In Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, Electronic Intifada writer Ali Abunimah published an op-ed defended a conference by the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement (BDS) at the University of Pennsylvania. His essay was part of a debate with Former CIA Chief R. James Woolsey and Jonathan Schanzer over the conference. Woolsey and Schanzer object to the conference as promoting hate of Israel.
My Gut Reaction: Perhaps Woolsey and Schanzer prefer more violent forms of resistance to boycotts. After all, violence makes shilling for policies that border on apartheid much easier. Not to mention the fact that perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict keeps Israel dependent on the United States.
Analysis: Abunimah makes a good argument in favor of BDS. He notes that sanctions were what ultimately brought down the apartheid regime, while conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher tried to promote "constructive dialogue" as a sop to South Africa's critics while protecting their Cold War ally. He also notes that state-based negotiations have stalled due to weakness on the part of Western powers.
I think the BDS movement offers a new hope in a Middle East dominated by violence. In their article, Woolsey and Schanzer focus on the advocation of violent jihad by groups such as Hamas. One would think they would welcome a non-violent turn in Palestinian resistance.
Woolsey and Schanzer's article is not persuasive at all, and actually spends little time discussing the BDS movement or its goals. Instead, they whine that the BDS boycott doesn't focus more on violence in places such as Syria, never mind the fact that human rights abuses in Syria already get large amounts of mainstream attention. (One could equally condemn Woolsey and Schanzer for not solely focusing their efforts on human rights abuses by countries the United States has closer relations with, such as the People's Republic of China.)
However, the weakness of their article is predictable when you consider the authors' backgrounds. Woolsey was a shill for the Iraq War and publicly argued that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9 / 11 attacks. Jonathan Schanzer is part of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia think tank set up by Islamophobic fanatic Daniel Pipes. Pipes's main claim to fame is that his writings helped inspire Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, who posted a video of Pipes speaking on his blog. He also cited Pipes's writings over fifty times in his manifesto, leading to Pipes posting a rather defensive essay on his blog dissociating himself from the mass murderer who so obviously admired him.
Showing posts with label Philadelphia Inquirer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philadelphia Inquirer. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Why George Tiller Matters
A letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer this Sunday suggested that the murder of abortionist George Tiller should receive less attention than the killing of Pvt. William Long outside of a recruitment center a day or so later. This letter is nothing more than an attempt to distract from one of the main problems facing this country-the continued threat of religious fanatics to civic society and individuals.
The letter writer, Robert Pallies, claims that the murder was inspired by the "hateful" rhetoric of the anti-war movement. (Hmmm...I always thought it was pro-war rhetoric that was considered hateful.) However, the anti-war movement has nowhere near the power of the anti-abortion fanatics. As mentioned in a previous post on this blog, Tiller had previously been the target of prominent media conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly. Pvt. Long had received no such targeting; he was in many respects the victim of a random attack by a maniac.
Perhaps the conservatives want to distract people from the fact that their movement is increasingly spawning violent extremists. They want us to ignore the fact that these extremists wish to impinge on everyone else's rights. We shouldn't let them.
The letter writer, Robert Pallies, claims that the murder was inspired by the "hateful" rhetoric of the anti-war movement. (Hmmm...I always thought it was pro-war rhetoric that was considered hateful.) However, the anti-war movement has nowhere near the power of the anti-abortion fanatics. As mentioned in a previous post on this blog, Tiller had previously been the target of prominent media conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly. Pvt. Long had received no such targeting; he was in many respects the victim of a random attack by a maniac.
Perhaps the conservatives want to distract people from the fact that their movement is increasingly spawning violent extremists. They want us to ignore the fact that these extremists wish to impinge on everyone else's rights. We shouldn't let them.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
George Carlin, RIP
Yesterday in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I saw yet another letter from professional right wing fanatic Oren M. Spengler, who regularly fills that letter page with his ravings. This time, however, he went too far. Spengler dumped a pile of garbage on the grave of the late comedian George Carlin, claiming he "offended civilization" by using foul language.
As Carlin himself pointed out, language is basically a tool. Words are not offensive in and of themselves, but only by the meaning we give them. Carlin often used rough language to make good social points.
I have posted the clip below to prove Carlin's point. This clip is especially for you, Mr. Spengler. (Warning: Adult Language)
(Note: I do not own this clip. If HBO, George Carlin's estate, or any other owner wants it taken down, just contact me and it will be done posthaste.)
As Carlin himself pointed out, language is basically a tool. Words are not offensive in and of themselves, but only by the meaning we give them. Carlin often used rough language to make good social points.
I have posted the clip below to prove Carlin's point. This clip is especially for you, Mr. Spengler. (Warning: Adult Language)
(Note: I do not own this clip. If HBO, George Carlin's estate, or any other owner wants it taken down, just contact me and it will be done posthaste.)
Thursday, April 03, 2008
A Power-less Interview
Carlin Romano's interview with Samantha Power, who is appearing at the Free Library tonight, in today's Inquirer is a complete waste of print. Mr. Romano has time for a short conversation with one of the world's leading experts on human rights and genocide, and all he can think to ask her about is a lousy comment she made about Hillary Clinton.
Reading Romano's interview, I actually began to wonder whether he knew anything about Ms. Power's background. For instance, he briefly mentions that her book, A Problem from Hell, won "major book prizes." Umm, Carlin, specifically, she won the Pulitzer. He glances over all this to focus on campaign politics.
This is a pity, because if he had bothered to read the book, Romano would have gathered some of the background behind her comments, which called Hillary Clinton a monster, and perhaps even have given consideration to whether they might be justified.
As the introduction to A Problem from Hell makes clear, the prevarications of the Clinton Administration endangered innocent people in Bosnia. Although Bill Clinton made strong statements of support whenever a major atrocity took place, he did not intervene until late in his second term. His statements of support gave many Bosnians the impression they would be protected by the Americans. As Power graphically illustrates in her book, this misconception led them to allow their children outside to play, only to be used for target practice by Serbian artillery.
Had Mr. Romano paid attention to this background, he might have conducted a better, more informative, interview. This is just further evidence of the political and intellectual decline of America. Rather than actually look at an issue, people are interested in cheap soundbites.
Reading Romano's interview, I actually began to wonder whether he knew anything about Ms. Power's background. For instance, he briefly mentions that her book, A Problem from Hell, won "major book prizes." Umm, Carlin, specifically, she won the Pulitzer. He glances over all this to focus on campaign politics.
This is a pity, because if he had bothered to read the book, Romano would have gathered some of the background behind her comments, which called Hillary Clinton a monster, and perhaps even have given consideration to whether they might be justified.
As the introduction to A Problem from Hell makes clear, the prevarications of the Clinton Administration endangered innocent people in Bosnia. Although Bill Clinton made strong statements of support whenever a major atrocity took place, he did not intervene until late in his second term. His statements of support gave many Bosnians the impression they would be protected by the Americans. As Power graphically illustrates in her book, this misconception led them to allow their children outside to play, only to be used for target practice by Serbian artillery.
Had Mr. Romano paid attention to this background, he might have conducted a better, more informative, interview. This is just further evidence of the political and intellectual decline of America. Rather than actually look at an issue, people are interested in cheap soundbites.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
An Open Letter to the Staff of the Philadelphia Inquirer
To the Ombudsman of the Philadelphia Inquirer:
I apologize for taking up your time, as you must be very busy, but I feel there is a question you need to answer.
Why should my family continue to purchase your newspaper?
With the recent price increase, your paper costs only fifty cents less than the New York Times. Having read the Times, I must conclude it is a much superior paper. Reading through their international section alone, I found four times as many articles as your paper’s international section, which on many days is given over largely to ads.
In terms of international news, I do not even need to rely on the Times. Thanks to the magic of RSS feeds, I can receive articles from national and international newspapers, including the Israeli Ha’aretz and the British Guardian, along with posts from a variety of well-respected blogs. Frankly, there seems to be less and less need for me to spend money on the Inquirer.
The Times also has, on the whole, better columnists than the Inquirer. Although your paper has a few good columnists, such as Trudy Rubin, its selection does not compare with the Times. Furthermore, some of the Inquirer’s recent selections for columnists have been questionable at best. When the Times hires a right wing hack, they get someone relatively respectable, such as William Kristol. Your paper hired Michael Smerconish, a moderately successful radio host who is neither a particularly good or insightful writer.
You may argue that the Inquirer is still vital for local news. However, your paper’s credentials in that regard are increasingly questionable. As a recent article in the Philadelphia Weekly reveals that Brian Tierney, CEO of the company that owns the Inquirer, is considering outsourcing to foreign countries in order to cut costs. If this is done, your paper can hardly claim to be local.
Furthermore, even if one ignores the outsourcing factor, your paper’s coverage of many Philadelphia neighborhoods is genuinely pathetic. The Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, as noted in the Philadelphia Weekly article, has complained that many communities only get covered in case of a murder.
In recent months, the Inquirer has also demonstrated a disturbing lack of priorities in its local news coverage. For instance, the Inquirer gave only cursory attention to the arrest of one of Donna Reed Miller’s aides in an extortion case, while examining in minute detail every possible aspect of Alycia Lane’s misadventures. This will not do.
(And don’t try to hide behind the excuse that Lane is what people were talking about, as a certain Daily News columnist did. The function of journalists in a democratic society is to make people aware of government conduct. That was the reasoning of the Founding Fathers when they granted extensive First Amendment freedoms to the press.)
The Inquirer is not the only source of local news coverage. For example, the free Philadelphia Public Record newspaper gives extensive coverage to the inner workings of Philadelphia politics. The City Paper and the Philadelphia Weekly cover the neighborhoods and arts community with a progressive bent. I can get all of these papers for free. There are also many local blogs, such as the Young Philly Politics blog, that offer excellent coverage of local politics.
Unless your paper dramatically improves, I may have to discontinue purchasi
I apologize for taking up your time, as you must be very busy, but I feel there is a question you need to answer.
Why should my family continue to purchase your newspaper?
With the recent price increase, your paper costs only fifty cents less than the New York Times. Having read the Times, I must conclude it is a much superior paper. Reading through their international section alone, I found four times as many articles as your paper’s international section, which on many days is given over largely to ads.
In terms of international news, I do not even need to rely on the Times. Thanks to the magic of RSS feeds, I can receive articles from national and international newspapers, including the Israeli Ha’aretz and the British Guardian, along with posts from a variety of well-respected blogs. Frankly, there seems to be less and less need for me to spend money on the Inquirer.
The Times also has, on the whole, better columnists than the Inquirer. Although your paper has a few good columnists, such as Trudy Rubin, its selection does not compare with the Times. Furthermore, some of the Inquirer’s recent selections for columnists have been questionable at best. When the Times hires a right wing hack, they get someone relatively respectable, such as William Kristol. Your paper hired Michael Smerconish, a moderately successful radio host who is neither a particularly good or insightful writer.
You may argue that the Inquirer is still vital for local news. However, your paper’s credentials in that regard are increasingly questionable. As a recent article in the Philadelphia Weekly reveals that Brian Tierney, CEO of the company that owns the Inquirer, is considering outsourcing to foreign countries in order to cut costs. If this is done, your paper can hardly claim to be local.
Furthermore, even if one ignores the outsourcing factor, your paper’s coverage of many Philadelphia neighborhoods is genuinely pathetic. The Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, as noted in the Philadelphia Weekly article, has complained that many communities only get covered in case of a murder.
In recent months, the Inquirer has also demonstrated a disturbing lack of priorities in its local news coverage. For instance, the Inquirer gave only cursory attention to the arrest of one of Donna Reed Miller’s aides in an extortion case, while examining in minute detail every possible aspect of Alycia Lane’s misadventures. This will not do.
(And don’t try to hide behind the excuse that Lane is what people were talking about, as a certain Daily News columnist did. The function of journalists in a democratic society is to make people aware of government conduct. That was the reasoning of the Founding Fathers when they granted extensive First Amendment freedoms to the press.)
The Inquirer is not the only source of local news coverage. For example, the free Philadelphia Public Record newspaper gives extensive coverage to the inner workings of Philadelphia politics. The City Paper and the Philadelphia Weekly cover the neighborhoods and arts community with a progressive bent. I can get all of these papers for free. There are also many local blogs, such as the Young Philly Politics blog, that offer excellent coverage of local politics.
Unless your paper dramatically improves, I may have to discontinue purchasi
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Express an Opinion, Lose Your Job
A column in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer by Daniel Rubin reveals a disturbing case of attempted censorship by a public relations firm tied to the Foxwoods Casino.
The public relations firm in question, Tierney Communications, fired one of their vice presidents, Peggy Griffin, because she wrote a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer warning of the casino's potential effect on her neighborhood. She had already made the firm aware of her stance on the issue before they hired, and she did not mention her affiliation with Tierney. Nevertheless, they dumped her, putting a potentially damaging mark on her career.
Some might question her willingness to work with a firm that supported a cause she opposed. However, she made it clear she would not work on the Foxwoods account, and did not let her employment there make her censor her beliefs.
Tierney Communications must not be very good at public relations, as the move has already garnered them negative coverage in the Inquirer and a nasty letter to the editor.
Here is a link to Tierney's website so you can contact them about the decision. Make certain any letters or e-mails you send are polite and to the point.
The public relations firm in question, Tierney Communications, fired one of their vice presidents, Peggy Griffin, because she wrote a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer warning of the casino's potential effect on her neighborhood. She had already made the firm aware of her stance on the issue before they hired, and she did not mention her affiliation with Tierney. Nevertheless, they dumped her, putting a potentially damaging mark on her career.
Some might question her willingness to work with a firm that supported a cause she opposed. However, she made it clear she would not work on the Foxwoods account, and did not let her employment there make her censor her beliefs.
Tierney Communications must not be very good at public relations, as the move has already garnered them negative coverage in the Inquirer and a nasty letter to the editor.
Here is a link to Tierney's website so you can contact them about the decision. Make certain any letters or e-mails you send are polite and to the point.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Quasi-Catholic Schools and Eminent Domain
Monica Yant Kinney's column in the Philadelphia Inquirer is a very poor treatment of the recent judical ruling allowing the city to seize someone's house so that a group of nuns can build a school there.
Never mind the ethical implications of seizing someone's house. Since the Supreme Court ruling Kelo vs. New London, which widely broadened the state's right to seize people's property for practically anything it wants, there have been greater and greater attacks on property rights. Reading Ms. Kinney's article, you wouldn't imagine someone was losing their home. She just calls it a "rundown rowhouse." I guess poor people don't have property rights in her view.
Doing this for members of the clergy is especially gauling. Ever heard of the separation of Church and state, Ms. Kinney? Sure, the nuns claim they won't try to convert the students, but we all know that is bull. The very fact that they are nuns shows they are religious fanatics, and not to be trusted.
If Ms. Kinney is that gullible, she shouldn't be a journalist.
Never mind the ethical implications of seizing someone's house. Since the Supreme Court ruling Kelo vs. New London, which widely broadened the state's right to seize people's property for practically anything it wants, there have been greater and greater attacks on property rights. Reading Ms. Kinney's article, you wouldn't imagine someone was losing their home. She just calls it a "rundown rowhouse." I guess poor people don't have property rights in her view.
Doing this for members of the clergy is especially gauling. Ever heard of the separation of Church and state, Ms. Kinney? Sure, the nuns claim they won't try to convert the students, but we all know that is bull. The very fact that they are nuns shows they are religious fanatics, and not to be trusted.
If Ms. Kinney is that gullible, she shouldn't be a journalist.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Republican Parking Authority
Two days ago in the Philadelphia Inquirer, an article revealed that local Republicans have established a death grip over the Philadelphia Parking Authority, with local ward leaders calling the shots and pressuring employees, both directly and indirectly, for campaign donations. Read more about it at the Young Philly Politics blog.
This just goes to show that Philadelphia's Republicans have become mired in the same corrupt political establishment as the Democrats. At this point, we may need to bring a third party in, like the Libertarians or the Green Party, to clean things up.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is not completely dead,as this expose demonstrates. However, I must quarrel with one Young Philly Politics commenter who claims that this is proof that the Inqy hasn't turned into a right wing den of lies. Anyone who doubts that that is the case should take a look at the columns of Kevin Ferris, Jonathan Last, and Michael Smerconish.
This just goes to show that Philadelphia's Republicans have become mired in the same corrupt political establishment as the Democrats. At this point, we may need to bring a third party in, like the Libertarians or the Green Party, to clean things up.
The Philadelphia Inquirer is not completely dead,as this expose demonstrates. However, I must quarrel with one Young Philly Politics commenter who claims that this is proof that the Inqy hasn't turned into a right wing den of lies. Anyone who doubts that that is the case should take a look at the columns of Kevin Ferris, Jonathan Last, and Michael Smerconish.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Some Comedy in the Inquirer
This morning, while I was sitting in my barbershop-Grillo's on Allegheny Ave.- waiting for a haircut, I happened to glance at the editorial page of the Philadelphia Inquirer. In it, I found a genuinely comic letter by one Frank Solis.
Mr. Solis's contention is that recent efforts by Democratic senators to keep the Senate in session so that President Bush cannot make recess appointments are an example of-gasp!-socialism. He derides these efforts as a "typical socialist gambit" and claims they are part of a democratic effort to impose "secularism" on our country. (Never mind the fact that, compared to Europe, American is a bloody theocracy.)
Honestly, Mr. Solis, it's called a parliamentary maneuver. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should move to a dictatorship. (I hear Pakistan is getting quite interesting these days.)
Mr. Solis's contention is that recent efforts by Democratic senators to keep the Senate in session so that President Bush cannot make recess appointments are an example of-gasp!-socialism. He derides these efforts as a "typical socialist gambit" and claims they are part of a democratic effort to impose "secularism" on our country. (Never mind the fact that, compared to Europe, American is a bloody theocracy.)
Honestly, Mr. Solis, it's called a parliamentary maneuver. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should move to a dictatorship. (I hear Pakistan is getting quite interesting these days.)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
All Hail the New York Times
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I treated myself to a copy of the New York Times. I have to admit, it is the greatest newspaper I have ever read. It's all in the detail. They go into more depth, and have more on the ground reporters, than most newspapers.
One example is their treatment of the Iraq War and the Surge. While acknowledging that the increase in troops has decreased American casualties, it is careful to point out that there are still a number of problems facing Iraq, particularly the divide between those Sunnis who are now allied with us, and the Shi'ites who now run the Iraqi government. These problems raise the potential of a civil war, and should not be ignored.
Compare this with Kevin Ferris and his editorials in the Philadelphia Inquirer. While briefly acknowledging the possibility of future setbacks, he goes on to crow about how the Democrats are wrong and appealing to sentimental patriotism.
One example is their treatment of the Iraq War and the Surge. While acknowledging that the increase in troops has decreased American casualties, it is careful to point out that there are still a number of problems facing Iraq, particularly the divide between those Sunnis who are now allied with us, and the Shi'ites who now run the Iraqi government. These problems raise the potential of a civil war, and should not be ignored.
Compare this with Kevin Ferris and his editorials in the Philadelphia Inquirer. While briefly acknowledging the possibility of future setbacks, he goes on to crow about how the Democrats are wrong and appealing to sentimental patriotism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
