One of the reasons no one should rely on a single media source for their news is simply to get a diversity of points of view. If you can use at least one foreign news source, all the better. (Though I consult many, the one I use most often is The BBC)
The reason is because the domestic news media can be maddeningly self-referential. This is particularly true of the American media; not only because it considers the United States to be the center of the news universe, but because international media outlets often treat us the same way.
The BBC journalist noted how the late pope's greatest legacy may have been in having been so outspoken in "opposing war as a means for resolving disputes" and on behalf of the poor.
This is in stark contrast to the America media consensus who treated the pope's opposition to Soviet communism as his most important legacy, at least in the international sphere.
It was thus interesting to see how this meshes with the guest list. President Bush certainly didn't heed the pope's denunciations of the Iraq aggression has certainly not shown any aversion to "opposing war as a means for resolving disputes."
Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe is defying a European travel ban to attend the pope's funeral. Mugabe hasn't done much for the poor, except make them poorer. And he has essentially waged war on large segments of his own population. The visit of Mugabe, a supposed Catholic, is even more ironic in light of recent events. The CATHOLIC archbishop of Bulawayo, in southern Zimbabwe, recently called for a peaceful uprising against Mugabe. "People should pluck up just a bit of courage and stand up against him and chase him away," declared Archbishop Pius Ncube. A spokesman for the Catholic Mugabe called the Catholic archbishop, "a mad, inveterate liar. He has been lying for the past two years. As an Archbishop, we expect him to tell the truth."
Though he won't be travelling to Rome, Cuban strongman Fidel Castro even attended a funeral mass in Havana for the pope. This despite John Paul II's hostility to communism and communism's hostility to religion.
While most Americans know Martin Luther King Jr for his civil rights' activism, my friend Matt often points out that he was also outspoken in his opposition to the Vietnam War, something far fewer Americans know. It's a question of hearing what you want to hear of a deified figure and brushing aside as unimportant those pronouncements you don't want to hear. So it's not surprising that many people, Catholic and otherwise, focus on the teachings of the pope they agree with (eg: on communism, homosexuality, abortion) while not even acknowledging teachings that go against their personal ideology (eg: against war, the death penalty, social justice).
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Remembering 'Never again' again
Today is the 11th anniversary of the beginning of the Rwandan genocide during which at least 800,000 people were murdered. It was one of the world's worst atrocities of the century and certainly the worst to be covered during the age of cable news television. It occured a year, almost to the week, after politicians and dignitaries in Washington solemnly promised 'Never again' while inaugurating the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
For more information, I wrote a long series of essays on the occasion of the 10th anniversary last year. The last of which can be found here (you can access previous posts from there... and I'm aware that some of the photos don't appear properly).
For more information, I wrote a long series of essays on the occasion of the 10th anniversary last year. The last of which can be found here (you can access previous posts from there... and I'm aware that some of the photos don't appear properly).
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
'We meant well' still doesn't cut it
I've long resisted calls from my friends on the left for an immediate withdrawl of all American troops from Iraq. While I certainly agree we should never have perpetrated the aggression in the first place, I also subscribe to the theory of "you break it, you buy it." We broke Iraq, now it's our responsibility to fix it.
An immediate withdrawal of troops in such circumstances seemed to me like it would inevitably lead to chaos. Chaos is not a favorable circumstance for principles like democracy and human rights, usually championed by those on the left.
I also praised Iraqis who voted in February's elections. The elections were imperfect. Merely holding an election doesn't mean you have freedom or democracy, contrary to what the president and his cabal would have you believe. It doesn't change the fact that the fundamental justifications for the aggression have been discredited. But you have to start somewhere and you can't change the past.
Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, according to conventional wisdom. Of course, this is usually said by Bush administration apologists who want you to forget the fact that the fundamental justifications for the aggression have been discredited. Not "Iraqis will be better off," but "Iraqis are better off."
And frankly, for a while, I believed that. Grudingly, mind you. And I knew the occupation wasn't going as smoothly as the Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow Polyannas had predicted. But I figured at least life was a little better than under Saddam and certainly better than it would be if we pulled out and left a vacuum. Yet, I'm starting to wonder if that was more a case of what I wanted to believe affecting what I should believe.
There are certain fundamental moral differences between the occupation and Saddam's regime. As indifferent as he may be to the plight of Iraqis, I don't honestly believe President Bush actively wants them to starve. As indifferent as he may be to the torture of Iraqis, I don't honestly believe the president actively ordered this. As indifferent he may be to the daily terror suffered by ordinary Iraqi citizens, I don't honestly believe the president is instigating the terror.
But while the president and the administration may not want these things, they are certainly the result of their poor judgements. The president and his defenders may indeed mean well. But as I wrote in a long essay last year, 'We meant well' doesn't cut it anymore.
Intentions do not give you immunity from criticism or self-examination when the actual effects of your actions go against those very same intentions.
At one time, immediate pullout sounded like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Now, 'we must not leave no matter how ineffective we are' is starting to sound like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. 'We must stay the course no matter how much damage it may (however inadvertantly) be doing' is starting to sound like an idea based on a combination of blind machismo and simple inertia, rather than a sound, rational policy.
Ultimately, the US-led occupation is failing to ensure security and other basics for too many Iraqis. The administration has been more concerned with showy things they can use to pat themselves on the back. Elections are great, but you can't eat a ballot paper. Freedom of speech isn't worth much if you're afraid too afraid to leave your house in order to exercise it. Having freedoms written into a constitution or the law code mean little if there is rampant insecurity and too little food.
The International Herald Tribune ran this piece on the threat to Iraqi women by the new political system.
Saddam Hussein's sadistic, murderous dictatorship was no feminist paradise. But Iraqi women still managed to maintain access to educational, professional and personal opportunities denied to many of their sisters in neighboring Arab and Islamic countries. Now the future of these freedoms is in serious question. The dominant bloc of Shiite religious parties, along with their candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, want Iraq's new constitution to be directly inspired by conservative Islamic religious teachings derived from the Koran.
Is this the 'freedom' [said breathlessly] that thousands of coalition troops have died for? Is this the 'liberation' that countless (er, uncounted) Iraqi civilians have unwillingly sacrificed their lives for?
One of the most astonishing things I've read was this piece which claimed: When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8% [at the end of 2004].
Better off?
I think this is why I, unlike many human rights' proponents, am generally opposed to so-called humanitarian interventions (not that the Iraq aggression could ever be confused with such). Humanitarian interventions, by which is meant the aggressive use of military force against bad guys, is often proposed to combat human rights abuses.
With the exception of genocide and the worst crimes against humanity, I am generally opposed to such military interventions. Not because I want atrocities to continue, but because the military intervention itself creates its own humanitarian crisis.
The first rule of human rights advocacy must be, "First, do no harm." The solution must be less damaging than the problem; and there is little that damages society more than war.
Iraqis are also increasingly living under the threat of kidnapping. While kidnapping (especially of foreigners) for political reasons has made headlines, the old-fashioned kidnapping by gangs for money has made life miserable for many ordinary Iraqis.
Those gangs are why 17-year-old Hanan Zageer is now driven to school by her father Jewad.
It's only a 10 minute walk from their home to Hanan's school, but after what happened two weeks ago she will not take the risk.
"A gang of criminals tried to kidnap my daughter just outside school," Mr Zageer tells me. "If it hadn't been for the guards she would have been abducted. Now I drive her every day."
If the US is going to remain in Iraq, it must establish security. Yes, I know it's easier said than done, but if we can't do it, we need to get out and let someone else do it. Security is one of the things that dictatorship usually does pretty well. In fact, superficial stability is really the main selling point of dictatorship. Continued insecurity will make it much more likely an authoritarian regime will rise to fill the vacuum.
Look at Russia. It was a country that lived under an authoritarian regime for decades. After the collapse of that regime, it was replaced by a purpotedly democratic government but one that couldn't offer stability. As a result, Russians quickly turned to an elected czar, who they hoped would tame the wild west mentality with an old-fashioned dose of strong arm tactics. Democracy needs to produce concrete results in people's every day lives in order for them to have confidence in it. Merely going through the formality of electing a bunch of politicians, while a necessary condition, is not sufficient.
Unfortunately, I fear that such an honest assessment won't happen. Americans don't like to admit that we CAN'T do anything... even something which we've traditionally had contempt for, like nation building.
Many Americans who supported the invasion want to believe we're doing the right thing, simply because their own hearts are in the right place. They don't want to believe that good intentions can lead to bad results. Americans are incurable optimists. While that optimism is at the root of our greatest successes, it is also at the root of our greatest failures.
The only way to prevent Iraq from becoming one of our greatest failures is to do a fair, honest assessment of what we're doing there. That analysis should not be based on what our intentions were (past tense), but on what the effects are (present tense). It should not be based on what's actually happening, not on what we choose to see or ignore.
Ultimately, it should not be based on a cumulative tally of the past but on the impact of the occupation on the present. Too many people cite the demise of the butcher Saddam to defend EVERYTHING that is being done in the occupation. "Sure, twice as many Iraqi kids are hungry than under the dictatorship, but hey, George W. Bush gave Iraqis their freedom [said breathlessly] and that's the most important thing!"
Even if you think the war was a good idea, even if you didn't shed any tears about Saddam's capture, take a fresh look at the PRESENT state of occupied Iraq. You don't have to agree with everything the hippies and leftists say. Just ask this question of yourself: is occupied Iraq going in the right direction? Are Iraqis better off now, ALL things considered, then they were right after the fall of the regime?
I thought that a hasty withdrawal of occupation troops would inevitably lead to chaos. It seems clear that there's already chaos even with the occupation force. It now becomes reasonable to ask if the foreigner troops are inadvertantly a cause of that instability or preventing further instability? Regardless, we have an obligation to ask ourselves that question (and, God forbid, ask that of Iraqis). We have an obligation to ask ourselves that question and answer it honestly, without letting ourselves be blinded by machismo, chest-beating or good intentions.
If the occupation has reached the point of diminishing returns, then maybe it's time to have enough integrity to say "We did the best we could, now it's time to get out."
'We meant well' STILL doesn't cut it anymore. If Iraq is not going in the right direction with us there, because of us there, then it's time to do the honorable thing and leave.
An immediate withdrawal of troops in such circumstances seemed to me like it would inevitably lead to chaos. Chaos is not a favorable circumstance for principles like democracy and human rights, usually championed by those on the left.
I also praised Iraqis who voted in February's elections. The elections were imperfect. Merely holding an election doesn't mean you have freedom or democracy, contrary to what the president and his cabal would have you believe. It doesn't change the fact that the fundamental justifications for the aggression have been discredited. But you have to start somewhere and you can't change the past.
Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, according to conventional wisdom. Of course, this is usually said by Bush administration apologists who want you to forget the fact that the fundamental justifications for the aggression have been discredited. Not "Iraqis will be better off," but "Iraqis are better off."
And frankly, for a while, I believed that. Grudingly, mind you. And I knew the occupation wasn't going as smoothly as the Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow Polyannas had predicted. But I figured at least life was a little better than under Saddam and certainly better than it would be if we pulled out and left a vacuum. Yet, I'm starting to wonder if that was more a case of what I wanted to believe affecting what I should believe.
There are certain fundamental moral differences between the occupation and Saddam's regime. As indifferent as he may be to the plight of Iraqis, I don't honestly believe President Bush actively wants them to starve. As indifferent as he may be to the torture of Iraqis, I don't honestly believe the president actively ordered this. As indifferent he may be to the daily terror suffered by ordinary Iraqi citizens, I don't honestly believe the president is instigating the terror.
But while the president and the administration may not want these things, they are certainly the result of their poor judgements. The president and his defenders may indeed mean well. But as I wrote in a long essay last year, 'We meant well' doesn't cut it anymore.
Intentions do not give you immunity from criticism or self-examination when the actual effects of your actions go against those very same intentions.
At one time, immediate pullout sounded like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Now, 'we must not leave no matter how ineffective we are' is starting to sound like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. 'We must stay the course no matter how much damage it may (however inadvertantly) be doing' is starting to sound like an idea based on a combination of blind machismo and simple inertia, rather than a sound, rational policy.
Ultimately, the US-led occupation is failing to ensure security and other basics for too many Iraqis. The administration has been more concerned with showy things they can use to pat themselves on the back. Elections are great, but you can't eat a ballot paper. Freedom of speech isn't worth much if you're afraid too afraid to leave your house in order to exercise it. Having freedoms written into a constitution or the law code mean little if there is rampant insecurity and too little food.
The International Herald Tribune ran this piece on the threat to Iraqi women by the new political system.
Saddam Hussein's sadistic, murderous dictatorship was no feminist paradise. But Iraqi women still managed to maintain access to educational, professional and personal opportunities denied to many of their sisters in neighboring Arab and Islamic countries. Now the future of these freedoms is in serious question. The dominant bloc of Shiite religious parties, along with their candidate for prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, want Iraq's new constitution to be directly inspired by conservative Islamic religious teachings derived from the Koran.
Is this the 'freedom' [said breathlessly] that thousands of coalition troops have died for? Is this the 'liberation' that countless (er, uncounted) Iraqi civilians have unwillingly sacrificed their lives for?
One of the most astonishing things I've read was this piece which claimed: When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8% [at the end of 2004].
Better off?
I think this is why I, unlike many human rights' proponents, am generally opposed to so-called humanitarian interventions (not that the Iraq aggression could ever be confused with such). Humanitarian interventions, by which is meant the aggressive use of military force against bad guys, is often proposed to combat human rights abuses.
With the exception of genocide and the worst crimes against humanity, I am generally opposed to such military interventions. Not because I want atrocities to continue, but because the military intervention itself creates its own humanitarian crisis.
The first rule of human rights advocacy must be, "First, do no harm." The solution must be less damaging than the problem; and there is little that damages society more than war.
Iraqis are also increasingly living under the threat of kidnapping. While kidnapping (especially of foreigners) for political reasons has made headlines, the old-fashioned kidnapping by gangs for money has made life miserable for many ordinary Iraqis.
Those gangs are why 17-year-old Hanan Zageer is now driven to school by her father Jewad.
It's only a 10 minute walk from their home to Hanan's school, but after what happened two weeks ago she will not take the risk.
"A gang of criminals tried to kidnap my daughter just outside school," Mr Zageer tells me. "If it hadn't been for the guards she would have been abducted. Now I drive her every day."
If the US is going to remain in Iraq, it must establish security. Yes, I know it's easier said than done, but if we can't do it, we need to get out and let someone else do it. Security is one of the things that dictatorship usually does pretty well. In fact, superficial stability is really the main selling point of dictatorship. Continued insecurity will make it much more likely an authoritarian regime will rise to fill the vacuum.
Look at Russia. It was a country that lived under an authoritarian regime for decades. After the collapse of that regime, it was replaced by a purpotedly democratic government but one that couldn't offer stability. As a result, Russians quickly turned to an elected czar, who they hoped would tame the wild west mentality with an old-fashioned dose of strong arm tactics. Democracy needs to produce concrete results in people's every day lives in order for them to have confidence in it. Merely going through the formality of electing a bunch of politicians, while a necessary condition, is not sufficient.
Unfortunately, I fear that such an honest assessment won't happen. Americans don't like to admit that we CAN'T do anything... even something which we've traditionally had contempt for, like nation building.
Many Americans who supported the invasion want to believe we're doing the right thing, simply because their own hearts are in the right place. They don't want to believe that good intentions can lead to bad results. Americans are incurable optimists. While that optimism is at the root of our greatest successes, it is also at the root of our greatest failures.
The only way to prevent Iraq from becoming one of our greatest failures is to do a fair, honest assessment of what we're doing there. That analysis should not be based on what our intentions were (past tense), but on what the effects are (present tense). It should not be based on what's actually happening, not on what we choose to see or ignore.
Ultimately, it should not be based on a cumulative tally of the past but on the impact of the occupation on the present. Too many people cite the demise of the butcher Saddam to defend EVERYTHING that is being done in the occupation. "Sure, twice as many Iraqi kids are hungry than under the dictatorship, but hey, George W. Bush gave Iraqis their freedom [said breathlessly] and that's the most important thing!"
Even if you think the war was a good idea, even if you didn't shed any tears about Saddam's capture, take a fresh look at the PRESENT state of occupied Iraq. You don't have to agree with everything the hippies and leftists say. Just ask this question of yourself: is occupied Iraq going in the right direction? Are Iraqis better off now, ALL things considered, then they were right after the fall of the regime?
I thought that a hasty withdrawal of occupation troops would inevitably lead to chaos. It seems clear that there's already chaos even with the occupation force. It now becomes reasonable to ask if the foreigner troops are inadvertantly a cause of that instability or preventing further instability? Regardless, we have an obligation to ask ourselves that question (and, God forbid, ask that of Iraqis). We have an obligation to ask ourselves that question and answer it honestly, without letting ourselves be blinded by machismo, chest-beating or good intentions.
If the occupation has reached the point of diminishing returns, then maybe it's time to have enough integrity to say "We did the best we could, now it's time to get out."
'We meant well' STILL doesn't cut it anymore. If Iraq is not going in the right direction with us there, because of us there, then it's time to do the honorable thing and leave.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Theocracy brigade, youth regiment
Even if you're religious, tell me there's not something slightly unsettling about this site.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
The non-tragic death of the pope
I was relieved to learn yesterday of the death of Pope John Paul II. Relieved that his suffering wasn't long and drawn out.
I was watching a soccer game yesterday afternoon on ESPN. The announced kept saying, "This game was originally scheduled for ABC but was moved to ESPN because of the tragic death of the pope."
He repeatedly referred to the pope's death as tragic. I'm sure the announcer was just trying to be respectful, but he was wrong.
It was sad and unfortunate. It wasn't tragic. Karol Wojtyla lived for 84 years and served as pope for 27 years. Neither his life nor his papacy was tragically short or unfulfilled. He certainly had plenty of time in both to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. His death was not an unexpected surprise.
Death is a part of life. Our culture is so enamored with youth that it can't accept the times when death is a normal, natural conclusion to a long, fully-lived life. Death, in such circumstances, is not tragic.
I was watching a soccer game yesterday afternoon on ESPN. The announced kept saying, "This game was originally scheduled for ABC but was moved to ESPN because of the tragic death of the pope."
He repeatedly referred to the pope's death as tragic. I'm sure the announcer was just trying to be respectful, but he was wrong.
It was sad and unfortunate. It wasn't tragic. Karol Wojtyla lived for 84 years and served as pope for 27 years. Neither his life nor his papacy was tragically short or unfulfilled. He certainly had plenty of time in both to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. His death was not an unexpected surprise.
Death is a part of life. Our culture is so enamored with youth that it can't accept the times when death is a normal, natural conclusion to a long, fully-lived life. Death, in such circumstances, is not tragic.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Thoughts on the vast wasteland
I enjoy reading The Christian Science Monitor. It's the only news and public affairs publication I feel it worth my money to subscribe to (aside from my local paper). I like the CSM because it offers quality, in-depth journalism on a wide variety of political and social issues. Not dumbed down info-tainment on celebrity trials and presidential fellatio.
Another reason I like the CSM is because its op-ed pages often runs commentaries by people I strongly disagree with. I find this extremely interesting. A lot of people subscribe to the 'echo chamber' philosophy. They only converse with or read commentaries by people they agree with. Only by exposing yourself to differing opinions can your own opinions evolve; not doing so causes them to stagnate. In that regard, it's useful to know what the other side thinks. And maybe you just might change your mind. Though you shouldn't do it on every issue, only fanatics never, ever change their mind.
Anyway, I was interested to read this commentary by Brett Bozell of the Parents Television Council. The PTC is one of the country's most vocal busy-body groups. Its objective is to make sure the television industry trembles every time someone dares think outside the box. Its objective is to make sure Middle America (whatever that means) never sees anything that offends its sensibilities, such as gays or liberals.
I actually agree with some of Bozell's judgements on Hollywood. There's too much violence on TV. I don't totally object to all bad language or sexual content provided it has artistic merit or is somehow necessary to the story; I don't care for those things when they are gratuitous. This is why I can enjoy Robin Williams and George Carlin but can't listen to Howard Stern.
I think a certain segment of culture is overrepresented on the TV airwaves. Specifically young, white, non-rural, good looking. This is probably because young, white, urbanites are a disproportionate part of the TV industry; they do what they know.
This is a bipartisan issue, claims Bozell.
Fox News also asked, "Do you think Hollywood is in touch with the life of the average American, or is Hollywood out of touch with most Americans?" Nineteen percent said Hollywood's in touch; 72 percent, out of touch. Showing that this issue crosses party lines, 61 percent of Democrats agreed Hollywood does not reflect the values of most Americans.
He writes quite a bit about how most Americans polled believe Hollywood is having a negative affect on national morality (whatever that means). I don't think television helps in this regard, but I don't think it hurts as much as Bozell and others claim. If you are raised properly by your family, the entertainment industry isn't going to affect your morality that much. Personally, I listen to a lot of music that has "colorful" language. It doesn't cause me to go and curse like a sailor around kids. Suggesting that people have more casual sex merely because they see it on TV is as absurd as saying if you give a teen a condom, he'll automatically have sex.
Bozell concludes that Hollywood is massively out of touch with "ordinary" Americans, merely because the latter say so to pollsters.
He cites a poll that asked "In your view, does the entertainment industry need to make a serious effort to significantly reduce the amount of sex and violence in its movies, television shows and music, or don't you think they need to do this?" Again, 75 percent said Tinseltown, Motown, and any other entertainment towns need to tone it down. Only 24 percent said they're in favor of the current system of profit-seeking provocation favoring whatever circus will goose the ratings numbers.
I agree that most of television is garbage. I loathe fake reality shows. I stopped watching network news years ago. Even the History Channel is overrated, unless you're a World War II junkie. While the TV industry is out of touch with MY values, I can't conclude that it's out of touch with the values of most Americans. Why?
The TV industry is extremely sensitive to public opinion and tastes. Perhaps overly so. If a show doesn't get hit ratings in four weeks or less, it risks being cancelled. That's capitalism at its most Darwinistic. Simply put, if there were a great clamoring for "moral" television, someone in Hollywood would produce it and make a ton of money. If there were widespread public revulsion at reality shows and other crap like that, no one would watch those shows and they'd die a natural death.
While Bozell and I agree that there is little of value on TV, we have different conclusions about how that should be dealt with.
Bozell, like a good busy-body, favors big government involvement.
A poll asked "Recently, the Federal Communications Commission ... began fining radio station owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for broadcasts they considered indecent. This led to the cancellation of some shows. Do you approve or disapprove of the FCC's actions?" Once again, there's a chasm in public opinion: 58 percent support major fines, and only 33 percent do not. Once again, this is a bipartisan concern: 51 percent of Democrats favored major fines.
He approvingly cites a TIME poll that found more than half of America's TV watchers - 53 percent - think the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows.
My solution is very simple. I don't subscribe to cable anymore. Neither the quality of offerings on TV nor the amount of time I watch TV justify an obscene $50 a month. Back when I did have TV, there was another solution: I simply didn't watch the stuff I thought was garbage. It was a fairly straight-forward decision, yet one vested in my personal autonomy. I also rarely listen to regular radio anymore. There are too many commercials, too much vapid yacking and too little music. I subscribe to satellite radio.
Personal responsibility. What a concept!
Another reason I like the CSM is because its op-ed pages often runs commentaries by people I strongly disagree with. I find this extremely interesting. A lot of people subscribe to the 'echo chamber' philosophy. They only converse with or read commentaries by people they agree with. Only by exposing yourself to differing opinions can your own opinions evolve; not doing so causes them to stagnate. In that regard, it's useful to know what the other side thinks. And maybe you just might change your mind. Though you shouldn't do it on every issue, only fanatics never, ever change their mind.
Anyway, I was interested to read this commentary by Brett Bozell of the Parents Television Council. The PTC is one of the country's most vocal busy-body groups. Its objective is to make sure the television industry trembles every time someone dares think outside the box. Its objective is to make sure Middle America (whatever that means) never sees anything that offends its sensibilities, such as gays or liberals.
I actually agree with some of Bozell's judgements on Hollywood. There's too much violence on TV. I don't totally object to all bad language or sexual content provided it has artistic merit or is somehow necessary to the story; I don't care for those things when they are gratuitous. This is why I can enjoy Robin Williams and George Carlin but can't listen to Howard Stern.
I think a certain segment of culture is overrepresented on the TV airwaves. Specifically young, white, non-rural, good looking. This is probably because young, white, urbanites are a disproportionate part of the TV industry; they do what they know.
This is a bipartisan issue, claims Bozell.
Fox News also asked, "Do you think Hollywood is in touch with the life of the average American, or is Hollywood out of touch with most Americans?" Nineteen percent said Hollywood's in touch; 72 percent, out of touch. Showing that this issue crosses party lines, 61 percent of Democrats agreed Hollywood does not reflect the values of most Americans.
He writes quite a bit about how most Americans polled believe Hollywood is having a negative affect on national morality (whatever that means). I don't think television helps in this regard, but I don't think it hurts as much as Bozell and others claim. If you are raised properly by your family, the entertainment industry isn't going to affect your morality that much. Personally, I listen to a lot of music that has "colorful" language. It doesn't cause me to go and curse like a sailor around kids. Suggesting that people have more casual sex merely because they see it on TV is as absurd as saying if you give a teen a condom, he'll automatically have sex.
Bozell concludes that Hollywood is massively out of touch with "ordinary" Americans, merely because the latter say so to pollsters.
He cites a poll that asked "In your view, does the entertainment industry need to make a serious effort to significantly reduce the amount of sex and violence in its movies, television shows and music, or don't you think they need to do this?" Again, 75 percent said Tinseltown, Motown, and any other entertainment towns need to tone it down. Only 24 percent said they're in favor of the current system of profit-seeking provocation favoring whatever circus will goose the ratings numbers.
I agree that most of television is garbage. I loathe fake reality shows. I stopped watching network news years ago. Even the History Channel is overrated, unless you're a World War II junkie. While the TV industry is out of touch with MY values, I can't conclude that it's out of touch with the values of most Americans. Why?
The TV industry is extremely sensitive to public opinion and tastes. Perhaps overly so. If a show doesn't get hit ratings in four weeks or less, it risks being cancelled. That's capitalism at its most Darwinistic. Simply put, if there were a great clamoring for "moral" television, someone in Hollywood would produce it and make a ton of money. If there were widespread public revulsion at reality shows and other crap like that, no one would watch those shows and they'd die a natural death.
While Bozell and I agree that there is little of value on TV, we have different conclusions about how that should be dealt with.
Bozell, like a good busy-body, favors big government involvement.
A poll asked "Recently, the Federal Communications Commission ... began fining radio station owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for broadcasts they considered indecent. This led to the cancellation of some shows. Do you approve or disapprove of the FCC's actions?" Once again, there's a chasm in public opinion: 58 percent support major fines, and only 33 percent do not. Once again, this is a bipartisan concern: 51 percent of Democrats favored major fines.
He approvingly cites a TIME poll that found more than half of America's TV watchers - 53 percent - think the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows.
My solution is very simple. I don't subscribe to cable anymore. Neither the quality of offerings on TV nor the amount of time I watch TV justify an obscene $50 a month. Back when I did have TV, there was another solution: I simply didn't watch the stuff I thought was garbage. It was a fairly straight-forward decision, yet one vested in my personal autonomy. I also rarely listen to regular radio anymore. There are too many commercials, too much vapid yacking and too little music. I subscribe to satellite radio.
Personal responsibility. What a concept!
Friday, April 01, 2005
The headlines are wrong
It seems ironic that New York's budget deadline is April Fools Day. Maybe it's the legislators' way of acknowledging those who keep sending them back to Albany.
New York's in line for its 22nd consecutive late budget.
Most media outlets are reporting it differently. They are saying that New York has broken the streak of late budgets.
Well, sort of but not really.
The legislature ADOPTED a budget yesterday, 31 March. However, the budget won't get ENACTED until the governor's signs the bills or the legislature overrides his vetoes. The former likely won't happen today and the latter can't. The governor has already expressed displeasure at how much the legislature is spending.
Admittedly, the budget will almost certainly get ENACTED earlier than it has in many years. So at least Albany's moving in the right direction for once. Now, all they need to do is comply with a court ruling on education funding, get rid of gerrymandering and introduce an electoral code that's not anti-democratic.
New York's in line for its 22nd consecutive late budget.
Most media outlets are reporting it differently. They are saying that New York has broken the streak of late budgets.
Well, sort of but not really.
The legislature ADOPTED a budget yesterday, 31 March. However, the budget won't get ENACTED until the governor's signs the bills or the legislature overrides his vetoes. The former likely won't happen today and the latter can't. The governor has already expressed displeasure at how much the legislature is spending.
Admittedly, the budget will almost certainly get ENACTED earlier than it has in many years. So at least Albany's moving in the right direction for once. Now, all they need to do is comply with a court ruling on education funding, get rid of gerrymandering and introduce an electoral code that's not anti-democratic.
"All that I am saying is do not cut"
This essay is part of a regular feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
While the campaign against the appalling practice female genital mutilation in Africa has made progress in some places, this piece makes clear that the fight is not so easy in other places.
When the president's wife sponsors the circumcision of 1,500 young girls to win votes for her husband, you know you've got a problem persuading ordinary people and the government that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a bad idea.
And when the woman who is now Minister of Social Welfare, Gender and Women's Affairs, threatens to "sew up the mouths" of those who preach against FGM, you realise that you are facing a really big uphill struggle.
This is actually somewhat astonishing. While it's not surprising for high-ranking officials to, in practice, give a wink and a nod to FGM, most usually go through the formality of opposing it in words. That overtly defending FGM is seen as a vote winner is quite disturbing.
But that has not dissuaded Olayinka Koso-Thomas, a gynaecologist in Sierra Leone, from campaigning against the practice for 30 years, ignoring death threats and angry protestors storming her clinic.
A crudely performed operation to remove the clitoris from adolescent girls forms a key part of the initiation ceremonies held by powerful, women-only secret societies that prepare young girls for adult life, marriage and motherhood in the West African country, reports the UN's IRIN service.
She explained the difficulties and misunderstandings that often accompany her work.
Koso-Thomas, who came to Sierra Leone from Nigeria, sees nothing wrong with such 'bundu' societies and their initiation ceremonies but, on medical grounds, she and a handful of other women's rights campaigners want the circumcision ritual replaced by something less brutal and hazardous.
"People got me wrong at first. When I was going to the communities and sensitising them, they thought I was against their society," Koso-Thomas told IRIN. "But it is as a doctor that I started campaigning and sensitising people about the health hazards, because I saw all the complications."
"The real meaning of the bundu society is very good," she said. "It is where they train young girls to become women: they teach them how to sing, dance and cook ... girls who don't go to school learn how to use herbs and treat illnesses; they are taught to respect others."
"All that I am saying is, 'Continue with this training, but do not cut.' This is my message," said the gynaecologist who has written a book about the practice of FGM in Sierra Leone.
While the campaign against the appalling practice female genital mutilation in Africa has made progress in some places, this piece makes clear that the fight is not so easy in other places.
When the president's wife sponsors the circumcision of 1,500 young girls to win votes for her husband, you know you've got a problem persuading ordinary people and the government that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a bad idea.
And when the woman who is now Minister of Social Welfare, Gender and Women's Affairs, threatens to "sew up the mouths" of those who preach against FGM, you realise that you are facing a really big uphill struggle.
This is actually somewhat astonishing. While it's not surprising for high-ranking officials to, in practice, give a wink and a nod to FGM, most usually go through the formality of opposing it in words. That overtly defending FGM is seen as a vote winner is quite disturbing.
But that has not dissuaded Olayinka Koso-Thomas, a gynaecologist in Sierra Leone, from campaigning against the practice for 30 years, ignoring death threats and angry protestors storming her clinic.
A crudely performed operation to remove the clitoris from adolescent girls forms a key part of the initiation ceremonies held by powerful, women-only secret societies that prepare young girls for adult life, marriage and motherhood in the West African country, reports the UN's IRIN service.
She explained the difficulties and misunderstandings that often accompany her work.
Koso-Thomas, who came to Sierra Leone from Nigeria, sees nothing wrong with such 'bundu' societies and their initiation ceremonies but, on medical grounds, she and a handful of other women's rights campaigners want the circumcision ritual replaced by something less brutal and hazardous.
"People got me wrong at first. When I was going to the communities and sensitising them, they thought I was against their society," Koso-Thomas told IRIN. "But it is as a doctor that I started campaigning and sensitising people about the health hazards, because I saw all the complications."
"The real meaning of the bundu society is very good," she said. "It is where they train young girls to become women: they teach them how to sing, dance and cook ... girls who don't go to school learn how to use herbs and treat illnesses; they are taught to respect others."
"All that I am saying is, 'Continue with this training, but do not cut.' This is my message," said the gynaecologist who has written a book about the practice of FGM in Sierra Leone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)