I don't normally get into cheap athlete or celebrity bashing but every so often, one of them says something so ridiculously clueless that it deserves to be lambasted.
At the beginning of the month, defender Ashley Cole moved from the London soccer club Arsenal (the Gunners) to their crosstown rivals Chelsea. He did so because Chelsea offered him more money. If he'd simply said that, I'd have no problem. Players move for more money all the time. It's not a big deal. Any team sports fan is used to it by now. If another company offered me 9% more money to do the same job, I might take it too.
But he described the situation in the most absurd possible terms
"I don't believe the board (of directors of Arsenal) gave a damn about keeping me," he sniffed.
"The truth is that the Gunners had done nothing all season to hold on to me," he whined.
As if those comments weren't melodramatic enough: the 25-year-old left-back was told of the board's refusal to sanction the deal (to keep him) while he was driving his car and says he "nearly swerved off the road."
So you might think they were offering him barely more than minimum wage.
In fact, they were offering him a mere 55,000 pounds a week which, if you do the conversion and multiplication, translates to US$5.3 million per year.
Oh the trials and tribulations of the nearly starving big time soccer player.
He wanted the equivalent of $5.8 million a year. Which is fine, but if he considers 'only' $5.3 million to be an insult, then the real insult is to all the people who shell out ridiculous on tickets and shirts to pay his wages.
Worst of all, he sniveled that the Arsenal board, "preferred to haggle over a difference of 5,000 pounds" a week... or $500,000 a year.
For someone that out of touch with reality, it's no surprise that he didn't bemoan HIS OWN REFUSAL "haggle over a difference of 5,000 pounds."
Contributions to the Feed Ashley Cole Fund can be made at 1-800-GET-A-CLUE!
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Every vote counts... if it's counted
The UK Observer's Paul Harris has a good piece entitled 'The myth of fair elections in America .'
He writes: The debacle surrounding the Republican victory in 2000 demonstrated to the world that America's electoral process is wide open to abuse. But as Paul Harris discovers, the system has actually worsened since then... The prospect of a 'second Florida' is now more likely not less ... America's democratic system is simply starting to fail... by a simple collapse in its ability to count everyone's votes accurately and fairly.
Before you reflexively dismiss this as left-wing or conspiracy theorist whining, he also writes that the problems are not caused by some takeover by a Neocon cabal and that he doesn't believe that there is a cunning secret plan, set out in detail beforehand and then masterfully carried out to deliberately steal presidential elections.
Essentially, he notes that America's extremely decentralized electoral system is responsible for much of the chaos. Not only does each state have their own electoral laws, but within most states, each COUNTY can choose for itself how it lets its citizens vote. In the moderately sized New York alone, there are 62 counties.
He also notes that elections are often run and controlled by state office holders or county level election supervisors. Often these officials are nakedly partisan and all too willing to use the power of that office to favour one party over another. Their county or state is, after all, their patch of turf and they seek to protect it for their side.
Think this is hysterical fantasy? Think again.
In New York, for example, there are two elections commissioners in each county who run the polls. These are not non-partisan officials. There is one Democrat commissioner and one Republican commissioner who jointly run the elections. So we have to trust that commissioners chosen by the two main parties in internal, non-public deilberations will always act in a fair way. We have to trust that explicitly partisan officials who owe their jobs to the party bosses will act in a non-partisan way. Do you think that's open to abuse?
My dad was once a Democrat election commissioner for this county but he refused to order a re-run an election that had a minor problem with the ballot. He didn't order a re-run the election because he did not have legal authority to do so; such a decision could only be ordered by the state board of elections or the courts. Unfortunately for my dad, the guy who lost this election was both a very small-minded, petty man and the chairman of the county Democrat committee. So for following the law, my dad was fired (since it was the party's choice). He was replaced by the chairman's wife.
Furthermore, in New York, the party of each county's two elections commissioners depends on the party affiliation of the top two finishers in the governor's race. If a smaller party finishes first or second in the governor's race, then that party gets to appoint half the elections commissioners. That almost happened in 1990 when the Conservative candidate came within a whisker of outpolling the Republican for second place.
But that also means that elections commissioners are responsible for running the elections which will decide whether or not they have a job. Isn't that a pretty big conflict of interest?
Combine that with the much documented problems with voting machines, which The Observer pieces mentions combined with state secrecy regarding those problems and it hardly inspires confidence in the voting process.
Harris concludes You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to be seriously worried about this state of affairs. In many ways, it is more worrying that the system is not being deliberately stolen from on high. It is actually broken from the ground up.
He writes: The debacle surrounding the Republican victory in 2000 demonstrated to the world that America's electoral process is wide open to abuse. But as Paul Harris discovers, the system has actually worsened since then... The prospect of a 'second Florida' is now more likely not less ... America's democratic system is simply starting to fail... by a simple collapse in its ability to count everyone's votes accurately and fairly.
Before you reflexively dismiss this as left-wing or conspiracy theorist whining, he also writes that the problems are not caused by some takeover by a Neocon cabal and that he doesn't believe that there is a cunning secret plan, set out in detail beforehand and then masterfully carried out to deliberately steal presidential elections.
Essentially, he notes that America's extremely decentralized electoral system is responsible for much of the chaos. Not only does each state have their own electoral laws, but within most states, each COUNTY can choose for itself how it lets its citizens vote. In the moderately sized New York alone, there are 62 counties.
He also notes that elections are often run and controlled by state office holders or county level election supervisors. Often these officials are nakedly partisan and all too willing to use the power of that office to favour one party over another. Their county or state is, after all, their patch of turf and they seek to protect it for their side.
Think this is hysterical fantasy? Think again.
In New York, for example, there are two elections commissioners in each county who run the polls. These are not non-partisan officials. There is one Democrat commissioner and one Republican commissioner who jointly run the elections. So we have to trust that commissioners chosen by the two main parties in internal, non-public deilberations will always act in a fair way. We have to trust that explicitly partisan officials who owe their jobs to the party bosses will act in a non-partisan way. Do you think that's open to abuse?
My dad was once a Democrat election commissioner for this county but he refused to order a re-run an election that had a minor problem with the ballot. He didn't order a re-run the election because he did not have legal authority to do so; such a decision could only be ordered by the state board of elections or the courts. Unfortunately for my dad, the guy who lost this election was both a very small-minded, petty man and the chairman of the county Democrat committee. So for following the law, my dad was fired (since it was the party's choice). He was replaced by the chairman's wife.
Furthermore, in New York, the party of each county's two elections commissioners depends on the party affiliation of the top two finishers in the governor's race. If a smaller party finishes first or second in the governor's race, then that party gets to appoint half the elections commissioners. That almost happened in 1990 when the Conservative candidate came within a whisker of outpolling the Republican for second place.
But that also means that elections commissioners are responsible for running the elections which will decide whether or not they have a job. Isn't that a pretty big conflict of interest?
Combine that with the much documented problems with voting machines, which The Observer pieces mentions combined with state secrecy regarding those problems and it hardly inspires confidence in the voting process.
Harris concludes You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to be seriously worried about this state of affairs. In many ways, it is more worrying that the system is not being deliberately stolen from on high. It is actually broken from the ground up.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Saddam/al-Qaeda link rubbished by GOP Senate
The Republican-controlled US Senate's Intelligence Committee has released a report stating that There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war.
(Even Fox News published a report on the story)
Bear in mind, this isn't after the fact second guessing. They were looking only at information that was available in 2003 that was used to justify the invasion.
The report stated what is common sense to anyone familiar with Middle East politics: Religious Islamists and secular nationalists are sworn enemies.
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, the Senate report noted.
There were three main reasons used to justify the aggression against Iraq.
-Weapons of mass destruction that threatened America's security
-Links between Saddam and al-Qaeda
-Mass atrocities committed by Saddam's regime
The WMD myth was discredited a long time ago.
The faux Saddam/al-Qaeda link is now rubbished by a body controlled by the president's own party.
At least, the (state-sponsored) atrocities are over.
Or maybe not.
There's nothing we can do to go back in time and reverse this debacle. I don't know for sure if the Bush administration outright lied, were self-delusional or were merely grossly incompetent. But I do know they got it 100 percent wrong on the most significant foreign policy decision in over a generation.
When they ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt about launching a war against Iran, when they ask you to not ask questions and just trust them, ask yourself if they've done anything in the past to earn that trust.
(Even Fox News published a report on the story)
Bear in mind, this isn't after the fact second guessing. They were looking only at information that was available in 2003 that was used to justify the invasion.
The report stated what is common sense to anyone familiar with Middle East politics: Religious Islamists and secular nationalists are sworn enemies.
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, the Senate report noted.
There were three main reasons used to justify the aggression against Iraq.
-Weapons of mass destruction that threatened America's security
-Links between Saddam and al-Qaeda
-Mass atrocities committed by Saddam's regime
The WMD myth was discredited a long time ago.
The faux Saddam/al-Qaeda link is now rubbished by a body controlled by the president's own party.
At least, the (state-sponsored) atrocities are over.
Or maybe not.
There's nothing we can do to go back in time and reverse this debacle. I don't know for sure if the Bush administration outright lied, were self-delusional or were merely grossly incompetent. But I do know they got it 100 percent wrong on the most significant foreign policy decision in over a generation.
When they ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt about launching a war against Iran, when they ask you to not ask questions and just trust them, ask yourself if they've done anything in the past to earn that trust.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Bizarro world
The race for the local Congressional seat (NY-20) is something straight out of bizarro world. For one thing, I'm still shocked that this actually appears to be something resembling a competitive race. Upstate New York is a very conservative area. The district has far more Republicans than Democrats. The seat representing my area has bee in Republican hands since the 1978 election. I can't even remember the last time a GOP incumbent was even faced with a close election. While the Republican incumbent has had little drips and drabs of problems, there's no 'perfect storm' to indicate that he'd be vulnerable in what has always been considered a safe GOP seat. Yet somehow, Rep. John Sweeney has a race on his hands.
His Democrat opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, is certainly savvy and has a campaign behind her with two attributes Democrat candidates for this seat usually lack: professionalism and a fair amount of money. She's slick and smooth and without a great deal of substance or vision. She strikes me like Hillary Clinton-lite. Her main campaign theme is 'Sweeney = Bush.' Given how conservative this area is, I'm surprised that it appears to be working; the latest poll has her trailing by only 8 percent for a seat Republicans usually win by at least 25 points without breaking a sweat. Then again, this area is more conservative than Republican and a lot of traditional 'smaller government' conservatives are dismayed with the direction of the current Republican administration.
I believe there are two smaller party opponents in the race, but you wouldn't know it by reading the local Post-Star. The paper regularly runs editorials (rightly) criticizing Sweeney and Gillibrand for attacking each other and not talking enough about substance. Given their avowed disgust with the two major party candidates, you'd think the daily would do a little digging to see what the smaller party candidates think about the important issues. Especially since their reporters are already spending time on the alleged non-issues brought up by Sweeney and Gillibrand so denounced in the editorials. But it's no secret that The Post-Star, like most other corporate media outlets that claim to 'not make news, just report it,' would rather pretend that smaller party candidates didn't exist at all.
However, the most recent diversion is amusing enough to comment on.
Gillibrand proposes an eventual withdrawal from Iraq but it's cautious and fuzzy enough to be 'flexible.' As I said, Hillary Clinton-lite.
Sweeney has been an unquestioning defender of President Bush's non-strategy for unlimited and directionless war.
MoveOn.org has been airing commercials denouncing Sweeney, who's gotten tons of outside help too. Sweeney attacked the MoveOn ads which, in his words, were designed "to help Kirsten Gillibrand who, while cheering them on, was caught red-faced profiteering off the war in Iraq with war stock that has tripled as young American men and women fight for freedom."
In reality, Gillibrand's husband owns some sort of retirement fund which has investments in so-called defense contractors. That's the 'profiteering' in question.
Sweeney denounces her for allegedly profiting from an ad infintum war that he has voted for at every step of the way.
Is it only acceptable for companies with Republican ties to profit from the 'fight for freedom'?
Let me get this straight: Gillibrand wants end a disaster from which she's accused of profiting from personally. Sweeney is comfortable with the non-strategy of American troops dying in Iraq indefinitely, with no clear mission and with no expectations of Iraqis being able to provide for their own security.
Which is the less honorable position?
His Democrat opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, is certainly savvy and has a campaign behind her with two attributes Democrat candidates for this seat usually lack: professionalism and a fair amount of money. She's slick and smooth and without a great deal of substance or vision. She strikes me like Hillary Clinton-lite. Her main campaign theme is 'Sweeney = Bush.' Given how conservative this area is, I'm surprised that it appears to be working; the latest poll has her trailing by only 8 percent for a seat Republicans usually win by at least 25 points without breaking a sweat. Then again, this area is more conservative than Republican and a lot of traditional 'smaller government' conservatives are dismayed with the direction of the current Republican administration.
I believe there are two smaller party opponents in the race, but you wouldn't know it by reading the local Post-Star. The paper regularly runs editorials (rightly) criticizing Sweeney and Gillibrand for attacking each other and not talking enough about substance. Given their avowed disgust with the two major party candidates, you'd think the daily would do a little digging to see what the smaller party candidates think about the important issues. Especially since their reporters are already spending time on the alleged non-issues brought up by Sweeney and Gillibrand so denounced in the editorials. But it's no secret that The Post-Star, like most other corporate media outlets that claim to 'not make news, just report it,' would rather pretend that smaller party candidates didn't exist at all.
However, the most recent diversion is amusing enough to comment on.
Gillibrand proposes an eventual withdrawal from Iraq but it's cautious and fuzzy enough to be 'flexible.' As I said, Hillary Clinton-lite.
Sweeney has been an unquestioning defender of President Bush's non-strategy for unlimited and directionless war.
MoveOn.org has been airing commercials denouncing Sweeney, who's gotten tons of outside help too. Sweeney attacked the MoveOn ads which, in his words, were designed "to help Kirsten Gillibrand who, while cheering them on, was caught red-faced profiteering off the war in Iraq with war stock that has tripled as young American men and women fight for freedom."
In reality, Gillibrand's husband owns some sort of retirement fund which has investments in so-called defense contractors. That's the 'profiteering' in question.
Sweeney denounces her for allegedly profiting from an ad infintum war that he has voted for at every step of the way.
Is it only acceptable for companies with Republican ties to profit from the 'fight for freedom'?
Let me get this straight: Gillibrand wants end a disaster from which she's accused of profiting from personally. Sweeney is comfortable with the non-strategy of American troops dying in Iraq indefinitely, with no clear mission and with no expectations of Iraqis being able to provide for their own security.
Which is the less honorable position?
Gag rule
I was amused to read the match report of yesterday's English Premier League (EPL) soccer match between Sheffield United and Blackburn Rovers. The match finished goalless but three penalties were awarded (two to Sheffield Utd), all of which were saved by the goalkeepers. It's not surprising that there was controversy in this match. Blackburn is the dirtiest team in the EPL and United's Neil Warnock is one of the two most obnoxious managers in the league.
The reactions of the two bosses:
Warnock: "Obviously I thought ours were penalties and theirs wasn't."
(Obviously. We can't expect managers to be intellectually honest.)
Blackburn manager Mark Hughes: "We are pleased that the two penalties have not cost us because I think the decisions were poor."
Both managers thought the ref got it wrong on every key decision (except the ones that went in their favor).
Referee bashing has been endemic in all sports since forever. But it seems to be getting worse.
It's ironic because the culture of English soccer PLAY is one of rough, rugged, macho tough guys. But the EPL's managers are some of the most obnoxious snivelling whiners in all of sport. It baffles me why English fans turning on players who are crying babies but say little about EPL managers (well British ones anyways; they readily go after a certain Portugese one) who pull the very same crap.
This is disturbing because English soccer is unfortunately the biggest influence on the American soccer culture. Fortunately, this garbage hasn't plagued Major League Soccer too much. Let's hope it stays that way.
The EPL, like most big soccer leagues, requires managers or coaches to talk to the media after games. But since more and more bosses have nothing to say except the ref cheated them, maybe rather than mandating such press conferences, the league should ban them instead.
The reactions of the two bosses:
Warnock: "Obviously I thought ours were penalties and theirs wasn't."
(Obviously. We can't expect managers to be intellectually honest.)
Blackburn manager Mark Hughes: "We are pleased that the two penalties have not cost us because I think the decisions were poor."
Both managers thought the ref got it wrong on every key decision (except the ones that went in their favor).
Referee bashing has been endemic in all sports since forever. But it seems to be getting worse.
It's ironic because the culture of English soccer PLAY is one of rough, rugged, macho tough guys. But the EPL's managers are some of the most obnoxious snivelling whiners in all of sport. It baffles me why English fans turning on players who are crying babies but say little about EPL managers (well British ones anyways; they readily go after a certain Portugese one) who pull the very same crap.
This is disturbing because English soccer is unfortunately the biggest influence on the American soccer culture. Fortunately, this garbage hasn't plagued Major League Soccer too much. Let's hope it stays that way.
The EPL, like most big soccer leagues, requires managers or coaches to talk to the media after games. But since more and more bosses have nothing to say except the ref cheated them, maybe rather than mandating such press conferences, the league should ban them instead.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Network follies
I was visiting my parents earlier this week. They watched both ABC and CBS evening news. I don't have much regard for TV news but I watched it with them just because I was there.
ABC had a segment on the controversial 9/11 'docudrama' they are airing. Apparently, they got some central facts wrong. What's worse is that they appear to have done so intentionally and are rightly taking heat for it.
For example, they aired a scene where a CIA agent had Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs but Pres.Clinton's national security advisor pulled the plug at the last second.
One problem: that never happened.
ABC claims that the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But the 9/11 Commission Report said it didn't happen, that Osama was never in anyone's crosshairs.
ABC Entertainment responded to these accusations with a shrug. It's not a documentary, it's a docudrama. They didn't even pretend to say the scenes in question were anything close to accurate.
A docudrama is not a documentary but a one that claims to be based on a factual document should remain reasonably faithful to that document. They don't have to get everything exactly correct but they have to get the main parts correct.
If then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright were wearing a blue suit and drinking a cup of coffee in a particular meeting and the film showed her wearing a red suit and drinking a can of Coke, this wouldn't be a big deal. But getting facts central to the story incorrect and then hiding behind some notion of artistic license (after claiming that the film is based on a document)? Ethically, this is dubious.
What if the film had shown a scene where Pres. Bush ordered the CIA to commit the terrorist attacks? What if the film had car bombs blowing up the Space Needle and Dodger Stadium as the central events of 9/11? Wouldn't people have been outraged? Would that have been within fair artistic license?
Some will say that the film is fictionalized, just like the West Wing, so anything's fair game. But there are some big differences. West Wing was often inspired by real events, but storylines were fictionalized, other countries were usually fictionalized and people's names were fictionalized. The main character wasn't Pres. Clinton or Pres. Bush, it was Pres. Bartlet.
By using real people's names and having them do things they didn't really do (especially while claiming that the film is based on a document), ABC is veering uncomfortably close to criminal defamation.
I don't have any problem with the film showing mistakes made by the Clinton administration in not sufficiently dealing with Islamic extremism. But if the Clintonites really did make so many mistakes, then ABC surely could've designed the film in such a way that central facts were respected while still getting their point across. Especially since they claim the film was based on a document.
Given that key scenes in the film are now known to be demonstrably false, I don't know how anyone can take the rest seriously. Any purported educational value pretended by ABC is now nul and void.
***
Then, I watched the new CBS News with Katie Couric. I was hardly inspired but I didn't expect to be. They had a segment called Free Speech, which is a random person making a brief opinion discourse on a topic of their choice. The segment I saw had Rush Limbaugh. This segment has potential but only if done differently.
First, the segment is only 60-90 seconds long. In order for the segment to have any value, it needs to be at least a few minutes long in order for the speaker to venture away from predictable soundbites and into, gasp, nuance. I know that's an eternity on the network news but if they're not going to do it right, why bother.
I was also disappointed with the choice of Limbaugh for two reasons. I have no problem with putting an avowed conservative on, but why put on someone so partisan and shrill? If 'Free Speech' is going to be any different from the plethora of yap shows, then it must eschew speakers with that mentality. Spare us the Limbaughs. Spare us the Jim Carvilles and Michael Moores and Ann Coulters and their lame, predictable soundbites. When I listen to these people, not only do I not learn anything, but I feel myself actually getting stupider.
The other problem I have with the choice of Limbaugh is that he already has a long daily radio show that's aired on tons of radio stations across the country. People like him and Al Franken and others already have a medium to reach a huge audience with their opinions. Give us someone new and fresh. You want someone to argue that the 'war on terror' must be supported unconditionally? Isn't there some college professor, think tank person or retired ambassador without their own broadcast show who could make that case?
If this is going to be yet another vehicle for establishment people to express their establishment opinions, then it will be a waste of time. But it can also be a chance for intelligent, well-spoken people without a national profile to get exposure for their ideas.
It all depends on what CBS does with it.
Update: This guy has a great piece pointing out how even many conservatives have criticized the shortcomings of ABC's 9/11 'docudrama.' Even Bill O'Reilly, a person more normally associated with deceit and the other worst traits of modern 'punditry,' is critical. Given the hyperideological times and the hyperpoliticized event in question, it's nice to know that even some of the most partisan warriors can put aside their ideology for a moment and retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Too bad this can't be the rule in public discourse rather than the exception.
ABC had a segment on the controversial 9/11 'docudrama' they are airing. Apparently, they got some central facts wrong. What's worse is that they appear to have done so intentionally and are rightly taking heat for it.
For example, they aired a scene where a CIA agent had Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs but Pres.Clinton's national security advisor pulled the plug at the last second.
One problem: that never happened.
ABC claims that the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But the 9/11 Commission Report said it didn't happen, that Osama was never in anyone's crosshairs.
ABC Entertainment responded to these accusations with a shrug. It's not a documentary, it's a docudrama. They didn't even pretend to say the scenes in question were anything close to accurate.
A docudrama is not a documentary but a one that claims to be based on a factual document should remain reasonably faithful to that document. They don't have to get everything exactly correct but they have to get the main parts correct.
If then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright were wearing a blue suit and drinking a cup of coffee in a particular meeting and the film showed her wearing a red suit and drinking a can of Coke, this wouldn't be a big deal. But getting facts central to the story incorrect and then hiding behind some notion of artistic license (after claiming that the film is based on a document)? Ethically, this is dubious.
What if the film had shown a scene where Pres. Bush ordered the CIA to commit the terrorist attacks? What if the film had car bombs blowing up the Space Needle and Dodger Stadium as the central events of 9/11? Wouldn't people have been outraged? Would that have been within fair artistic license?
Some will say that the film is fictionalized, just like the West Wing, so anything's fair game. But there are some big differences. West Wing was often inspired by real events, but storylines were fictionalized, other countries were usually fictionalized and people's names were fictionalized. The main character wasn't Pres. Clinton or Pres. Bush, it was Pres. Bartlet.
By using real people's names and having them do things they didn't really do (especially while claiming that the film is based on a document), ABC is veering uncomfortably close to criminal defamation.
I don't have any problem with the film showing mistakes made by the Clinton administration in not sufficiently dealing with Islamic extremism. But if the Clintonites really did make so many mistakes, then ABC surely could've designed the film in such a way that central facts were respected while still getting their point across. Especially since they claim the film was based on a document.
Given that key scenes in the film are now known to be demonstrably false, I don't know how anyone can take the rest seriously. Any purported educational value pretended by ABC is now nul and void.
***
Then, I watched the new CBS News with Katie Couric. I was hardly inspired but I didn't expect to be. They had a segment called Free Speech, which is a random person making a brief opinion discourse on a topic of their choice. The segment I saw had Rush Limbaugh. This segment has potential but only if done differently.
First, the segment is only 60-90 seconds long. In order for the segment to have any value, it needs to be at least a few minutes long in order for the speaker to venture away from predictable soundbites and into, gasp, nuance. I know that's an eternity on the network news but if they're not going to do it right, why bother.
I was also disappointed with the choice of Limbaugh for two reasons. I have no problem with putting an avowed conservative on, but why put on someone so partisan and shrill? If 'Free Speech' is going to be any different from the plethora of yap shows, then it must eschew speakers with that mentality. Spare us the Limbaughs. Spare us the Jim Carvilles and Michael Moores and Ann Coulters and their lame, predictable soundbites. When I listen to these people, not only do I not learn anything, but I feel myself actually getting stupider.
The other problem I have with the choice of Limbaugh is that he already has a long daily radio show that's aired on tons of radio stations across the country. People like him and Al Franken and others already have a medium to reach a huge audience with their opinions. Give us someone new and fresh. You want someone to argue that the 'war on terror' must be supported unconditionally? Isn't there some college professor, think tank person or retired ambassador without their own broadcast show who could make that case?
If this is going to be yet another vehicle for establishment people to express their establishment opinions, then it will be a waste of time. But it can also be a chance for intelligent, well-spoken people without a national profile to get exposure for their ideas.
It all depends on what CBS does with it.
Update: This guy has a great piece pointing out how even many conservatives have criticized the shortcomings of ABC's 9/11 'docudrama.' Even Bill O'Reilly, a person more normally associated with deceit and the other worst traits of modern 'punditry,' is critical. Given the hyperideological times and the hyperpoliticized event in question, it's nice to know that even some of the most partisan warriors can put aside their ideology for a moment and retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Too bad this can't be the rule in public discourse rather than the exception.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a homosexual? (pt. 2)
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this 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, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
Sexual McCarthyism is alive and well in many parts of Africa. Sure, homosexual acts are banned in most African countries but it's more than that. After all, private sexual acts between consenting, unrelated adults of the same gender were illegal in some parts of the US until only a few years ago. In some African countries, things are much worse for gays and lesbians.
Nigeria's government, supposedly led by one of Africa's statesmen, is actually trying to ban free speech for gay rights activists. Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe and former Namibian president Sam Nujoma have angrily compared gays to pigs and dogs; both are former leaders of 'liberation' movements.
Earlier this year, Cameroon launched a gay witchhunt by publishing the names of alleged homosexuals.
A few days ago, a Ugandan paper has done the same thing. This is a troubling devlopment in a country run by a strongman who's also used vitriolic language to regularly denounce homosexual men and women.
"For years, President Yoweri Museveni's government routinely threatens and vilifies lesbians and gays, and subjects sexual rights activists to harassment," said [Human Rights' Watch's] Jessica Stern.
When not confronted by official government harassment and state sponsored homophobia, many gays and lesbians in Africa are subject to violence and even death at the hands of 'vigilantes'.
Sexual McCarthyism is alive and well in many parts of Africa. Sure, homosexual acts are banned in most African countries but it's more than that. After all, private sexual acts between consenting, unrelated adults of the same gender were illegal in some parts of the US until only a few years ago. In some African countries, things are much worse for gays and lesbians.
Nigeria's government, supposedly led by one of Africa's statesmen, is actually trying to ban free speech for gay rights activists. Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe and former Namibian president Sam Nujoma have angrily compared gays to pigs and dogs; both are former leaders of 'liberation' movements.
Earlier this year, Cameroon launched a gay witchhunt by publishing the names of alleged homosexuals.
A few days ago, a Ugandan paper has done the same thing. This is a troubling devlopment in a country run by a strongman who's also used vitriolic language to regularly denounce homosexual men and women.
"For years, President Yoweri Museveni's government routinely threatens and vilifies lesbians and gays, and subjects sexual rights activists to harassment," said [Human Rights' Watch's] Jessica Stern.
When not confronted by official government harassment and state sponsored homophobia, many gays and lesbians in Africa are subject to violence and even death at the hands of 'vigilantes'.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Green candidate for NY governor to visit Glens Falls
Matt reports:
Contact: Matt Funiciello (518) 361 - 6278 or mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
September 6, 2006 - Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that Green Party candidate for New York State Governor Malachy McCourt will be in Glens Falls to perform his one man show “You Don’t Have to Be Irish to Vote For Me” at the Wood Theater at 8pm on Saturday, September 23, 2006. A mystery guest will introduce McCourt.
On August 22, 2006 the Green Party of NY State filed about 30,000 signatures - twice the number required - to place Malachy McCourt and the GPNYS Peace Slate on the ballot for November 7th.
McCourt’s Patriots for Peace campaign offers an alternative to the bankrupt campaign of negativity and fear mongering by his opponents. Among his proposals are plans to bring the New York National Guard home from Iraq.
“There is no such thing as a just war because in all wars, the majority of people who are killed are innocent. We need to resolve our differences and difficulties by peaceful methods,” McCourt said.
McCourt also seeks to abolish the Death Penalty in New York once and for all, will pursue the elimination of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. He believes in healthcare for all New Yorkers, ridding New York State of its old and dangerous nuclear power plants, curbing global warming, and legalizing same-sex marriage.
McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt. He is a well-known radio host on WBAI 99.5 FM/Pacifica Radio in New York City. He is highly regarded by progressives for the stand he took for justice by marching in the alternative Queens St. Pat’s for All Parade, the response to the traditional NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade which excludes the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender community.
Tickets for the event will be available for $20 each in advance at either Rock Hill Cafe or at High Peaks Java. If the show is not sold out, tickets will also be available at the door. All proceeds will be used to support the McCourt campaign.
Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, and members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. For more information on the McCourt campaign see: www.malachyforgovernor.com
Contact: Matt Funiciello (518) 361 - 6278 or mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
September 6, 2006 - Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that Green Party candidate for New York State Governor Malachy McCourt will be in Glens Falls to perform his one man show “You Don’t Have to Be Irish to Vote For Me” at the Wood Theater at 8pm on Saturday, September 23, 2006. A mystery guest will introduce McCourt.
On August 22, 2006 the Green Party of NY State filed about 30,000 signatures - twice the number required - to place Malachy McCourt and the GPNYS Peace Slate on the ballot for November 7th.
McCourt’s Patriots for Peace campaign offers an alternative to the bankrupt campaign of negativity and fear mongering by his opponents. Among his proposals are plans to bring the New York National Guard home from Iraq.
“There is no such thing as a just war because in all wars, the majority of people who are killed are innocent. We need to resolve our differences and difficulties by peaceful methods,” McCourt said.
McCourt also seeks to abolish the Death Penalty in New York once and for all, will pursue the elimination of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. He believes in healthcare for all New Yorkers, ridding New York State of its old and dangerous nuclear power plants, curbing global warming, and legalizing same-sex marriage.
McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt. He is a well-known radio host on WBAI 99.5 FM/Pacifica Radio in New York City. He is highly regarded by progressives for the stand he took for justice by marching in the alternative Queens St. Pat’s for All Parade, the response to the traditional NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade which excludes the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender community.
Tickets for the event will be available for $20 each in advance at either Rock Hill Cafe or at High Peaks Java. If the show is not sold out, tickets will also be available at the door. All proceeds will be used to support the McCourt campaign.
Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, and members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. For more information on the McCourt campaign see: www.malachyforgovernor.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)