Bill Moyers delivered a great speech at the 2005 National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis over the weekend. The former PBS host of NOW lambasted Corporation for Public Broadcasting chairman Kenneth Tomlinson for his partisan crusade to impose right-wing politics on PBS programming, a campaign that included his hiring a consultant to monitor Moyers' show for "liberal bias." Moyers has challenged Tomlinson to a televised debate on the direction of public broadcasting.
Free Press has gathered 50,000 signatures so far this month to demand Tomlinson's resignation.
"The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets," Moyers said. "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth."
Listen to his speech here or watch it here (both may be slow). You can also listen to Democracy Now!'s coverage of the conference and Moyers' closing speech.
May 16, 2005
May 14, 2005
Novak wusses out
Eric Alterman was scheduled to debate Bob Novak on media bias next week at UCSB...I was excited to see Novak get his ass handed to him, but in typical cowardly form, he cancelled.
Alterman called him out in this article in The Nation. Here's his statement:
"I very much regret Robert Novak’s decision to withdraw from the Arthur N. Rupe Great Debate scheduled for May 25 at UC Santa Barbara. I had looked forward to debating the important question of media bias, as well as the implications for that issue raised by Mr. Novak’s journalistic and ethical transgressions that have made him as much a “story” as a reporter. Until now, Mr. Novak has managed to avoid being asked to answer for these transgressions, either by his employers, CNN and The Washington Post, or by other journalists. No reporter from either of these allegedly liberal media institutions has yet pressed Mr. Novak to explain his role in a probe that may see two journalists jailed. Nor has Mr. Novak been pressed to explain why he would play patsy to anonymous Bush administration officials in their attempt to destroy the reputations of two loyal and patriotic public servants -- an attempt that may have endangered national security and involved the commission of a crime. If Mr. Novak withdrew from this debate because he feared the consequences of being asked to defend his journalistic ethics in a public forum, then he made a wise decision. It is ironic, however, that someone so willing to fling unsubstantiated charges appears to lack either the courage or the sense of personal honor to answer the questions he has inspired among so many of us in the profession. I also very much regret that Mr. Novak's apparent capriciousness will cause the hard work done by so many at the University of California at Santa Barbara to go to waste."
Novak has really shown his true colors. He's mastered spitting partisan lies on his own turf, but when it comes to a hard hitting, important debate outside Crossfire, he's got nothin. It's too bad, would've been entertaining to watch him go on the defensive.
Alterman called him out in this article in The Nation. Here's his statement:
"I very much regret Robert Novak’s decision to withdraw from the Arthur N. Rupe Great Debate scheduled for May 25 at UC Santa Barbara. I had looked forward to debating the important question of media bias, as well as the implications for that issue raised by Mr. Novak’s journalistic and ethical transgressions that have made him as much a “story” as a reporter. Until now, Mr. Novak has managed to avoid being asked to answer for these transgressions, either by his employers, CNN and The Washington Post, or by other journalists. No reporter from either of these allegedly liberal media institutions has yet pressed Mr. Novak to explain his role in a probe that may see two journalists jailed. Nor has Mr. Novak been pressed to explain why he would play patsy to anonymous Bush administration officials in their attempt to destroy the reputations of two loyal and patriotic public servants -- an attempt that may have endangered national security and involved the commission of a crime. If Mr. Novak withdrew from this debate because he feared the consequences of being asked to defend his journalistic ethics in a public forum, then he made a wise decision. It is ironic, however, that someone so willing to fling unsubstantiated charges appears to lack either the courage or the sense of personal honor to answer the questions he has inspired among so many of us in the profession. I also very much regret that Mr. Novak's apparent capriciousness will cause the hard work done by so many at the University of California at Santa Barbara to go to waste."
Novak has really shown his true colors. He's mastered spitting partisan lies on his own turf, but when it comes to a hard hitting, important debate outside Crossfire, he's got nothin. It's too bad, would've been entertaining to watch him go on the defensive.
May 12, 2005
May 11, 2005
"Fall into the funding Gap"
Did some press coverage downtown today for a protest against the Gap that my friend Elia helped organize. The Gap's corporate social responsibility record is tarnished, but improving--an LATimes article back in January cited Gap as being "a leader in the small but growing corporate movement to improve conditions for some of the world's most exploited workers." So what's our beef? The Gap's founder, Don Fisher, is a big Schwarzenegger campaign contributor. Doesn't seem right that a company that targets young people should be donating funds to a politician who leaves schools penniless.
I'd had my doubts about how impactful a small rally convincing a handful of people to boycott a huge corporation could really be. But on the way downtown, I was driving behind a truck that looked like it was owned by the Postal Service, bearing the most despicable, hate-filled banner masquerading as "patriotism" that I've seen yet--"Revenge is very sweet" emblazoned under an American flag. Disgusted, I felt a renewed sense of determination to do anything in my power to defeat that ignorant mentality and the politicians who perpetuate it.
The activist spirit was reenergized when I arrived on State St, and watched a pair of girls push through the gathering crowd. They could've been Ashlee Simpson and Paris Hilton, a couple of fake-baked cookie-cutter princesses who turned their noses up at us, responding to our signs with an indignant "ugh, what's wrong with the Gap?" only to wave away attempts at explanation as they continued their shopping trip. That's why we were on the street--to be visible to people that otherwise wouldn't give a rat's ass, to defeat the kind of indifference and apathy that has made it so easy for Americans to be blindly led. As David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation put it before my class today, "silence is a sin." We take action how we can, and if it means going after campaign contributors to weaken an irresponsible governor's base and ultimately restore good progressive governance, we do it.
Now, what to do with that underwear I bought from the Gap...perhaps send them to the governor's mansion? I'm betting that's where part of the money I used to purchase them went anyway--Fisher's given Ahnold a quarter mil. Ehh, on second thought, that might tickle the Gropeinator's fancy a bit too much...
I'd had my doubts about how impactful a small rally convincing a handful of people to boycott a huge corporation could really be. But on the way downtown, I was driving behind a truck that looked like it was owned by the Postal Service, bearing the most despicable, hate-filled banner masquerading as "patriotism" that I've seen yet--"Revenge is very sweet" emblazoned under an American flag. Disgusted, I felt a renewed sense of determination to do anything in my power to defeat that ignorant mentality and the politicians who perpetuate it.
The activist spirit was reenergized when I arrived on State St, and watched a pair of girls push through the gathering crowd. They could've been Ashlee Simpson and Paris Hilton, a couple of fake-baked cookie-cutter princesses who turned their noses up at us, responding to our signs with an indignant "ugh, what's wrong with the Gap?" only to wave away attempts at explanation as they continued their shopping trip. That's why we were on the street--to be visible to people that otherwise wouldn't give a rat's ass, to defeat the kind of indifference and apathy that has made it so easy for Americans to be blindly led. As David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation put it before my class today, "silence is a sin." We take action how we can, and if it means going after campaign contributors to weaken an irresponsible governor's base and ultimately restore good progressive governance, we do it.
Now, what to do with that underwear I bought from the Gap...perhaps send them to the governor's mansion? I'm betting that's where part of the money I used to purchase them went anyway--Fisher's given Ahnold a quarter mil. Ehh, on second thought, that might tickle the Gropeinator's fancy a bit too much...
Neuroscience of sexuality
A Swedish study shows women and gay men have the same physiological response to male pheromones, suggesting that sexual preference is more nature than nurture.
"The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to."
"The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to."
May 10, 2005
Posada saga continues
Another plug for the prof. From Democracy Now!:
"...but we first turn to the reporter who interviewed Posada for the New York Times in 1998 - Ann Louise Bardach. At the time, she didn't say where he was hiding out. It was Aruba. We reached her last night at her home in Santa Barbara where she is a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. She is a columnist for online magazine Slate and the author of 'Cuba Exile.' She talked about what Posada admitted to her and why he chose to speak out."
Hopefully our class will get the inside scoop next week after some of this blows over...
UPDATE: Common Dreams weighs in on Posada's potential to embarrass the White House.
May 07, 2005
A mother’s day for peace.
Mother's Day means more than just flowers for its founder, Julia Ward Howe. From Democracy Now!:
"Howe was very interested by the time she got to the 1870s in the Women's Movement, the Women’s Suffrage Movement, in particular, and the Franco-Prussian War – it’s not a war that most Americans or probably even most Europeans think too much about. But in 1870, she looked at this war and she began asking herself, you know, why is it that nations do this to one another, and in particular, she began thinking about what might be possible for women to do on behalf of humanity. And women in this day and age were supposed to be confined to the home. They weren't supposed to be out making speeches or working for political change. And Howe really wanted to find a way for women to express what she thought was an innate nature of love for God and love for humans. She thought that being a mother really was a powerful experience and that after having been a mother, no one could willingly see their sons go off to war to be slaughtered, so she began to organize on behalf of women for peace, basically. And again, her theory was men just seem to be innately aggressive, and the only hope for civilization is for women to speak a different kind of voice. So, she held peace conferences both in the United States and in Britain, and by 1872, she began proclaiming that June 2 every year would be a Mother's Day for Peace. And so, Mother's Day originally was not a day when dad cooked and you went to church, and the ladies got applause and everything. It was really a day for women to come together and to call men and the world to see the necessity for living in peace, rather than giving into the ravages and aggressions of war. So, yeah, Mother's Day is really a day of activism." -Valarie Ziegler, author of Diva Julia: The Public Romance and Private Agony of Julia Ward Howe
Watch a short movie that speaks to Howe's call for peace (via CodePink).
May 06, 2005
The smoking gun
...it's a memo, not a mushroom cloud. A top secret memo to newly re-elected British Prime Minister Tony Blair made it clear that Bush was set on invading almost a year before bombs were dropped, long before there was intelligence to suggest necessary action:
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
Two countries, two liars re-elected.
UPDATE: FAIR implicates the MSM for its standard inattention to stories like this that indict the administration.
UPDATE 2: CNN picks up the story at last...
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
Two countries, two liars re-elected.
UPDATE: FAIR implicates the MSM for its standard inattention to stories like this that indict the administration.
UPDATE 2: CNN picks up the story at last...
Disarmament--it's not rocket science
Peace activists rallied outside the UN in NY earlier this week at the start of a monthlong convention to conduct a scheduled review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Long time disarmament advocate Dr. Helen Caldicott:
"Let's for God's sake talk about the real moral issues of our time," she said. "Not stem cell research, gay marriage or abortion. Let's talk about whether or not the whole of the world survives, life on the planet survives."
Amen.
In the tradition of his oreo cookie military spending math, Ben (of Ben & Jerry and TrueMajority) gives an astounding visual of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles. Watch the 90 second movie here.
UPDATE: Robert McNamara's piece from Foreign Policy, "Apocalypse Soon"
Long time disarmament advocate Dr. Helen Caldicott:
"Let's for God's sake talk about the real moral issues of our time," she said. "Not stem cell research, gay marriage or abortion. Let's talk about whether or not the whole of the world survives, life on the planet survives."
Amen.
In the tradition of his oreo cookie military spending math, Ben (of Ben & Jerry and TrueMajority) gives an astounding visual of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles. Watch the 90 second movie here.
UPDATE: Robert McNamara's piece from Foreign Policy, "Apocalypse Soon"
May 04, 2005
"When the president talks to God"
Bright Eyes was a guest on The Tonight Show earlier this week--this ain't your typical fluffy boy band Leno performance. Watch the video here. (courtesy of Nico)
"When the President Talks to God"
When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women's' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?
I doubt it
I doubt it.
from Kos and AlterNet
"When the President Talks to God"
When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women's' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?
I doubt it
I doubt it.
from Kos and AlterNet
Media panel
Had another guest speaker in global journalism on Monday--freelance writer and "global soul" Pico Iyer. As someone who has written and traveled so extensively, his insight and optimismon the direction of globalization were encouraging. He views global integration and adaptation less as a form of cultural imperialism and more as an opportunity to engender understanding between disparate cultures...all well and good, assuming the integration isn't unilaterally and militarily rammed down people's throats.
Next up:
"Media Ownership and Media Bias: A Crisis in the Newsroom"
Saturday, May 7th 3pm
The Lobero Theater, 33 E. Canon Perdido St. in SB
Journalistand Professor Anne Louise Bardach of The Media Project at UCSB will moderatea discussion between Lionel Barber of Financial Times, New York Times Editor Bill Keller, Jacob Weisberg of Slate, and blogger Virginia Postrel.
Here's what Keller has to say about blogging:
"While he celebrated the blogger’s ability to uncover breaking news, he noted that a blog’s inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader. 'A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole,' he said, noting that it can sometimes fall as low as being a 'one man circle jerk.'"
And the MSM doesn't do its share of intellectual masturbation?
Speaking of crisis in the newsroom--you've probably read about the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's attempts to silence independent voices on PBS by monitoring programming for dissenting opinions. Join Free Press and tell him that partisan media influence won't be tolerated.
Seems to be a right wing coup at the CPB. From AlterNet:
"Mitchellwent on the record, telling The New York Times 'I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective tha tI do not consider appropriate.'
"Among the attempts cited by the Times: the hidden hiring of a consultant by CPB Board Chairman Ken Tomlinson to 'review' the content of 'NOW with Bill Moyers'; Tomlinson's assistance inlining up $5 million in corporate financing and subsequent PBS distribution of 'The Journal Editorial Report,' the weekly chat show featuring members of the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; his penchant for involving the White House in matters ranging from legislation affecting the CPB board to addressing concerns about 'objectivity and balance;' all the way to remarks at a 'fun occasion' -- a post-election meeting last November-- when Tomlinson told PBS officials, including Mitchell, that they ought to make sure their programming better reflected the Republican 'mandate.'"
This organization is made possible by a grant from the federal government, the republican noise machine, and by support from viewers like you.
Next up:
"Media Ownership and Media Bias: A Crisis in the Newsroom"
Saturday, May 7th 3pm
The Lobero Theater, 33 E. Canon Perdido St. in SB
Journalistand Professor Anne Louise Bardach of The Media Project at UCSB will moderatea discussion between Lionel Barber of Financial Times, New York Times Editor Bill Keller, Jacob Weisberg of Slate, and blogger Virginia Postrel.
Here's what Keller has to say about blogging:
"While he celebrated the blogger’s ability to uncover breaking news, he noted that a blog’s inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader. 'A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole,' he said, noting that it can sometimes fall as low as being a 'one man circle jerk.'"
And the MSM doesn't do its share of intellectual masturbation?
Speaking of crisis in the newsroom--you've probably read about the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's attempts to silence independent voices on PBS by monitoring programming for dissenting opinions. Join Free Press and tell him that partisan media influence won't be tolerated.
Seems to be a right wing coup at the CPB. From AlterNet:
"Mitchellwent on the record, telling The New York Times 'I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective tha tI do not consider appropriate.'
"Among the attempts cited by the Times: the hidden hiring of a consultant by CPB Board Chairman Ken Tomlinson to 'review' the content of 'NOW with Bill Moyers'; Tomlinson's assistance inlining up $5 million in corporate financing and subsequent PBS distribution of 'The Journal Editorial Report,' the weekly chat show featuring members of the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; his penchant for involving the White House in matters ranging from legislation affecting the CPB board to addressing concerns about 'objectivity and balance;' all the way to remarks at a 'fun occasion' -- a post-election meeting last November-- when Tomlinson told PBS officials, including Mitchell, that they ought to make sure their programming better reflected the Republican 'mandate.'"
This organization is made possible by a grant from the federal government, the republican noise machine, and by support from viewers like you.
Anti-military recruitment campaign picking up speed
With recruitment levels falling short for the third month in a row, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers has told Congress that the military is on the verge of being dangerously overextended. Recruiters on campuses are getting desperate, suggesting unethical strategies to students who would otherwise be ineligible to join the army.
The battle over military presence on campuses has now reached the Supreme Court, with the justices agreeing Monday to hear a case that will decide whether the military can recruit at federally funded colleges and universities.
Joining students from universities around the country, activists from the Student Commission on Racial Equality and the LGBT Resource Center at UCSB have been embroiled in a battle to get the military off campus. The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is inconsistent with UC principles of non-discrimination, and the Academic Senate has proposed a resolution that will bar recruiters from UCSB. Read their editorial in today's Santa Barbara News Press:
"The military's 'don't ask don't tell' policy forces a person to suppress and hide her/his identity. Why is an institution of higher education allowing this discriminatory agency to recruit on its campus? UCSB's own nondiscrimination policy states: 'It is the policy of the University not to engage in discrimination against or harassment of any person employed or seeking employment with the University of California on the basis of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran.' This policy must extend to anyone who steps onto campus. Should not UCSB enforce this policy where military recruiting is concerned?"
A town hall meeting on campus military presence will be held today at 3:30 pm in the McCune conference room on the 6th floor of the Humanities and Social Sciences building. The meeting’s outcome is expected to impact voting on the resolution.
The battle over military presence on campuses has now reached the Supreme Court, with the justices agreeing Monday to hear a case that will decide whether the military can recruit at federally funded colleges and universities.
Joining students from universities around the country, activists from the Student Commission on Racial Equality and the LGBT Resource Center at UCSB have been embroiled in a battle to get the military off campus. The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is inconsistent with UC principles of non-discrimination, and the Academic Senate has proposed a resolution that will bar recruiters from UCSB. Read their editorial in today's Santa Barbara News Press:
"The military's 'don't ask don't tell' policy forces a person to suppress and hide her/his identity. Why is an institution of higher education allowing this discriminatory agency to recruit on its campus? UCSB's own nondiscrimination policy states: 'It is the policy of the University not to engage in discrimination against or harassment of any person employed or seeking employment with the University of California on the basis of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran.' This policy must extend to anyone who steps onto campus. Should not UCSB enforce this policy where military recruiting is concerned?"
A town hall meeting on campus military presence will be held today at 3:30 pm in the McCune conference room on the 6th floor of the Humanities and Social Sciences building. The meeting’s outcome is expected to impact voting on the resolution.
May 02, 2005
First Lady-o-Laughs
Bush's landscaping technique unsurprisingly consistent with his foreign policy:
"George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chain saw, which, I think, is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well." -Laura Bush
"George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chain saw, which, I think, is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well." -Laura Bush
April 29, 2005
Blogging the blogger
Slate writer and self-proclaimed "self-hating democrat" Mickey Kaus paid UCSB a visit on Monday, giving an introduction to blogging in my global journalism class. Kaus was introduced as a pioneer in the field, and the #1 blogger (which I'm not even sure you could quantify, but just going by hits I'd say it's Kos, not Kaus, by a landslide--roughly 400,000/day!).
I was pretty skeptical about what he had to say...I wanted to know what his deal was, you couldn't be too sure just from reading KausFiles on Slate (though I found he generally seems to come down on the right, rather than the left side of the fence). Someone at DailyKos addressed him as "uber-hack." I couldn't really say if this was the case, so I waited to see if he might suggest it himself.
He commented that the "media concentration issue is dead," (I beg to differ, media is still contracting), and that in spite of the largest blogs being liberal, conservative blogs in the ratings tail (that receive no traffic, mind you) dominate the blogosphere. A study from MyDD shows they do not, though if they did, it'd be through unreasoned attacks and insults (in spite of what Kaus said about lefty blogs being more extreme). Kaus reasoned that there must be more conservative blogs because embattled conservatives feel there's a need to counteract the liberal media bias propogated by CNN and the NYT (@#%$*&!!!). Funny, there seems to be some collusion between the MSM and blogs, (on CNN, that bastion of liberal power, no less!) but not surprisingly, neither the MSM outlets, nor the blogs they feature, are liberal.
Oh, and Kaus also made a quip about terrorist blogs and the Dean internet movement. After saying them in almost the same breath, he noted that he should be careful not to draw any parallels between the two...har. He actually quoted Rush Limbaugh during the talk, so perhaps that's the source of his material.
My guess is he was probably right in saying that there isn't really a place for "wishy washy centrists" like himself in the blogosphere (though truth be told Kaus is probably only a bit more fair and balanced than Fox). From the Centrist Coalition blog--"what really bugs me is, they're ignoring the center again. Say something about us. Bash us! We exist."
I was pretty skeptical about what he had to say...I wanted to know what his deal was, you couldn't be too sure just from reading KausFiles on Slate (though I found he generally seems to come down on the right, rather than the left side of the fence). Someone at DailyKos addressed him as "uber-hack." I couldn't really say if this was the case, so I waited to see if he might suggest it himself.
He commented that the "media concentration issue is dead," (I beg to differ, media is still contracting), and that in spite of the largest blogs being liberal, conservative blogs in the ratings tail (that receive no traffic, mind you) dominate the blogosphere. A study from MyDD shows they do not, though if they did, it'd be through unreasoned attacks and insults (in spite of what Kaus said about lefty blogs being more extreme). Kaus reasoned that there must be more conservative blogs because embattled conservatives feel there's a need to counteract the liberal media bias propogated by CNN and the NYT (@#%$*&!!!). Funny, there seems to be some collusion between the MSM and blogs, (on CNN, that bastion of liberal power, no less!) but not surprisingly, neither the MSM outlets, nor the blogs they feature, are liberal.
Oh, and Kaus also made a quip about terrorist blogs and the Dean internet movement. After saying them in almost the same breath, he noted that he should be careful not to draw any parallels between the two...har. He actually quoted Rush Limbaugh during the talk, so perhaps that's the source of his material.
My guess is he was probably right in saying that there isn't really a place for "wishy washy centrists" like himself in the blogosphere (though truth be told Kaus is probably only a bit more fair and balanced than Fox). From the Centrist Coalition blog--"what really bugs me is, they're ignoring the center again. Say something about us. Bash us! We exist."
April 28, 2005
You have no choice.
From the NYTimes:
"The House passed a bill on Wednesday making it a federal crime for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents."
Representatve Nita Lowey of NY on the decision:
"'Under this legislation, those who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves.'"
This, combined with a parental notification initiative penned for the California special election ballot places girls living in abusive households in an ever more precarious position. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone had a communicative, loving relationship with their parents, and could involve them in such a difficult decision. But there must be provisions for those who can't, and this cannot be made a judge's decision...if a girl feels shamed, what makes people think she would be comfortable discussing her situation in court? Why don't we protect the lives and well-being of the women and girls we have before we consider the potential life she might be forced to bring into the world?
"The House passed a bill on Wednesday making it a federal crime for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents."
Representatve Nita Lowey of NY on the decision:
"'Under this legislation, those who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves.'"
This, combined with a parental notification initiative penned for the California special election ballot places girls living in abusive households in an ever more precarious position. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone had a communicative, loving relationship with their parents, and could involve them in such a difficult decision. But there must be provisions for those who can't, and this cannot be made a judge's decision...if a girl feels shamed, what makes people think she would be comfortable discussing her situation in court? Why don't we protect the lives and well-being of the women and girls we have before we consider the potential life she might be forced to bring into the world?
April 26, 2005
Shiney happy people
UCSB's Storke Plaza had a special visitor yesterday--a chubby, pleasant old man with a white handlebar mustache...no, not Santa. Not John Bolton, either. It was none other than Santa Barbara's very own card carrying--er, 6ft tall sign carrying homophobic Christian zealot! Yay!!! All the kiddies gathered around born again street preacher Paul Johnson as he spouted off about sodomy, androgyny and how us "women all look like men." Apparently we'll all be spending eternity in hell for attending UCSB instead of a REAL institution like Bob Jones University. Too bad the old man only dug himself deeper the more he smited us with his righteous sign (propped up in a gun holster, imagine that)--his presence alone galvanized activists and inadvertently furthered the Queer Student Union's cause, by bolstering Queer Pride week activities.
These street preachers have a rich tradition, always raining their hellfire and damnation anywhere there is heathen tolerance and pagan pride. Take my favorite Market St. staple--Mr. "No Sloppy Seconds." Reverend Owens Diaz brandishes signs that say "No unlawful sex" and chants such catchy slogans as "Sex only between a virgin woman and a virgin man. No leftovers. Sex outside of marriage makes the woman a whore and the man a whoremonger." Reverend, what exactly are leftovers? What, no doggy bag? Reminds me of one of Margaret Cho's jokes...but I won't get into it, my parents read this thing.
Anyone interested in putting down the signs and engaging in a civil dialogue about what Jesus really WOULD do?? Bill Maher via Kos:
"I don't believe in the Christianity that says one thing and then goes and kills innocent people and tries to rob women of their fundamental human right to control their reproductive lives, or deny people of the same sex their right to be married and have relationships and is judgmental and narrow-minded, and angry and vengeful. That is not the Jesus Christ that I believe in."
--Jane Fonda
"There are some people out there who are Christians...who believe that homosexuality is a sin. You know what? I'm a Christian. I do believe that it's a sin. You know what else? I believe divorce is a sin. Guess what? I've been divorced. Guess what? Jesus talks about divorce a lot more than he talks about homosexuality. I don't know why people obsess over it so much, but they do. Wait a second, I do know why they obsess over it. Because they get votes bashing gays."
--Joe Scarborough (wha-wha-what?!)
Some have signs, others have blogs. To each his own...as long as you're not imposing your beliefs on anyone by waving around obnoxious signs. Wait...
"Sinners!!! Blaaaaaaaaaarg"
(...well yea, this is UCSB forcryingoutloud.)
picture from the Nexus
These street preachers have a rich tradition, always raining their hellfire and damnation anywhere there is heathen tolerance and pagan pride. Take my favorite Market St. staple--Mr. "No Sloppy Seconds." Reverend Owens Diaz brandishes signs that say "No unlawful sex" and chants such catchy slogans as "Sex only between a virgin woman and a virgin man. No leftovers. Sex outside of marriage makes the woman a whore and the man a whoremonger." Reverend, what exactly are leftovers? What, no doggy bag? Reminds me of one of Margaret Cho's jokes...but I won't get into it, my parents read this thing.
Anyone interested in putting down the signs and engaging in a civil dialogue about what Jesus really WOULD do?? Bill Maher via Kos:
"I don't believe in the Christianity that says one thing and then goes and kills innocent people and tries to rob women of their fundamental human right to control their reproductive lives, or deny people of the same sex their right to be married and have relationships and is judgmental and narrow-minded, and angry and vengeful. That is not the Jesus Christ that I believe in."
--Jane Fonda
"There are some people out there who are Christians...who believe that homosexuality is a sin. You know what? I'm a Christian. I do believe that it's a sin. You know what else? I believe divorce is a sin. Guess what? I've been divorced. Guess what? Jesus talks about divorce a lot more than he talks about homosexuality. I don't know why people obsess over it so much, but they do. Wait a second, I do know why they obsess over it. Because they get votes bashing gays."
--Joe Scarborough (wha-wha-what?!)
Some have signs, others have blogs. To each his own...as long as you're not imposing your beliefs on anyone by waving around obnoxious signs. Wait...
"Sinners!!! Blaaaaaaaaaarg"
(...well yea, this is UCSB forcryingoutloud.)
picture from the Nexus
Senate nuclear nonproliferation
Textbook definitions from The Daily Show's America (with just a hint of sarcasm in the first one):
1. A judicial activist sees the Constitution as a living document that can be adapted and re-interpreted to protect the needs of a changing society, such as "marriage between sodomites" and "impulse abortions."
2. A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution according to the language and original intent of the text at the time of its writing, in much the same way as a fundamentalist views the Bible. Fortunately for strict constructionists, they have been endowed by God with the superhuman gift of being able to read the minds of people who died 200 years ago. Naturally, they use this power only for good.
Just the kind of judges we would want--those who subvert reason for religious convictions and blind faith in the immutability of a document. You're right, no need for the filibuster. But wait...what's this? The majority of Americans want to protect the Senate's ability to block the nomination of unfit judges like Whitey "what civil rights?" McRacist (::cough:: Pickering ::cough::) and the Honorable Oliver Wendell Homophobe (no relation to the justice who ruled that shouting fire in a theater isn't protected under the first ammendment...you can learn that one from America too). According to the WaPo ABC News poll:
"By a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found."
So why are Democrats acquiescing?
"Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said that under such a deal, Democrats would allow a vote on some of President Bush's seven controversial nominees to the federal bench, while others would be withdrawn by the White House. "
C'mon, Bush has still got his recess appointments! No need to give in here, right? But as Kos points out, Reid is actually painting Dems as flexible and concilliatory with his proposal, making Frist and the Republicans look like the stubborn stalwarts they are for not agreeing to compromise. We may yet win this one.
1. A judicial activist sees the Constitution as a living document that can be adapted and re-interpreted to protect the needs of a changing society, such as "marriage between sodomites" and "impulse abortions."
2. A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution according to the language and original intent of the text at the time of its writing, in much the same way as a fundamentalist views the Bible. Fortunately for strict constructionists, they have been endowed by God with the superhuman gift of being able to read the minds of people who died 200 years ago. Naturally, they use this power only for good.
Just the kind of judges we would want--those who subvert reason for religious convictions and blind faith in the immutability of a document. You're right, no need for the filibuster. But wait...what's this? The majority of Americans want to protect the Senate's ability to block the nomination of unfit judges like Whitey "what civil rights?" McRacist (::cough:: Pickering ::cough::) and the Honorable Oliver Wendell Homophobe (no relation to the justice who ruled that shouting fire in a theater isn't protected under the first ammendment...you can learn that one from America too). According to the WaPo ABC News poll:
"By a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found."
So why are Democrats acquiescing?
"Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said that under such a deal, Democrats would allow a vote on some of President Bush's seven controversial nominees to the federal bench, while others would be withdrawn by the White House. "
C'mon, Bush has still got his recess appointments! No need to give in here, right? But as Kos points out, Reid is actually painting Dems as flexible and concilliatory with his proposal, making Frist and the Republicans look like the stubborn stalwarts they are for not agreeing to compromise. We may yet win this one.
April 23, 2005
Oy gevalt!
I'm feeling a little verklempt on this matzah-less Passover...some matzah rap is definitely in order.
April 22, 2005
Et tu, Dean?
As the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rises to nearly $300 billion, and a report says there are more terrorists today than ever before, Howard Dean comes out in support of keeping troops in Iraq.
From Democracy Now!
"The chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean has come out in support of President Bush"s current Iraq policy. In a speech earlier this week in Minnesota, Dean said, 'The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.' Dean said a US pullout could endanger the United States in three ways: By leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the so-called Sunni Triangle a magnet for what Dean called Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Dean was portrayed as an antiwar candidate in the media during the 2004 presidential race."
Alright, so he's not for the war, but he's not calling for a timetable for withdrawal.
Dean's fears of a Shiite theocracy are shared by Noam Chomsky:
"The first thing they'll do is reestablish relations with Iran...The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare-a Shiite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent."
So what's the solution? Before the elections in January, Ted Kennedy weighed the options:
"President Bush has left us with few good choices. There are costs to staying, and costs to leaving. There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from us, but there will be much more violence if we continue our present dangerous and destabilizing course. It will not be easy to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin."
UPDATE: Dennis Kucinich writes an open letter to Dean for The Nation:
"We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq."
From Democracy Now!
"The chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean has come out in support of President Bush"s current Iraq policy. In a speech earlier this week in Minnesota, Dean said, 'The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.' Dean said a US pullout could endanger the United States in three ways: By leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the so-called Sunni Triangle a magnet for what Dean called Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Dean was portrayed as an antiwar candidate in the media during the 2004 presidential race."
Alright, so he's not for the war, but he's not calling for a timetable for withdrawal.
Dean's fears of a Shiite theocracy are shared by Noam Chomsky:
"The first thing they'll do is reestablish relations with Iran...The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare-a Shiite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent."
So what's the solution? Before the elections in January, Ted Kennedy weighed the options:
"President Bush has left us with few good choices. There are costs to staying, and costs to leaving. There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from us, but there will be much more violence if we continue our present dangerous and destabilizing course. It will not be easy to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin."
UPDATE: Dennis Kucinich writes an open letter to Dean for The Nation:
"We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation. Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that. The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq."
April 20, 2005
"Who ever heard of a good piece of elephant?"
I've been recovering the last couple days from my weekend adventure to the California State Democratic Party's Convention in LA. Dems are recovering from November's defeat, but they're still struggling to come up with a coherent vision and message for the party. There was a lot of pontificating and preaching to the choir (fitting for all this Pope talk) and really little evidence of solid, effective strategies for winning elections. They've gotta learn to be bold and have some conviction.
Dean spoke at a dinner on Saturday--in keeping with George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, he talked about how people vote their values, with their hearts rather than their heads, and that Democrats need a positive agenda--but this is not to say they need to change their core values and go further right. Dean said Democrat ideals are moral values--this is true, progressives value peace, taking care of their families and their neighbors, protecting the earth, caring for the sick and the disempowered...I just wince whenever I hear "moral values," not because I'm a godless heathen as conservatives would charge, but because it's such a loaded abstract term, and it's disappointing that we're still on that kick from the election when everyone decided to make a bad poll the authority on what's important to voters.
Dean did say something that caught my attention, a strong message that effectively sums up the difference between liberals and conservatives on domestic policy: it's a "question of whether we are responsible for one another as a community or not," whether policies are inclusive and honest, or divisive and deceptive. The message is sac up, Democrats. The party of fiscal irresponbility and lies needs to be called on the carpet for its deeds.
And speaking of lies, House Majority leader Tom DeLay also had a busy weekend, as keynote speaker at a convention of another kind...The National Rifle Association's annual get together. Everyone's probably already heard this, but his quote is worth repeating:
"When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel really good."
Excellent. Nukes in the Senate, and gun toting crazies in the House. Yeehaw!
Dean spoke at a dinner on Saturday--in keeping with George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, he talked about how people vote their values, with their hearts rather than their heads, and that Democrats need a positive agenda--but this is not to say they need to change their core values and go further right. Dean said Democrat ideals are moral values--this is true, progressives value peace, taking care of their families and their neighbors, protecting the earth, caring for the sick and the disempowered...I just wince whenever I hear "moral values," not because I'm a godless heathen as conservatives would charge, but because it's such a loaded abstract term, and it's disappointing that we're still on that kick from the election when everyone decided to make a bad poll the authority on what's important to voters.
Dean did say something that caught my attention, a strong message that effectively sums up the difference between liberals and conservatives on domestic policy: it's a "question of whether we are responsible for one another as a community or not," whether policies are inclusive and honest, or divisive and deceptive. The message is sac up, Democrats. The party of fiscal irresponbility and lies needs to be called on the carpet for its deeds.
And speaking of lies, House Majority leader Tom DeLay also had a busy weekend, as keynote speaker at a convention of another kind...The National Rifle Association's annual get together. Everyone's probably already heard this, but his quote is worth repeating:
"When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel really good."
Excellent. Nukes in the Senate, and gun toting crazies in the House. Yeehaw!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)