Layton’s death turns into a thoroughly public spectacle
Yes, the sexist tweetstream against Blatchford is "horrid," as Don Gardner, purveyor of all things empirically true, tweeted last night, and, yes, it is surprising that anyone reads her columns at all. But couldn't she have waited respectfully at least until after the funeral to do her Christie thing? Inappropriate timing is not a strong enough phrase to characterize the publication of this column.
And is anyone really surprised that Layton was helped to write his final letter and that it was - I'm so shocked - political in character? After all, he was dying, for Christ's sake, and he was - duh! - a politician.
And why is Blatchford surprised by the media's reaction to Layton's death and to the public response? They're merely doing what they always do and what she herself is doing - exploiting the hell out of this newsworthy moment.
And why shouldn't people take an occasion like this to mourn, as we do when one of Blatchford's beloved and fetishized military die? Gawd knows we have a right to mourn collectively in this country with our tarsands helping to destroy the planet, Harper in perverse power, and overtly ideologically driven media outlets like Sun TV and The Post in play. Much of the lamentation is indeed for Layton the man no doubt and deservedly so, but I suspect much more is for what he represents.
Public Invested in What Layton Represents
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
How can journalists know the truth? A Twitter dialogue
http://bit.ly/oljW0V My response to David Akin's Blog Post about the safety questions raised in recent WiFi research.
The ground of this epistemological issue goes way beyond the binary opposition between objective and subjective, a relationship grounded in empiricism assuming that there is a knowable reality or truth and that the problem is a simple one of just discovering how to know it. Bias and expressions of values in a journalist, subtle or not, still assume that there is indeed some sort of objective truth or given reality.
My perspective is a post-structuralist one that says all reality and truth are, to use Derrida's phrase, under erasure - that is, we have to use these terms in discourse even though what they signify or represent really isn't directly accessible. We can never know them directly. We construct them through our various meaning-making systems - notably language, a cultural and social process, which precedes thought. This is known as a productive rather than an expressive theory of language, the latter identified with empiricism. We produce or construct meaning, not express it. We produced reality and truth, not express it. This principle lies beneath even the editorial choices and opinion disguising strategies of ordinary and not so ordinary journalism.
At least you're open about possibilities. I'm not sure we can say that about other "opinionated" journalists obsessed with "evidence-based" reporting. What's evidence? What's a fact? The only way these arrive to us is through the mediation of the cultural prism of language, through discourse, through a meaning-making system. You are the site of meaning.
Yes, an overwhelmingly academic and probably irritating answer!!!! You can see why Twitter is no place for such a difficult response as this. Forgive me: if I didn't admire your work, I wouldn't bother and, no, I did not major in philosophy as one of our respondents thinks.
The ground of this epistemological issue goes way beyond the binary opposition between objective and subjective, a relationship grounded in empiricism assuming that there is a knowable reality or truth and that the problem is a simple one of just discovering how to know it. Bias and expressions of values in a journalist, subtle or not, still assume that there is indeed some sort of objective truth or given reality.
My perspective is a post-structuralist one that says all reality and truth are, to use Derrida's phrase, under erasure - that is, we have to use these terms in discourse even though what they signify or represent really isn't directly accessible. We can never know them directly. We construct them through our various meaning-making systems - notably language, a cultural and social process, which precedes thought. This is known as a productive rather than an expressive theory of language, the latter identified with empiricism. We produce or construct meaning, not express it. We produced reality and truth, not express it. This principle lies beneath even the editorial choices and opinion disguising strategies of ordinary and not so ordinary journalism.
At least you're open about possibilities. I'm not sure we can say that about other "opinionated" journalists obsessed with "evidence-based" reporting. What's evidence? What's a fact? The only way these arrive to us is through the mediation of the cultural prism of language, through discourse, through a meaning-making system. You are the site of meaning.
Yes, an overwhelmingly academic and probably irritating answer!!!! You can see why Twitter is no place for such a difficult response as this. Forgive me: if I didn't admire your work, I wouldn't bother and, no, I did not major in philosophy as one of our respondents thinks.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Beginning of Something: First we had the little page that would. Now we have the journalist who could
Last time I checked Kai's Nagata's blog, Why I Quit My Job, there were well over 100,000 views and 1000 responses to his coming out essay. Most of these were supportive, arguing in effect that Kai is an inspiration offering those of us living outside the walls of Harperland considerable hope for change. But there were detractors on this blog and elsewhere, most of whom, as always in the blogsphere, said silly things, trying hard to be witty of course, and several who, quite frankly, just didn't know what they were talking about - another common characteristic of the blogsphere.
These terms came up frequently in the detractors' discourse: "fiscally prudent," "efficiencies," "fiscally conservative," this last concept used accurately by Kai himself in conjunction with the concept of taxing capacity. As always, in Harperite language - the language of Harperland - these terms are euphemisms for 1) the cutting of jobs and/or further exploitation of employees with fewer if any benefits and less wages in the corporate sector in the interests of profits and 2) budget cuts to our federal insititutions and government departments - which, more often than not, also involves job cuts.
The detractors also use the terms "leftist" and"rightist," but I'm pretty sure they've never read either Hegel or Marx, though I might be willing to get up from my chair on this last point if evidence were to be discovered otherwise. These terms are seldom used with precision or historical context in a Canadian context, for they appear to be in the beholder's eye in politicians, most political commentary by journalists, many of whom should know better, and amateur political pundits who frequent the byways and dark alleys of blogland and the twitterverse. Can we, for example, really call the NDP a leftist party when they have embraced capitalist ways with such fervour in order to maintain whatever power they might have? Of course not, but many continue to do so. Supporting the odd social policy here and there does not constitute the definition of a leftist party.
It seems to me Kai's point about government spending is quite simple: if, as a government, you have accumulated a considerable amount of money that you've received by taxing your citizens, you then have a moral responsibility to use that money wisely in the interest of all Canadians, who gave you, let's not forget, the money in the first place - either through established institutions respected by Canadians in general or social or economic initiated projects that Canadians can embrace with a consensus - not just the ones you like.
This is one of the fundamental problems so many Canadians see as a issue with the Harperites. They take money away from projects they don't like and only spend money on projects they like - Kai cites airplanes and jails - not on projects, except incidentally, that might benefit all Canadians. It takes a fair bit of absurd logical twisting to argue that we need more jails and tougher sentencing given the statistics on crime and soon to be obsolete planes (unless we're planning a few more wars that I haven't heard about), but we do know why the argument is made. It serves the Harperites' base. In fact, we've known for quite some time - since the pattern is so obvious - all policy decisions made by the Harper regime are grounded in politics first and only, on occasion - perhaps by happenstance - for Canadians in general. We seldom if at all see goodwill towards all Canadians from the Harperites. When they speak of "what Canadians asked us to do," for example, that's Harperite speak for "what our base asked us to do." This is not an insignificant distinction - one that has alienated the majority of Canadians who actually care about the direction in which their country now seems to be heading under such an authoritarian regime.
Kai is not remotely alone in his perspective on this issue or on the soul-sucking power and profit motives driving Big Media news organization (I can think of only two journalists in Canada who speak truth to power, though several come to mind who think they do so because they've been critical here and there of the Harperites) and the ineffectual actions of political parties, who by nature consistently seek self-preservation as an entity first and abuse their grass roots membership all too often.
What Kai says in this essay merely expresses - but with eloquent detail, meaningful passion, and sophisticated rhetoric - what countless Canadians have been thinking all along. This is why Kai joins the little page in the slow but eventual march towards the walls of Harperland.
First we'll take Manhattan.
These terms came up frequently in the detractors' discourse: "fiscally prudent," "efficiencies," "fiscally conservative," this last concept used accurately by Kai himself in conjunction with the concept of taxing capacity. As always, in Harperite language - the language of Harperland - these terms are euphemisms for 1) the cutting of jobs and/or further exploitation of employees with fewer if any benefits and less wages in the corporate sector in the interests of profits and 2) budget cuts to our federal insititutions and government departments - which, more often than not, also involves job cuts.
The detractors also use the terms "leftist" and"rightist," but I'm pretty sure they've never read either Hegel or Marx, though I might be willing to get up from my chair on this last point if evidence were to be discovered otherwise. These terms are seldom used with precision or historical context in a Canadian context, for they appear to be in the beholder's eye in politicians, most political commentary by journalists, many of whom should know better, and amateur political pundits who frequent the byways and dark alleys of blogland and the twitterverse. Can we, for example, really call the NDP a leftist party when they have embraced capitalist ways with such fervour in order to maintain whatever power they might have? Of course not, but many continue to do so. Supporting the odd social policy here and there does not constitute the definition of a leftist party.
It seems to me Kai's point about government spending is quite simple: if, as a government, you have accumulated a considerable amount of money that you've received by taxing your citizens, you then have a moral responsibility to use that money wisely in the interest of all Canadians, who gave you, let's not forget, the money in the first place - either through established institutions respected by Canadians in general or social or economic initiated projects that Canadians can embrace with a consensus - not just the ones you like.
This is one of the fundamental problems so many Canadians see as a issue with the Harperites. They take money away from projects they don't like and only spend money on projects they like - Kai cites airplanes and jails - not on projects, except incidentally, that might benefit all Canadians. It takes a fair bit of absurd logical twisting to argue that we need more jails and tougher sentencing given the statistics on crime and soon to be obsolete planes (unless we're planning a few more wars that I haven't heard about), but we do know why the argument is made. It serves the Harperites' base. In fact, we've known for quite some time - since the pattern is so obvious - all policy decisions made by the Harper regime are grounded in politics first and only, on occasion - perhaps by happenstance - for Canadians in general. We seldom if at all see goodwill towards all Canadians from the Harperites. When they speak of "what Canadians asked us to do," for example, that's Harperite speak for "what our base asked us to do." This is not an insignificant distinction - one that has alienated the majority of Canadians who actually care about the direction in which their country now seems to be heading under such an authoritarian regime.
Kai is not remotely alone in his perspective on this issue or on the soul-sucking power and profit motives driving Big Media news organization (I can think of only two journalists in Canada who speak truth to power, though several come to mind who think they do so because they've been critical here and there of the Harperites) and the ineffectual actions of political parties, who by nature consistently seek self-preservation as an entity first and abuse their grass roots membership all too often.
What Kai says in this essay merely expresses - but with eloquent detail, meaningful passion, and sophisticated rhetoric - what countless Canadians have been thinking all along. This is why Kai joins the little page in the slow but eventual march towards the walls of Harperland.
First we'll take Manhattan.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
A Question of Sovereignty - a film by Kevin P. Miller
The film is highly manipulative, seeking our emotional identification through the victim testimonials, for example, and less than nuanced in its methods of weaving privacy legislation issues, free trade, and sovereignty issues together. But it has a point to make, as all real documentaries do, and that point is significant in 2011 in that we are witnessing the "selling" of Canada again and again during the reign of the Harperites. If you're not absolutely appalled, you're not paying attention.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Not Everyone Has Immigrated to Harperland
Having difficulty celebrating Canada Day fully knowing only too well how the Harper Regime has embarrassed us around the world - most significantly on global warming and climate change and, most recently, on a reasonable effort to warn the world's potential users about the dangers of asbestos.
Learning today about creeping militarism now built prominently into immigration ceremonies is also very disturbing. Will there be a backlash against the military itself in addition to the Harperites, or will this political policy just sail on by as every other questionable policy change the Harperites make would seem to do? One or two days in the news and then that's it. We'll just wave at it as it recedes into custom.
And has the media - critical as they frequently are of the Harper government - or our exposure to it really changed anything? We read about this absurd issue, we watch the story on that ridiculous decision, and then slip resignedly right back into our daily lives. That's it. More comfortable to just hang out with friends and family. "What can we do about it anyway?" my partner keeps asking. And I keep saying, "start a revolution," and my partner says, "yeah, right, but no one would come. It would be like an early Woody Allen movie."
One could succumb to despondency if not outright despair quite easily on Canada Day were it not for the knowledge that nevertheless there are still many out there who have not yet and may never move into central Harperland but choose instead to remain in the hinterland of Canada practicing genuine equality, justice for all not just some, and reverence for the biosphere and planet earth. This is the place to be on Canada Day even if we can't get the revolution going. Yet!
Learning today about creeping militarism now built prominently into immigration ceremonies is also very disturbing. Will there be a backlash against the military itself in addition to the Harperites, or will this political policy just sail on by as every other questionable policy change the Harperites make would seem to do? One or two days in the news and then that's it. We'll just wave at it as it recedes into custom.
And has the media - critical as they frequently are of the Harper government - or our exposure to it really changed anything? We read about this absurd issue, we watch the story on that ridiculous decision, and then slip resignedly right back into our daily lives. That's it. More comfortable to just hang out with friends and family. "What can we do about it anyway?" my partner keeps asking. And I keep saying, "start a revolution," and my partner says, "yeah, right, but no one would come. It would be like an early Woody Allen movie."
One could succumb to despondency if not outright despair quite easily on Canada Day were it not for the knowledge that nevertheless there are still many out there who have not yet and may never move into central Harperland but choose instead to remain in the hinterland of Canada practicing genuine equality, justice for all not just some, and reverence for the biosphere and planet earth. This is the place to be on Canada Day even if we can't get the revolution going. Yet!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
This Saturday in Canada: Stop the Tar Sands
This email is going out to all 350 supporters in Canada regarding a global action taking place this Saturday, June 18th being coordinated by several of our partner organizations.
Dear friends,
The Candian tar sands are the largest industrial project on the planet, and one of biggest threats to a safe climate future.
Right now, we're at about 392 "parts per million" CO2 -- way over 350, what scientists say is the safe level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere for maintaining a safe climate. That's why we're already seeing record-breaking storms, floods, wildfires, and droughts. If we burned all the oil that's stored in the the Canadian tar sands, we'd add about 200 ppm CO2 -- thinking about a world near 600ppm is downright terrifying.
Our best hope of defusing this carbon bomb is a groundswell of people speaking out and taking action. That's why we're spreading the word about a big event happening this weekend: "The International Stop the Tar Sands Day." There are events happening all over the world, and in almost every major city throughout Canada.
Why now? Major efforts are underway to expand the amount of tar sands oil exported from Canada to refineries in the United States, so we’re teaming up with our allies to make sure this that carbon stays in the ground.
On June 18, take part in a tar sands action near you and show your support for a safe climate: www.350.org/june18
Extracting and burning tar sands oil is dirty and dangerous - a barrel of tar sands oil contributes 15% more CO2 per barrel to our atmosphere than average crude oil. The extraction process in Alberta is destroying Canada’s forests, trampling indigenous rights, poisoning our atmosphere and river systems, threatening community health, and contributing to global climate change.
To find an action in a city near you, or organize your simple event with a banner or sign, please click here: www.350.org/june18
We know to get to 350ppm, we need to move past fossil fuels -- and stopping the tar sands is a key step in moving to a clean energy future for Canada and the whole planet. We hope you´ll join in the action this week -- and use this weekend's energy to get fired up and inspired for Moving Planet international day of climate action coming up on September 24th.
Stay tuned for further ways to get involved!
Thanks for all you do,
Kelly Blynn for 350.org
350.org is building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. Our online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public actions are led from the bottom up by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries. You can join 350.org on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page at facebook.com/350org and follow us on twitter by visiting twitter.com/350. To join our list (maybe a friend forwarded you this e-mail) visit www.350.org/signup. To support our work, donate securely online at 350.org/donate.
What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in "parts per million" (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM—a "people powered movement" that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.
Dear friends,
The Candian tar sands are the largest industrial project on the planet, and one of biggest threats to a safe climate future.
Right now, we're at about 392 "parts per million" CO2 -- way over 350, what scientists say is the safe level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere for maintaining a safe climate. That's why we're already seeing record-breaking storms, floods, wildfires, and droughts. If we burned all the oil that's stored in the the Canadian tar sands, we'd add about 200 ppm CO2 -- thinking about a world near 600ppm is downright terrifying.
Our best hope of defusing this carbon bomb is a groundswell of people speaking out and taking action. That's why we're spreading the word about a big event happening this weekend: "The International Stop the Tar Sands Day." There are events happening all over the world, and in almost every major city throughout Canada.
Why now? Major efforts are underway to expand the amount of tar sands oil exported from Canada to refineries in the United States, so we’re teaming up with our allies to make sure this that carbon stays in the ground.
On June 18, take part in a tar sands action near you and show your support for a safe climate: www.350.org/june18
Extracting and burning tar sands oil is dirty and dangerous - a barrel of tar sands oil contributes 15% more CO2 per barrel to our atmosphere than average crude oil. The extraction process in Alberta is destroying Canada’s forests, trampling indigenous rights, poisoning our atmosphere and river systems, threatening community health, and contributing to global climate change.
To find an action in a city near you, or organize your simple event with a banner or sign, please click here: www.350.org/june18
We know to get to 350ppm, we need to move past fossil fuels -- and stopping the tar sands is a key step in moving to a clean energy future for Canada and the whole planet. We hope you´ll join in the action this week -- and use this weekend's energy to get fired up and inspired for Moving Planet international day of climate action coming up on September 24th.
Stay tuned for further ways to get involved!
Thanks for all you do,
Kelly Blynn for 350.org
350.org is building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. Our online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public actions are led from the bottom up by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries. You can join 350.org on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page at facebook.com/350org and follow us on twitter by visiting twitter.com/350. To join our list (maybe a friend forwarded you this e-mail) visit www.350.org/signup. To support our work, donate securely online at 350.org/donate.
What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in "parts per million" (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM—a "people powered movement" that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
A Memo to David Akin
On the Hill: Memo to Brigette: There are no shortcuts in politics. It takes long, dull, dreary work http://bit.ly/mC2SsL
Everything you argue is based on the premise that political activity should take place within the system, with established institutions and its rules of law, and you're arguing that this is the only method of moving forward if one wants to enact change - with a little hard work, of course. But, as anyone who has ever been involved in wide grassroots political movements - protest or otherwise - knows, one is not obliged, on any grounds, to work within the system. In fact, it's very difficult to hollow things out from within because one is always bound by the structures of the system and its institutions. One can and might have to work against the system, and, as the 60's remind us, sometimes civil disobedience is necessary --even for its own sake without an immediately achievable goal. Sometimes disruption is a good thing.
Obviously DePape chose the latter on her recognition - shared by even those who do work within the system - that our system and its institutions aren't as democratic as they could be, especially in terms of the democratic principle of representation, a principle that some see as the very bedrock of democracy. We are, as many have noted, one of the four western countries which continue to believe in the illusion that a first-past-the-post electoral system is really democratic, whereas in fact the most one can say about such a electoral process is that it's somewhat but not competely democratic in the representational results it yields.
In the end, with your respect for the system and its institutions, you're not much different in your perspective than May or Rae, and I'm sure you work just as hard.
Everything you argue is based on the premise that political activity should take place within the system, with established institutions and its rules of law, and you're arguing that this is the only method of moving forward if one wants to enact change - with a little hard work, of course. But, as anyone who has ever been involved in wide grassroots political movements - protest or otherwise - knows, one is not obliged, on any grounds, to work within the system. In fact, it's very difficult to hollow things out from within because one is always bound by the structures of the system and its institutions. One can and might have to work against the system, and, as the 60's remind us, sometimes civil disobedience is necessary --even for its own sake without an immediately achievable goal. Sometimes disruption is a good thing.
Obviously DePape chose the latter on her recognition - shared by even those who do work within the system - that our system and its institutions aren't as democratic as they could be, especially in terms of the democratic principle of representation, a principle that some see as the very bedrock of democracy. We are, as many have noted, one of the four western countries which continue to believe in the illusion that a first-past-the-post electoral system is really democratic, whereas in fact the most one can say about such a electoral process is that it's somewhat but not competely democratic in the representational results it yields.
In the end, with your respect for the system and its institutions, you're not much different in your perspective than May or Rae, and I'm sure you work just as hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)