American democracy: Not dead yet

Much has been written, here on Dangerous Intersection and elsewhere, about the corrupting effect that massive amounts of corporate spending and lobbying has on our democracy. And I don't disagree with any of that - I think public financing of elections, or at the least more stringent disclosure laws, would…

Continue ReadingAmerican democracy: Not dead yet

News report features what is wrong with news reports

I just watched a Fresno local news report regarding a Tea Party protest of William Ayers. Watching this TV report reminded me of the adage about a tree falling in a forest: If Bill Ayers simply came to California to give a talk, but there were no Tea Party demonstrators in sight, you wouldn't hear anything about it on the news. But when a smattering of Tea Party folks comes out to protest Ayers' right to say anything, it becomes news. Once again, we can see that raw, visceral, uninformed conflict is driving our news--not ideas and certainly nothing productive. The bottom line take-away from this report appears to be a reinforcement of the Manichean world view. This TV display of lots of heat and not much light is standard fare for television news. Hence, my term, "conflict pornography." This type of consciously-injected agon is furthered by flashy banners and the sound effects, as well as terms like "Action News!" All of these media tricks smoothly tap into that inextricably deep human misconception that "Movement is Progress," combined with our deeply rooted xenophobic impulses: Keep moving! Outsiders are threatening you! Keep fighting! Pay attention! Buy this! Buy that! But back to this TV news report. Consider the opening line of the news anchor in the video: "One of the leaders of a radical movement of the 60's and 70's . . ." Note the sarcasm dripping from her voice when she reports that Ayers is claiming that "he has something in common" with the protesters. I think that it's time for these reporters to take a deep breath and focus on the bigger picture: what was the context of the "radical" actions of Ayers? I would suggest that many (maybe most) modern Americans would agree with most of the principles of his "radical movement" (that "Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States." And see here). On the other hand, I would agree that most Americans would disapprove of the use of any sort of bombs, even where the bombs were carefully planned to explode in empty offices, so as not to cause any injuries. And further consider the failure of this report (and most others about Ayers, especially during the Obama campaign) that Ayers has repeatedly questioned his own tactics.

Continue ReadingNews report features what is wrong with news reports

We need a monarch.

I hate to sound like a Tea-Party nutbag, but I really love the United States' Constitution. As I've mentioned before, I'm a free-speech fanatic. I love the Constitution's sharp focus on individual liberties, its emphasis on the rights of the accused, and that grade-school-civics favorite, the checks and balances of power. I despair when these ideals meet real-life sacrifices, especially glaring ones like, oh, the utter lack of Congressional declarations of war since WWII. I also don't like to sully the document's purity with excessive amendments, interpretations and adaptations. No Defense of Marriage Amendment, please, but while you're at it, no marriage at all (it violates the establishment clause, you see). But don't call me a Scalia-esque strict constructionist. If I could, I would copy-edit the otherwise brilliant Constitution and correct a centuries-old omission with no qualms: I would give the United States a monarch. It probably seems unamerican, undemocratic and all-around anti-freedom-y to propose that we foist an unquestioned figure to the crown of government. It probably sounds old-fashioned, all uppity and needlessly symbolic and European. I know it does. It's exactly my point.

Continue ReadingWe need a monarch.

Hypocrisy award goes to “children advocacy” center

If you want to know about an organization's character, watch what it does; don't listen to what it says. Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood is a gutsy little organization. How little? Two employees. How gutsy? They make a lot of noise and they get a lot done. CCFC is the hero in the story I'm about to tell. Here's a post featuring one of those two employees, Josh Golin, speaking intelligently and from the heart about the disturbing trend of increased commercialization of childhood. And consider this bold stand that CCFC took when President Bush praised a fraudulent corporate scheme to make children "smarter" during his 2007 State of the Union address. Not content to simply make a lot of noise, CCFC threatened litigation against Baby Einstein (which had become part of the Disney empire). This approach resulted in Disney offering refunds for its Baby Einstein products which, alas, weren't actually able to make children smarter--in fact, there is good evidence that they hinder the development of children's brains because many of the products require plopping babies in front of televisions for extended periods. Happy ending, right? Nope. Now I'm going to tell you about children advocacy organization that refused to do the right thing. It appears that Disney wanted some revenge against CCFC, and that Disney pressured "Judge Baker Children’s Center," (CCFC's landlord) to suddenly evict CCFC from it's headquarters. It also appears that Disney attempted to gag CCFC at about the time when Disney agreed to offer those refunds (under threat of litigation by CCFC). Therefore, it appears that Disney used its power to turn a large prestigious children's center against a tiny children's advocacy group. And the more you know about JBCC, the more it is clear that this move is about far more than choice of office space--CCFC was kicked in the teeth thanks to this eviction. For the record, Disney's actions were reprehensible, but that's what I've come to expect from all big for-profit corporations (note this for the record). Maybe I'm naive, but I still assume that non-profits such as JBCC will generally do the right thing. I just sent an email to JBCC to voice my intense displeasure at its actions. In the subject field, I entered "Shame on you." Here's my email:

To: John R. Weisz – President, Judge Baker Children’s Center Stephen Schaffer - Chief Operating Officer Michele D. Urbancic - Vice President of Advancement And to everyone else it should concern at the Judge Baker Children’s Center:

I have just read in the New York Times that your prestigious Center suddenly evicted a tiny do-gooder organization that had recently exposed consumer fraud committed by the Walt Disney Company.

In case you folks haven’t done it recently, I’d recommend that you each spend about a minute to read your own mission statement.

The Judge Baker Children's Center promotes the best possible mental health of children through the integration of research, intervention, training and advocacy . . . Through advocacy we use scientific knowledge to expand public awareness and inform public policy.

[Emphasis added]. Truly, your Center has just demonstrated a lack of class so momentous that it deserves some sort of special public recognition above and beyond the recent NYT article. At least now we know that your mission statement is for sale. And PLEASE don’t blame it on your board. No one forced any of you to sit there in silence while your Center betrayed Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. You were free to call the NYT and criticize your own Center; of course, that would have taken courage and scruples. And no one forced any of you individuals to acquiesce when your Center tried to gag a bona fide children’s advocacy organization.

The rank hypocrisy of what you did (and tried to do) to CCFC reeks all the way to my hometown of St. Louis. Here’s a suggestion to avoid this kind of scolding in the future: try to remember that your mission is “improving the lives of children.” Your mission (and your “shifting focus”) should not be to serve as the enforcement arm for corporate wrong-doing.

For your punishment, you should each go look in a mirror and contemplate who it is that you are seeing.

I’ll leave you with a quote:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Erich Vieth St. Louis, Missouri http://dangerousintersection.org/

Continue ReadingHypocrisy award goes to “children advocacy” center