Amy Goodman has an article in CommonDreams this week. In it, she gives an interesting historical fact of the White House, future home of Barack Obama – it was built by slaves. At first, I thought Amy may have been caught up in the whole “this is evidence we live in a post-racial society” crap – but of course, Amy delivered.
The way the article is written is great – Goodman manages to tell a story, add interesting research and call on Obama to ban torture in only a page of captivating reading (and I have a hard time reading online, too!) Okay, enough with the Amy Goodman gushing though….
She interviewed Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor at Princeton, for the piece. Lacewell is quoted as saying:
“There are two African-American girls, little girl children, who are going to grow up with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as their home address. That's an astonishing difference for our country. It does not mean the end of racial inequality. It does not mean that most little black girls growing up with their residence on the south side of Chicago or in Harlem, or Latino boys and girls growing up at their addresses, that the world is all better for them. But it does mean that there is something possible here."
I think this quote does what the media glosses over: elucidates the fact that this DOES NOT MEAN THE END OF RACIAL INEQUALITY.
I’m sick of hearing that Barack Obama’s future presidency is “proof” that the different faces that make up our nation can get along with each other. I agree that it is proof that the nation has changed, but it would take a lot more to prove to me that we’re no longer a country deeply divided because of the color of our peoples’ skin.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Keith Olbermann on Prop 8
As we all unfortunately know, Prop 8 - banning gay marriage - passed in California last Tuesday. One of my friends sent me an e-mail with this video link in it, a "special comment" clip from Countdown. In it, Keith Olbermann gives his personal opinion on how tragic the passing of Prop 8 really is and challenges supporters of the ballot measure to think of gay marriage in a different way.
I think this move by Olbermann to be pretty interesting. I have yet to do extensive research on it, but I'm kind of curious to see if conservative media critics are labelling this as proof of "liberal media bias," ignoring it, or praising it for an open admittance to bias.
It's also become somewhat of a viral video hit - this version of the video has gotten 300,000 views alone. It's also everywhere on Facebook. Viral videos have become invariably interesting to me in the past week+ as I've been doing research for articles (hearing Ari Melber speak, too, was great). It really is amazing how quickly these things spread.
I think this move by Olbermann to be pretty interesting. I have yet to do extensive research on it, but I'm kind of curious to see if conservative media critics are labelling this as proof of "liberal media bias," ignoring it, or praising it for an open admittance to bias.
It's also become somewhat of a viral video hit - this version of the video has gotten 300,000 views alone. It's also everywhere on Facebook. Viral videos have become invariably interesting to me in the past week+ as I've been doing research for articles (hearing Ari Melber speak, too, was great). It really is amazing how quickly these things spread.
McCain All Over NBC
When I'm checking out the media I've been following (NBC/MSNBC and CommonDreams), I generally watch MSNBC at my home. However, my cable has been out and there's what? like an hour of news on NBC all day and so I've been browsing the NBC site lately. Firstly, I am quite astonished at how much the site is dominated by the TV shows they air, which I suppose is not surprising since it's the sitcoms, not the news that make them the dollahs. It was still amazed, partly because I watch NBC for news not for sitcoms, and partly because to see these two purposes together on the same site (ie: pure entertainment and NEWS) it's almost completely understandable that network news can be so...bad. This, of course, is inexcusable when you're running the journalistic section of the network but it just drove home the point for me that NBC has two goals in mind for their network: to entertain and to inform - and they've apparently learned to do both at the same time.
A second, somewhat surprising thing I noticed is that, when on the News section of the NBC page, 5 out of 7 total stories are about McCain. Only one mention of Obama and it's in a comparison piece between Obama and McCain. McCain is definitely not off of the radar just yet, and it seems that Palin hasn't even thought about disappearing.
This article, which lasts a whole five paragraphs, outlines the difference between Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin's views on abortion. I have two points of contention here:
1. Who cares?
2. If you're going to cover differing viewpoints on something as controversial as abortion, at least explain them a bit better and oh, I don't know, maybe point out the dangers in both views?
Another article I was potentially interested, titled "In a diverse U.S., a mostly white RNC" isn't even on the site anymore. The rest of the articles are all babble about this little girl that wrote to Barack Obama, or the "wackiest" stories of the election.
Oh boy. I think I'm going back to watching Olbermann and Maddow tonight if my cable is repared. Let's keep the fingers crossed, or I may just have to watch that stupid Obama penpal girl.
A second, somewhat surprising thing I noticed is that, when on the News section of the NBC page, 5 out of 7 total stories are about McCain. Only one mention of Obama and it's in a comparison piece between Obama and McCain. McCain is definitely not off of the radar just yet, and it seems that Palin hasn't even thought about disappearing.
This article, which lasts a whole five paragraphs, outlines the difference between Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin's views on abortion. I have two points of contention here:
1. Who cares?
2. If you're going to cover differing viewpoints on something as controversial as abortion, at least explain them a bit better and oh, I don't know, maybe point out the dangers in both views?
Another article I was potentially interested, titled "In a diverse U.S., a mostly white RNC" isn't even on the site anymore. The rest of the articles are all babble about this little girl that wrote to Barack Obama, or the "wackiest" stories of the election.
Oh boy. I think I'm going back to watching Olbermann and Maddow tonight if my cable is repared. Let's keep the fingers crossed, or I may just have to watch that stupid Obama penpal girl.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Some Interesting Pieces...
First, some thoughts on a topic we discussed in class today. After watching the ThinkProgress video on how much of the mainstream media are insisting that America is a center-right country, I’ve become a bit confused about how America views President-elect Obama. Karl Rove seems to suggest that the American public was willing to vote for Obama because of his “center-right” platform and yet it was ultra-conservatives like Rove who attacked Obama the entire election for secretly harboring extremist, socialist views. I can’t get these two portrayals of Obama to add up. It’s as if conservatives are now re-painting Obama as a centrist candidate, something they probably would have been reluctant to say during his actual campaign. So if the public voted for Obama because he was a center-right candidate, then what should one make out of the former portrayals of Obama as a dangerous radical? Did they simply not work? Or what if the public really did think of Obama as an ultra-liberal, socialist, “spread the wealth around” candidate? Why the need to re-posit him? I guess the question is: Why did America vote for Obama, anyway?
Norm Solomon has an article on CommonDreams this week called “A Mandate for Spreading the Wealth.” Since I had the opportunity to have dinner with Norm Soloman (with a number of other Park students) when I was a freshman, I’ve been kinda-sorta-sometimes following his writing. In his piece, he claims that Barack Obama does, indeed, have a responsibility to redistribute the incredibly unbalanced location of wealth in this country and also seems to think that this is the reason America voted for him.
Solomon writes:
This fall, the candidates and their surrogates endlessly repeated such arguments. As much as anything else, the presidential campaign turned into a dispute over the wisdom of "spreading the wealth." Most voters were comfortable enough with the concept to send its leading advocate to the Oval Office.
And later:
Obama and his activist base won a mandate for strong government action on behalf of economic fairness. But since election night, countless pundits and politicians have somberly warned the president-elect to govern from "the center." Presumably, such governance would preclude doing much to spread the wealth. Before that sort of conventional wisdom further hardens like political cement, national discussions should highlight options for moving toward a more egalitarian society.
For the most part, I’d say I have to agree. Perhaps McCain’s attack ads just weren’t scary enough for America. I hope we’re at a point where re-distributing the wealth is no longer a smear, but a reason to vote for a candidate.
Another writer I semi-regularly follow and who semi-regularly writes has a piece that I found interesting. Katha Pollitt has “Sayonara, Sarah” in The Nation this week. Pollitt begins in her typical sarcastic voice but moves to a semi-serious question: What did Palin do for women? I’m not sure I agree with all her points, nor am I confident in my understanding of where Pollitt crosses the line between sarcasm and seriousness, but I really liked parts of her last paragraph, namely:
It is hard even to remember now how iconoclastic Hillary was--how hard it was for her to negotiate femininity and ambition, to be warm but not weak, smart but not cold, attractive but not sexy, dynamic but not threatening. Only a year ago, it was a real question whether men would vote for a woman or, for that matter, whether women would. Palin may have been unfit for high office, but just by running she showed there was more than one mode for a female politician.
This, however, I’m not sure I agree with:
After almost two years of the whole country watching two very different women in the White House race, it finally seems normal.
Norm Solomon has an article on CommonDreams this week called “A Mandate for Spreading the Wealth.” Since I had the opportunity to have dinner with Norm Soloman (with a number of other Park students) when I was a freshman, I’ve been kinda-sorta-sometimes following his writing. In his piece, he claims that Barack Obama does, indeed, have a responsibility to redistribute the incredibly unbalanced location of wealth in this country and also seems to think that this is the reason America voted for him.
Solomon writes:
This fall, the candidates and their surrogates endlessly repeated such arguments. As much as anything else, the presidential campaign turned into a dispute over the wisdom of "spreading the wealth." Most voters were comfortable enough with the concept to send its leading advocate to the Oval Office.
And later:
Obama and his activist base won a mandate for strong government action on behalf of economic fairness. But since election night, countless pundits and politicians have somberly warned the president-elect to govern from "the center." Presumably, such governance would preclude doing much to spread the wealth. Before that sort of conventional wisdom further hardens like political cement, national discussions should highlight options for moving toward a more egalitarian society.
For the most part, I’d say I have to agree. Perhaps McCain’s attack ads just weren’t scary enough for America. I hope we’re at a point where re-distributing the wealth is no longer a smear, but a reason to vote for a candidate.
Another writer I semi-regularly follow and who semi-regularly writes has a piece that I found interesting. Katha Pollitt has “Sayonara, Sarah” in The Nation this week. Pollitt begins in her typical sarcastic voice but moves to a semi-serious question: What did Palin do for women? I’m not sure I agree with all her points, nor am I confident in my understanding of where Pollitt crosses the line between sarcasm and seriousness, but I really liked parts of her last paragraph, namely:
It is hard even to remember now how iconoclastic Hillary was--how hard it was for her to negotiate femininity and ambition, to be warm but not weak, smart but not cold, attractive but not sexy, dynamic but not threatening. Only a year ago, it was a real question whether men would vote for a woman or, for that matter, whether women would. Palin may have been unfit for high office, but just by running she showed there was more than one mode for a female politician.
This, however, I’m not sure I agree with:
After almost two years of the whole country watching two very different women in the White House race, it finally seems normal.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sarah Palin's Denial of Science: Anti-Intellectualism at its Finest
Christopher Hitchens has an interesting piece in Slate this week called “Sarah Palin’s War on Science.” His monumental first sentence touches on something that was mentioned in class today that in the few hours between class and now has started to really bother me – the anti-intellectualism of this election.
Hitchens writes, “In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber.”
He goes on to cite Sarah Palin’s denouncement of expenditure on fruit fly research, research that has been dedicated to, among other things, studying disabilities and mutations. Hitchens also includes John McCain’s comments on the futility of funding grizzly bear research. Both comments are undeniably troublesome and coupled with Palin’s comments on other scientifically secure facts (Read: humans and dinosaurs did not live together. Ever. Ever.) they seem completely extreme and whacky.
Besides opposing funding for scientific pursuits, McCain/Palin have attempted to gain anti-intellectualism cred by incorporating folksy speech and constantly mentioning hunting and hockey. This has, of course, led to the some of the public’s perception of Palin to be someone “we” can relate to. This is placed in constant opposition to the “elitism” of Senator Barack Obama.
Anti-intellectualism, in my opinion, has no place in politics. While I do believe politicians should make an attempt to relate to their audience, dumbing down their speech, points and thoughts is plain annoying. Glossing over issues, desperately attempting to create a “personality” and lashing out at Obama seem to be McCain and Palin’s main campaign strategies. Not to say, of course, that Obama hasn’t done the same thing: He, too, has played into this whole “Joe the Plumber” election theme.
This façade of down-to-earth-ness that elite politicians constantly attempt to employ made me think of the article I posted a few weeks ago on politicians’ constant need to reference sports and how ridiculous it seems that John Kerry’s predilection for wind-surfing may have swayed some voters.
Hitchens writes, “In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber.”
He goes on to cite Sarah Palin’s denouncement of expenditure on fruit fly research, research that has been dedicated to, among other things, studying disabilities and mutations. Hitchens also includes John McCain’s comments on the futility of funding grizzly bear research. Both comments are undeniably troublesome and coupled with Palin’s comments on other scientifically secure facts (Read: humans and dinosaurs did not live together. Ever. Ever.) they seem completely extreme and whacky.
Besides opposing funding for scientific pursuits, McCain/Palin have attempted to gain anti-intellectualism cred by incorporating folksy speech and constantly mentioning hunting and hockey. This has, of course, led to the some of the public’s perception of Palin to be someone “we” can relate to. This is placed in constant opposition to the “elitism” of Senator Barack Obama.
Anti-intellectualism, in my opinion, has no place in politics. While I do believe politicians should make an attempt to relate to their audience, dumbing down their speech, points and thoughts is plain annoying. Glossing over issues, desperately attempting to create a “personality” and lashing out at Obama seem to be McCain and Palin’s main campaign strategies. Not to say, of course, that Obama hasn’t done the same thing: He, too, has played into this whole “Joe the Plumber” election theme.
This façade of down-to-earth-ness that elite politicians constantly attempt to employ made me think of the article I posted a few weeks ago on politicians’ constant need to reference sports and how ridiculous it seems that John Kerry’s predilection for wind-surfing may have swayed some voters.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Leave it to Ellie...
On the Huffington Post this week, Eleanor Smeal, founding president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, long-time women’s rights advocate, incredible feminist and my old boss, posted “An Open Letter to John McCain.” In the piece, Smeal outlines the real reasons women aren’t flocking to the McCain/Palin ticket. (Note: The reasons have nothing to do with makeup, glasses, jealousy or looks.) Instead, she outlines all of the women’s issues McCain has voted “NO” on, including the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Violence Against Women Act and increasing the minimum wage.
It is undeniable, at this point, that the primary qualification Sarah Palin had in McCain’s eyes was the fact that she is a woman. Why else would she have been chosen in this election? I find it so absurd, however, that McCain and McCain advisors would actually think that women who supported the pro-feminist agenda of Clinton would jump on board with McCain’s anti-woman policies just because of Palin’s presence. I suppose a few older women, perhaps, may have considered McCain more than Obama because of Palin, but I mean, c’mon?
We haven’t seen too much coverage of the candidates’ stances on women’s rights. I’m sure Ellie recognized this and if I know anything about Ellie, she gave about 100 office-rants before she became so frustrated with the media’s coverage she decided to make media herself. I have always respected the passion of Ellie and other feminist leaders like Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy. But it is sad that after putting in about 4 decades of work, it is these same women that have to bring the woman’s message to American people in 2008. Will Ellie really have to continue doing this every year? As long as we leave in our "post-sexist" world, I suppose so.
It is undeniable, at this point, that the primary qualification Sarah Palin had in McCain’s eyes was the fact that she is a woman. Why else would she have been chosen in this election? I find it so absurd, however, that McCain and McCain advisors would actually think that women who supported the pro-feminist agenda of Clinton would jump on board with McCain’s anti-woman policies just because of Palin’s presence. I suppose a few older women, perhaps, may have considered McCain more than Obama because of Palin, but I mean, c’mon?
We haven’t seen too much coverage of the candidates’ stances on women’s rights. I’m sure Ellie recognized this and if I know anything about Ellie, she gave about 100 office-rants before she became so frustrated with the media’s coverage she decided to make media herself. I have always respected the passion of Ellie and other feminist leaders like Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem and Kim Gandy. But it is sad that after putting in about 4 decades of work, it is these same women that have to bring the woman’s message to American people in 2008. Will Ellie really have to continue doing this every year? As long as we leave in our "post-sexist" world, I suppose so.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Apparently I'm on an ACORN kick...
I just found an actually funny article about this voter registration fraud craze, that, unlike the AP article I just wrote about, manages to be sarcastic and point out truths. This comes from The Nation's Christopher Hayes.
Some gems:
"Keep in mind that ACORN's registered somewhere around 1.3 million people this cycle. Not surprisingly, there are errors. Think of all the times you've eaten at a restaurant in your life. On the rare occasions when the restaurant totaled the tip wrong, were they trying to defraud you? Did you inform the cops of an attempted robbery? Are you suspicious of restaurants generally and view them as an enterprise committed to widespread fraud? No, of course not. You would have to be a paranoid doofus to believe that."
"
Some gems:
"Keep in mind that ACORN's registered somewhere around 1.3 million people this cycle. Not surprisingly, there are errors. Think of all the times you've eaten at a restaurant in your life. On the rare occasions when the restaurant totaled the tip wrong, were they trying to defraud you? Did you inform the cops of an attempted robbery? Are you suspicious of restaurants generally and view them as an enterprise committed to widespread fraud? No, of course not. You would have to be a paranoid doofus to believe that."
"
The faux-outrage that Republicans have marshalled over alleged voter fraud is so transparently faked, so expertly cynical its almost surreal. When John McCain accused ACORN of being on the "verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history" Obama just broke down laughing. I was too. It was the only reasonable reaction.
But sure enough, they've managed to embed the notion deeply among the right-wing base and its now bled into popular discussion. (Someone on ESPN made an ACORN, vote-fraud joke the other night, which is when I knew this had gotten out of hand).
As nearly everyone on the left has pointed out, this is an old routine. Every two years, Republicans gin up baseless accusations of "voter fraud," often directed at ACORN. The strategic imperative is simple: create a pretense that will allow them to more credibly hassle and hopefully suppress poor and minority voters."
Okay, so it seems like I've quoted most of the article, but it is very funny. Worth a read if you're following this whole ACORN business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)