14 POINTS OF FASCISM

From DailyKos

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.


NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).


“What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined.” :

From Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)

Posted in Fascism. Comments Off

Constant Reinforcement Through Usage Changes Frozen Thinking

Instead of fighting with transgender people and repeating the same arguments about feeling colonized and erased by the insistence upon “Transgender as Umbrella”.  I withdrew from the battle.  I said, “Time out!”  Re-examined.  Engaged in criticism/self-criticism and came to the conclusion that the whole battle was a waste of energy.

After all I really didn’t hate transgender people.  There is nothing in being born with transsexualism that requires me to hate people born with transgenderism and we certainly seem to have a lot of rabid ultra right wing religious fanatics as a common enemy.  Besides as a person who identifies as the L-word of the queer alphabet I was down with standing up for the rights of transgender people too.

So what I did was start writing it “T/T” and making a point of using “transsexual and transgender” instead of just “transgender”.  Along with calling a moratorium on name calling and expressing a willingness to work ad hoc on issues involving all of us.

Well like WBT, which caught on in next to no time it seems as if more people especially in Canada are using “T/T” and “Transsexual and Transgender”

The following is from a review of a Lady Gaga concert in Vancouver:

The full review is in The North Shore News and is titled:

Lady Gaga review: Vancouver gets Gaga-fied

By Jennifer Luther, North Shore News August 24 2010

http://www.nsnews.com/entertainment/Lady+Gaga+review+Vancouver+gets+Gaga+fied/3436902/story.html#ixzz0xZHAiSQk

“Surprisingly Gaga emphasizes real experiences in her Monster Ball material. She played a heart-wrenching song about her father’s alcoholism on the piano (during which the instrument erupted in to a flaming tornado), sneezed in to the microphone, spat on stage to clear her throat, and spoke openly about lesbian, gay, transgender and transsexual rights.”

Perhaps winning rights is also a matter of quiet insistence and constant reinforcement.  Perhaps rather than changing our message we should attack the validity of their message.
Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

New US poll report finds changing attitudes to homosexuality

Aha there is a reason for the sudden up sweep of targeting Muslims in America for attack and the backing off on L/G folks.

What is the point in gathering a lynch mob if the lynch mob is disinclined to hate the group you want them to hate.

The entire point of demagoguery is misdirection.  Get people focused on hating someone and then they won’t notice how the greedy corporate/Wall Street rich are ass raping them.

From Pink News UK http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/23/new-us-poll-finds-changing-attitudes-to-same-sex-marriage/

By Christopher Brocklebank

August 23, 2010

According to new national research, Americans have become more accepting of homosexuality of the past 16 years, with over half of those polled saying they support civil unions.

As reported in the Desert Sun, a 1994 Pew Research Centre poll had found that under half its respondents agreed that homosexuality was “a way of life” that should be accepted by society.

But the Public Religion Research Institute’s new report, released last Friday and compiled from a selction of public studies done over the last 20 years, said support for same-sex civil unions had risen from 45 per cent in 2003 to 57 per cent in 2009. The increase in support for same-sex marriage was more modest, but still showed an rise in support from 30 per cent in 2003 to 38 per cent in 2010.

Among religious respondents to the recent polls, Latino Catholics showed more movement toward supporting gay marriage (at 57 per cent) than Latino Protestants (at 22 per cent).

Continue reading at:  http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/23/new-us-poll-finds-changing-attitudes-to-same-sex-marriage/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Peeling Away Theories on Gender and the Brain

Ah the pendulum swings back in refuting the last 30 years of misogynistic backlash to trying to convince people that male brains and female brains are inherently different.

I have been down on the whole idea of gender and boy brain/girl brain for a long time because I see that argument as being one step from an argument that this the reason men are superior and should rule over women.

I view gender as a social construct that is for the most part learned rather than innate.  There are certain innate elements but what really creates gender is a magnification of it.  There is an interesting quote from Jan Morris:

Jan Morris, the historian, travel writer and male-to-female transsexual, saw this implicit stereotyping firsthand: “The more I was treated as a woman, the more woman I became. ”

From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/science/24scibks.html?_r=1&ref=books

Peeling Away Theories on Gender and the Brain

By KATHERINE BOUTON
“Delusions of Gender” takes on that tricky question, Why exactly are men from Mars and women from Venus?, and eviscerates both the neuroscientists who claim to have found the answers and the popularizers who take their findings and run with them.

The author, Cordelia Fine, who has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience from University College London, is an acerbic critic, mincing no words when it comes to those she disagrees with. But her sharp tongue is tempered with humor and linguistic playfulness, as the title itself suggests. Academics like Simon Baron-Cohen and Dr. Louann Brizendine will want to come to this volume well armed. So would Norman Geschwind if he were still alive. Popular authors like John Gray (“Men are from Mars”), Michael Gurian (“What Could He Be Thinking?”) and Dr. Leonard Sax (“Why Gender Matters”) may want to read something else.

Sometimes all it takes is their own words, as in this example from Dr. Brizendine’s 2007 book “The Female Brain”: “Maneuvering like an F-15, Sarah’s female brain is a high-performance emotion machine — geared to tracking, moment by moment, the nonverbal signals of the innermost feelings of others.” Is Sarah some kind of psychic? Dr. Fine clarifies: “She is simply a woman who enjoys the extraordinary gift of mind reading that, apparently, is bestowed on all owners of a female brain.”

Experts used to attribute gender inequality to the “delicacy of the brain fibers” in women ; then to the smaller dimensions of the female brain (the “missing five ounces,” the Victorians called it); then to the ratio of skull length to skull breadth. In 1915 the neurologist Dr. Charles L. Dana wrote in this newspaper that because a woman’s upper spinal cord is smaller than a man’s it affects women’s “efficiency” in the evaluation of “political initiative or of judicial authority in a community’s organization” — and thus compromises their ability to vote.

These days gender inequality is commonly explained by neurological differences, most popularly the notion that the surge of testosterone that occurs in the eighth week of fetal development affects the relative size of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and of the corpus callosum, the bundle of neurons that connects the two. In the 1980s Norman Geschwind proposed that the surge results in a smaller left hemisphere for males, leaving them with greater potential for right-hemisphere development, which, as he put it, results in “superior right-hemisphere talents, such as artistic, musical, or mathematical talent.” In female brains the hemispheres are more collaborative, explaining women’s superior verbalizing skills.

Continue reading at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/science/24scibks.html?_r=1&ref=books

TG Marriage Rights & Religious Fundies: What “I Believe”

April Ashley interview: Britain’s first transsexual

Britain’s first transsexual April Ashley has led a jet-setting life crammed with glamour, excitement and legions of besotted men, most of them famous.

From The Telegraph UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/7947945/April-Ashley-interview-Britains-first-transsexual.html

By Sabine Durrant
Published: 11:00AM BST 22 Aug 2010

April Ashley

Photo: CHRIS BROOKS

April Ashley, Britain’s first transsexual, is, at 75, a woman confident of her own stature. When she arrives at the restaurant where we are to have lunch, she strikes a momentary pose in the doorway, the hems of her white slacks a little damp from the sudden summer rain outside, but her blue bouffant hair, her mascara’ed eyelashes, immaculate.

Once her chair has been pulled out for her, she tips her head graciously at any fellow diners who may be staring, gives a trill of her pink-nailed fingers to each waiter (‘How lovely to see you’), and to the sommelier bids, ‘A glass of champagne, but not a normal glass of champagne. An April Ashley glass of champagne.’

She has taken the bus and has walked for miles – she is, by her own admission, somewhat on her uppers – but it turns out this is one of her old haunts. ‘I used to know the chef, such a wonderful man, and he used to say to me, “April,” he used to say, “you are welcome here any time.” Of course,’ she adds in an aside that manages to parlay parsimony into grandeur, ‘I never had to pay.’

Ashley is in many ways a 20th-century phenomenon. She is Zelig meets Jade Goody meets Joan Collins, a woman whose life has taken her from the slums of Liverpool to the shores of California, from the merchant navy to the nightspots of Paris.

Her sex change took place in 1960, 50 years ago, in a world before a transsexual could win Big Brother, or operate on the Queen Mother, long before the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, though, pre- or post-op, her life reads like the plot of a beach novel.

US – People don’t really like unselfish colleagues…

We try harder.  Being abused as children and made to feel inferior and second class our entire lives leads to our putting out morre effort to do well in hopes of avoiding abuse for being “trannie freaks”.  Even if we are super passable and deep stealth, we know and the voice in the our mind whispers, “Work harder, show them your value and then they won’t fire you, will promote you”…

The two sisters who are infamous for being the ones trashed publicly by lesbian feminists are actually people I’ve met or know on an acquaintance level.  I know them both to be the dedicated heart and soul type people who were described by people in their organizations as the most dedicated and hardest working members of their respective organizations.

Their reward was to wind up being trashed.

Maybe there is an explanation beyond simple transphobia for some of this pattern.

[2010-08-23 PhysOrg]

http://www.physorg.com/news201776943.html

Social Sciences

People don’t really like unselfish colleagues

August 23, 2010

You know those goody-two-shoes who volunteer for every task and thanklessly take on the annoying details nobody else wants to deal with?

That’s right: Other people really can’t stand them.

Four separate studies led by a Washington State University social psychologist have found that unselfish workers who are the first to throw their hat in the ring are also among those that coworkers most want to, in effect, vote off the island.

“It’s not hard to find examples but we were the first to show this happens and have explanations for why,” said Craig Parks, lead author of “The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members from the Group” in the current Journal of Personality and Social Psychology< http://www.physorg.com/tags/journal+of+personality+and+social+psychology/ >.

The phenomenon has implications for business work groups, volunteer organizations, non-profit projects, military units, and environmental efforts, an interest of Parks’ coauthor and former PhD student, Asako Stone.

Parks and Stone found that unselfish colleagues come to be resented because they “raise the bar” for what is expected of everyone. As a result, workers feel the new standard will make everyone else look bad.

It doesn’t matter that the overall welfare of the group or the task at hand is better served by someone’s unselfish behavior, Parks said.

“What is objectively good, you see as subjectively bad,” he said.

The do-gooders are also seen as deviant rule breakers. It’s as if they’re giving away Monopoly money so someone can stay in the game, irking other players to no end.

The studies gave participants—introductory psychology students—pools of points that they could keep or give up for an immediate reward of meal service vouchers. Participants were also told that giving up points would improve the group’s chance of receiving a monetary reward.

In reality, the participants were playing in fake groups of five. Most of the fictitious four would make seemingly fair swaps of one point for each voucher, but one of the four would often make lopsided exchanges—greedily giving up no points and taking a lot of vouchers, or unselfishly giving up a lot of points and taking few vouchers< http://www.physorg.com/tags/vouchers/ >.

Most participants later said they would not want to work with the greedy colleague again—an expected result seen in previous studies.

But a majority of participants also said they would not want to work with the unselfish colleague again. They frequently said, “the person is making me look bad” or is breaking the rules. Occasionally, they would suspect the person had ulterior motives.

Parks said he would now like to look at how the do-gooders themselves react to being rejected. While some may indeed have ulterior motives, he said it’s more likely they actually are working for the good of an organization.

Excluded from the group, they may say, “enough already” and simply give up.

“But it’s also possible,” he said, “that they may actually try even harder.”

-

More information: The desire to expel unselfish members from the group; Parks, Craig D.; Stone, Asako B.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 99(2), Aug 2010, 303-310. doi:10.1037/a0018403 < http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0018403 >

The desire to expel unselfish members from the group.
By Parks, Craig D.; Stone, Asako B.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 99(2), Aug 2010, 303-310.
Abstract
An initial study investigating tolerance of group members who abuse a public good surprisingly showed that unselfish members (those who gave much toward the provision of the good but then used little of the good) were also targets for expulsion from the group. Two follow-up studies replicated this and ruled out explanations grounded in the target being seen as confused or unpredictable. A fourth study suggested that the target is seen by some as establishing an undesirable behavior standard and by others as a rule breaker. Individuals who formed either perception expressed a desire for the unselfish person to be removed from the group. Implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

Provided by Washington State University

© PhysOrg.com 2003-2010

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

California passes law strengthening religious freedom for clergy

Okay… We’ve put that lame argument to bed.  We want “Civil Marriage”.  If tax-exempt Hate Groups don’t want to marry us in their government services subsidized tax free establishments they don’t have to.

I for one wouldn’t want that to happen.  Further were I to ever relent on that one rest assured it would be for a church like the Universal Unitarians, who aren’t a bunch of bigoted hate mongers.

From San Diego Gay and Lesbian Newshttp://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/20/california-passes-law-strengthening-religious-freedom-clergy

SDGLN Staff | Fri, 08/20/2010 – 11:15am

SACRAMENTO — The California Assembly on Thursday passed the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act (SB 906) in a 46-25 vote.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and co-sponsored by Equality California and California Council of Churches IMPACT, protects clergy from performing any civil marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith.

The bill also protects religious institutions from losing their tax-exempt status for refusing to perform any civil marriage, and deepens the distinction in state law between religious and civil marriage by defining the latter as a civil contract that requires a state-issued marriage license.

“Opponents of marriage equality have falsely claimed that allowing same-sex couples to marry will force clergy to violate the tenets of their faiths,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. “This bill should alleviate any concerns that restoring marriage equality will require clergy to perform weddings inconsistent with their faith.”

“This bill simply affirms that California is a diverse state, and that we can all co-exist and make space for each others’ beliefs without compromising the tenets of any religious group or individual,” Leno said.

“With the recent federal court ruling, we know that marriage for same-sex couples in California is on the horizon. Under the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, churches and clergy members who fear their religious views are threatened by marriage equality will have clear and solid protections under state law. In addition, churches that welcome same-sex couples will continue to fully recognize those families within their faith.”

SB 906 now returns to the Senate floor for a concurrence vote before heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Monday Morning Thoughts

Now That’s Rich

From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?ref=opinion

8/23/2010

By PAUL KRUGMAN

We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period. It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

Continue reading at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?ref=opinion

Posted in Economic Issues. Comments Off

Watching Godard Films on a Saturday Night

Last night we watched Jean Luc Godard’s film “Masculin, féminin” A film about the children of Marx and Coca Cola.

So 1960s. so reminiscent of my first love affair and the time we spent in Northside Cinema and the Telegraph Repertory Cinema.

Françoise Hardy had a cameo in the film.  The lead character played girl singer much like Françoise Hardy

D.I.Y. Music Labels Embrace D.I.Y. Film

If any reading this remember my apathetic response to “Ticked-off Trannys With Knives” then you might remember that while I thought the film demeaning and degrading I wasn’t in favor of censoring it and I felt that picketing it and making a big scene about it was giving it free publicity.

But there was another suggestion…  Make our own films, books, music and buy it ourselves as well as market it to the world beyond our various subcultures (although if you include the full range of the queer alphabet defined people you are talking major subculture/alternative culture)

Therefore I am fascinated with Blogs, “zine, independent publishers, independent musicians like Ani diFranco etc…  Use what is out there.  Back when I was young and a hippie left wing radical we had a saying “If you don’t like the news, Go make some of your own.”

The following was in today’s New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/movies/22indie.html?_r=1&ref=arts

August 20, 2010

D.I.Y. Music Labels Embrace D.I.Y. Film

By MELENA RYZIK

ON a midsummer night a few dozen people, many in glasses and with messenger bags, gathered at Zebulon, a bar in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to watch a new low-budget movie called “The Builder.” The story of a contemplative Irish immigrant, it moved slowly, driven by atmosphere rather than dialogue, but the audience watched patiently at small candle-lit tables, beers in hand. It was the antithesis of a typical summer-movie outing, but that was sort of the point.

“It’s just great to see people with drinks and candles,” said R. Alverson, the film’s director. “It’s so much more personal than seeing it in a theater.”

Everything about “The Builder” seems personal. Mr. Alverson, a musician-turned-filmmaker, made it with friends and untrained actors for $5,000, including the cost of camera gear. To release it, he turned to Jagjaguwar, an indie rock label in Bloomington, Ind., whose roster of musicians includes Bon Iver, Okkervil River and Mr. Alverson’s former band. Jagjaguwar put “The Builder” out on DVD, organized a few screenings and hoped for the best.

“As a film distributor, we have no experience,” said Chris Swanson, who helps run the label. “We’re approaching it the same way we did music, like, find a nice room and put the work on display in a dignified manner.”

The audience was small, but Jagjaguwar had already agreed to finance Mr. Alverson’s next feature. It views him as an artistic investment: helping him develop his oeuvre is akin to supporting a band from the release of its first seven-inch.

“I realized his artistic voice is far more conducive to film, and if he had a continuum of work, it would have real meaning,” Mr. Swanson said. “And our audience knows how to take it in.”

Continue reading at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/movies/22indie.html?_r=1&ref=arts

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Don’t know much biology

From T-Notes: http://goqnotes.com/8002/don%E2%80%99t-know-much-biology/

by Robbi Cohn August 21, 2010

Reposted with permission

I always liked Sam Cooke’s “Wonderful World.” The lyrics, “don’t know much about history, don’t know much biology,” really get to me. When I went to college, I was headed for a pre-med curriculum. That didn’t last as I found myself, ultimately, studying philosophy and history of religions. My scientific acumen is mostly that of a layperson, even though I do have a bit of a pre-med background. That being said, I sometimes find myself doubting efforts to find a biological or genetic foundation for gender diversity. This uncertainty manifests in several ways.

First is the issue of choice. Many of us have said that being gender diverse is not a choice, that it’s the way we are constituted. Such reasoning dismisses the possibility that a person might choose any way of being in the world. We choose religion, profession and a myriad of other so-called lifestyles. We say that gender diversity, however, is not a lifestyle, but an essential part of who we are, and not a choice. There is grey area here — is it not possible that someone, for any number of reasons, might believe they are gender diverse? What happens if, given we ascertain a genetic or biological component, a person who does not have said genetic component still maintains their gender diversity? Such a requirement (the genetic marker) becomes a gauntlet a person must run to “qualify” officially, or medically, as gender diverse. Failure to do so would mean failure to obtain treatment.

It’s bad enough that trans persons must already pass muster with the psychiatric community in its capacity as gatekeeper. Imagine the situation if you add geneticists and medical doctors to that gatekeeper cadre. If we weren’t already marginalized and disenfranchised enough, and if we didn’t already have to face the demon of internal factionalism, creating more complex hurdles we must jump can do nothing but exacerbate a situation which is already problematic.

It should be obvious that imposing new standards contributes to the second issue, namely the escalation of elitism and hierarchy building. I have been following a heated debate in one of my news groups which makes this point perfectly. The individual with the adversarial position is a self-avowed conservative and Republican, and describes herself as transsexual. Her position is that only bona fide transsexuals, who will eventually be able to document a genetic anomaly, will be afforded equal protection under the law. Others, whom she describes as “transvestites,” are not so lucky. She avers that transsexual persons will have science on their side; so-called “transvestites” will only be able to avail themselves of “pseudo-science” and some illusive phenomenon she calls ‘freedom of choice.” Well, so much for the ideals upon which this country was founded.

This distorted perspective is both ignorant and destructive given the basis of her argument. It’s separatist, elitist and not so arcane as to be believed by a mere few. If you were to excise this mindset out of the trans community and transpose it into the aforementioned legion of gatekeepers, you find yourself face-to-face with the last and perhaps most serious issue: the control of the selection process and permission granting residing with psychiatric and medical overseers.

Preacher Albert Mohler has already endorsed pre-natal treatment to turn homosexual fetuses into heterosexual should a genetic marker become available. Such an approach brings us to the brink of eugenics and un-natural selection. J. Michael Bailey, an alleged trans clinician, has endorsed this position as well. (Let it be said that Bailey has been the subject of controversial methodology and has been excoriated by many in the trans community for his trans bigotry and his support for reparative therapy.)

This following quote comes from a 2001 paper, Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation, by Aaron S. Greenberg, JD and J. Michael Bailey, PhD. “It appears to be the case, then, that if allowing parents to select for heterosexuality is to be evaluated based on motive and consequence, one would be hardpressed to find it to be morally wrong. First, there are several plausible parental motives that range from morally acceptable to morally praiseworthy. Furthermore, parental freedom to select children’s important characteristics is a highly valuable, and highly valued, liberty. Finally, selection for heterosexuality (even when done out of the worst motives) can benefit parents and children and seems unlikely to cause harm sufficient to outweigh those benefits and the value of parental liberty.”

Liberty for one (the parent) means forced choice for another (the child).

One is left to question if this same logic would apply to selection for gender diversity. (I think we can guess the answer to that question). Interventionist medical protocols are not necessarily the best thing for any given individual, but the medical community has systematically availed itself of this course of action and too often decisions of this nature are made based on a practitioner’s ethos — which does not always jibe with that of the individual being treated. Until recently, this mindset has been standard operating procedure for children with intersex conditions. The Bailey/Mohler paradigm crosses a threshold which is fraught with danger as some look for biology to substantiate the validity of gender diversity.

I am generally a favorable ally in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, whatever it is. And, I really believe that there may be medical and genetic foundations for gender diversity, which makes efforts toward curtailing elitism and the regulation of some genetic discoveries critical considering how many bigots would love to use said science to make gender diversity (and being gay) extinct. : :

Comments and corrections can be sent to editor@goqnotes.com. To contact Robbi Cohn, email robbi_cohn108@yahoo.com.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Economic forecaster: ‘Greatest Depression’ coming

From Raw Story: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0820/economic-forecaster-greatest-depression-coming/

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, August 20th, 2010 — 5:42 pm

Collapse of middle class means there’s no fuel for recovery, Gerald Celente argues

The US economic recovery in recent quarters is little more than a “cover-up” and the world is headed for a “Greatest Depression,” complete with social unrest and class warfare, says a renowned economic forecaster.

Gerald Celente, head of the Trends Research Institute, told Yahoo!News’ Tech Ticker that there’s no risk of a “double-dip recession” because the first “dip” never ended.

“We’re saying there’s no double dip, it never ended,” Celente said. “We’re looking at the Greatest Depression. There’s no way out of this without [rebuilding] productive capacity. You can’t print [money to get] out of it.”

Celente, who has been credited with predicting the 1987 stock market crash, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subprime mortgage crisis of recent years, said the US and other developed countries can expect to see the sort of social unrest the world witnessed in Greece this year once government attempts to shore up the economy fail and lawmakers turn to “austerity measures” to plug gaping budget holes.

Continue reading at:  http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0820/economic-forecaster-greatest-depression-coming/

Posted in Class War, Economic Issues, Uncategorized. Comments Off

3 Pillars Of A Food Revolution

From Cross Currents: http://www.countercurrents.org/lappe210810.htm

By Anna Lappé

21 August, 2010
YES! Magazine

http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/3-pillars-of-a-food-revolution

As marketers learn to fake climate-friendly food, how do we spot the real thing? Anna Lappé says it’s a question of values.

A few years ago, I stumbled on a United Nations study that transformed how I think about the climate crisis. In the report, researchers pegged greenhouse gases from the livestock sector at 18 percent of total global emissions. Combine this with other aspects of our food chain—from agricultural chemical production to agribusiness driven deforestation to food waste rotting in landfills—and food and agriculture sector is responsible for nearly one third of the planet’s manmade emissions. Move over Hummer; it’s time to say hello to the hamburger.

It doesn’t take high-level math to realize if we’re serious about averting the climate crisis, we need to add the food chain to our conversation. (Of course, we should be talking about agriculture’s impact on the environment for a host of other reasons, too. Agriculture is the world’s single largest user of land and water, using up 70 percent of the world’s freshwater resources every year. Agriculture is also responsible for widespread air and water pollution and agricultural chemical runoff that causes aquatic dead zones around the world. At last count, there are more than 400, including one in the Gulf of Mexico that swells every year to a size three times larger than the BP oil spill.

So what can we do? Thankfully, we’re learning every day about the power of sustainable food systems to help reduce emissions from the food chain and mitigate the climate crisis.

Now, the “food system” may sound (and feel) like an abstract concept that has nothing to do with the sandwich sitting on your desk for lunch, but it’s all related. And that sandwich you’re about to eat connects you to the livelihoods and fates of farmers and food workers around the world. It also connects you to the climate.

We can, with every food choice we make, align ourselves with a “climate-friendly diet” by choosing to eat sustainably raised food and steer clear of feedlot meat and industrial dairy, for instance. A climate-friendly diet also means going for fresh, whole, real foods, not the processed victuals so typical in our supermarkets, and limiting food packaging and food waste. But a climate-friendly food system means more than just our following a “green” checklist; it means considering the values underpinning this kind of food system, foremost among them ecology, community, and fairness.

That values “frame” is critical, now more than ever. As the food industry catches on that more and more of us care about the climate impacts of our food and that we’re asking more questions about the provenance of what we eat, they’ve stepped up their green marketing messages. McDonald’s recently launched an “Endangered Species” Happy Meal, “to engage kids in a fun and informative way about protecting the environment,” explains project partner Conservation International. A far cry from their GM partnership several years back, which launched the Hummer Happy Meal and ended only after 42 million toy Hummers had been given away. Earlier this year, Sara Lee unleashed with much fanfare a new line of “Earth Grains” bread that promotes “innovative farming practices that promote sustainable land use” as part of what the company calls its “Plot to Save the Earth.”

This new wave of food industry marketing is creating a green-tinged fog for some of us who are trying to sort out what’s truly green and what’s just spin. But, I believe, if we frame a climate-friendly system in core values, we can see more easily through the fog. By shifting the conversation to core values, it’s much harder for the message to be co-opted, no matter the savvy of the marketers.

1. Ecology

Ecology, from the Greek oikos, for house or dwelling, and logia, for the study of, draws attention to the relationships between living things and their environment. Coined in the 1870s, the term took root in the United States in the 1960s as environmentalists strove for a way of emphasizing the importance of these relationships. As we struggle to understand the role that food plays in the climate crisis (both its power to harm and to heal), the value of agroecology is key to our understanding.

Perhaps the clearest case for the need for agroecological systems was expressed in a ground-breaking study released in April 2008 in Johannesburg, South Africa by a consortium of more than 400 scientists from around the world. The report—with the tongue-twistingly long name the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development—stressed in no uncertain terms the importance of agroecology and small-scale farming and the need for sustainable management of livestock, forest, and fisheries. The IAASTD, as it is known, urges a transition to “biological substitutes for agrochemicals” and “reducing the dependency of the agricultural sector on fossil fuels” to foster a healthy food system and one that will help us mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis.

Understanding ecology allows us to poke holes in the quick-fix solutions to climate change we’re hearing from agribusiness, like Monsanto’s promotion of genetically engineering seeds to withstand drought. (The company’s recent ad campaign—“How can we squeeze more from a raindrop?”—seems to be in every magazine I’ve picked up lately.) But as Molly Anderson, an expert on agroecology and an author of the IAASTD says: “Climate change is not something you can engineer a gene into a plant for. Climate change is a really complex set of processes. We don’t need a single super gene or a super variety that somehow will be a silver bullet approach to climate change. It’s a technological engineering approach to a biological problem.”

When we talk about our ecological food values, we’re focusing on the importance of interconnections and of the complexity of a truly sustainable food system. As agroecological farmers like to remind us, sustainable food is not just defined by the absence of chemicals—it’s about the creation of a healthy ecosystem, especially healthy, carbon-rich soils.

2. Community

Once a week, my one-year old daughter and I stroll the twelve blocks from our apartment to a towering church in Brooklyn’s Cobble Hill neighborhood to gather our fruit and vegetable “share.” My daughter has had her first taste of raspberries, green beans, basil, plums, peaches, summer squash, and more, thanks to the Green Thumb Farm. As “shareholders” in this community-supported agriculture (CSA) farm, we invested at the beginning of the growing season—along with 222 other families—and we all benefit from it weekly. We also share the risk. With the mercury at record highs this summer, the tomatoes have been thriving. Says farmer Bill Halsey of Green Thumb Farm: “Maybe the best of the century, if not longer!” But the lettuce? For the first time in fifteen years: Nada.

Today, advocates say there are between 3,000 and 4,000 CSA programs connecting families directly with farmers across the country. (In the latest agriculture census [pdf], the USDA estimates there are even more: 12,549). Of course, CSAs are just one piece in a patchwork of solutions to reknit regional foodsheds, but more importantly they exemplify the value of community that undergirds a climate-friendly food system. The relationship between farmer Bill and us eaters upends a fundamental principle of the market: that producers and consumers are necessarily opponents.

I got another taste of this profound shift when I traveled to South Korea a few years ago. While there I met with leaders in the consumer cooperative movement. I thought our local Park Slope Food Coop was impressive with more than 14,000 members. Try 150,000. That’s the membership of just one of several consumer coops I met with.

When I sat down with Seong Hee Kim, a leader of the Hansalim coop, he described its programs connecting farmers with consumers: summer camps on farms for city kids, workshops on sustainable food production, investments in bakeries stocked with local food. The core business of the co-op is the direct sale of hundreds of food items, the prices of which are mostly decided at their annual meeting. When the farmers’ reps and consumer reps sit down together, the conversation always ends in a fight—just not the kind of fight you might imagine. Rice is the most contentious, Kim explains: Without fail, the consumers insist they should support the farmers by paying more than the market price for the rice. The farmers insist that, no, consumers should actually pay less than the market price, since the cost of production is lower than what the market charges.

“And then, they get into a big argument!” said Kim, laughing.

How did Hansalim achieve this shift—from producers and consumers seeing themselves as competitors to seeing themselves as on the same team? The answer, Kim explained, has to do with values—community values. “Our producers see themselves as responsible for the health and well-being of the consumers. And the consumers, they know the farmers and see very clearly how they’re responsible for their well-being,” he said.

3. Fairness

Fairness in the food chain means ensuring that all the workers, farmers, food producers—everyone along the food chain—is treated fairly and gets a fair wage. It also means ensuring all consumers, no matter where they live or what tax bracket they’re in, have access to affordable healthy food.

In 2006, consumer behemoth Walmart, and the nation’s largest grocer, made headlines when it announced its move into organic foods: “Wal-Mart Eyes Organic Foods,” declared The New York Times. Within a year, some of the country’s biggest organic food providers were on board, including the farmer-owned co-op Organic Valley. But as the co-op’s Walmart business grew, it began to short its other customers—and the co-op’s board and CEO, George Siemon, started questioning their decision. Said Siemon in an Inc. Magazine article: “All of a sudden it hit us: What are we doing? [... We're] treating everybody poorly, and damaging our reputation. We need to decide what’s most important.” Siemon’s biggest concern was that Walmart would become the coop’s biggest customer, causing Organic Valley to lower its labor and production standards to meet Walmart’s demand for lower prices. For Siemon, the decision to break away from Walmart was clear: “Eventually, Wal-Mart could consume so much milk that the co-op could become beholden to one client and vulnerable to pressure to lower prices—violating its fundamental mission of providing fair prices to farmers.” And so Organic Valley walked away, returning its focus to the mainstay of its business since the mid-1980s: natural foods stores across the country.

Plus, no matter how much Walmart says it’s benefitting the planet and farmers by purchasing organic foods—and the origins and true sustainability of those items have been rigorously questioned—we can remain critical of the company’s flagrant disregard for workers’ rights. Walmart recently admitted to failing to pay overtime, vacation, and other wages totaling $86 million to 232,000 California workers. A host of other class action lawsuits are pending.

An Organic Peach and the Climate Crisis

By considering the values of ecology, community, and fairness as a lens through which to understand the connections between food and climate, we can perceive the need to go beyond our plate. We aren’t going to bring these values to life solely by filling our (reusable) shopping bags with real food from farmers we know and workers who were paid a good wage, though that is certainly a good start.

Once we better understand and embrace these three values in relation to the food system, we can see clear ways work to protect—and advance—them. One powerful way to do that is through policy, such as promoting access to healthy foods and making it easier for everyone to connect to farmers. We can see, too, the power of developing uniform, and trusted, product standards such as the organic certification. And finally, we can see the role the government should play in regulating marketing through bodies like the Federal Communication Commission, which has historically created limits to fraudulent green claims on products.

With historic floods devastating as many as 20 million people in Pakistan, a chunk of glacier four times the size of Manhattan breaking free from Greenland, and temperatures from Moscow to New York City hitting historic highs and leaving us all roasted, more and more people are starting to feel the direct impact of what may very well be the signs of climate chaos to come.

In order to get back to the level of greenhouse gas emissions we need to be to stabilize the climate, every sector must play a role. Now, nearly five years after I read that United Nations report about livestock and the climate crisis, it’s ever more visible the role that food systems plays, not only in exacerbating the crisis, but also in helping address it.

Now, I know, with stakes so high, suggesting that a local, organic peach can make a difference might feel laughably inconsequential—but if choosing a local peach is a tasty reminder of our growing, unified, powerful vision for shifting our food system toward a more sustainable model, then it might not be so inconsequential after all.

Anna Lappé adapted this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions, from a speech she gave for National Cooperative Grocers Association. Anna is the author of Diet for a Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork and co-author of Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen and Hope’s Edge. She is a founding principal of the Small Planet Institute.

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Posted in Ecology, Food. Comments Off

69% of America: Rescind Bush tax cuts on rich

From Raw Storyhttp://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0820/69-percent-rescind-bush-tax-cuts-rich/

By Sahil Kapur
Friday, August 20th, 2010 — 2:33 pm

As a battle over the Bush tax cuts looms in Congress, a new CNN/Opinion Research poll found on Friday that a large majority of the public wants them to expire for the wealthy.

A whopping 69 percent said the tax breaks for individuals making over $200,000 – and families making over $250,000 – annually should expire at the end of this year.

Eighty-one percent favor extending them for Americans making less than that, which both parties largely agree with.

The poll found that only 31 percent support extending the tax cuts for what would be the top 2 to 3 percent of Americans, enacted in President George W. Bush’s first term, and scheduled to lapse on December 31.

Continue reading at:  http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0820/69-percent-rescind-bush-tax-cuts-rich/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Egg Recall Expands To More Than Half A Billion Nationwide

From The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/21/egg-recall-expands-to-mor_n_690019.html

MARY CLARE JALONICK | 08/20/10 10:20 PM | AP

WASHINGTON — More than a half-billion eggs have been recalled in the nationwide investigation of a salmonella outbreak that Friday expanded to include a second Iowa farm. The outbreak has already sickened more than 1,000 people and the toll of illnesses is expected to increase.

Iowa’s Hillandale Farms said Friday it was recalling more than 170 million eggs after laboratory tests confirmed salmonella. The company did not say if its action was connected to the recall by Wright County Egg, another Iowa farm that recalled 380 million eggs earlier this week. The latest recall puts the total number of potentially tainted eggs at about 550 million.

FDA spokeswoman Pat El-Hinnawy said the two recalls are related. The strain of salmonella bacteria causing the poisoning is the same in both cases, salmonella enteritidis.

Federal officials say it’s one of the largest egg recalls in recent history. Americans consume about 220 million eggs a day, based on industry estimates. Iowa is the leading egg producing state.

The eggs recalled Friday were distributed under the brand names Hillandale Farms, Sunny Farms, Sunny Meadow, Wholesome Farms and West Creek. The new recall applies to eggs sold between April and August.

Hillandale said the eggs were distributed to grocery distribution centers, retail groceries and food service companies which service or are located in fourteen states, including Arkansas, California, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Continue reading at:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/21/egg-recall-expands-to-mor_n_690019.html

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Friday Night Fun and Culture

In 2005 Hurricane Katrina swept down upon New Orleans destroying places like the Lower Ninth Ward.  Destroying the birthplace of one of America’s greatest cultural treasures, Jazz…

In the aftermath the corporations engaged in a concerted effort to Disneyfy New Orleans the same way they did Times Square. Whiten it up.  Keep the poor be they black or white from returning and in exchange for getting rid of the noise and the funkiness they would Starbuck it and chain restaurant it in to the same bland corporate America that has destroyed this country.  Homogenized and pasteurized, plasticized and pre-packages for your comfort and consumption.

We saw the two posters below at a Gallery in Memphis when we went to the Media Reform Conference and while the Gallery was closed I was able to track down signed copies.

The vibrancy is returning to New Orleans.  I urge everyone to watch the series ‘Treme on HBO

Photo by Suzan Cooke.. Dr. John at Lakewood Theater Dallas Tx 8/19/210

An for a little taste of the Doctor…..

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

When Media Giants Wed: NOT a Feminist Love Story

From NOW Media Alertshttp://www.now.org/issues/media/082010media_mergers.html

August 20, 2010

By Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director

When big media companies merge or partner it’s rarely a good thing. Sure, it might be profitable for those at the top and stockholders. But generally it’s bad news for the little people — otherwise known as their viewers, listeners, readers and users.

Why is this a feminist issue? Because the ever-increasing consolidation of media ownership means fewer and fewer people decide what you and I have access to through our TVs, PCs, mobile phones, radios, newspapers, etc. Having just a few big conglomerates in control of our communication, news and entertainment options makes it that much harder for new and independent providers to compete. What we’re left with is a landscape of limited viewpoints and voices, newly erected roadblocks and higher prices. Try getting a feminist message out when the big-moneyed ranks are closing in and tightening their grip.

We’ve got two such potential calamities on our hands right now. First up is Comcast’s bid to acquire NBC-Universal. The Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department are reviewing the proposed merger, which would be “the largest consolidation of media power in American history” according to Washington, D.C.’s NewsChannel 8, which ran a multi-page ad in Politico on behalf of local news consumers across the U.S.

In addition to the tens of millions of cable customers and Internet users it already boasts, Comcast would take control of the NBC network, 10 local NBC affiliates in major markets, 16 Spanish-language stations, numerous top-tier cable networks, a wealth of original TV programming and movies from Universal Studios.

NOW is part of The Coalition for Competition in the Media, which has expressed vocal opposition to the buyout. Others concerned about the deal include Bloomberg and the American Cable Association.

Corie Wright, policy counsel for Free Press, explains it like this: “In its current form, this proposed merger suffers from a sizeable public interest deficit. If this merger is allowed to go through, consumers will have less, not more choice, especially if they seek access to independent or diverse voices. It will mean less innovation in the emerging market for online video, fewer local voices and diminished media diversity.”

At the same time, media giants Google and Verizon are entering into a dangerous dance of their own. Just last night, at a public hearing in Minneapolis on the future of the Internet, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) had this to say: “I believe that net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time.”

What is net neutrality? Quite simply, it’s the principle that protects choice of content and equal opportunity on the Internet. Net neutrality levels the playing field by promoting the widest possible dissemination of speech. But there are no explicit laws enforcing net neutrality, and this latest venture puts the principle at risk. As Google was once a solid defender of net neutrality while Verizon was not, this partnership is terribly discouraging.

Earlier this month the two companies put forth a joint proposal suggesting a legislative framework they admit is a “compromise” on net neutrality. The compromise is focused on the wireless market, just as more and more people are accessing the Internet via their cell phones and other mobile devices.

What we could end up with is a “tiered” wireless Internet, with some content delivered to our cell phones at a faster speed courtesy of content providers that are able to pay for preferential service. NOW has been warning that a plan like this could hurt non-profit organizations and others lacking the same deep pockets as big corporations. The beauty of the open Internet has made it possible for NOW to connect with so many people and to help them, in turn, connect with their elected officials and with each other. Unlike traditional media, the Internet makes it affordable and relatively simple to educate and empower millions. Is that all about to change?

As we’ve seen with the Wall Street and oil disasters, big companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. In the quest for greater profits and market domination, it’s usually the consumers who suffer. The media industry is no exception. The stakes are high, and we’re not just talking about your ability to watch Glee or download your favorite tunes — we’re talking about the ability to cultivate an effective movement for women’s rights and secure equality for all. It really is that important.

Make sure you’re signed up for NOW’s action alerts, so you’ll receive furture emails on this issue

Read more about NOW’s work on media issues

Are Muslims Replacing Queers as America’s New Scapegoat?

Thought for the day and maybe forever:  “The left wing and progressives have always stood for inclusion and equality. The right wing and conservatives have always stood for exclusion and elitism/inequality.”

I’m an Atheist and therefore freedom of religion is important to me since the very concept implicitly includes the freedom to not believe.

I was a child in the “good old days” of the 1950s which were good only if you were white, right and well to do and what we described as WASP.

To be queer was so outre as to be sufficient reason to be driven from small town America to seek ones life in the ghettos around America where we could find a modicum of acceptance among “liberal and sophisticated people” described as artistic.  Indeed queer was considered so taboo that they describe LGBT/TQ kids as “sensitive” rather than as queer.

Racism and anti-Semitism were alive and well and anyone who said either were wrong was a “Goddamned Red”.

They also had choice name for people whose ethnic back grounds didn’t conform to the WASP ideal were were being programmed to think of being “normal”.

It was a time when using racial and ethnic slurs was widely accepted.  People who argued for politeness of language were not being “politically correct”, they were “Goddamned Reds”.

The charge of  “Political Correctness” has been cut loose from its founding root in the left wing communities where it was used as ironic chastisement for people who were getting carried away with their own superior level of consciousness.  When it used by right wing it is an euphemistic way of calling someone a “Goddamned Red”.

But heaven forbid one point out to the right wing that their ideology bears a great deal more resemblance to something found in Nazism than in the US Constitution.

They wrap themselves in the flag and wave a Bible in your face while wiping their asses with the Constitution.  In the world according to the right wing the US is a “Christian Nation” and the Constitution only has one amendment, the Second Amendment.

I was a child of the 1950 but I came of age in the 1960s.  Oh wasn’t that a time?  To be young and radical meant hearing everyone’s call for equality and social justice.  It didn’t much matter to those of us who read Steinbeck’s Grapes Of Wrath as high school students and were so moved as to take Tom Joad’s soliloquy to heart.

Whenever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Whenever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there . . . . I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’-I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build-why, I’ll be there.

From Wikipedia:

At the time of publication, Steinbeck’s novel “was a phenomenon on the scale of a national event. It was publicly banned and burned by citizens, it was debated on national radio hook-ups; but above all, it was read.” [5] Steinbeck scholar John Timmerman sums up the book’s impact: “The Grapes of Wrath may well be the most thoroughly discussed novel – in criticism, reviews, and college classrooms – of twentieth century American literature.” Part of its impact stemmed from its passionate depiction of the plight of the poor, and in fact, many of Steinbeck’s contemporaries attacked his social and political views. Bryan Cordyack writes, “Steinbeck was attacked as a propagandist and a socialist from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. The most fervent of these attacks came from the Associated Farmers of California; they were displeased with the book’s depiction of California farmers’ attitudes and conduct toward the migrants. They denounced the book as a ‘pack of lies’ and labeled it ‘communist propaganda’.[6] However, although Steinbeck was accused of exaggeration of the camp conditions to make a political point, in fact he had done the opposite, underplaying the conditions that he well knew were worse than the novel describes[7] because he felt exact description would have gotten in the way of his story. Furthermore, there are several references to socialist politics and questions which appear in the John Ford film of 1940 which do not appear in the novel, which is less political in its terminology and interests.

I’m watching the hysteria being whipped up by the right wing and the cowardly acquiescence of so many in the Democratic Party who seem more concerned with acting like good Germans by not rocking the boat and I think this is how something like the Third Reich happened.

People were too afraid to say, “No, this is wrong.  Too afraid to not join the lynching mob.”

Yesterday I quoted  Pastor Martin Niemöller . Last night Tina and I went to see Jr. John and the Lower 911. In one of their songs they inserted a song I used to sing on special occasion when I faced the thugs in blue with their clubs and Mace, “I shall not, I shall not be moved, Just like a tree standing by the water, I shall not be moved..”

I wasn’t Black, yet I stood for African American Civil Rights.

They were never going to draft me, yet I opposed the draft.

I was not a Native American yet I supported AIM

I was not a Chicano migrant farm worker, yet I supported the United Farm Workers

I am not Muslim (Indeed I find their religion among the most misogynistic of all religions and abhorrent on many levels),, yet I support their constitutional right to freedom to practice their beliefs.

The scapegoating of Muslims and blaming the entire world of people who practice Islam for the acts of 18 people who committed 9/11 is ugly, stupid and ridiculous.

Let them have their cultural center and their equal rights.

The memory of LGBT/TQ people having to fight various city halls for the rights to open and maintain our community and cultural centers is to fresh for me to join the lynching mob.

It appears as though beating up on Muslim people has become the new sport of the right, replacing LGBT/TQ bashing.  Or perhaps it has just momentarily supplanted it.

It is all the same hatred that is the stock and trade of the right wing.  Do not be fooled if it puts on a different mask.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers