6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/31/04 12:00pm)
We have let ourselves become complacent, and taken it to heart that somehow those of us who are more intelligent and in the know are somehow to be watched with the utmost suspicion.
Those of us, for example, who do not take what we see in the media or in our textbooks as gospel are routinely derided as freaks and hysterics who should just keep our mouths shut and stop rocking the boat.
Thus, stupidity due to lack of vigilance has become the accepted norm. This acceptance of stupidity derives from my favorite pet peeve of them all: the corporate media.
The news media sees things strictly in black and white, without any ambiguity or room for contradiction.
That's why the media consistently allows military analysts to explain/make excuses for the "war on terror," but anti-war voices are rarely heard. The news media operates on tight schedules which don't allow for elaboration of the issues.
Also, the issues that are picked are rarely of importance to us. Scott Peterson? Michael or Janet Jackson? Steroids?
No wonder no one knows what is going on in Haiti, or with inner-city school funding, or, for that matter, any number of important issues.
And, with media conditioning helping to educate the people as to what doesn't matter, it helps render them more susceptible to buying the products shown during the commercial breaks.
Thus, the media continue to act as an arm of the powerful, making people accept not only advertising reality, but government policy.
This model of control, the reality that we live in, cannot work without our ignorance.
But it's not just the news media.
Forms of entertainment that we are given are meant also to give us the message that intelligence gets us nowhere.
Isn't that the message whenever we see Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson grace our television sets with their looks - that if we're as good-looking as they are, there's no reason to be smart?
Why bother going to school? Why should I educate myself as to the world when it's easier to live like a queen and not do any work whatsoever to achieve my goals?
Look at George W. Bush, a man who doesn't read his newspapers in the morning: if you're dumb and rich, the presidency may await you! Why bother figuring out domestic and world affairs; you don't need that in government!
For every "Simpsons" or "Sopranos" on TV, there are scores of entire channels like MTV that work to brainwash large portions of the population.
All of this exists in great amounts. With little room for dissent, the intent is to make those who seek something different and more intelligent feel impotent against the tide of mass culture of the lowest common denominator.
This is confirmed by shows like "Cops," which, as the late Bill Hicks said, existed to teach Americans that at any given time, "state power will bust down your doors," ultimately discouraging you from being knowledgeable to the larger picture.
That's bullshit! I love my MTV!
I know, I know. I am right about this, however. Media and consumerism, more than anything else, form the modern American consciousness.
Media can largely be pinpointed as inciting us against each other, as is seen throughout the many teen dramas on television, where the "nerd" class is consistently seen as out of step with the "jock" class dominating whichever high school (or, they have a sympathetic nerd character who chills with the jocks).
It's clear from watching these shows who the model American citizens are, and which of them will be consigned to oblivion.
Thus, from an early age, you know that if you have any hope in the competitive American society that we live in, you'll turn out to be an unquestioning, unassuming, good-looking jock, a drone with no soul or no knowledge.
I don't mean to sound angry, but I am challenging everyone to avoid falling into the trap the powerful have set for you.
Knowledge is power; and, if everyone was as knowledgeable as the few at the top, we may have a beautiful world.
Thus, please folks, make an effort to be smart. Turn off your televisions. Read the right books.
You are not stupid, but you will act it if enough people, and elite media, tell you that you are, and you take their lesson to heart.
The intelligence present within all of us is the greatest weapon we have; use it to make the world better, instead of letting someone else use it for you.
(02/11/04 12:00pm)
Scottish nationalism is not exactly a hot-button issue in the United States.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting movement (largely unknown to us) that has taken shape north of the English border with the weakening of Tony Blair's New Labor movement and the nosedive of the Conservative party after Margaret Thatcher's leadership.
The idea of independence from Britain is certainly nothing new in Scotland; outside of its over-glamorized "Braveheart" context, Scotland has never been conquered (it was contracted into union with Britain through marriage), and basic issues of ethnic/national identity among the Scots have been solved without the term "British."
With the highly unpopular war in Iraq, and with the failure of Blair's social and economic agenda, the push for nationalism would seem inevitable.
So, why is it not?
First, a brief history of the modern Scottish national movement: after the decline of the British Empire post-World War II, Scotland sunk into an economic rut far deeper than even the rest of Britain.
The shipbuilding industry on the River Clyde, one of Scotland's chief industries, ground to a halt.
Elsewhere, the manufacturing base of Glasgow and Aberdeen collapsed, and only through the nationalization of several industries, most notably coal and oil, as well as a strong government social welfare program, did Scotland get by after WWII.
Also created, however, was a baby boomer phenomenon similar to that experienced in the United States, which ignited a move to newly-created, pre-fab suburbs of Scotland's decaying cities.
As in the U.S., a new bourgeois class was created in Britain.
In Scotland, this led to a struggle for Scottish identity outside of the bubble of the dead hulk of the Empire.
Increasingly dissatisfied with the Anglo-centric parliament of London, the Scottish National Party (SNP) grew to be a viable political force within a Scotland increasingly marginalized by the two major political parties.
With the rise of the Liberal Democratic party during the 1960s, the way was paved for the first election of a Nationalist MP in 1970.
Scotland suffered heavily under the Conservatives in the 1980s, further strengthening the Nationalist cause.
The firebrand Alex Salmond had assumed the mantle of leadership by the 1990s, feeding heavily on the resentment against Thatcher, and further castigating Blair for shifting Labor to the right.
The SNP's decisive policy, coupled with Blair's granting of devolution of powers, resulted in the creation of a Scottish parliament in 1999, as well as the SNP's being on the cusp of its ever-broadening leadership.
Therein began nationalism's decline. The new Scottish parliament, which had powers over Scottish education, healthcare and other sectors, was a political nightmare further akin to London than anything else, garnering apathy in the Scottish electorate.
Furthermore, Salmond made a political gamble criticizing Blair on the handling of the Kosovo war (even if he was right), necessitating his replacement by John Swinney, who organized the Nationalists into a stronger political machine.
Aside from keeping its insistence on independence, Swinney moved the party into sync with "middle-class" values (i.e. Labor's economic policies), providing a
watering-down of message.
Whereas Salmond used the Scandinavian model of political neutrality, a strong welfare state and active participation in European Union, Swinney rallied corporate support, emphasizing moderation and cooperation.
However, if independence was seen as furthering an independent economy north of the border, why bother courting multi-national corporations who may fear Scottish competition?
It was a muddled strategy doomed to fail.
In the 2003 parliamentary elections, the SNP lost much of its ground, with Labor and the Liberal Democrats holding on to their governing coalition, and with the insurgent Scottish Socialists and Greens adopting much of the SNP's old message, the SNP fumbled.
Their bid for political "legitimacy" undermined their core philosophy which spurred interest in the first place.
So, what is the future of Scottish nationalism?
As we have seen in recent months with Blair's evaporation of popularity, it may indeed be good.
But the number two within Labor is Gordon Brown, a Scottish politician whose ascension in London might subdue nationalist rhetoric (think Jean Chretien in Canada).
However, as basic issues of identity and control remain unsolved within Scotland, we can expect talk of nationalism to continue.
For it to become a reality, however, the political map must be changed to the point where both message and media-savvy meet with a clear articulation as to nationalism's goals (which go beyond just Scottish independence).
This talk may take a while to be reformulated, but it is indeed a question that Scotland must solve for itself at some point in its near future.
(02/04/04 12:00pm)
The Democrats have an issue on their hands when it comes to the credibility of whichever candidate is nominated. The subject of race is not one that is often discussed within the party, not even when attempting to win votes.
As we well know, this is largely because minorities have little play in special interest money given to both parties. Furthermore, this is due to the Democrats' move to the "center" on issues in an attempt to placate these interests in order to win votes.
However, this is a strategy of defeat, as the 2000 election proved.
It may be that I'm presumptuous to mention race at all (I'm whiter than white).
But the Democrats' strategy towards race is so inept that it's impossible even for 'white folk' to miss.
An excellent piece in The New York Times Magazine this week tells us this, as Joann Wypijewski's article "Black and bruised" describes in detail voter apathy amongst potential black voters in impoverished districts in South Carolina.
These districts have seen no improvement under the stewardship of white, moderate Democratic governors and senators, allowing ultra-conservative Republicans back into power due to low voter turnout on the Democratic side. It is a dilemma that the Democratic party must address definitively if they are to beat George W. Bush in November.
The problem is the disgusting, ever-increasing conservatism of the Democrats. The no-energy John Kerry is described as an electable candidate capable of beating Bush, largely because of his national security "credentials" and his ability to vote Republican when the time comes, attracting the "middle" voters.
But this is exactly the same strategy which hurt Al Gore in 2000. Moderate voters almost always vote Republican when they see Democrats attempt to challenge Republicans on their own turf (i.e.: the war, taxes, welfare "reform," corrections, etc.). Why bother voting for conservative Democrats when you have the real thing?
Furthermore, this strategy further alienates the left base of the party (the traitors like myself that voted for Ralph Nader) and serves to anger people in minority communities who have been decimated by the economy, the wasteful "war on terror" (with a disproportionate percentage of enlisted minorities and poor whites) and a largely racist law-and-order establishment.
It's easy to pay lip service to presidential candidates who address race issues in campaigns, but don't expect any of the Democratic frontrunners to institute serious change.
John Kerry, a member of the social register, knows nothing of the concerns of minorities. The system he has benefitted from allows rampant discrimination to continue and his bragging about welfare reform rubs the wound in deeper.
Howard Dean, on the other hand, may mean well, but what kind of experience does a Vermonter have in dealing with race (an issue on which Al Sharpton exposed his weakness on during a televised debate)?
Between John Edwards and Wesley Clark, two Southerners who might have experience with such things, there is a history of little progress towards breaking down the racial divide (I doubt anyone knows how Clark really feels anyway).
Outside of Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, two candidates that the mainstream media have trashed for being too far left, none of the candidates have any ideas to end the economic disparities which fuel racism and discrimination to begin with.
This gaping hole within the Democratic agenda, along with many other gaps of credibility, pose serious threats to Democratic hopes for later this year.
It is not a problem that President George W. Bush will have, however, as the Republican party is a well-oiled machine with excellent grassroots organization and party bureaucracy.
Furthermore, Bush's policies preach to his choir of wealthy executives, conservative evangelical Christians and other white men who love a manly show of strength at the presidential pulpit.
Thus, the party will get these people to show up in droves come November.
The Democratic "identity crisis" of attempting to appeal to right-wingers will be shot down in an instant by the Republicans. With minorities being increasingly disgusted by the Republican economics of both parties, they simply will not show up to vote (again).
Can the Democratic brain trust change this corporate strategy come November?
Doubtful. And thus those Democrats who really care for those in the underclass who desperately need change will be shut out yet again.
It is a recipe for failure for the Democrats, no thanks to themselves.
(10/28/03 12:00pm)
I'm a little angry this week. So forgive me, but I'm even more frightened.
Politicians around the nation, both in state and federal government, are attempting to change more than the laws of morality.
With several examples from around the country, a disturbing trend is displaying itself.
Republicans are attempting to enact state control of the act over life itself. Scared shitless? You should be.
The examples from this past week are numerous. First is the case of Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who has been seriously brain damaged since 1990 after a heart attack, and has been incapable of meaningful brain function for thirteen years and is only kept alive through a feeding tube.
Her doctors say she is incapable of any kind of recovery. Her husband has been seeking to disconnect her for many years, although her parents still hope for recovery.
Every court has supports the opinion, with no legal precedent able to deny her the right to die otherwise.
Then Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, and his state house passed emergency legislation to stop the disconnection. They disobeyed her husband's wishes, and denied Terri her right to die with dignity.
Republicans for small government? Really?
The right to die is a fundamental right - it is the ultimate decision regarding life that one should be able to make. Although it doesn't matter to Jeb Bush.
This case would not seem to have much commonality with a death penalty case, but the similarities are clear. In both, the state is given a monopoly on life-and-death decisions. Primary arguments for the right to die, as well as against the death penalty, often point out the most monstrous of technicalities. Nevertheless, their appeals seem to be falling on deaf ears.
Even more troubling than all of this, however, is the Republican attempt to define what life actually is.
We have witnessed this with Congress's passing of a bill banning late-term abortions, which tries to get through the back door to get what they can't through the front: the eventual abolition of abortion and contraception as we know it.
Bill supporters contend that God says this is murder (not all religions' gods mind you). In addition, the courts have consistently denied that what is not alive is alive.
Doctors, scientists and others who reside in the non-supernatural would tend to disagree with this.
Nevertheless, that doesn't keep our various Republican governments from working tirelessly to redefine the scientific definition of life.
No evidence has been found to identify consciousness in unborn fetuses aside from normal fetal reflexes.
So, we can all say with exact certainty that you cannot kill what is not alive. A fetus does not perform the normal rhythms and actions of what would be considered sentience in any scientific forum. And furthermore, in our society, does an it really have a right?
But wait. That's very inconsistent of Republicans. They feel free to kill actual people on death row.
And their reasons are, in fact, quite selfish. Now think: what does this definition and control of life hold for politicians? One, there will be more people to serve the military. Two, there will be more hands to buy from the corporations, which give politicians money. Three, there will also be more convalescents on feeding tubes to help the medical industry. Four, the prison-industrial complex will be doing amazing business, what with execution and all. Five, there will be more hands to serve God.
That is, Republican politicians who feel they can redefine and pull all the strings on life as we know it.
And just in time for Halloween, nothing frightens me more than that.
(10/07/03 12:00pm)
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has been successful so far in its attempt to perform a number on many of its customers because the federal court system has upheld its "right" to do so.
Through the criminalization of file-sharing practices on the Internet, the RIAA hopes to clamp down on files on the Internet to rescue the ailing industry from a year of terrible CD sales. However, these measures won't accomplish anything at all except RIAA's own end.
The Internet exists in a vast expanse of space that takes up no volume in the real world. It is impossible to sift through all file-trading services that could possibly exist in cyberspace.
Furthermore, the public that uses these file-sharing services may have a higher overall level of computer expertise than the industry and law enforcement.
Then there is the issue of pricing. Recently, the media conglomerate Universal announced its decision to lower prices on its CDs - the industry buzz is that this will cause a fare war lowering all CD prices. I'll believe it when I see it.
People aren't as stupid as the RIAA would think if people buy writable CDs and burn songs onto them from the Internet, it saves them the trouble of having to go to the store and pay $20 for ONE CD of music.
Needless to say, "free" sounds better than $20, and technically-savvy students don't operate on a budget that allows for frequent trips to Sam Goody.
Some say that file sharing is stealing from the artists who work hard to put out these CDs for their fans.
However, the overwhelming majority of bands and songwriters within the artists' community support file sharing as a way to market their music to people while being able to skip the middle-man: their record companies.
Record companies control the prices of CDs, and thus profit the most from the price-fixing that occurs. The individual profit to artists can usually be measured in a few cents per CD.
In this way, the Internet actually allows artists to control the distribution of their music, as well as forgo the label PR game that many artists despise.
Another beneficial consequence for artists involves fans who use the Internet to learn about a band's music, and then see them live in concert. Which, unless the band is a proven commodity and has ironclad commitments of artistic freedom and financial payment, is the only way that artists get rich off of their own music.
RIAA created its own negative press. Television pundits are overwhelmingly pro-industry to reflect the views of the networks' parents companies, that also own the record labels.
However, newspapers and independent media have been exploring the other side of the story: people who have been caught in file-sharing dragnets.
Interestingly many of these happen to be middle school children who don't know what they had for lunch, let alone the complexities of copyright law and its application on the Internet (the haziest territory of law enforcement, anyway).
And on a side note, file-sharing-as-stealing is such a broad concept that when your play a CD for your friend in your room, technically your friend is stealing music (peer-to-peer!). Go figure.
How this issue developes will be interesting to watch in the upcoming months - rumor states that it may get as far as the Supreme Court.
And if file-sharing is deemed unconstitutional muster, who knows what will happen then. I don't personally share files anymore (if only I had a better computer.)
I remember that when I did, it opened me up to new and exciting forms of music that I wouldn't have known about otherwise.
Coupled with the exorbitant price of CDs, it's understandable why file sharing is the way to go in order for music to move into the future.
And since no one wants to buy CDs anymore, RIAA must either drop its objection to file-sharing altogether, or face obsoletion.
(09/16/03 12:00pm)
Having spent the past eight months in the United Kingdom (Scotland specifically), I can safely say that King George is not alone in his madness.
The proof lies in Bush's partner-in-crime, one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. But it is Bill Clinton, rather than Bush, whom Blair uses as his muse. And, unlike in the United States, British society can hold its prime minister's feet to the coals without having the sanctity of office held as an excuse to commit crime (so much for the Revolution).
Blair was a baby boomer, born in 1953. Like Clinton, he studied law at Oxford, where he joined a rock band while working with campus socialists.
Blair's public speaking skills and good looks helped him ascend quickly within the ranks of the Labour Party, holding several positions during the Conservatives' reign under Margaret Thatcher and John Major in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The Conservatives oversaw the rollback of the extensive public service network developed by Prime Minister Clement Atlee's Labour after World War II.
Blair assumed the Labour Party's leadership in 1994, two years after its defeat under arch-socialist Neil Kinnock. In order to attract the Conservatives' less enthusiastic constituency, Blair "amended" Clause IV, removing the tag of "democratic socialist" from the party charter.
This allowed Blair to introduce a moderate Labour to middle Britain, one which welcomed low taxes, privatization of industry and services and tough laws on crime and immigration.
Blair abandoned labor for Labour to win, much like Clinton and the "new" Democrats embraced Republican economics.
Blair's movement was dubbed "New Labour" by the press. The 1997 election proved Blair to be an excellent public speaker who was in touch with the youth of Britain, tapping into a national rebirth culture known as "cool Britannia" (for more, see the music documentary "Live Forever").
Like Clinton, Blair's inner circle was full of fresh, young faces seemingly ready to change the world. Labour won the elections, and took Parliament with an overwhelming majority.
Blair, like Clinton, had professionals mold his image, led by ex-reporter Alastair Campbell, Blair's communications director. Campbell was ruthless in marketing Blair to the media, keeping his image untarnished despite vague answers to questions from reporters and politicians regarding policy, as well as Blair's shady dealings while an attorney.
While critics complained of Blair's ambiguity and abandonment of socialism, his image was such that, to this very day, no significant external political opposition exists against Blair.
Sept. 11 changed politics for Blair within his own party and throughout the country. While Blair's cooperation on Afghanistan had support within Britain, some Britons were suspicious of the motives of George Bush.
This was confirmed with Iraq, a war extremely unpopular especially in Scotland. Blair's enthusiastic bidding for Bush was inexplicable to many Labour parliamentarians.
Several of Labour's old guard (including ex-leaders) were especially incensed by it, but were momentarily silenced by "proof" in the form of a dossier released by Campbell citing intelligence that Iraq had smuggled uranium from Niger, and could launch a nuclear or biological weapon within 45 minutes of activation. This document was also used as Bush's evidence for war.
We now know this is untrue. There is no such weapon in Iraq (Saddam would have used it by now anyway), and the BBC, using a source within government, reported that Campbell intentionally "sexed up" intelligence to provide a case for war where none existed to begin with.
When the source, government scientist David Kelly, turned up dead on a road from self-inflicted wounds, Parliament launched an investigation into the kind of government Blair is running, one which puts so much pressure on those who could speak against it, like Kelly. Now, with Campbell resigning, Blair's days may be numbered.
Blair was seen as a breath of fresh air when he first entered office - it seemed incomprehensible then that he could lie to his people (while Bush almost begs you not to believe him).
Yet, there's been a lot of lying happening in London. The investigation into Blair and his officials' interactions with Kelly has the potential to unravel Blair's government, with the most damaging accusation coming from the BBC, a corporation ostensibly controlled by Blair.
It is thus incomprehensible that pro-war Republicans and Democrats are a model of everything Bush truly represents.
Maybe that's why in Britain Blair is called "President Blair," a term for a man who has inspired contempt in those who once saw him as Britain's savior but led them down a path of death in Iraq, with the bill was footed by the British taxpayer.
But in America, while Clinton, Blair's alter-ego, was brought to his knees lying about sex, Blair and his "friend" Bush stand tall for lying about war.
Then again, if Clinton had nine lives, maybe Blair has 10 - everybody seems to like a pretty face.