vruz:

—via unburyingthelead:

Lemon:  Don’t you think it’s a bit different considering what happened on 9/11?  And the people have said there’s a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that’s why it’s being built there.   What about 10, 20 blocks … Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this?  That’s not understandable?

Patel:  In America, we don’t tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place —

Lemon:  [interrupting] I understand that, but there’s always context, Mr. Patel … this is an extraordinary circumstance.  You understand that this is very heated.  Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 —

Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones…  .

Lemon:  Consider the context here.  That’s what I’m talking about. 

Patel:  I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago:  you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.

Lemon:  I think that’s apples and oranges - I don’t think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building.  That’s a completely different circumstance.

Patel:  And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.

Dang, CNN. I was just talkin’ ‘bout you.

It’s really simple. You’re either for religious freedom or you’re not. End of story. There is no additional context, no qualifiers, and no conditions. That’s what’s promised to us by the Constitution and that’s what the laws of this country say. If you feel the need to add “context” or qualifiers or conditions then you are not in favor of religious freedom.

If you disagree with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution is not the problem here. 

Either shut the shut the fuck up or own the fact that you believe Muslims and Christians should have different rights. Anywhere in the middle is just being a disingenuous, lying, hypocritical asshole.

This is the letter I always wanted to write, but never found the time to (exhaustively) research; so thank you to the author for doing so. I respect and agree with most conservative (small c) ideologies, however the current “conservative” party is so bereft of these ideas that it’s an embarrassment to rational thought. I’m not a party affiliate by any stretch, so as soon as someone with an ounce of reason comes back into the fold, I’ll consider them. As much as I’ve searched though, the only thing I can find is panderers and shysters occupying the ranks of (R).

Some of us like the ideas of “small government” without the ideas of “fuck the poor.” Some of us like the idea that personal freedom means not having to be Christian or abide by that specific religious philosophy.* Some of us realize that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than “Capitalism = good, Communism = bad” and that given the “scorched earth” philosophy many companies exhibit, maybe a few regulations to keep the boat afloat isn’t such a bad thing after all. Some of us think that there’s too much spent on war, and not enough protecting the people of this country from other - more dangerous and imminent - issues like lack of health care, education, and infrastructure. Some of us have memories long enough to value honesty and condemn “party politics” and hypocrisy. And some of us remember when we wouldn’t have had to write any of the above.

You want a revolution? You want to make a difference? Clean your own house. Then those of us who long ago got sick of the fear, lies, and hypocrisy might start considering rejoining the ranks. Until then, you’re on your own.

PS - I’m a damn sight happier with Obama than I ever was with Bush, despite having voted for Bush in 2000.

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now.  You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America.  Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation:  Come back to us.

Now the advice.  You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more.  But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

(more)

*Give me one good, nonreligious argument against gay marriage. I dare you. If you can’t, then ask yourself why specific religious ideology is involved in governmental and personal processes.

ericmortensen:

So why have the AP, WSJ, WaPo, CNN, Fox, Time, Newsweek, New York Times (at least they ran a correction), Boston Globe, Gannett, PIttsburgh Tribune Review, Sacramento Bee, Globe and Mail, Washington Times and Congressional Quarterly all said differently? And when will they stop?

(via TPMMuckraker)

“News” is not immune to the power of memes either. “News” isn’t really news anymore - a common complaint, and not one that I’m unique in offering - it’s entertainment. There’s a certain small amount of investigative journalism going on in this country, but more than anything else it’s just repetition of the prevalent opinions.

I don’t want to go into whether the “corporate” structure of news media is affecting this, or whether or not the myth of the “liberal media” has anything to do with it (news flash: an individual media outlet is only as liberal as the multinational corporate conglomerate that owns it) but I think it’s clear that the biggest myth of all is that of the lone crusading journalist; the hardworking mix of gumshoe and writer, independently pursuing hard leads and the merest wisps of information alike in an effort to reveal an unbiased account of “the truth.” Or perhaps the myth isn’t of that person’s existence, but of whether or not we’d listen to them if they did.

NYT during the run up to Iraq, Fox News at all times, the rise of “opinion personalities” as news sources, the evidence is around us all the time. “Just the facts, ma’am” feels quaint because it is - it’s a sign of a time long since passed. More and more, facts hold no sway with people unless they confirm an already-held belief.

We have the greatest and most complete repository of human knowledge that our civilization has ever known, and in a perfect world it would allow “the truth” to be self-evident most of the time - or at least allow us to become better at researching as opposed to just blindly accepting information from The Powers That Be. What it’s actually done is reinforce human nature’s inherent ability to mentally distort facts to support an already believed perception and granted “facts” the same sort of wiggle room as “opinion.”

In an age where we should be smarter and better informed than any generation in history, little things like “the age of the earth,” “is there a scientific consensus on global warming,” and “whether or not the President is a citizen” are somehow in dispute. Facts hold no sway anymore, because this entertainmentization (not a real word…until now) of what used to be strictly informational necessitates an opposing side for all issues - even when the issue itself does not require or warrant it.

Fact: The Earth is not 6,000 years old, but closer to 4.6 billion years old. If your book says differently then your book is wrong.

Fact: There is a scientific consensus on man-made global warming - to the tune of 97% - if your news anchor says differently then they are wrong.

Fact: The President was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate is on the internet and there are news articles from the time period announcing his birth. If your “opinion journalist” says differently then they are wrong.

If you dispute any of the above, please provide evidence, not opinion, and they will be reevaluated. Your opinion on the matter is unimportant. Your “emotions” on the issue are not only unimportant but have no place in any discussion of science or fact. Your “beliefs” should resonate with - and have backing from - factual, demonstrable bases.

Facts should be able to stand on their own merits against all surrounding attacks, but whether this assault on reason is premeditated in an effort to discredit the very foundations of the concept of truth, or whether it’s a result of the idea that all opinions are created equal (they’re not) is unimportant. The result is what’s important, and the simple and indisputable truth is that logic, reason, and science hold less sway on the overall American population than they used to.

At one point, my country was founded with the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Do we still?

writer-a:

ericmortensen:

vruz:

—by langer:

Avatar is a bad film.

Not because it lacks any meaningful character development (which it does), not because its plot is laughably flimsy (which it is), and not because it is little more than a big-budget remake of FernGully, but because it is yet another example of b-grade Hollywood moralizing, of not very smart people with typically superficial good intentions offering Americans an insidiously shallow civics lesson along with their 64-oz Cokes and shrink-wrapped boxes of Butterfinger Minis.

American audiences have long preferred to buy their cultural sensitivity on the cheap, and Avatar is no exception here. Cinema regularly lures its viewers into an empty sense of mea culpa by safely buffering any requisite admission of guilt with the distantiation of history, of fairy tales, or of good old fashioned exaggeration. Our collective sins are pointed out for us in a way that doesn’t demand we see those same sins in ourselves. In any theatrical contest between Good and Evil, ticket sales will only ever cover production costs if while being asked to root against our own image we’re allowed to remain reasonably convinced of the implausibility that we ourselves could ever individually be as evil as these representations suggest.

It’s the uncanny valley of morality.

This is why we were all supposed to feel a little bit better about ourselves after watching Crash, because even though the film’s white antagonists didn’t drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag bumper stickers but lived in McMansions and kept hired maids and drank Starbucks and drove BMWs and looked generally indistinguishable from well-to-do liberal types just like us, their racism was so exaggerated and unsympathetic that we could condemn ourselves without any of the uncomfortable consequences of actually condemning ourselves. Then we all patted ourselves on the back and congratulated each other on how far we’ve come by handing this lousy film the Best Picture award. In an age when a political activist is someone who tints his Twitter avatar green, this Oscar was our Emancipation Proclamation.

This is why when watching The Last of the Mohicans we rooted for an indigenous culture that we ourselves had once oppressed as we watched them be subjugated by white colonizers we call our forefathers, since despite our shared lineage with the bad guys we can comfortably cast judgment because theirs were historical sins for which we’ve long since apologized with national monuments and Congressional resolutions, and because the indigenous culture in question has already been so decimated and so quarantined by poverty and desert reservations as to no longer pose any ongoing challenges to our national interest.

And this is why we cheered on a bunch of dwarves and elves and talking trees, because the two white guys oppressing them commanded an army of orcs instead of Blackwater personnel.

In the case of Avatar the bad guys again look just like we do, they wield the mighty hammer of the military-industrial complex just like we do, and they speak the language of colonialism just like we do. Yet in a country where anything short of full-throated support of the military is verboten we’re exonerated for rooting against these former Marines because they’re conquering a make-believe planet populated with make-believe aliens in a make-believe time. We’re allowed to cheer for this oppressed people because the missile strikes come from futuristic gunships and not from Predator drones. And we can safely criticize this fictional military because it takes its cues directly from its heartless capitalist overlords, while ours only takes its heartlessly capitalistic cues through the more familiar proxy of a popularly elected commander in chief.

As with any other case study in the ever-cheapening cinematic pedagogy of morality, it speaks volumes about the contemporary American audience that James Cameron had to spend fifteen years and $300 million inventing a race of people and the necessary technology to tell a story that could have just as easily been told with a handheld camera and a flight to the Ecuadorian rainforest—albeit one that wouldn’t have sold any tickets if it had.

And now millions of Americans get to go home and take comfort in the fact that while our empire may have its flaws and our military may be regularly dispatched to conquer “savages” who made the tragic mistake of establishing their homeland on top of massive deposits of natural resource, well, hey, at least we’ve never blown up a bunch of adorable purple aliens.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. I see films instead of going to confession; it’s so much less painless than self-flagellation.  But thanks for breaking this down for myself and the millions of other addled Americans who left the theater completely overcome by a glucose head rush and a curious sense of unattributable exoneration. Before this post, it was completely lost on me and my fellow hordes of grunting, barely upright knuckle draggers that we were perhaps brainwashed into living another day relieved of guilt… all for the price of a theater ticket.

Pardon the sarcasm.

My question for you is, since we both agree that the weak character development isn’t the main issue here, should we also damn Plato’s Republic and Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings too? Or are we only jumping on allegory-as-film? Is it possible that maybe the theater-going experience isn’t about mea-culpa after all? Just possible? I hope so, otherwise I’m afraid I’m going to have to await your next film before I can feel less guilty about enjoying everyone else’s.

Pardon my french, but remember when you went to the movie because it was fucking fun and didn’t feel the need to check beforehand whether or not you would already pre-agree with someone else’s interpretation of the “message?” This is a watershed film and will be remembered as such. Who cares if you don’t “agree” with the film, there have been hundreds of films I didn’t “agree” with that A) I still enjoyed, B) I still appreciated, and C) I’m glad I watched.

When exactly did your inner child and sense of wonder die? Maybe you can still enjoy a film without dissecting the historic or science-fiction interpretations through the lens of modern politics. Maybe you don’t have to get permission from your overlords to accept the messaging before seeing an entertainment property. Maybe, sometimes, you can just drop into a film and enjoy the ride.

Fuck, modern political discussion is retarded. If The Godfather were released now people would be up in arms over their interpreted “message” of the film. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - if you’re looking for a reason to get up in arms about “Hollywood liberals” or “liberal messaging” or “forced brainwashing and liberal guilt” you’ll fucking find it everywhere you look - because you’re an idiot and have only one tool at your disposal. You’re a one-trick pony. Actually, you’re also the tool.

We used to play that game in film school - reinterpreting historic films’ messages from a modern context - Star Wars was the communist manifesto, Indiana Jones was just Ayn Rand with treasure hunting, Die Hard was Vietnam, etc. But it was fucking ridiculous, that’s what made it a such a joke!

“Dad, do you remember seeing Star Wars in theaters?”

“No, Tim, I didn’t want to see it. I didn’t agree with the Hollywood Liberal Anti-America brainwashing - of course the “empire” had to be evil. George Lucas just hated America and was sowing seeds of liberal guilt. Darth Vader could have easily been written as a unifier, but they made him the bad guy. And in the end their pagan mumbo-jumbo overthrew what’s obviously meant to be the pope - who of course was also evil. Brainwashing, that’s all it was.”

“Dad?”

“Yes, Tim.”

“You missed out.”

The best 5 minutes of Congress I’ve ever seen: Rep. Alan Grayson absolutely schools Rep. Paul Broun on the Constitution.

daveholmes:

This argument: “You have to be patient about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, because we’re fighting two wars right now,” as though those two things were not related. Like it’s “I can’t cook you dinner, because my sweater is on fire,” when it’s really “I can’t bring you on as an extra housepainter, because I’m three weeks behind on my housepainting.” We know that the military is overextended. We want to help.

Framing DADT repeal as an issue of fairness and equality has swayed as many people as it’s going to. Maybe we might want to call it what has become, which is an issue of national security. If we get attacked again, and it’s because intelligence went untranslated (as was the case a little over 8 years ago), then a few people’s cultural and religious biases will have outweighed our collective safety.

Let’s shake the lingering ’90s political correctness off this argument. This isn’t about some of us feeling equal anymore, this is about all of us being non-blown-up. All hands on deck, please.

As a native Californian, this article hit home pretty hard. It’s a good overview on what’s facing The Golden State over the coming months, years, and decades. While it ends on a hopeful note, the realities of the current situation are scary in their implications.

Los Angeles, 2009: California may be the eighth largest economy in the world, but its state staff are being paid in IOUs, unemployment is at its highest in 70 years, and teachers are on hunger strike. So what has gone so catastrophically wrong?

I agree with about 65% of what he’s done so far.  Not everything, but a solid majority.  Oftentimes, I’ll have friends or family send me items of interest - usually knowing I’ll disagree with them - with some variation on “Is this the change you voted for?”

It’s meant to be a damning statement: “Your savior isn’t perfect. Your interests are no longer aligned. He’s abandoned you.” Each time, it does get me to stop and think: is this the change I voted for?  Is this the leadership I thought I would get? Am I still happy with what’s going on in my country?

I don’t mind exploring this line of thinking, as I’ve never supported anyone absolutely. There are definitely things we disagree on: I don’t think we should gloss over the past, and “moving forward” is a nice byline, but let’s actually figure out whether national and international laws were broken and punish those who have broken them.

But yesterday I had a thought: if at the end of his four years all he has done was get the economy back on track, close Guantanamo, enact a comprehensive health-care overhaul that contains consumer costs and provides more coverage and oversight, and enacted Net Neutrality…well I’d consider that to be a huge victory.

That is the type of change I voted for. Each of those are long-term projects that will have lasting positive effects on the nation and the world as a whole. I’d put that Presidential term as a solid check-mark in the win column.

marco:

Just hours after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed expanding the network neutrality authority of the agency Sept. 21, Senate Republicans moved to block the initiative. Using an appropriations bill as a vehicle, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an amendment that would deny the FCC any funds for developing or implementing new Internet regulations.

Of course.

Let me be crystal clear: if you oppose Net Neutrality you’re supporting negating the very existence of the single most transformative technology of the past two millennia.  You’re supporting allowing private industry to arbitrarily change the open access rules which have allowed the evolution of human communications to make huge leaps, and you’re not doing it because you agree or disagree with the policy, but because you’re playing party politics.

Now normally, I’m in favor of staying out of local elections if you’re not actually local, but I’ll make an exception here for two reasons: First, the internet is global so you’re actually legislating on much more than just your local constituency.  Secondly, you’re interfering with my workplace and my livelihood - not to mention fucking with the future of international communications and creativity.  All of a sudden the maxim “all politics is local” will take on a whole new meaning.

So it comes down to this: If you oppose Net Neutrality I’ll do everything in my power - small as my sphere of influence may seem - to keep you out of any elected office. That effort may amount to doing my damnedest to make sure you don’t get re-elected, or it may be trying to get you actively kicked out of office but the fact remains that I will be a thorn in your side and a constant pain in your ass.

Your worldview is valuing one private industry’s profits and party politics higher than maintaining the precidents that allowed the largest shift in human communications, information, commerce, and entertainment in the history of our species.  You’re not just fucking with my business, you’re fucking with the future - and you don’t even have a good goddamn reason aside from “I’m a Republican, this is what we do.”

But let’s get back on track: If this sounds petty, remember: you’re firing a shot across my bow, and this is mine in return.  I don’t know how many will help me, but I’m damn sure I’ll know where to find them.  And in the meantime, I’ll be doing my research on what the most effective way to ruin your world is - as you seem to be doing your best to ruin mine.

Barrett Garese