SOTU open thread
The State of the Union is tonight (starts at 9 pm ET). What are you hoping for/predicting (if you're reading this pre-SOTU)? What did you think (if you're reading this post-SOTU). [insert lame joke about "live blogging" here]
further evidence for things already known
This is
a pretty stunning and clear cut example of Fox News becoming an extension of the Bush Administration's PR campaign.
Don't Be Evil
Speaking of stifiling information, Google has just launched its Google.cn version to be used in China. While the company proudly declares that its "mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," Google has made the decision to
censor the results produced on Google.cn by searches of various "sensitive terms," (and
not-so-sensitive sites like bacardi.com) such as "democracy," "human rights," "falun gong," "Tibet" or "Taiwan". Until now, Google could be accessed by those in China via servers based in California, but its content was filtered by the Chinese government's internet filters, also known as "the great firewall of China". China employs 30,000 police officers to monitor the internet full-time. With regards to this very criticized decision, in an interview with co-founder Brin, Reuters quotes him as saying, "I didn't think I would come to this conclusion -- but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see." (more in expanded post)
But while Google has said that it is simply blocking sensitive information, searches of these "sensitive" terms direct users to government-run propaganda sites that disseminate incorrect or misleading information, and only the official government's stance on these issues. As many have noted, their half-truth "justification" is eerily
Orwellian. Strangely enough, all this came less than one week after Google refused a US Department of Justice supoena which requested the company provide every website address produced and search term used on Google between June and July 2005. A
Times article sums it up:
The government was looking to assess the prevalence on the internet of what it calls HTM — harmful to minor — not child pornography, but pornography that children can accidentally access. It turned out that AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo! had all already complied with similar requests. [...] It is an incredibly worrying sign, not least because it shows the way governments might come to use search engines as a form of privatised surveillance.
Google has an extraordinary amount of information about its users. It logs all the searches made on it and stores this information indefinitely. Because every computer has a unique IP (internet protocol) address, every visit to every website can be traced back to the computer making it [...]. (Shi Tao, the Chinese journalist, was given 10 years in jail last April for “leaking state secrets” after Yahoo! in Hong Kong handed over information linking his IP address and his e-mail to the Chinese authorities.) Users of Google’s Gmail service, who are already having their e-mails scanned to place targeted ads, have given the company their identity, a full record of all their searches and copies of all their e-mails, stored indefinitely. [...] As the lawsuit makes clear, all this information is potentially vulnerable to subpoena.
While it is in some ways comforting news that Google has refused to comply, it's sadly most likely to hide trade secrets. These two events, though they may seem contradictory, were both money-driven decisions. People freaked out when they found out their surfing might no longer be untouchable and anonymous; Google's shares dropped 8.5% when the news of the subpoena came out (that means they're worth
$20 billion less now than they did a while ago). Call me naive, but I, and many Google fans, had held out hope that in this money-driven world, the "users-first"-minded Google would show that ultimately humanity could triumph. But the potential to caplitalize on China's enormous population trumped the warm fuzzies. Even for a company whose motto is "don't be evil," when it comes to cashing in on a billion people's internet use, complying with a government whose ideals are directly contradictory to its founding vision, whose secretive practices have
exacerbated world problems and whose demands require the obfuscation of truth, the definition of "evil" is bendable.
The Truth
Today as I continued my recent obsession with Middle Eastern politics I came across a
very eye-popping interview from the Daily Ummat, the second-largest newspaper in Pakistan. After going to the site for the Daily Ummat my inability to read Urdu prevented me from searching their online archives for the interview. It was conducted in the weeks after the September 11th Attacks and, in it, Osama bin Laden denies responsibility for the events of that day. The fact that this interview was the first
granted by bin Laden after September 11th and was
NOT AT ALL covered by major U.S. news outlets and publications should cause one to wonder why when, during the fall of 2001, just about every newspaper in the country was focused on this man and his organization.
If you all get a chance, I ardently encourage you to visit three websites on this issue:
1)
911Review.Com: A Resource for Understanding the 9/11/01 Attack
2)
ThePowerHour.Com: A radio show that focuses on
"subjects that inform and educate people every day to the real challenges that face this country".
3) 911InPlaneSite.Com: A completely fact-based movie that the world generally and the U.S. people more specifically absolutely MUST see.
HAMAS
I'm not sure how many of you all have been following (or are aware of) the situtation in Palestine right now but, two days ago, Hamas captured a majority of seats in the national (if that word can accurately describes present-day Palestine)
parliamentary elections. The fact that Hamas is currently
recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government,
the E.U., and others makes the situation between Israel, Palestine, and the West really volatile right now. Seeing as how the U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Afghanistan and Iraq partly on the premesis of these nations harboring "terrorists" what will they do now to Palestine that is, to them,
run by terrorists? Anyone have thoughts and what the course of action for the U.S. and others might be? What type of governments Hamas will look to erect? Why the
Prime Minister and his cabinet immediately resigned?
Has Ariel Sharon woken up from his coma yet? Talk about receiving bad news...
King George
A great piece from
Slate was sent out over Dems-talk. For those of you who aren't on it,
I figured I'd post it here. The thesis paragraph responds to the contention that the issue is simply one of national security vs. civil liberties:
Would that so little were at stake. In fact, the Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system. Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.
I recommend the whole thing, but it strikes me that we're living in pretty extraordinary times. Of course, I'm just a youngster, maybe things are always this interesting...
guns don't shoot, people do!
Via
quenchzine:
This is what makes it hard to be proud to be a Virginian.
This state congressman accidentally discharged his firearm but lucky for everyone else in the state capital, he also happenned to have a bulletproof vest hanging from the door which absorbed it.
Brought to you by the state that upholds adults' rights to bear arms in public schools.
Such a weird incident. Good catch quench!
state of the union parody
via crooks and liars.
Check it out.
elites and the military
If you want to understand why some people in this country so dislike elites (like Ivy Leaguers, for instance), listen to
Hugh Hewitt's interview of LATimes columnist Joel Stein. Stein wrote a controversial
piece earlier in the week in which he argued that supporting the troops while opposing the war is hypocritical. Hewitt appropriately disagrees strongly, but what's more interesting is that he essentially argues that Stein has no right to an opinion: he doesn't know anyone in the military and doesn't appear to know anything about the military. I'm not one to agree with right-wing talk show hosts, but if you're going to write in a national newspaper that you don't support the troops shouldn't you at least know how many there are?
Summers Loves Little Girls
In what is clearly an attempt to say something almost antithetical to what he stated last year about females (that caused the
huge flurry) President Summers
recently said that educating girls is "the single most important investment that can be made in the developing world," at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Is that before or after poisoning them by dumping huge amounts of
toxic waste from the industrialized world into their environments, Larry? I wonder...
updates
I've just updated the "ongoing discussions" section of the side bar, definitely check them all out, there's some phenomenal stuff there.
Also, I've updated the "Harvard links" section, adding two new blogs and taking off one. I've added
Gratitude Orange, an excellent blog kept by Kyle de Beausset. Kyle has been discussing general world politics and his experiences back home in Guatemala helping the redevelopment after massive flooding brought on by Hurricane Stan. I've also added
Red Ivy, the Harvard GOP's new blog that kicked off earlier this month and seems off to an interesting, albeit sporadic, start. Finally, I've taken down the link to
Team Zebra, because they haven't written in over a month. I'll definitely let you know if they get back in the game.
I hope you're enjoying your intersession! Also, read the post right below this one and the columns it links to.
a picture is worth...
How do you get the attention of the media in a society of short attention spans and theatrical politics? Make a good picture. In case you can't tell, the person at the podium in the back center of the picture is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, defending the Administration's domestic spying today in a speech at Georgetown Law School. From the
NYTs, and you can see a few more pictures
here.
Exodus of Jobs
Ford announced today that it's
closing another slew of factories throughout North America, mostly in the U.S. Does anyone know what exactly Ford is trying to do with this move? The claim is that this "would make the company's North American division profitable" over the next two years. Hidden effects should not be overlooked, however. Rising unemployment directly contributes to rises in crime. When people don't have jobs and their prospects of attaining them in the near future are scarce alternative methods of income generation are entertained. People have to eat.
Blame
big business. Either the working class population in the U.S. will give them cheap labor for factories and service-industry positions that will perpetuate their familial and communal poverty or even
these meager jobs will be taken away (by shipping jobs overseas or making advances in technology that make human labor expendable) so that people resort to crime and have their labor exploited for far less through the
prison industrial complex. To quote
Blondie One way or another I'm gonna find ya,
I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha getcha,
One way or another I'm gonna win ya,
I'm gonna getcha getcha getcha getcha.
This is the song Corporate America sings to the U.S. and, increasingly, world population everyday.
And Another One!
Bolivia, South America's poorest nation, now has its first indigenous leader since the Spanish conquest over 500 years ago in
Evo Morales, leader of the Bolivian political party Movement for Socialism. That's a LONNNNG wait for an indigenous leader. Once again, the U.S. government is fearful of his reform agenda as Al-Jazeera cites him as wanting to "end discrimination and inequality". What an evil man...sic the CIA on him! Has anyone noticed that this is simply not in the interest of any U.S. President or Congress in policy though they have often given the notion
lip service? Think about it...Ending inequality would have to include
ending capitalism (I am still waiting to hear an argument defending capitalism as just or leading to equality) as a means to bringing about equality. Does that mean socialism? Communism? Anarchism? What do you all think?
World on Fire
In the midst of exams and similar stresses, it's always good to get some perspective. Here is one of my favourite
videos for inspiration.
lunchtime video!
I know I've probably encourage people to watch this speech before, and I know many of you probably already have, but Barack Obama's appearance on Meet the Press this morning reminded me of it so I'm bringing it up again. Whether you've seen it or not, whether you consider yourself a Democrat or not, whether you like him or not, watch
Obama's speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004. I'm going to have a few thoughts later today about why Obama is important not simply because of his political talent and charisma.
Harajuku Girls
So Gwen Stefani has these
Harajuku girls. They are four Japanese women hired by Gwen to be her posse/shadows. They go everywhere with her, appearing on the red carpet, in her music videos, her album cover, and are mentioned in almost every song on her solo album, including a song she wrote about them (called...Harajuku Girls).
Okay. I guess if you're a popstar celebrity you can do whatever you want and make yourself a posse. But this is where it gets weird and kind of creepy. These Harajuku girls (
Harajuku is a district in Tokyo reknowned for many things, in part the flamboyant styles of the locals) are rumoured to be under a contract where they are only allowed to speak Japanese in public, even though people say they're just regular Americans who speak perfect English. And when I say Gwen "has," I really do mean has, because she has renamed them Love, Angel, Music and Baby, after her clothing line (l.a.m.b., which is being marketed towards the Harajuku district) and solo album. MiHi Ahn for
Salon.com (or try this
link) does a great job of explaining what is going on, but there is a fair bit of controversy over whether this is an instance of negative feishization, if the widespread coverage of the Harajuku girls is positve press, or if it's just one of those weird things that will end up paving the way to general acceptance of minority cultures (as
Margaret Cho muses). (more in expanded post)
At first glance, Gwen Stefani's praise of the Harajuku girls may seem to be a positive sign of appreciation for a different culture:
Harajuku Girls you got the wicked style
I like the way that you are, I am your biggest fan
You're looking so distinctive like D.N.A., like nothing I've
ever seen in the U.S.A.
Your underground culture, visual grammar
The language of your clothing is something to encounter
A Ping-Pong match between eastern and western (from Harajuku Girls)
But what does not sit well with me, and a great many others (visit the "
Free the Gwenihana Four" blog), is that the Harajuku girls that Gwen drags around with her are
her ideas of what Harajuku girls are. The photo above is a great example of this--look at their makeup. The tiny circle of lipstick on the four girls is reminiscent of an antiquated Asian/geisha fashion; they also are all wearing the same (albeit weird) thing. What is supposed to be so unique about the Harajuku district is that individuality rules. There are no trends or lines of fashion that are to be followed except to do the unexpected, although the inspiration tends to be goth or punk. Gwen strips her pseudo-Harajuku girls of the trait she apparently finds so inspiring.
For those who might disagree about Gwen's attitude towards her Harajuku posse, if you listen closely to "Rich Girl," this is what she says:
if I was [sic] a wealthy girl
I'd get me four Harajuku girls to
Inspire me and they'd come to my rescue
I'd dress them wicked, I'd give them names
Love, Angel, Music, Baby
uh...which is what she did. What is tricky is that the whole phenomenon of Harajuku style is one that is superficial and in itself fetishy--also known as Japanese Baroque, it combines elements of gothic, goth-lolita and punk style into a postmodern pastiche of clothing. So appreciation of this intrinsically fetishy style may have to itself border on fetishization. That of course is only true if the Harajuku style were represented accurately, which it completely isn't (schoolgirl uniforms do not fall under goth or punk, but they do happen to be an Asian image stereotype). Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that Gwen just got herself a set of live dress-up dolls, who are a negative portrayal of Asians in the way they play into the meek, cutesy, giggling and silent Asian girl stereotype. No, it's not racism. Yes, it's still not cool.
Queer Results
According to
this New York Times article a new reality show that was supposed to air on ABC may have been shelved do to its positive portrayal of a gay couple (that won the reality show) and the believed backlash that would follow from the religious right. Purportedly ABC was scared to air the show since they felt that support for their quasi-religious
The Chronicles of Narnia would be withdrawn from this base. Another example of capitalism trumping moral fortitude (if true).
During the course of the series being shot the gay couple's neighbors who have been initially described as
"quite homophobic Christians" come to love the gay couple and their child next door. Love for one's neighbor despite them living a lifestyle that you may not approve of? Now that's not Christian at all...
lunchtime video!
Today's lunchtime video is Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman laying out the Republican strategy for victory in the 2006 elections. It seemed to me to be a kind of State of the Union for the Republican Party. You can find it
here and at
C-Span.
What's fascinating about the speech is that it was done publicly and therefore for a wider audience than simply the RNC members and GOP consultants. In that way, Rove appears to be inventing a new kind of political speech: simultaneously a blueprint for political victory and a stump speech in its own right. Of course, because it's public and he's speaking to an audience wider than simply that room, you have to approach with cynicism the idea that this is
truly and simply their game plan. It is, obviously, only that which they felt comfortable making public and a little hot rhetoric to boot.
It seems to me that Rove is trying to do three things here, if not more. (more in expanded post)
First, he's trying to remind the GOP that even in bad times they are powerful and have brilliant people who can write an alternative narrative and message to the one that they're currently having to deal with. The section at the beginning where he reminds them where they came from in the last 40 years and what they've accomplished is a perfect example of that, as is the message he lays out (and what it obviously ignores). Second, he's making a statement about their confidence in his own legal standing that they hope will calm reporters down. He is technically still under investigation by Fitzgerald's special prosecution of the Plame Affair and because he was willing to do this speech they must feel confident that he won't be indicted. If he were indicted, the Democrats could simply spend the rest of the cycle reminding the voters that their opponents are working from a game plan written by an indicted man. I doubt they're dumb enough to risk that. Third, the speech is an indication of how the GOP wants to approach the '06 cycle, not simply in the message that Rove lays out, but in its timing. In terms of laying out a public message, this is really early. The elections aren't until November, the intense campaigning won't really start until the summer (TV ads, etc.) but the GOP knows that it needs to start to change the narrative (which has been pushing the comparisons to the '94 Republican Revolution, and talking about the Dems winning big by promising to clean up Washington) soon. They also want to draw the Dems out and make the political battle more extended, probably because they feel in the long run that they're safer in a open political battle than in a set of simmering DC controversies. It will be interesting to see how long the Democrats wait to really rev up their message machine (and how good the message is...).
Alas, all of this is amateur guess-work. What do you think?
Kennedy/Owl controversy coverage
In a fascinating turn of events, Kennedy's membership in the Owl Club has gone from a one day retaliation over the Alito/CAP controversy in one article in
the Washington Times into a full-blown aspect of the Right's anti-Kennedy noise machine. The advertisement picture on the right is all over conservative online media (
Powerline,
GOPUsa (thanks Dewey!),
RightWingNews,
the Rocky Mountain News etc.) and links to
this article. Right wing bloggers continue to write about the issue, even going so far as to
attack the NYTs for not reporting on it considering the fervor with which they covered Martha Burk's efforts to pressure Augusta National (home of the Master's, an important PGA golf tournament) to allow women to join. A quick search on
technorati (kind of google for blogs) shows 926 results, most if not all of which appear to be referring to this particular controversy. Probably more importantly, mainstream coverage has gone beyond the blogs and Limbaughs of the world and also includes right-wing newspapers like
the Boston Herald and
the NY Post, as well as more objective papers like the
the LA Times and
many others.
What do you think? Is there now a bipartisan national consensus? Is it fair?
Believe it or not, I generally agree with
the Crimson's Staff Position.
hyperfun!
I just wanted to say
congratulations to
the Crimson for learning to use
hyperlinks in their
articles. It's especially cool when they either link to
themselves or to the
University of Cincinnati.
In all seriousness, hyperlinks are a great tool for sourcing and add depth to an article or opinion piece. Glad to see the Crimson is joining the info age (or whatever it's called) even if it is a little haphazard at first.
lunchtime video!
Today's lunchtime video should act as a reminder to those of us who consider ourselves liberal, radical, leftist, Democrats, democrats etc.: despite popular conservative myths, we do not control the political media. Social liberals control much of the rest of the media (Hollywood, MTV, the values in much of the major network productions, etc.) but the political right is really good at this.
Prepare to be upset.
He's BAAaack!
Apparently a new audio clip from Osama bin Laden has surfaced and been aired on
Al-Jazeera, the CNN of the Middle East. On the tape he warns of an attack in the U.S. soon and also, a bit surprisingly, proposes a truce to the ongoing war in Iraq and that in Afghanistan. In addition to this he talks about Bush giving misinformation to the U.S. public and the
unpopularity of the wars that Bush brought about in his "War on Terror". I'm not even going to get into the skepticism that one should harbor in regards to the
true story behind the September 11th Attacks, but what do people think about the fact that, after nearly four and a half years, the Bush administration with all of its military, financial, and political resources has
still not been able to find arguably
the most wanted person in recent world history? Eighteen Pakistani civilians can be killed without a peep from the U.S. government with a "precise" missle technology though they can't locate the whereabouts of this one individual. Is his technology and territorial expertise that beyond the U.S. government's? Who is
he paying to keep himself safe that the U.S. can't pay more to turn him over? Why is the
$234 billion "War on Terror" not focused on catching the person who purportedly started this war and supposedly controls those behind it perpetuation on the Islamic side?
The U.S. public and its political leaders support war because they don't have to deal with its hellish reality domestically. If Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. was turned into
Tel Aviv or
Baghdad for just
ONE day there would be immeasurably more restraint in bringing that reality to millions of others throughout the world every single day for their entire lives.
ongoing discussions
The ongoing discussions column has been updated. Feel free to use this thread to start any discussion or mention anything that you wish was being said/heard/listened to.
lunchtime video!
Today's lunchtime video is a citizen journalist covering a conference in St. Louis on media reform. Some of the analysis is a little simplistic for me, but the heart of the message is right on.
Kennedy/owl club hits local TV
7 News did a piece on Ted Kennedy's decision to drop out of the Owl Club (it had done a piece on his membership the night before).
Watch it here.
What's fascinating to me is that something that is supposedly so controversial at Harvard, with club members and sympathizers adept at confusing the basic discrimination and ignoring the fundamentals of the issue, is so cut and dry in the broader public spheres. The interaction between Hiller (the local reporter) and Kennedy seems to exemplify this:
Andy Hiller: And they do not allow women in that club?
Sen. Kennedy:That's what I understand.
Andy Hiller: Why would you be in a club like that?
Sen Kennedy: I shouldn't be and I'm going to get out of it as fast as I can.
Hiller went on to say at the end of the piece that Kennedy's defense of his
continued dues-paying (that it was a long time ago that he was a member, before Harvard was coed) "ignores the principals of equality and time." He ends the piece by saying "equality is the foundation of his career, his legacy, and the Owl Club undermines it."
lunchtime video!
President Bush: "Our job is to form a common consensus. This is what's called "diplomacy."
Jon Stewart has thoughts.
Hillary's story
As I noted below, Hillary Clinton grabbed
some headlines this morning with some very pointed comments yesterday about the Bush Administration. While giving a speech in Harlem honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, she said the House of Representatives is run "like a plantation" and added: "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." That is one hell of a thing to say, so it's obviously raised some eyebrows and makes great political theatre (in addition to probably being accurate). So what's going on here? Why would Hillary Clinton, who has been so careful and coy as she approaches running in '08, who has slowly worked her way to the perceived political middle by mostly supporting the war in Iraq,
an anti flag-burning law, and
restrictions on violent video games, who only seems to be strongly critical and vocal when it's
an easy win issue, who is smart enough and experienced enough that her every public utterance will be scrutinized, dissected and criticized, suddenly argue that the Bush Administration is so bad that it should be consider among the worst? (more in expanded post)
Here's how the story goes...
President Bush governs by being moderate in tone ("compassionate conservatism," affable good 'ol boy demeanor, etc.) and far-right in policy (intelligent design, global warming doesn't exist, we can invade whoever we want whenever we want if we want, massive tax cuts for the wealthy). That way, he can use his PR machine to make him seem moderate, but keep his base happy with the realities of his actions. That system seems to work so long as the moderates are comfortable with the direction the country's going so that they don't start to look through the PR to the policies and the far right is happy with quiet victories. Neither of those two things is any longer true; moderates unhappiness with the war and wiretapping and corruption have pushed Bush's trust and approval ratings way down and the Right appears to be increasingly vocal and demanding (ex. Harriet Miers). So Bush is having some serious trouble.
Clinton appears to be trying to do exactly the opposite. The Right would have marginalized her by accusing her of being a radical feminist and an advocate for huge government, so she's moderated her politics, focusing on policies that avoid these pitfalls and staying essentially in the center-right of her party. This enables her to diffuse the argument that she is philosophically of the far Left. The only problem is, the Left is getting frustrated with her over her support for the War in Iraq, and people like Russ Feingold are testing the waters to run against her in a base-driven effort ala Howard Dean. So Clinton becomes weak in the base. How does she fix this?
She becomes the most effective and aggressive political opponent of the Administration. She becomes vocal, critical and unabashed in her willingness to call Bush to task. While Bush appeals to the base in politics and the middle in tone, Clinton does the opposite and appeals to the middle in politics and the base in tone. This, of course, only works so long as the middle is not alienated by her criticisms in the long run (after the Democratic primaries), so Clinton is gambling that it's far enough away and the Administration's approval is low enough that she can get away with kicking some ass and still come back to the middle later by refocusing on her own moderate self.
Assuming I'm right in this analysis, which is of course speculative and may be doubtful to some readers, the interesting thing about this is that it exposes two things: 1. how much smarter Hillary Clinton is than most of the other Democrats and 2. how important the mainstream media's narrative is. Clinton's move to the middle has been widely documented and turned into a lovely story line. Most people have no idea how she's voted on the bulk of her politics, but the war and a few symbolic issues allow her to create a story line that others will follow, therefore allowing her to remake herself. With Feingold entering the race and building a challenge from the left, the media narrative turned to "Hillary has a Left problem" probably without much in terms of actual polling and factual basis. The story line is speculative in that way, but becomes reality because of its speculation.
Hillary Clinton proves her effectiveness as a politician here because she is able to throw fresh meat to her base by embroiling herself in something of a controversy, quiet the "Hillary has a Left problem" story line, and get good coverage all at the same time. In other words, she regains control of the narrative without being obvious about it.
Kennedy drops out of the Owl
So says
the Crimson and Kennedy's spokesperson. I'd say it's a good sign that politicians are embarrased by their association to these elitist institutions. Here's my question: will those who are wannabe future politicians, and are in clubs now, start to think twice? Have they figured out that this is something they'll have to defend in 30 years?
lunchtime videos!
First, Senator Clinton yesterday caused a stir by saying the House of Representatives is run "like a plantation" in a speech for MLK Day in Harlem. She added: "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." VIDEO:
wmv and
mp4. I'll have some thoughts later on what I think Senator Clinton is trying to do politically with comments like this.
ALSO, Al Gore gave an incredibly important (and incredibly long) speech yesterday on what he described as a growing "Constitutional Crisis" in America having to do with the Bush Administration's disrespect for the law and rapid and unchecked expansion of Executive Power. You can watch it at
C-Span (it's on the front page), or read it
here. OR, if you're short on time (and I'm assuming a lot of you are), watch the speech highlights here:
wmp and
quicktime.
Trial and Error
In this day and age, it would seem that the progress human society has made (in certain respects) should have brought us to be more careful and generally upright beings in our governmental dealings. The myth of government being an inherent institution in and of itself is false; governments were created and formalized by human imagination just as ice cream or luxury automobiles were. Governments are nothing without the individuals charged with leading them and the implicit or explicit consent of the masses that governments wield control over through myriad legislation at the municipal, county, state, federal, and international levels. The gravest “non-violent” act that a government can perform on one of its constituents is their imprisonment. Even as far back as Biblical or even ancient Greek times imprisonment was called into question by the leading moral authorities of the day.
Today,
imprisonment in the U.S. is at levels never before known by human society. Even worse, a number of individuals who have been incarcerated for ten to twenty or more years of their lives are being PROVE INNOCENT and released with the judicial system hoping to keep these immense blunders under wraps. Government farces in this respect are leading a number of states to pursue moratoriums on death penalties until they get their acts right (if ever) and stop convicting numerous innocent citizens for highly serious crimes. (more in expanded post)
In a nation that purports to regard liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness as its chief ideals, restricting its citizens from these "inalienable rights" without the utmost care is inexcusable. Today's legal system is one where the dollar reigns supreme and can be the different between incarceration and exoneration. Individuals who possess
sufficient financial means are able to hire top rate lawyers who in turn can higher a cast of private investigators, statisticians, and others to support their case while putting an entire law firm behind the defense of a particular citizen. The poor and, largely, Black and Latino defendants that face criminal charges often must rely on public defenders who are too often overworked, underpaid, and underqualified. These individuals are most often the ones not just convicted, but these are most often the individuals that are WRONGLY convicted. A report released by the
American Bar Association last year found more than 150 people who were convicted of crimes in 31 states and Washington, D.C. served a total of 1,800 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. These crimes ranged from simple assaults to murders and have garnered very little public attention until recently.
Last year, the documentary
After Innocence was released by a group of filmmakers. The movie chronicles a number of exonerated individuals who served varying amounts of time in prison before DNA evidence proved their innocence (most of the exonerees in this film were convicted of rape). By chance, I happened to catch these individuals on
Larry King Live this past December 21 and their stories are awe-inspiring. The ease with which individuals such as Wilton Dedge can speak of spending 22 years in prison and being released to the world without any sort of compensatory package or apology is beyond me. His case was one rife with mistruths from the beginning such the victim in the rape estimating her assailant as being 160 pounds and six feet tall while Dedge was only 125 pounds and stands 5'5. At one point, the prosecutor in his case even admitted
IN COURT that he would continue to oppose Dedge's release even if it was found that he was innocent. I encourage all of you to see this film when it plays in
Kendall Square on February 3, 2006. There will even be a Question and Answer portion with one of the film's creators and an exoneree, possibly
Dennis Maher of nearby Lowell, MA. Thankfully, films like these are bringing to light the plight of these severely wronged individuals and exposing a deep and far-reaching problem in the U.S. judicial system that has yet to be adequately addressed.
In this day and age, far too many prosecutors
seek convictions and
headlines as oppose to justice. Concealing facts, encouraging false testimony, and forged evidence during the course of criminal proceedings occur far too often for one to not take a critical look at the judicial system in the U.S. Making convictions the primary motive for prosecutors is a problem in part due to the methods for promotion in District Attorney offices at numerous levels of government (i.e. municipal, county, state, federal, international). Prosecutors are in vigorous competition with each other for higher rank, higher pay, and higher influence. There is often intense public and governmental pressure to be "
hard on crime" and not, necessarily, to be fair. Prosecutors who do not get convictions do not rise in the profession and may be seen as inferior legal experts; the expertise would of course be expertise in getting defendants under state control whether through the prison system, probation, a fine, or the like. True, a similar argument can be levied against
defense attorneys that may often defend criminals they know are guilty. True, most criminal cases never reach trial and charges are either dismissed or their is a
plea agreement. However, these government officials must be held to higher standards of decency and conduct due to the influence they have over a greater number of people's lives and their sworn duty to the public whether elected or appointed.
All of these occurrences are leading some politicians and legislators to take action. In 2003, then-Governor George Ryan of Illinois made history by
commuting the death sentences of all 156 inmates on death row in the state. This historic move showed that
some individuals at high levels of government are taking notice of the flaws in this deadly system and working to overhaul it. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is pursuing
federal legislation that will abolish the death penalty and bring about a moratorium on those sentences while encouraging states to do the same. Outgoing Governor Mark Warner of Virginia has even
ordered DNA testing for a man who has alread been convicted AND EXECUTED for a crime there (what will happen if the test proves his innocence?). I am also personally proud that lawmakers in my home city of Trenton (state capital of New Jersey...therefore the home of the legislature) are also
pursuing such a moratorium at the state level. Ten men in the state of New Jersey sit on death row across the street from my house at the New Jersey State Prison with their lives riding on the immense decisions that are made just a short drive away at the State Capitol building. These legislators have the possibility to do a great service and truly bring about positive change to New Jersey specifically and national society as a whole by stopping possibly innocent men from being murdered by state authorities. Until this is abhorrent situation is remedied, wrongly convicted individuals such as the recently executed
Stanley "Tookie" Williams of California will never truly rest in peace.
quick note and lunchtime video
First, a quick note. I've updated the "ongoing discussions" column to the right for the first time in a while. It has any post that has been added to with a comment in the last day, so check out where people are still talking (or starting to). Read and share some thoughts, feelings and wisdom.
Today's video is the recent 60 Minutes piece on John Murtha and the debate over troop levels and presence in Iraq. They do an impressive job of matching the clips so that someone finally has a chance to respond with depth to Bush's superficial rhetoric. Whatever your take on the war, check it out. Video:
wmv and
quicktime.
"Suk Mai Cock Poultry Farm" - Is this funny to you?
Apparently the enormous
backlash (read
here, also) from Asian Americans in response to Abercrombie & Fitch's awful shirts intended to be marketed towards Asians (for example, one said: "Wong Brothers Laundry Service -- Two Wongs Can Make It White" and included images reminiscent of racist caricatures of Asians from the early 1900s) didn't make the message clear enough.
Spencer Gifts has come out with several images on shirts and hats that are not even within the realm of what Abercrombie did. To quote the online
petition against this shocking ridiculousness:
"SUK MAI COCK POULTRY FARM" is an obvious mockery of the Chinese language and sophomoric jab at Asians and their supposed difficulty with English spelling and comprehension. The shirt featuring the likeness of Buddha, which reads "I MAY BE FAT BUT MY COCK IS HUGE," demonstrates blatant disrespect for a religious deity and the religion's followers ... Finally, the shirt that reads "HANG OUT WITH YOUR WANG OUT" features a caricature of a slanted-eyed, buck-toothed Chinese man wearing a queue and rice paddy hat and childishly holding his penis. This image is demeaning and painfully reminiscent of racist images in popular culture in the early 1900s. (more in expanded post)
There are times when being irreverent may be humourous. But there are also lines that cannot be crossed, especially in a country where multiculturalism is everywhere. While I can see how conceivably someone would have considered one of those Abercrombie shirts to be appealing to Asian Americans...kind of...this is an entirely different bag of chips. I cannot think of anyone, except for those who truly find racism funny, who would buy such things. Spencer Gifts is doing a serious disservice to all Asian Americans and by extension minorities in perpetuating the idea that racism is humorous and acceptable.
Please sign the
petition. Racism comes in many forms, and whether or not you are part of the group that is being targeted does not preclude you from supporting those wronged and speaking out for what is right.
the debate continues...
In December, Virginia A. Fisher wrote an opinion piece entitled "
Fie, Feminism," which criticized the existence of women's groups. As someone who is deeply concerned with women's issues and how women exist on campus, I was troubled by what Fisher wrote. While I see her point--from her experience, women are sufficently integrated into society that making ourselves into a victimized "special-interest" group may be counterproductive--she ignores the fact that we operate in a male-dominated society. Yes, there are male gender roles too, and they may be strictly defined, but they also often encompass the positions of greatest power. And a chemist who is a woman is not just a scientist but a woman in science in no way undermines her achievements, but highlights them with the greater distinction of being at the forefront of change. Women's groups are important because they draw attention to and underscore what may be wrong in the things we are used to. What society is used to seeing is ties in the boardroom, skirts behind phones, and while we may enjoy a different atmosphere of extra-PC-ness and general equality here in the Harvard bubble, the "real world" is very different. (more in extended post)
On Thursday, I was gratified to see
a response to Fisher's article from Margaret H. Martin, '94, someone whose views are free of the veil of post-adolescence idealism that we here are subject to:
I hope Fisher keeps a copy of this article to read 10 years from now, when she may be struggling with the ongoing problems of balancing caregiving responsibilities with workplace responsibilities. If women’s special interest lobbying will result in real changes that make workplaces more tolerant of caregiving (either caring for children or for aging parents) and caregivers, then I am all for it. And so are my husband and my two kids. And so will be the many people who don’t want to make a heart-wrenching either-or choice between work that they love and families that they love.
Being a woman can be a very defining aspect in one's identity. While it should not define us as people, it is naive to pretend that it doesn't affect the way we exist in society. Women's groups may single that point out, and sometimes things may go a little farther than necessary, but everyone will continue to ignore the pink elephant problem until somebody points it out. Or makes a group about it.
MLK Day
This Monday is the
Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (the man went through A LOT of schooling...give him his titles!) and for all of you who didn't know that, shame on you and your unfortunate descendants. Anyway, I'd like to let you know of a few things that you can do on that day besides sleeping in or taking final exams if you have the time and interest. Take a look in the expanded post about stuff going down on campus, in Cambridge, and beyond and get involved in service or just hear about others expressing the importance of the day, building community, or all that other stuff. Almost all are FREE and if you know more please share! Just click on each link for more info or directions if necessary (or ask for them in the Comment section). Always remember:
"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."
- MLK
(more in expanded post)
Martin Luther King Day CelebrationThe Memorial Church
Monday, January 16, 5:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Keynote Speaker: Massachusetts Representative Byron Rushing"The Nightmare and the Dream: Domestic Terrorism and Ending Racism in America"City of Cambridge Peace Commission - Stand-In For PeaceCambridge City Hall/YWCA
Monday, January 16, 1:30 - 5 p.m.
"H
ear the words of Martin Luther King and a multi-media presentation of conscious lyrics, hip-hop, poetry and spoken word from a variety of Cambridge area artists."
City of Boston 23rd Annual Celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
1) Wang Theatre
Sunday, January 15, 7 pm
A Gift of Song will feature performer, songwriter and vocalist
Patti Austin with jazz recording artist
Andre Ward. The program will take place at the Wang Theatre on January 15th at 7:00 PM. *This program is free but ticketing is required due to limited seating. If you would like to attend, please call (617) 635-4445.
2) Fanueil Hall
Monday, January 16, 12 pm
The City of Boston's Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
National Speaking Program will feature civil rights legend, the
Dr. Joseph Lowry at Faneuil Hall at 12:00 PM. *This program is free
Boston's Children's ChorusRaising the Roof - Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. in Song
New England Conservatory of Music, Jordan Hall
Monday, January 16, 6:30 pm
Big concert with special guests the Chicago Children's Choir and the Young People's Chorus of New York City. The kids from the BCC are all ridiculously small, cute, and energetic...not to mention TALENTED! I went last year with PBHA and helped out as an usher. From the very first note your jaw WILL drop. They make our Glee Clubs and most other singing groups sound like putting stones in a CD disc changer. Huge, great, attend if possible or watch it on TV (Channel 5 from 7-8 pm)!
Boston University - A Movement Beyond BordersA Celebration of the Life and Legacy of The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Metcalf Hall, George Sherman Union, BU
Monday, January 16, 1 pm
American Civil Rights and the Struggle For Global Human Rights. Keynote Address by Nobel Peace Prize Laurete
John Hume. Also available via webcast so visit the site!
Boston College - Martin Luther King, Jr. CelebrationMcElroy Conference Room/St.Joseph's Chapel, Gonzaga Hall
Tuesday, January 24, 3:30 pm
Featuring a talk by Rev. Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, the MacArthur Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies at Colby College; followed by a Memorial Ecumenical Worship Service with performances by Voices of Imani and Against the Current. Sponsored by Campus Ministry.
Museum of Fine Arts - Martin Luther King Day Community Open HouseMuseum of Fine Arts (MFA)
Monday, January 16, ALL DAY
The Museum opens its doors on Martin Luther King Jr. Day with free general admission for all! Join us for a fun-filled day of art activities, music and dance inspired by West African Gold: Akan Regalia from the Glassell Collection. View the documentary A Great Tree Has Fallen which chronicles the elaborate transfer of Ghanaian kingship from an aged and revered leader to his young successor.
Boston Children's Museum - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Celebration
Boston Children's Museum
Monday, January 16, 11 am - 4 pm
Celebrate a "day on" not a "day off" with activities and songs from the civil rights movement. The day will include workshops on non-violence and its significance, biographies on historical figures who have made a difference in the world, creation of buttons and artwork that send positive and inspirational message to others and role-play activities.
Museum of Afro-American History - Greater Boston Symphony Youth Orchestra
A Family Concert in Honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Monday, January 16, 3 pm
Enjoy the music inspired by the life and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King as performed by the Greater Boston Youth Symphony Orchestra's Intensive Community Program.
Hear the speeches written and spoken by Dr. King as spoken by those who embody the vision mission and spirit of diversity Dr. King espoused. All of this in the location where the phrase "No taxation without representation" was first coined!
To The Left! To The Left!
According to this Washington Times article Venezuela may be emerging as the leader of a "Bank of the South" and working to provide an alternative or escape for South America to the IMF's highly string-attached loans. Venezuela has already bailed Argentina out of its loan crisis and future efforts may be made for other such nations. Multi-billion dollar no strings attached loans? Is this (gasp) THE RICH(ER) HELPING THE POOR(ER)?!?NO! Funnily enough, Argentina is actually a much wealthier nation than Venezuela. Why and how do such things happen? Economically saavy people, please help.
remember the Gulf Coast!
I know I'm posting a lot of videos these days (it's easier than writing
long pieces on the state of American democracy that no one has time to read or respond to, ahem), but this one is important. NBC did a great piece on President Bush's trip to the region (in which he lectured local leaders: "It may be hard for you to see, but from when I first came here to today, New Orleans is reminding me of the city I used to come to visit" and told them "it's a heck of a place") and the process of rebuilding as it applies to class. Yes, that's right, the issue of CLASS being dealt with seriously on national television. Watch it, and don't forget the Gulf Coast!
VIDEO:
wmp and
quicktime.
lunchtime video!
It's Friday and I'm taking the weekend off, so today will actually be lunchtime video
s. But first, an article appetizer. The most emailed story on YahooNews right now has this headline:
Colbert: AP the Biggest Threat to America.
Read the story. My favorite line:
"It's like Shakespeare still being alive and not asking him what `Hamlet' is about," he said.
To celebrate Colbert's campaign against the AssociateD Press, I've compiled a few Colbert classics from his days on the Daily Show.
Today's video: Colbert cracks up when trying to report on a royal scandal "from London."
Tomorrow's video: Jon Stewart interviews "Al Sharpton" who looks strangely thin, white and Colbert-esque.
Sunday's video: In "Even Stevphen", Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert debate Islam v. Christianity and agree!
Have a good weekend!
goings on: ghost like swayze
Alright, a quick goings on so I can disappear for 24 hours and finish my three papers due tomorrow (don't worry, Mom and Dad, I'm on top of things...).
In terms of ongoing discussions, Chimaobi is still in dialogue about Katrina over at the "
Continued Significance of Race" thread. Meanwhile, I've tried to piggy back off of that thread to start another related conversation. Maybe it's a little long, but I think it's a dialogue worth having so let me know what you think: "
the continued significance of democracy." Finally,
make sure you read
Katie's post on Adam Smith and the science of empathy, it's good stuff.
Hope your week isn't as crazy as mine, enjoy!
Alito in his own words
Definitely take 5 minutes and read the
NYT's editorial today about why, despite the apparent lack of fireworks in the questioning and the melodramatic media narrative surrounding personalities that has been taken up by TV to make up for that, there are serious reasons to be concerned about Samuel Alito being on the Supreme Court.
lunchtime video!
The Daily Show is always a safe bet for good video, and this is Stewart as his best.
Last night's headlines:
wmp,
quicktime and
flash.
hilarious.
Some times everything just comes together! In case you've been too busy (you know, doing your work, to follow the Alito Supreme Court hearings), Senator Kennedy has been attacking Alito because
he was apparently (maybe) a member of a conservative organization called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton that argued that "the Ivy League university had lowered its admission standards to accept women and minorities." In response, conservative operatives are apparently pushing (via Drudge) a story that will be in the Washington Times tomorrow about Senator Kennedy's membership in one all-male institution while he was at Harvard. Wait for it,
the Owl Club!
Better yet,
Drudge (and apparently Senator Kennedy's spokeswoman), don't even have their facts straight: "The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper. [...] Anyway, she (Kennedy's spokeswoman] said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later."
They're fully integrated now?
the continued significance of democracy
Do you ever have times when conversations seem to follow you around? It may simply be the intense political times were in, the global conversation about democracy highlighted by our apparent attempt to nation-build Iraq, the whole Abramoff/Delay thing... It probably has something to do with where I'm situated in my intellectual/political/career development. In any event, I don't seem to be able to go half a day without having the big conversation: what is the state of democracy in America?
Even though it's an obvious starting point to anyone's approach to government, as a full conversation it doesn't seem to make itself into the public square all that much. It's funny that that's true because, as was evident from the comments on Chimaobi's recent post "
The Continued Significance of Race", the discussion gets to the most basic question of how radical or status quo a person's approach to politics is (regardless of underlying ideology). Those who have less faith in our democracy are likely to move to means outside the system, while those who have ultimate faith will likely desire to become a part of it. It may be that it doesn't happen because after people have made those decisions they don't usually stay in dialogue (they become de facto opponents; a problem in its own right), but that's not true for us. As we decide (or try to decide, or begin to decide) what to do with ourselves for the rest of our lives, we're in a unique position to have an honest discussion that, to me at least, feels urgent. And we haven't yet gone our seperate ways (geographically speaking anyway). So let's get to it!(more in expanded post)
The debate on Chimaobi's post is a perfect starting point. In questioning his analysis of race in the context of Governor Schwarzenegger's responsibility for the death of Tookie Williams, one reader wrote
Jersey, the only way in which your argument makes sense is if you believe that "the state" has absolutely nothing to do with "the people." Obviously, the democratic process is far from perfect and must continually struggle to rid itself from the influence of power, corruption, money, etc., but it still has something to do with the will of the people. [...]
You can hate the will of the people all you want, but acting as if state-sanctioned murder is not also people-sanctioned murder is to completely discount the concept of democracy. The state was not protecting itself from Tookie Williams, the people believed themselves to be protecting themselves (as misguided as that impression surely is).
Chimaobi responded
Giving "the people" the right to vote without open access to informational resources is like giving a baby a high-end laptop. It's a great device--in theory--but what can the user do with it except mess it up? Without the proper background in how to use said device and a grasp of the implications of using it in one way versus another, the device is used recklessly... there are strong media forces that work in collusion with the government at numerous levels blocking the public's access to particular information (http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html). There is a huge discrepancy between the information that the state has versus the information that the people have. Bush's ongoing wiretaps, the revelations in his ranks of undercover CIA agents, and the Patriot Act attest to this (and don't give me that it's in the "national interest" stuff--yeah...so is a ban on assault rifles). When information is tailored in this way a better word for it is propaganda. An informed population is a population ready to elect leaders.
Another reader, Paloma, then wrote
"Giving "the people" the right to vote without open access to informational resources is like giving a baby a high-end laptop. It's a great device--in theory--but what can the user do with it except mess it up?"
This is quite galling-- it sounds like you're saying people are too dumb to vote. I'd wager that's not what you mean. I'd wager what you actually mean is that people who don't agree with you are too dumb to vote.
Alright, a few thoughts. The first thing I would note is the irony of Paloma's response to Chimaobi's argument. It's funny to me that in a conversation that is fundamentally about the quality of our discourse someone would try to win a debate with such a simplistic, rhetorical and inaccurate straw man. As you can see if you actually read what Chimaobi wrote, if you step beyond that one-sentence quote he wasn't placing the blame on "the people" for being dumb, but rather on the powerful for not popularizing enough real information to make their decisions informed enough to mean anything. I wouldn't go as far in my analysis as Chimaobi does, I still have some faith, but I think we should at least start with an actual discussion about the realities of our country rather than falling back on platitudes and accusations (I'm sure this is somewhat hypocritical, but I'm trying and if I do that yell at me!).
I think the depth of information and education in this country is shallow enough to raise serious questions about the quality of our democracy and call for a serious discussion of it. First of all, you can't deny that there is an elite class of consultant, political operatives and media pundits whose job it is to manipulate information in a way that is advantageous to their causes. If you simply consider the norms of politico debate (see GOP-Open today), arguments often focus around the tactics of manipulation in politics that will convince parts of the electorate to focus more or less on certain issues so that different parties can win elections. It's a matter of those of higher education and training using superior information (polling, marketing, advertising) to move people to vote and think differently. Some call this persuasion, but when it comes to something like Bill Clinton advocating for school uniforms or President Bush going around the country to sell a Social Security plan based on what were simply false statistics, it's not an issue of changing people's minds so much as distracting them or lying to them (or both). The extent to which people don't have good enough information about the importance of issues (school uniforms imposed by Fed Gov't: not particularly important compared to, say, nuclear proliferation) or about the reliability of the facts (when is social security going bankrupt? according to who's #s?), the ideological persuasion having to do with whether or not students should wear uniforms or social security should be privatized (or semi-privatized, or whatever) is beside the point.
In addition, when information is so highly influenced by money (who can afford ad campaigns, etc.), it's hard to act as if citizens are getting the information they need to assess any of this in the first place. If you were to argue that political consultants, pollsters and advertisers (along with politicians and members of the media) are simply those who constitute the public square, you would have to believe that that public square is one in which everyone's voices are heard equally and therefore the winner of a political debate has simply made the best argument or had the most inherent support in the people. This idea, that political actors come from places of equal voice and opportunity to have their say and make their case, is so inaccurate as to be laughable.
Now, I think Paloma's right that it would be dangerous to say that this means that voters are dumb, but I don't think that's what Chimaobi was saying and it's not what I am saying. I believe voters are still very able to make intelligent decisions in which they see through rhetoric and the propaganda machines on both sides and consider their own values and vote. But they aren't always given that opportunity, because there isn't always enough information to see through the propaganda. When I think that
has been done, even if I disagree with the decision, that's democracy and I accept it. What I think happens, though, is that whoever loses points out the errors of the system and the ways in which this hugely problematic aspect of our democracy gets in the way of that ideal process and the winners, unwilling to believe that their victory is in any way illegitimate, defend the system. Until, of course, the next time they lose at which point they'll see the flaws and the other side will defend the system.
Quite frankly, the problem is that there aren't enough people who are intellectually honest enough to assess the system regardless of their partisanship and weigh the health of our democracy. What do you think? Are you? Hell, am I?
lunchtime video!
Question one: what do Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, the College Republicans and love all have in common? Answer: they're all in today's lunchtime video! You heard me, this is a video of an adoring introduction of Tom Delay by Jack Abramoff to speak to the College Republican National Convention in 2002. And oh boy do all three seem to love each other! (
wmp and
quicktime)
Questions two and three: how many members of the Harvard Republican Club (of 2002) were there? When is the HRC going to condemn Abramoff and Delay? Answer: Maybe they're waiting to get
White House talking points before they do anything...
Alito Confirmation Hearings
If you're not performing heart surgery or anything, I encourage you to watch or listen to the Supreme Court
Confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito or put it in the background as you work. He's currently being questioned by local big-wig Senator Ed Kennedy and it's pretty entertaining and insightful.
lunchtime video!
I think I've posted this before, but it's worth a second viewing. After all, there aren't that many popular protest songs these days, especially not that are performed on Leno.
Bright Eyes, When the President Talks to God.
goings on
What's goings on, you ask? Well, everyone's back and writing.
Chimaobi's discussing the death penalty and why race still matters on a local, national and international scale,
Katie wonders about toilet paper and the deeper implications of even the mundane choices we make,
Deb notes McDonald's strange appeal to Asian-Americans and anti-Asian racist humor, and there's still a little discussion of
my post about blogs and traditional "hard news" (check out the official response from Team Zebra!). Phew, lot's of reading! But what the heck, it's that or write a paper!
Also, the "Harvard Links" sidebar on the right has been updated, check out our fellow Harvard bloggers. Let me know if I've missed any!
Asian Americans heart McDonalds
A year ago, McDonald's launched
www.i-am-asian.com, where a caption under changing pictures of Asian Americans exuberantly consuming various McDonald's fare reads:
We're Asian and Pacific Islander Americans and our diverse cultures and our everyday American lifestyle are becoming one. We're hanging on to our great traditions while we move to the beat of the times. We honor our heritage and we love being Americans. From high fashion to high tech, from Asian Pacific American hip hop to haute cuisine, we're weaving the threads of our culture into the fabric of everyday American life. Whether we're celebrating one of our cultural holidays or enjoying a Big Mac sandwich, we're helping make the magic mix called America become even richer. And McDonald's is right there with us, everyday! We are proud of our cultural heritage. (more in extended post)
Luckily, I think this sad attempt to twist cultural awareness into a marketing campaign will simply be met by dismissal (or annoyance, if like me you noticed that "Taiwanese" isn't included under the fifteen cultures "McDonald Celebrates"). I do reluctantly admit, though, that the fact that Asian Americans are getting a nod in any marketing campaign is unusual and at least recognizes we are a growing population and can't be ignored.
An extension from this example, which tries not to participate in racial pidgeonholing, is how essential it is to be aware of and to avoid stereotyping as a form of racism. A list-serv discussion of this brought up the point that this is something that is very
not okay, but is often found to be hilarious simply because it's not considered wrong. The prime example of this is making fun of Asian accents. Years ago, it used to be a German accent that was found to be so funny, and now it seems to be a Chinese one.
Here's an example that was quoted, where "Tai Mai Shu" (tie my shoe) sings/raps in a Cantonese accent about he wants to eat a cheeseburger at McDonald's for 39 cents and how Asians study hard etc. For some reason, it seems acceptable for people not to be politically correct about Asians in America.
lunchtime video!
I really enjoyed this: FOX NEWS, THE MUSIC VIDEO! (
wmp and
quicktime)
The Continued Significance of Race
Here is a particularly revealing article on the recent
racially fueled rioting in Australia. In light of this and the Fall
rioting that occurred in France (although for VERY different reasons), what is the current status of race relations internationally? Are they improving or deteriorating? This is a question rarely debated by intellectuals on an international scale and I don't propose that I am the most capable person in answering it. Being born and predominantly raised in the U.S., I can say very little about race relations outside of these borders. I can, however, say that I feel there are certain powerful forces that continue to make race a salient factor in people's daily and long-term interactions. Additionally, far too often people neglect to bring up these issues in public setting to avoid voilent results of racially motivated social unrest. Even the most vehement
Black Panther or
Weather Underground Organization members and supporters surely wished they could achieve their goals and still avoid violent clashes with the most powerful, wealthy, and
deadly government in the history of mankind. Race is far too complicated, deep-rooted, and personal, however. (more in expanded post)
I, for one, truly wish race did not exist. As a Black man in the 20th and 21st Centuries, it has rarely worked to my benefit. Race as a recent social construct in the Western World was created out of a need to justify the discrimination between Blacks from Africa and Whites from Europe on a basis beyond simple nationality or ethnic grouping. Blacks were identified as being from a different, lesser race and therefore it was OK for White Europeans (with all of their modern civility, religious piety, and intellectual maturity) to enslave, beat, kill, and rape them for financial gain. The effects of this supremacy of one group of people over another group of people based on physical traits such as skin tone, eye color, and hair texture in addition to cultural traits such as religion, style of dress, and marital customs has not been erased despite the external slave trade being officially ended in the U.S. nearly
200 years ago. An excellent book on this subject has been written by
Na'im Akbar and I suggest it for all who are interested in such a topic. Sadly, far too many Whites in the U.S. and abroad still see themselves as the master and far too many Blacks and other people of color still see themselves as the slaves.
Racism is still alive and well, despite what many
U.S. residents think and especially at places like Harvard. Most students who identify as racial minorities can most likely state a number of incidents during their time here where they were treated a particularly unfair and hurtful way on the basis of preconceived race-based notions. These situations occur in the streets, in the yard, in the classrooms, in dining halls, and anywhere else stereotypes are not confronted and prejudices not debunked. A campus-wide debate on race is something that is far from most people's minds. This might sound strange to individuals on campus who are in groups like the BSA, AAA, or Fuerza where these topics are frequently discussed in some respect, but for the majority of students on our campus who are White (
non-Hispanic, of course) and choose not to become members of these groups (since membership in all of them is completely open) four years can pass and they may never confront racial ideas that they held as 17 and 18 year-old first-years. For all the lauding of campus diversity here, simply attending class with someone of a different background or living down the hall from them does not suffice. In order to get the most out of the relative diversity that Harvard
does offer, one must emerge out of their secluded and comfortable bubble. Remarkably, Harvard IS the most diverse school I've ever attended since my previous schools were even more
racially, socioeconomically, and religously homogenous.
In his seminal book
The Declining Significance of Race, Lewis F. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor
William Julius Wilson posits that class disparities are becoming more salient than racial disparities and now form the chief rift in U.S. society. Whether or not you agree with Professor Wilson, one cannot neglect the fact that race still plays a huge role in domestic and global society today. The two riots at the beginning of this post that garnered international media attention attest to this.
Hurricane Katrina attests to this. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's
comment on the recent public transportation strike attests to this. The recent
murder of Stanley Williams by the State of California attests to this. The end-result bad guy in all of these scenarios is White (Bush, Bloomberg, and Schwarzenegger) and the victims are overwhelmingly or solely Black (Katrina victims, Union members, and Stanley Williams). This is exactly what racism is: power utilized by a member of one racial group to the detriment of another. Two of these situations brought about death (Katrina and Stanley Williams) and the other brought about fines and may bring jail time. The power that Whites have over Blacks worldwide is still widespread. Until government bodies are representative of the populations they serve and understanding and fruitful collaboration is fostered between individuals of different backgrounds, positive race relations will continue to be hampered on campus and in the far corners of the globe.
lunchtime video!
Not much explanation necessary: Chris Matthews (of HARDBALL!)
tears to shreds a guest trying to defend the President's secret wiretapping.
wanna work for Harvard?
Seriously, do you? I'm on an email list for various DC-like jobs (organizing and press stuff mostly), and an email went out looking for a Director of Internal Communications for Harvard College. Not exactly an easy job, so I'm not surprised they're having to do a little trolling for applicants. Reading the job application solicitation is certainly entertaining though, and, more importantly, very telling about how the Harvard administration approaches its role:
Director of Internal Communications, Harvard College
Harvard College seeks an experienced communications professional to assume leadership of branding efforts for internal communications College-wide, utilizing print and web media. Reporting to the Associate Dean for Administration and Finance, this is a new position, created to advance one of the strategic priorities of the College: building a Harvard College community.
The Director will develop and guide strategies, policies, and standards for the production of College handbooks and other major print and web publications such as those of the Freshman Dean’s office, Residential Life, Registrar, and the Office of Academic Programs. The Director will provide communication support for the Dean and Deputy Dean. S/he will work with the College Senior Management Team to create a unified brand for Harvard College across publications and websites; develop a three year plan to digitize major publications; and assess and manage web-based media across the College. The Director will serve as liaison to FAS information technology, communications, development, and alumni relations, and with other University entities to determine, prioritize, and produce college related documents meant for public consumption.(more in expanded post)
Qualifications: The successful candidate will have a demonstrated record of success in positions of progressive responsibility in communications, including branding, for a complex and fast-paced organization, preferably a college or university. He/she will have exceptional interpersonal, project and staff management, and writing skills; the ability to set priorities and manage competing demands in a changing environment; the ability to set and maintain quality controls; and flexibility. The qualified candidate will have a proven record of working collaboratively and persuasively with a wide range of constituents, including senior leadership. Master’s preferred, BA required.
Application procedure: Harvard University has retained the services of New Leadership Group to assist with this search. Review of applications will begin immediately. Applications (resume and names of three references) and nominations should be sent to Gale Batchelder, Principal, New Leadership Group, at galebatchelder@verizon.net. For further information about this position, contact 617-547-3159.
What do you think? Wanna work on the Harvard brand for a living?
lunchtime video!
Today's lunchtime video is a little different. It's not particularly funny; in fact, it's pretty intense. And it is, admittedly, a little over the top. But it's also something that every person frightened by the fact that our country has been taken over by religious ideologues and wealthy social Darwinians should watch, and take to heart. This isn't just some intellectual academic exercise.
The battle for America has begun.
love ;)
Wear a Vest
Here's an interesting
New York Times article claiming that up to 80% of the marines killed in Iraq could have been saved had they had proper equipment from the Pentagon.
blog schmog, hard news schmard news
Cambridge Common got a mention in today's Crimson by technology columnist Matt Gline.
Gline focused on the hesitations we should have when approaching the influence of the newly emerging blogosphere:
The trouble is that certain issues tend to get magnified by this bunch, and others suppressed. [...] It’s easy to fall into a trap wherein one believes that by reading the opinions of a few ostensibly well-informed pundits one is oneself well informed. As we saw in December, blogs can do a lot to improve the state of political discourse, and they can do it in ways traditional papers are not yet agile enough to keep pace with. Still, one reason blogs can be so much faster than newspapers is that the latter puts forth an effort to be balanced and well fact-checked, so it’s worth our time to read them and keep our eyes open for incongruities in blog coverage and for stories that might be worthwhile despite a dearth of attention.
Believe it or not, I think Gline is basically right. Blogs aren't a good source of purely "objective" news, and the priorities of what is published are purely based on the priorities and interests of the writer and the interest level of their audience. Some bloggers may be so confident in their own priorities and interests that they feel that theirs is the only perspective necessary to understanding the world (ahem, DailyKos), these people are to be avoided or taken with a grain of salt. Gline is right to emphasize this problem and warn readers against falling into this trap.
BUT I think he misses an important point that many bloggers, myself included, think is equally important. Bloggers aren't the only one's whose "objectivity" should be looked at with a critical eye.(more in expanded post)
The traditional distinction, and the one Gline is making in this column, is between "hard" and "soft" news. Newspapers aspire to write hard news, columnists, blogs, weekend magazines mostly write soft news, the hardness or softness depending on the level of objectivity aspired to, the depth of fact-checking and reliability of the source on both of these counts.
What I think Gline misses while correctly emphasizing the softness of blogging is that part of the critique offered by bloggers is that hard news is not nearly as hard as it would like you to think. Fox News would be the best example of that, but you could also point to things like the questionable relationships people like Judith Miller or Bob Woodward-important reporters at important papers (formerly in Miller's case)- had with their sources to see that newspapers are far from objective reporters of objective truths. This isn't to say that the New York Times and the Washington Post shouldn't be trusted but just that they also can't be taken as the ultimate determinates of hard truth. I've repeatedly offered a similar critique of the Crimson for similar problems, inadequacies of coverage, etc. As the
Crimson leadership itself has admitted, for instance, its own lack of diversity slants its news coverage. Said Marra, the incoming President, in his shoot paper (his application for the job):
When we lack diversity on all fronts, including racial and socioeconomic, our coverage suffers from a lack of perspective, and our editors lack information about campus events and issues.
So, while I think Gline is certainly right to take note of how problematic it would be to think blogs to be an objective source of hard news, we shouldn't ignore the problematic subjectivity of those who are actually making claims at being "hard news." It's obviously not on the same scale; the Crimson at least aspires and often succeeds at something closer to objectivity and I never aspire to it at all. But it's not an either/or situation. Take Gline's advice to heart, but don't forget to turn the same set of questions on others.
How do you get the attention of the media in a society of short attention spans and theatrical politics? Make a good picture. In case you can't tell, the person at the podium in the back center of the picture is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, defending the Administration's domestic spying today in a speech at Georgetown Law School. From the NYTs, and you can see a few more pictures here.
So Gwen Stefani has these Harajuku girls. They are four Japanese women hired by Gwen to be her posse/shadows. They go everywhere with her, appearing on the red carpet, in her music videos, her album cover, and are mentioned in almost every song on her solo album, including a song she wrote about them (called...Harajuku Girls).
