as the spirit moved her. The lights were very dim, as if to visually indicate to every insecure 14-year-old around that, for once, no one was watching or judging.
It makes perfect sense -- teenagers are naturally emotional, bent on constructing their own unique individuality and deathly afraid of being judged for both. The angsty lyrics and dramatic delivery mirrors their internal world, but the dark, to-each-their-own vibe is in direct contrast to the cruel, external world.
Eventually the music faded into a soundtrack as a young pastor took the stage and translated the idea of God's glory for his "American Idol" audience: "We ask that you would make God famous in our city." Worship Pastor Ross Parsley, in his boot-cut jeans, short strawberry blond hair with pronounced sideburns, delivered his sermon from a Smartphone, throwing in frequent references to Hollywood movies. In fact, over the course of his 30-minute sermon he compared God's glory to the red pill in "The Matrix," the ring in the "Lord of the Rings," and, yes, the lion in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." God's wrath, he explains, is like the melting face in Indiana Jones.
When he asked "Does anyone remember the First Commandment?" and was met with only nervous giggles, he didn't miss a beat before responding: "Bueller? Bueller?" -- a reference to the famous '80s movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off."
Though Pastor Ross does sprinkle in some classic Valley Girl language (using "like" as a noun and referring to Obed-Edom as an "obscure dude”), he doesn't talk down to his following. He incorporated words like "behooves" and "arbiters" and phrases like "geopolitical woes," which seemed to send the message that, yes, he is one of them, but no, he doesn't consider them stupid. At one point he drew a parallel between one of the Philistines and the government, saying under his breath, "Maybe he consulted our Congress on passing the buck."
Though I would guess that many, if not most, of the teenagers in the crowd have no clue what he is referencing, they laugh knowingly; they felt part of an insider's club of people who "get it." This delicate mix of pop and politics makes kids feel cool and righteous -- not wonky, out of touch or nerdy.
And just when his sermon was skirting the edge of patronizing, Pastor Ross got tough: "WWJD bracelets and Christian contemporary music don't entitle you to the glory," he said. "Cut the garbage -- we must humble ourselves. Every one of us has to do something." The teenagers in the audience nod their heads in dramatic agreement, some raise their open palms, one pounds his fist into his thigh a few times.
You can't buy "cool" -- teenagers know that all to well. They respect a big brother-figure who is giving them the straight dope that you can't buy "glory" either. And what's more, this is action-oriented. Pastor Ross warned that "you never know what blessing you might miss" if you sit idly by. This God -- albeit a definitively Republican, homo-hating, pro-life God -- wants you to stop talking and start doing.
After Pastor Ross finished, Senior Pastor Ted Haggard, who consults with President Bush once a week and masterminded the New Life movement, took the stage and gave his protege a warm greeting. They both sat on tall stools for the Q&A. Pastor Ted encouraged his congregants to ask questions "regarding anything at all." He called on people by their first names and answered their diverse inquiries with what I can only describe as a frightening mix of damnation and Dr. Phil. One moment he was describing young people possessed by the devil writhing on the ground like snakes at a Mississippi gather, the next he explained, "The moment that I feel that God is using me to judge and punish, I hit the prayer closet fast to negotiate." I looked around at the teenagers, wondering if they were as confused as I was. They looked similarly bewildered. Some of them were even covertly text messaging their friends.
But he ended with a comforting idea: "God loves those who wrestle with him." The New Life Church has made God a man to both fear and love, a classic example of what George Lakoff calls the "strict father" model. For the New Life Church, worship is both a mandate and an individual expression, contemporary culture is both an evil and a celebration. But unlike the brand of confusion produced by electoral politics that promises a "stronger America" or health care for all, New Life Church promises concrete rewards. Both pastors spoke often about the payoff for those who are faithful; Pastor Ted even referred to "the toys" that those who pray will undoubtedly receive, holding up Sam Walton of the Wal-Mart fortune as the quintessential example.
For teenagers, unlike aging adults, the ultimate reward is not yet heaven — it is being "cool,” being entertained, being inspired. The teenspeak-talking evangelists assure these insecure kids that if they pray hard enough, they will not only be loved, but rich. Unlike the hell that is junior high, at New Life, they are resolutely on the side of the powerful and popular.
To Read the Rest of the Hyperlinked Story and to Watch a Video Interview With the Author
by Courtney E. Martin
Alternet
...
The Christian rock band played about five songs, showered in red, white and pink state-of-the-art lighting and periodic rolling clouds from the fog machine. Teenagers knelt down, stood in the aisles with their hands raised and rocked out at the foot of the stage, singing along; the lyrics of each song were projected on three giant television screens. One young woman spontaneously choreographed some kind of contemporary praise dance off in a corner, mixing Twyla Tharp modern with the Harlem shake as the spirit moved her. The lights were very dim, as if to visually indicate to every insecure 14-year-old around that, for once, no one was watching or judging.
It makes perfect sense -- teenagers are naturally emotional, bent on constructing their own unique individuality and deathly afraid of being judged for both. The angsty lyrics and dramatic delivery mirrors their internal world, but the dark, to-each-their-own vibe is in direct contrast to the cruel, external world.
Eventually the music faded into a soundtrack as a young pastor took the stage and translated the idea of God's glory for his "American Idol" audience: "We ask that you would make God famous in our city." Worship Pastor Ross Parsley, in his boot-cut jeans, short strawberry blond hair with pronounced sideburns, delivered his sermon from a Smartphone, throwing in frequent references to Hollywood movies. In fact, over the course of his 30-minute sermon he compared God's glory to the red pill in "The Matrix," the ring in the "Lord of the Rings," and, yes, the lion in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." God's wrath, he explains, is like the melting face in Indiana Jones.
When he asked "Does anyone remember the First Commandment?" and was met with only nervous giggles, he didn't miss a beat before responding: "Bueller? Bueller?" -- a reference to the famous '80s movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off."
Though Pastor Ross does sprinkle in some classic Valley Girl language (using "like" as a noun and referring to Obed-Edom as an "obscure dude”), he doesn't talk down to his following. He incorporated words like "behooves" and "arbiters" and phrases like "geopolitical woes," which seemed to send the message that, yes, he is one of them, but no, he doesn't consider them stupid. At one point he drew a parallel between one of the Philistines and the government, saying under his breath, "Maybe he consulted our Congress on passing the buck."
Though I would guess that many, if not most, of the teenagers in the crowd have no clue what he is referencing, they laugh knowingly; they felt part of an insider's club of people who "get it." This delicate mix of pop and politics makes kids feel cool and righteous -- not wonky, out of touch or nerdy.
And just when his sermon was skirting the edge of patronizing, Pastor Ross got tough: "WWJD bracelets and Christian contemporary music don't entitle you to the glory," he said. "Cut the garbage -- we must humble ourselves. Every one of us has to do something." The teenagers in the audience nod their heads in dramatic agreement, some raise their open palms, one pounds his fist into his thigh a few times.
You can't buy "cool" -- teenagers know that all to well. They respect a big brother-figure who is giving them the straight dope that you can't buy "glory" either. And what's more, this is action-oriented. Pastor Ross warned that "you never know what blessing you might miss" if you sit idly by. This God -- albeit a definitively Republican, homo-hating, pro-life God -- wants you to stop talking and start doing.
After Pastor Ross finished, Senior Pastor Ted Haggard, who consults with President Bush once a week and masterminded the New Life movement, took the stage and gave his protege a warm greeting. They both sat on tall stools for the Q&A. Pastor Ted encouraged his congregants to ask questions "regarding anything at all." He called on people by their first names and answered their diverse inquiries with what I can only describe as a frightening mix of damnation and Dr. Phil. One moment he was describing young people possessed by the devil writhing on the ground like snakes at a Mississippi gather, the next he explained, "The moment that I feel that God is using me to judge and punish, I hit the prayer closet fast to negotiate." I looked around at the teenagers, wondering if they were as confused as I was. They looked similarly bewildered. Some of them were even covertly text messaging their friends.
But he ended with a comforting idea: "God loves those who wrestle with him." The New Life Church has made God a man to both fear and love, a classic example of what George Lakoff calls the "strict father" model. For the New Life Church, worship is both a mandate and an individual expression, contemporary culture is both an evil and a celebration. But unlike the brand of confusion produced by electoral politics that promises a "stronger America" or health care for all, New Life Church promises concrete rewards. Both pastors spoke often about the payoff for those who are faithful; Pastor Ted even referred to "the toys" that those who pray will undoubtedly receive, holding up Sam Walton of the Wal-Mart fortune as the quintessential example.
For teenagers, unlike aging adults, the ultimate reward is not yet heaven — it is being "cool,” being entertained, being inspired. The teenspeak-talking evangelists assure these insecure kids that if they pray hard enough, they will not only be loved, but rich. Unlike the hell that is junior high, at New Life, they are resolutely on the side of the powerful and popular.
To Read the Rest of the Hyperlinked Story and to Watch a Video Interview With the Author
Monday, August 07, 2006
Thinking About Radical Democracy: Pt. 5
(Just getting ready for a new school year: Radical in the sense of a reflective reworking that involves going back to the origins of the concept in order to imagine a future as a hope of recognizing the present. This means pushing our supposed democracy to live up to its founding concepts. For my students working on social/collective memory projects--the links are all updated. Suggestions for this list are appreciated and needed--please help me to keep up-to-date and to catch up on newly uncovered/ignored histories.)
U.S. Section of Women's International League for Peace
Orion: Environmental Discourse and Dissent
Green Social Thought
Radical Democracy: A Contested Terrain
Rules for Radicals
The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy
Fast Food Nation and McDonaldization
History of Radicalism in the U.S.
Abolitionist Movement
Civil Rights Movement
Marxist Internet Archive
Eugene Debs, Labor Organizer
Feminist Movement
Marcus Garvey, Black Nationalist Leader
Labor Movement
Abbie Hoffman
Populism
Socialism
Utopian Communities
The Student as Nigger
John Taylor Gatto: Challenging the Myths of Modern Schooling
Raoul Vaneigem: The Revolution of Everyday Life
Resources for Studying Propaganda
The Memory Hole: Freeing of Information in Action
On the Poverty of Student Life
Language of the War on Terror
Independent Media in a Time of War
Indy Media
Nancy Snow: Rebranding of America
Poet/Performer Saul Williams
Politics of University Teaching in Post 9/11 America
Socialist Equality Party Presidential Candidate Bill Van Auken: "An American Tragedy"
Douglas Rushkoff's Open Source Democracy
Chris Hedges: The Meaning of War
Stonewall Riot and Its Aftermath
Wikipedia: Stonewall Riots
Stonewall Riots, 1969
Nickle and Dimed: On (not) Getting By in America
Barbara Ehrenreich
Crucial Texts of Radical Democracy
Thomas Frank: Architecture of a New Consensus
Culture-Trafficking for the 21st Century
Terry Tempest Williams: Open Spaces of Democracy
Terry Tempest Williams: Ground Truthing
BBC Documentary: The Power of Nightmares
Paul Kivel: Are You Mentoring For Social Justice
Skidmark Bob, Musical Activist
Stokely Carmichael: Architect of Black Power
George Soros: The Bubble of American Supremacy
Race and Collective Memory Bibliography
Without Sanctuary: America's Dark History of Racialized Violence (caution)
Ron Strickland's Marxist Cultural Theory
Tony Kushner: Radical Pragmatist
Race: The Power of an Illusion
Ubu Web: Freedom as Creativity
Martin Luther King's Radical Message
Michael Moore: White Frights
Remembering Johnny Cash
U.S. Prison Boom
How the Other Half Banks
Hakim Bey: Poetic Terrorism
Situationist International: Resisting the Society of the Spectacle
Bureau of Publis Secrets
Howard Zinn: Our War on Terrorism
The Nation: Our Debt to Bill Moyers
Arundhati Roy: Instant Mix, Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free)
Project Censored Annual Reports of Year's Top Censored News Stories
Guy Debord: Society of the Spectacle
Slavoj Zizek: The Passion
Raymond Federman: The Real Begins Where the Spectacle Ends
Emma Goldman: Minorities vs. Majorities
Emma Goldman Archives
Anarchist Archives
Mary Wolstoncraft: Vindication of the Rights of Women
Elizabeth Cady Stanton: The Solitude of Self
National Women's History Project
Gloria Steinem
Angela Davis: Radical Activist/Black Feminist
Combahee River Collective Statement: Genesis of Black Feminism
Feminist Writing Space
bell hooks: writing and resistance
The Beautiful Enigma of Radical Democracy
Women's International League for Peace
Peace Women
Extreme Democracy
American Indian Movement
Alcatraz Is Not an Island: Reclaiming Native Land
Alice Paul
Iron Jawed Angels (Katjia von Garnier) Warner, 2004: 125 minutes.
Alice Paul
We discussed the Seneca Falls 1848 Convention as a landmark event in the women's movement.
Seneca Falls Declaration
I mentioned Ida B. Wells the African American activist in the movie who refuses to get in the back of the parade--for more on this important democratic civil rights activist:
Ida B. Wells
Wikipedia: Ida B. Wells
Think about Ida B. Wells argument in the film and then read this important statement from Black Feminists:
Excerpts from the Combahee River Collective Statement
Other women activists of the time that are not featured in the movie, but are very important to know (they are often ignored because they fought for the rights of workers--something a capitalist society rarely honors). These women were as courageous and passionate as Alice Paul and Lucy Burns (have you heard of them?):
Mother Jones: the Angel of the Mines
Wikipedia: Mother Jones
Emma Goldman
Wikipedia: Emma Goldman
Helen Keller is also mentioned many times during the movie. How many of you knew that Helen Keller was an civil rights activist who was pursued by the FBI?
Helen Keller and the FBI
Helen Keller
I mentioned stereotypes about "feminism" and just wanted to post other opinions on the issue:
North Carolina College Student: Stereotypes About Feminism Are Unfounded and Damaging (also click on the only comment at the end of the essay)
The Guerilla Girls a performative activist group has long been fighting stereotypes of women and for equal representation in the arts (if you have taken an art history class you will understand the disparity between the representation of male and female artists):
University of North Texas website on feminism:
What is Feminism?
Public displays, marches and protests are an effective non-violent method for bringing attention to political issues (that are being ignored by mainstream society):
NOW: History of Marches and Mass Actions
Wikipedia: Social Movements
Wikipedia: Protests
Also check out the imagistic critiques of the conceptual artist Barbara Krueger--who questions how stereotypes and behaviors are reproduced through visual media:
Barbara Krueger
And courtesy of Melissa Purdue, an English Studies and Women Studies instructor at the University of Kentucky, an outline of the three waves of feminism (I added the links):
First Wave Feminism-
This term refers to the first concerted movement working for the reform of women's social and legal inequalities in the nineteenth century. Although individual feminist such as Mary Wollstonecraft had already argued against the injustices suffered by women, it was not until the 1850's that something like an organized feminist movement evolved in Britain. Its headquarters was at Langham Place in London, where a group of middle-class women, led by Barbara Bodichon (1827-91) and Bessie Rayner Parkes (1829-1925), met to discuss topical issues and publish the English Woman's Journal (1858-64).
The key concerns of First Wave Feminists were education, employment, the marriage laws, and the plight of intelligent middle-class single women. They were not primarily concerned with the problems of working-class women, nor did they necessarily see themselves as feminists in the modern sense (the term was not coined until 1895). First Wave Feminists largely responded to specific injustices they had themselves experienced.
Their major achievements were the opening of higher education for women; reform of the girls' secondary-school system, including participation in formal national examinations: the widening of access to the professions, especially medicine; married women's property rights, recognized in the Married Women's Property Act of 1870; and some improvement in divorced and separated women's child custody rights.
Second Wave Feminism-
The term 'Second Wave' was coined by Marsha Lear, and refers to the increase in feminist activity which occurred in America, Britain, and Europe from the late sixties onwards. In America, second wave feminism rose out of the Civil Rights and anti-war movements in which women, disillusioned with their second-class status even in the activist environment of student politics, began to band together to contend against discrimination. The second wave was concerned with reproductive rights and the fight against sexual and domestic violence.
The tactics employed by Second Wave Feminists varied from highly-published activism, such as the protest against the Miss America beauty contest in 1968, to the establishment of small consciousness-raising groups. However, it was obvious early on that the movement was not a unified one, with differences emerging between black feminism, lesbian feminism, liberal feminism, and social feminism.
Second Wave Feminism in Britain was similarly multiple in focus, although it was based more strongly in working-class socialism, as demonstrated by the strike of women workers at the Ford car plant for equal pay in 1968. The slogan 'the personal is political' sums up the way in which Second Wave Feminism did not just strive to extend the range of social opportunities open to women, but also, through intervention within the spheres of reproduction, sexuality and cultural representation, to change their domestic and private lives. Second Wave Feminism did not just make an impact upon western societies, but has also continued to inspire the struggle for women's rights across the world.
Third Wave Feminism -
Loosely defined movement starting around late 1990’s with texts like Manifesta, Listen Up, To Be Real, and Body Outlaws. Third Wave Feminism, the movement of feminism beyond the sexual revolution of the 1960's, is focused on young women and men perpetuating and improving upon those rights gained in the past. It is hard to define because the Third Wave is characterized by individualism and a lack of desire to conform to a definition. Third Wavers have never lived in a world without the women's movement.
The front page of the Third Wave Foundation web site explains that the organization strives to combat inequalities that [women] face as a result of [their] age, gender, race, sexual orientation, economic status or level of education. By empowering young women, Third Wave is building a lasting foundation for social activism around the country.
Wikipedia: Feminism
Wikipedia: Suffrage Movement
Wikipedia: Alice Paul
Wikipedia: Lucy Burns
U.S. Section of Women's International League for Peace
Orion: Environmental Discourse and Dissent
Green Social Thought
Radical Democracy: A Contested Terrain
Rules for Radicals
The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy
Fast Food Nation and McDonaldization
History of Radicalism in the U.S.
Abolitionist Movement
Civil Rights Movement
Marxist Internet Archive
Eugene Debs, Labor Organizer
Feminist Movement
Marcus Garvey, Black Nationalist Leader
Labor Movement
Abbie Hoffman
Populism
Socialism
Utopian Communities
The Student as Nigger
John Taylor Gatto: Challenging the Myths of Modern Schooling
Raoul Vaneigem: The Revolution of Everyday Life
Resources for Studying Propaganda
The Memory Hole: Freeing of Information in Action
On the Poverty of Student Life
Language of the War on Terror
Independent Media in a Time of War
Indy Media
Nancy Snow: Rebranding of America
Poet/Performer Saul Williams
Politics of University Teaching in Post 9/11 America
Socialist Equality Party Presidential Candidate Bill Van Auken: "An American Tragedy"
Douglas Rushkoff's Open Source Democracy
Chris Hedges: The Meaning of War
Stonewall Riot and Its Aftermath
Wikipedia: Stonewall Riots
Stonewall Riots, 1969
Nickle and Dimed: On (not) Getting By in America
Barbara Ehrenreich
Crucial Texts of Radical Democracy
Thomas Frank: Architecture of a New Consensus
Culture-Trafficking for the 21st Century
Terry Tempest Williams: Open Spaces of Democracy
Terry Tempest Williams: Ground Truthing
BBC Documentary: The Power of Nightmares
Paul Kivel: Are You Mentoring For Social Justice
Skidmark Bob, Musical Activist
Stokely Carmichael: Architect of Black Power
George Soros: The Bubble of American Supremacy
Race and Collective Memory Bibliography
Without Sanctuary: America's Dark History of Racialized Violence (caution)
Ron Strickland's Marxist Cultural Theory
Tony Kushner: Radical Pragmatist
Race: The Power of an Illusion
Ubu Web: Freedom as Creativity
Martin Luther King's Radical Message
Michael Moore: White Frights
Remembering Johnny Cash
U.S. Prison Boom
How the Other Half Banks
Hakim Bey: Poetic Terrorism
Situationist International: Resisting the Society of the Spectacle
Bureau of Publis Secrets
Howard Zinn: Our War on Terrorism
The Nation: Our Debt to Bill Moyers
Arundhati Roy: Instant Mix, Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free)
Project Censored Annual Reports of Year's Top Censored News Stories
Guy Debord: Society of the Spectacle
Slavoj Zizek: The Passion
Raymond Federman: The Real Begins Where the Spectacle Ends
Emma Goldman: Minorities vs. Majorities
Emma Goldman Archives
Anarchist Archives
Mary Wolstoncraft: Vindication of the Rights of Women
Elizabeth Cady Stanton: The Solitude of Self
National Women's History Project
Gloria Steinem
Angela Davis: Radical Activist/Black Feminist
Combahee River Collective Statement: Genesis of Black Feminism
Feminist Writing Space
bell hooks: writing and resistance
The Beautiful Enigma of Radical Democracy
Women's International League for Peace
Peace Women
Extreme Democracy
American Indian Movement
Alcatraz Is Not an Island: Reclaiming Native Land
Alice Paul
Iron Jawed Angels (Katjia von Garnier) Warner, 2004: 125 minutes.
Alice Paul
We discussed the Seneca Falls 1848 Convention as a landmark event in the women's movement.
Seneca Falls Declaration
I mentioned Ida B. Wells the African American activist in the movie who refuses to get in the back of the parade--for more on this important democratic civil rights activist:
Ida B. Wells
Wikipedia: Ida B. Wells
Think about Ida B. Wells argument in the film and then read this important statement from Black Feminists:
Excerpts from the Combahee River Collective Statement
Other women activists of the time that are not featured in the movie, but are very important to know (they are often ignored because they fought for the rights of workers--something a capitalist society rarely honors). These women were as courageous and passionate as Alice Paul and Lucy Burns (have you heard of them?):
Mother Jones: the Angel of the Mines
Wikipedia: Mother Jones
Emma Goldman
Wikipedia: Emma Goldman
Helen Keller is also mentioned many times during the movie. How many of you knew that Helen Keller was an civil rights activist who was pursued by the FBI?
Helen Keller and the FBI
Helen Keller
I mentioned stereotypes about "feminism" and just wanted to post other opinions on the issue:
North Carolina College Student: Stereotypes About Feminism Are Unfounded and Damaging (also click on the only comment at the end of the essay)
The Guerilla Girls a performative activist group has long been fighting stereotypes of women and for equal representation in the arts (if you have taken an art history class you will understand the disparity between the representation of male and female artists):
University of North Texas website on feminism:
What is Feminism?
Public displays, marches and protests are an effective non-violent method for bringing attention to political issues (that are being ignored by mainstream society):
NOW: History of Marches and Mass Actions
Wikipedia: Social Movements
Wikipedia: Protests
Also check out the imagistic critiques of the conceptual artist Barbara Krueger--who questions how stereotypes and behaviors are reproduced through visual media:
Barbara Krueger
And courtesy of Melissa Purdue, an English Studies and Women Studies instructor at the University of Kentucky, an outline of the three waves of feminism (I added the links):
First Wave Feminism-
This term refers to the first concerted movement working for the reform of women's social and legal inequalities in the nineteenth century. Although individual feminist such as Mary Wollstonecraft had already argued against the injustices suffered by women, it was not until the 1850's that something like an organized feminist movement evolved in Britain. Its headquarters was at Langham Place in London, where a group of middle-class women, led by Barbara Bodichon (1827-91) and Bessie Rayner Parkes (1829-1925), met to discuss topical issues and publish the English Woman's Journal (1858-64).
The key concerns of First Wave Feminists were education, employment, the marriage laws, and the plight of intelligent middle-class single women. They were not primarily concerned with the problems of working-class women, nor did they necessarily see themselves as feminists in the modern sense (the term was not coined until 1895). First Wave Feminists largely responded to specific injustices they had themselves experienced.
Their major achievements were the opening of higher education for women; reform of the girls' secondary-school system, including participation in formal national examinations: the widening of access to the professions, especially medicine; married women's property rights, recognized in the Married Women's Property Act of 1870; and some improvement in divorced and separated women's child custody rights.
Second Wave Feminism-
The term 'Second Wave' was coined by Marsha Lear, and refers to the increase in feminist activity which occurred in America, Britain, and Europe from the late sixties onwards. In America, second wave feminism rose out of the Civil Rights and anti-war movements in which women, disillusioned with their second-class status even in the activist environment of student politics, began to band together to contend against discrimination. The second wave was concerned with reproductive rights and the fight against sexual and domestic violence.
The tactics employed by Second Wave Feminists varied from highly-published activism, such as the protest against the Miss America beauty contest in 1968, to the establishment of small consciousness-raising groups. However, it was obvious early on that the movement was not a unified one, with differences emerging between black feminism, lesbian feminism, liberal feminism, and social feminism.
Second Wave Feminism in Britain was similarly multiple in focus, although it was based more strongly in working-class socialism, as demonstrated by the strike of women workers at the Ford car plant for equal pay in 1968. The slogan 'the personal is political' sums up the way in which Second Wave Feminism did not just strive to extend the range of social opportunities open to women, but also, through intervention within the spheres of reproduction, sexuality and cultural representation, to change their domestic and private lives. Second Wave Feminism did not just make an impact upon western societies, but has also continued to inspire the struggle for women's rights across the world.
Third Wave Feminism -
Loosely defined movement starting around late 1990’s with texts like Manifesta, Listen Up, To Be Real, and Body Outlaws. Third Wave Feminism, the movement of feminism beyond the sexual revolution of the 1960's, is focused on young women and men perpetuating and improving upon those rights gained in the past. It is hard to define because the Third Wave is characterized by individualism and a lack of desire to conform to a definition. Third Wavers have never lived in a world without the women's movement.
The front page of the Third Wave Foundation web site explains that the organization strives to combat inequalities that [women] face as a result of [their] age, gender, race, sexual orientation, economic status or level of education. By empowering young women, Third Wave is building a lasting foundation for social activism around the country.
Wikipedia: Feminism
Wikipedia: Suffrage Movement
Wikipedia: Alice Paul
Wikipedia: Lucy Burns
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)