Matt Funiciello reports that Michael Moore's new film Sicko will be run at Aimie's Dinner and Movie in downtown Glens Falls starting tomorrow, Friday July 20. (Matt's review of the film can be found here).
He reports that it will play as long as it's being watched. Aside from Matt's own Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe, Aimie's is the only place in the Glens Falls area that even occasionally plays progressive-themed films. Call (518) 792-8181 to make reservations.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Courageous Saudi Greens
While net surfing, I was amazed and impressed to find out that there existed a Green Party of Saudi Arabia. Even more amazing since all its activities are clandestine as political parties are banned in the kingdom.
The Green Party here in the US certainly faces its share of hurdles. Such as ballot access and other issues related to rigged electoral law, derisory coverage in the corporate media, alleged Democratic infiltration in the party apparatus, etc. But it's nothing like what the Saudi Greens faced with in arguably the world's most repressive society.
KSA Greens also endorse many causes that would surely get them in deep trouble with the hyperconservative Saudi authorities such as opposition to honor killings, female genital mutilation and homophobia.
The Green Party here in the US certainly faces its share of hurdles. Such as ballot access and other issues related to rigged electoral law, derisory coverage in the corporate media, alleged Democratic infiltration in the party apparatus, etc. But it's nothing like what the Saudi Greens faced with in arguably the world's most repressive society.
KSA Greens also endorse many causes that would surely get them in deep trouble with the hyperconservative Saudi authorities such as opposition to honor killings, female genital mutilation and homophobia.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Climate change in Cape Verde
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, North Korea and Iran.
National Public Radio has a pair of stories on a place little reported on in both the western and African medias: the West African island nation of Cape Verde.
All Things Considered had a piece on a community of refugees from Cape Verde in the USA, who'd fled the archipelago because of drought.
Morning Edition had a story on its own story on how climate change is affecting Cape Verde and how residents are coping.
For something that supposedly is a figment of Al Gore's imagination, climate change is already having a big impact... most severely in countries whose greenhouse gas production is negligible.
National Public Radio has a pair of stories on a place little reported on in both the western and African medias: the West African island nation of Cape Verde.
All Things Considered had a piece on a community of refugees from Cape Verde in the USA, who'd fled the archipelago because of drought.
Morning Edition had a story on its own story on how climate change is affecting Cape Verde and how residents are coping.
For something that supposedly is a figment of Al Gore's imagination, climate change is already having a big impact... most severely in countries whose greenhouse gas production is negligible.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Truth tellers: the latest endangered species
The news has been a mixed bag lately.
The Bush administration has long said that US troops will only remain in Iraq so long as they are needed.
Over the weekend, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki said US troops were no longer needed.
Despite this, President Bush is opposing Congressional efforts that would withdraw all US troops by April of next year.
So the question is does Bush not believe the prime minister's words or his own?
The Washington Post reported that last November, CIA director Michael Hayden told the Iraq Study Group that instability in Iraq was 'irreversible.' Former defense secretary William J. Perry, one of the five Democrats on the Iraq Study Group, confirmed that Hayden told them the Iraqi government seemed beyond repair. Another senior intelligence official added that the assessment was fundamentally the same today.
Later that November day, Bush spoke of the situation of Iraq in glowing, 'Churchillian' terms.
So does Bush believe his CIA director's words or his own?
And if Iraq is as utopian as he describes it, why is the further presence of US troops needed?
At home, Scooter Libby might not be the only high-ranking administration official who'll need impunity for tell under oath. Reuters recounted a Washington Post story that reported that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had assured Congress in 2005 that the FBI had not abused powers granted under an anti-terrorism law despite having received reports of potential violations.
No wonder Bush doesn't want Harriet Miers or Sara Taylor to testify under oath to Congress. With this administration's record on truth telling, I'd be afraid to. It makes you wonder why Evangelical Christians are so eagerly behind these guys who seem incapable of putting their hand on the Holy Bible and swearing 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help [them] God'... and actually doing it.
Justice Department officials did not know if Gonzales had actually read the report in question. So essentially it seems that the nation's top law enforcement official is guilty of either lying under oath or gross negligence? You know things are bad when astronomical incompetence is considered the lesser or two sins.
At least there's a shred of good news. The Senate is debating whether to reinstate the most basic tenet of western civilization, despite fierce White House opposition.
The Bush administration has long said that US troops will only remain in Iraq so long as they are needed.
Over the weekend, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki said US troops were no longer needed.
Despite this, President Bush is opposing Congressional efforts that would withdraw all US troops by April of next year.
So the question is does Bush not believe the prime minister's words or his own?
The Washington Post reported that last November, CIA director Michael Hayden told the Iraq Study Group that instability in Iraq was 'irreversible.' Former defense secretary William J. Perry, one of the five Democrats on the Iraq Study Group, confirmed that Hayden told them the Iraqi government seemed beyond repair. Another senior intelligence official added that the assessment was fundamentally the same today.
Later that November day, Bush spoke of the situation of Iraq in glowing, 'Churchillian' terms.
So does Bush believe his CIA director's words or his own?
And if Iraq is as utopian as he describes it, why is the further presence of US troops needed?
At home, Scooter Libby might not be the only high-ranking administration official who'll need impunity for tell under oath. Reuters recounted a Washington Post story that reported that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had assured Congress in 2005 that the FBI had not abused powers granted under an anti-terrorism law despite having received reports of potential violations.
No wonder Bush doesn't want Harriet Miers or Sara Taylor to testify under oath to Congress. With this administration's record on truth telling, I'd be afraid to. It makes you wonder why Evangelical Christians are so eagerly behind these guys who seem incapable of putting their hand on the Holy Bible and swearing 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help [them] God'... and actually doing it.
Justice Department officials did not know if Gonzales had actually read the report in question. So essentially it seems that the nation's top law enforcement official is guilty of either lying under oath or gross negligence? You know things are bad when astronomical incompetence is considered the lesser or two sins.
At least there's a shred of good news. The Senate is debating whether to reinstate the most basic tenet of western civilization, despite fierce White House opposition.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
In praise of a Republican
It's not very often that I praise a Republican politician in this blog but I have to give a tip of the cap to New York Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward.
A few weeks ago, the New York state Assembly debated and eventually passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. It almost certainly won't be considered by the state Senate, whose Republican leader is more worried about keeping his job and his freedom. The fact that the bill is being supported by the Senate majority leader's archenemy, the governor, isn't likely to help its cause. But the debate on the issue was interesting.
A moderate conservative Republican and devout Catholic, Sayward represents an extremely conservative rural area of upstate New York. Yet she rose to the floor of the Assembly and kept members in rapt with her speech in FAVOR of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Her appeal was intensely personal.
Retiring AP reporter Marc Humbert writes:
For five minutes, Teresa Sayward spoke to the hushed chamber about her son. About his coming home from elementary school and asking what "fag" and "queer" meant.
"My son didn't want to be different. Lord knows, he wanted to change," she recalled.
"So I consulted the church. I read everything I could. I read the Bible. I read white papers on this issue. Surely, I could make him normal," said Sayward.
He also tried. He got a girlfriend in high school. It helped for a while, she said. His classmates were more accepting.
[...]
"When he would come home on the weekend, we would spend long nights crying together and talking," she said. "One night, I said to him, `You have to be who you are. You can't be what people think you should be.'
"And he said to me, `But Mom, I want to be normal. I want to have a house and a fence and a dog and children and I want to be successful,"' Sayward said.
"He did decide with us _ with his family, with his father and I _ that he would be who he was. And, he became much happier in life," she said. "I'm happy to report that my son has the house and the fence and the dog. And, he's raised two wonderful young men."
"Let's search our hearts tonight and do the right thing and vote for the civil rights and the human rights of all of the people that we represent and give them the right to marry the people they love just like I had the right, 43 years ago, to marry my husband," Sayward pleaded.
The applause went on for a full 20 seconds.
Her story was touching. It was also telling.
It's easy to hate people in theory based on an innate personal characteristic like sexual orientation (or skin color, ethnicity, etc.). It's a lot harder to hate someone who is your relative, your friend or your neighbor. Especially after you've already come to respect them for their character or other consciously chosen personal traits.
Not surprisingly, Sayward's vote has caused a bit of a stir in her hyper-conservative district. Some people have blasted her for not representing the wishes of her constituents. Others have suggested they won't vote for her in the next election based on this single issue.
I think this is a great example of why we don't have more principled elected officials in this country. If you stick your finger in the wind and do whatever the polls tell you is popular, you will be accused of believing in nothing. If you vote your conscience, you are accused of snubbing your nose at your constituents.
If you lead, you are 'out of touch.' If you follow, you 'lack courage.'
Jefferson said that people tend to get the kind of government they deserve. He was right.
I sent Assemblywoman Sayward (my legislator) a note of support and gratitude. To me, this is a simple matter of affording gay citizens the same rights as straight citizens. There's nothing revolutionary about that. Or at least there shouldn't be.
The Assembly's vote come only a few weeks after the 40th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Loving decision. In it, the high court ruled that the state could not arbitrarily and capriciously deny two law-abiding, consenting adults from getting married simply because of unchosen, inate traits. As such, the Court voided a Virginia law banning a black person from marrying a white person.
The Court did not stick its finger in the wind and figure out what the majority of Virginians or Americans might have wanted at that particular moment in time. It ruled on what was right and what was constitutional. Hopefully more legislators like Mrs. Sayward will do the same.
A few weeks ago, the New York state Assembly debated and eventually passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. It almost certainly won't be considered by the state Senate, whose Republican leader is more worried about keeping his job and his freedom. The fact that the bill is being supported by the Senate majority leader's archenemy, the governor, isn't likely to help its cause. But the debate on the issue was interesting.
A moderate conservative Republican and devout Catholic, Sayward represents an extremely conservative rural area of upstate New York. Yet she rose to the floor of the Assembly and kept members in rapt with her speech in FAVOR of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Her appeal was intensely personal.
Retiring AP reporter Marc Humbert writes:
For five minutes, Teresa Sayward spoke to the hushed chamber about her son. About his coming home from elementary school and asking what "fag" and "queer" meant.
"My son didn't want to be different. Lord knows, he wanted to change," she recalled.
"So I consulted the church. I read everything I could. I read the Bible. I read white papers on this issue. Surely, I could make him normal," said Sayward.
He also tried. He got a girlfriend in high school. It helped for a while, she said. His classmates were more accepting.
[...]
"When he would come home on the weekend, we would spend long nights crying together and talking," she said. "One night, I said to him, `You have to be who you are. You can't be what people think you should be.'
"And he said to me, `But Mom, I want to be normal. I want to have a house and a fence and a dog and children and I want to be successful,"' Sayward said.
"He did decide with us _ with his family, with his father and I _ that he would be who he was. And, he became much happier in life," she said. "I'm happy to report that my son has the house and the fence and the dog. And, he's raised two wonderful young men."
"Let's search our hearts tonight and do the right thing and vote for the civil rights and the human rights of all of the people that we represent and give them the right to marry the people they love just like I had the right, 43 years ago, to marry my husband," Sayward pleaded.
The applause went on for a full 20 seconds.
Her story was touching. It was also telling.
It's easy to hate people in theory based on an innate personal characteristic like sexual orientation (or skin color, ethnicity, etc.). It's a lot harder to hate someone who is your relative, your friend or your neighbor. Especially after you've already come to respect them for their character or other consciously chosen personal traits.
Not surprisingly, Sayward's vote has caused a bit of a stir in her hyper-conservative district. Some people have blasted her for not representing the wishes of her constituents. Others have suggested they won't vote for her in the next election based on this single issue.
I think this is a great example of why we don't have more principled elected officials in this country. If you stick your finger in the wind and do whatever the polls tell you is popular, you will be accused of believing in nothing. If you vote your conscience, you are accused of snubbing your nose at your constituents.
If you lead, you are 'out of touch.' If you follow, you 'lack courage.'
Jefferson said that people tend to get the kind of government they deserve. He was right.
I sent Assemblywoman Sayward (my legislator) a note of support and gratitude. To me, this is a simple matter of affording gay citizens the same rights as straight citizens. There's nothing revolutionary about that. Or at least there shouldn't be.
The Assembly's vote come only a few weeks after the 40th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Loving decision. In it, the high court ruled that the state could not arbitrarily and capriciously deny two law-abiding, consenting adults from getting married simply because of unchosen, inate traits. As such, the Court voided a Virginia law banning a black person from marrying a white person.
The Court did not stick its finger in the wind and figure out what the majority of Virginians or Americans might have wanted at that particular moment in time. It ruled on what was right and what was constitutional. Hopefully more legislators like Mrs. Sayward will do the same.
Jesse Jackson: please retire
Can Jesse Jackson just please retire? He's become such a pale shadow of his former self that he's almost become a cartoon character, such that it threatens to tarnish his well-earned legacy as a civil rights' leader.
While he once stood with sanitation workers in 1968 who were fighting for a living wage, he now is standing up for an 'oppressed' baseball player who is paid more in than 45 minutes (salary alone) than a someone on minimum wage earns in a month.
And what exactly is this baseball player's great burden that so enrages the reverend?
I mean, besides his poverty wages.
Barry Bonds is about the break the Major League Baseball home run record and the commissioner hasn't yet promised to be in attendance.
When is Bonds going to break the record? No one knows. It's different than when Cal Ripken Jr broke Lou Gehrig's record and pretty much everyone could point to a date on the calendar when it was going to happen. Why should Selig put his life on hold for something which might happen tomorrow or might happen in three weeks?
Bear in mind, Selig hasn't even actually snubbed Bonds yet because the event hasn't occured.
But of course Bonds is black so it must be made into a fake issue by Jackson. Selig's non-committal status has been condemned by Jackson. But the reverend has not, to my knowledge, attacked Hank Aaron (whose record Bonds will break) for also not committing to attend the record-breaking night whenever that might be.
Does this dichotomy in Jackson's behavior have even a tiny bit to do with the fact that Selig is white and Aaron is black?
When Aaron broke the home run record in 1974, then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn was not in attendance. Strangely enough, I don't know of any histories of the civil rights' movement that mentions Kuhn's 'snub.' Maybe because within the context of desegregation, voting rights and the fight against lynching and poverty, Kuhn's failure to attend a baseball game was insignificant.
Increasingly, Rev. Jackson, who I once held in great esteem, is a man in search of fake causes to keep himself in the public limelight. Some argue that he was always like that. Maybe I used to be willing to overlook that because he used the publicity to bring publicity to real causes. Not any more.
While racism is certainly less pernicious than it was 40 years ago, there remain many issues facing black communities. Drugs, poverty, family decay, crime, imprisonment, voting access issues, the limited availability of good health care, etc. Any of these are worthy of a public media campaign. But the reverend has trivialized these grave situation with non-issues like this one. How can blacks who want to be real leaders and address real issues get any traction when all the publicity is being hogged by Jackson and his tantrums on behalf of spoiled brat multimillionaires?
While he once stood with sanitation workers in 1968 who were fighting for a living wage, he now is standing up for an 'oppressed' baseball player who is paid more in than 45 minutes (salary alone) than a someone on minimum wage earns in a month.
And what exactly is this baseball player's great burden that so enrages the reverend?
I mean, besides his poverty wages.
Barry Bonds is about the break the Major League Baseball home run record and the commissioner hasn't yet promised to be in attendance.
When is Bonds going to break the record? No one knows. It's different than when Cal Ripken Jr broke Lou Gehrig's record and pretty much everyone could point to a date on the calendar when it was going to happen. Why should Selig put his life on hold for something which might happen tomorrow or might happen in three weeks?
Bear in mind, Selig hasn't even actually snubbed Bonds yet because the event hasn't occured.
But of course Bonds is black so it must be made into a fake issue by Jackson. Selig's non-committal status has been condemned by Jackson. But the reverend has not, to my knowledge, attacked Hank Aaron (whose record Bonds will break) for also not committing to attend the record-breaking night whenever that might be.
Does this dichotomy in Jackson's behavior have even a tiny bit to do with the fact that Selig is white and Aaron is black?
When Aaron broke the home run record in 1974, then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn was not in attendance. Strangely enough, I don't know of any histories of the civil rights' movement that mentions Kuhn's 'snub.' Maybe because within the context of desegregation, voting rights and the fight against lynching and poverty, Kuhn's failure to attend a baseball game was insignificant.
Increasingly, Rev. Jackson, who I once held in great esteem, is a man in search of fake causes to keep himself in the public limelight. Some argue that he was always like that. Maybe I used to be willing to overlook that because he used the publicity to bring publicity to real causes. Not any more.
While racism is certainly less pernicious than it was 40 years ago, there remain many issues facing black communities. Drugs, poverty, family decay, crime, imprisonment, voting access issues, the limited availability of good health care, etc. Any of these are worthy of a public media campaign. But the reverend has trivialized these grave situation with non-issues like this one. How can blacks who want to be real leaders and address real issues get any traction when all the publicity is being hogged by Jackson and his tantrums on behalf of spoiled brat multimillionaires?
Saturday, July 14, 2007
US troops can leave now: Iraqi PM
Remember how President Bush and his allies have always contended that US troops will stay in Iraq only as long as they are needed.
The country's prime minister has come out and said that they are no longer needed.
Nouri al-Maliki said that his security forces could handle any challenge and that American troops can leave immediately.
"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he told journalists.
One aide to Maliki sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations and embarrassing the Iraqi government through such tactics as building a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah....
The aide complained that the US occupation was turning one of the oldest civilizations in the world into a giant petri dish.
Hassan al-Suneid opined, "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."
The country's prime minister has come out and said that they are no longer needed.
Nouri al-Maliki said that his security forces could handle any challenge and that American troops can leave immediately.
"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he told journalists.
One aide to Maliki sharply criticized the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations and embarrassing the Iraqi government through such tactics as building a wall around Baghdad's Sunni neighborhood of Azamiyah....
The aide complained that the US occupation was turning one of the oldest civilizations in the world into a giant petri dish.
Hassan al-Suneid opined, "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."
The unhealthy politicization of the public interest
The Bush administration politicized the intelligence community in the run up to the aggression against Iraq. It politicized the Justice Department by firing (completely legal and completely unethical) of US attorneys who followed investigations where they led rather than following the administration's political objectives. It has launched a broader war on science.
So I guess it's little surprise that the administration politicized public health as well. Though this accusation was made not by Democrats but by the man appointed by President Bush himself.
Former surgeon general Dr. Richard Carmona told Congress that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, reported The New York Times.
In what is supposed to be a job advocating for the public's health interest, administration officials tried to turn him into a North Korean-style appartchick. Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.
These people are so small minded that according to Carmona, the president's cabal even discouraged him from working with the widely-respected Special Olympics, because it was closely linked the Kennedys.
I've often said that this administration's fundamental flaw is not ideology (odious as it is) but rather a process that discourages intellectual rigor and serious debate. It's been long clear that the administration figures out its game plan and then contrives the facts to fit their ideas rather than the sane method of letting the facts drive the decision. The former surgeon general echoed this.
On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.
“I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said.
The difference between rational people and fanatics is that rational people are open to changing their minds if they are confronted with a compelling argument or reality to the contrary. Fanatics make up their mind and 'stay the course' even if it means ramming their head into a brick wall over and over again.
Except it's not just they who become dizzy, but the entire nation.
Update: Maybe they wanted to get rid of Dr. Carmona so they can install a new, more bigoted person for the job. Since Carmona couldn't be the pseudo-scientist they wanted, they found someone whose 'science' more closely reflected the administration's ideology
So I guess it's little surprise that the administration politicized public health as well. Though this accusation was made not by Democrats but by the man appointed by President Bush himself.
Former surgeon general Dr. Richard Carmona told Congress that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, reported The New York Times.
In what is supposed to be a job advocating for the public's health interest, administration officials tried to turn him into a North Korean-style appartchick. Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.
These people are so small minded that according to Carmona, the president's cabal even discouraged him from working with the widely-respected Special Olympics, because it was closely linked the Kennedys.
I've often said that this administration's fundamental flaw is not ideology (odious as it is) but rather a process that discourages intellectual rigor and serious debate. It's been long clear that the administration figures out its game plan and then contrives the facts to fit their ideas rather than the sane method of letting the facts drive the decision. The former surgeon general echoed this.
On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.
“I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said.
The difference between rational people and fanatics is that rational people are open to changing their minds if they are confronted with a compelling argument or reality to the contrary. Fanatics make up their mind and 'stay the course' even if it means ramming their head into a brick wall over and over again.
Except it's not just they who become dizzy, but the entire nation.
Update: Maybe they wanted to get rid of Dr. Carmona so they can install a new, more bigoted person for the job. Since Carmona couldn't be the pseudo-scientist they wanted, they found someone whose 'science' more closely reflected the administration's ideology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)