Posts
As a native New Englander, I watched with interest as the boys from Foxborough dispensed with the Philadelphia Eagles, by a 24-21 count. As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m not a huge football fan, but I have a certain interest in the team from the days when I watched them as a wee lad, when they went by the name of the Boston Patriots and played their games at Fenway Park in downtown Boston.
When I looked at the TV listings page in my local paper, I saw with horror that the game was being carried by Fox. My expectations were greatly reduced for enjoyment of the game, knowing just how much Fox manages to take the simple beauty of baseball and turn it into a bastardized spectacle that approaches what Hollywood does to your favorite novel. I imagined they would do the same with football, also. They didn’t let me down.
Now I don’t expect most sound bite aficionados to appreciate sports in their purity like I do. I mean, I was reading the late Susan Sontag bemoan the death of cinephilia with the TV sound down during commercials! But for the love of Christ, can they dispense with all the stupid graphics, weird camera angles and incessant chatter of the halftime analysts and just give us the game?
Despite my general disgust with what professional sports have become, there is something refreshing about the old-fashioned Bill Belichick and his lunch pail gang of players who are a throwback to the blue-collar teams of the 1960’s such as the Green Bay Packers, Baltimore Colts and the run-and-gun days of the renegade AFL.
I can almost expect to see Tom Brady, Tedy Bruschi and the rest of the Patriots in the old grainy black and white films from bygone days, produced by NFL films.
Congratulations to the Patriots—Super Bowl champions for three out of the past four years!
Monday, February 07, 2005
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Ideology and the right to speak
In trying to wrap up the issues concerning Ward Churchill and the controversy swirling around what he said, his right to say it and the fallout that comes when ideological purity gets tossed into the mix, I ran across two articles from Counterpunch.
The first one, by Alexander Cockburn looks at the right to free expression, juxtaposed with ideology and worldview.
The second, by Kurt Nimmo, sums up nicely my thoughts and feelings as I come to the end (or beginning?) of a week.
My willingness to join the fray and express support for constitutionally protected free speech has given me a very small glimpse into the deranged minds of many that inhabit the world of neo-conservatism. While I've gotten some much appreciated civil and intelligent feedback from several folks that are at different places in how we view politics and world events, I've also been exposed to some personal attacks (all anonymous) that attempted to discredit what I wrote on the basis of 1) Churchill being a fraud, or 2) that what he wrote was so outside the pale of accepted dialogue, that it is rightfully being shut down. None of these sought to dialogue or even politely express disagreements. Instead, they immediately sought to dismiss the issue with the wave of a hand and the use of ad hominem tactics designed to marginalize my efforts to take a particular position.
One of the things I've learned about writing is that if no one comments on your writing, then you probably don't have much to say. When people start taking the time to send you attack mail, then you might possibly have hit a nerve. Hey, it's all good!
Despite the lies, innuendo and blatent attacks against Churchill, even from those who ought to be standing with him, I'd do it again, as I believe freedom of speech is one of the foundational freedoms in our country. If we lose that, then nothing else really matters.
The first one, by Alexander Cockburn looks at the right to free expression, juxtaposed with ideology and worldview.
The second, by Kurt Nimmo, sums up nicely my thoughts and feelings as I come to the end (or beginning?) of a week.
My willingness to join the fray and express support for constitutionally protected free speech has given me a very small glimpse into the deranged minds of many that inhabit the world of neo-conservatism. While I've gotten some much appreciated civil and intelligent feedback from several folks that are at different places in how we view politics and world events, I've also been exposed to some personal attacks (all anonymous) that attempted to discredit what I wrote on the basis of 1) Churchill being a fraud, or 2) that what he wrote was so outside the pale of accepted dialogue, that it is rightfully being shut down. None of these sought to dialogue or even politely express disagreements. Instead, they immediately sought to dismiss the issue with the wave of a hand and the use of ad hominem tactics designed to marginalize my efforts to take a particular position.
One of the things I've learned about writing is that if no one comments on your writing, then you probably don't have much to say. When people start taking the time to send you attack mail, then you might possibly have hit a nerve. Hey, it's all good!
Despite the lies, innuendo and blatent attacks against Churchill, even from those who ought to be standing with him, I'd do it again, as I believe freedom of speech is one of the foundational freedoms in our country. If we lose that, then nothing else really matters.
Burn baby, burn!
"It wasn't a band of angry students who destroyed about two dozen copies of "Bless Me, Ultima," a novel selected for a Norwood High School English class - it was a group of parents. Norwood School Superintendent Bob Conder confiscated the books and released them to parents to be burned or otherwise purged."
So begins this story from Colorado, the state that burns books, attacks a professor's right to free speech and threatens him with dismissal and of course, the home of James Dobson and Focus on the Family ministries.
The book, Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolpho Anaya, explores the difficulty of reconciling conflicting cultural traditions. The main character, a young boy growing up in New Mexico during World War II, struggles with the complexities of his religion. He becomes increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Catholic Church to explain the most pressing questions about morality and human experience and is frustrated by his failure to find a forgiving god, and then finds an unlikely mentor in a local “healer” who comes to live with his family.
Anaya, a professor emeritus of English from the University of New Mexico, wrote the book in 1972.
Anaya, in a phone interview said, “Freedom of democracy is learned in our school systems.”
“Parents have the right to monitor what their children read, however they do not have the right to tell others what they can read. That is un-American, un-democratic and un-educational,” said Anaya.
The article goes on to say that these parents objected to some of the "nasty" words contained, so with the endorsement of the local administration, they built a bonfire in the parking lot of good 'ole Norwood High. According to School Superintendent Bob Condor, the book contained "filthy language".
"I'm not going to repeat the language. Our job is to protect kids from things that aren't good for kids," he said.
Hey, if it has bad words, just fire up the censorship pyre and be done with it!
The ALA has information about banned books at their website.
So begins this story from Colorado, the state that burns books, attacks a professor's right to free speech and threatens him with dismissal and of course, the home of James Dobson and Focus on the Family ministries.
The book, Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolpho Anaya, explores the difficulty of reconciling conflicting cultural traditions. The main character, a young boy growing up in New Mexico during World War II, struggles with the complexities of his religion. He becomes increasingly frustrated by the failure of the Catholic Church to explain the most pressing questions about morality and human experience and is frustrated by his failure to find a forgiving god, and then finds an unlikely mentor in a local “healer” who comes to live with his family.
Anaya, a professor emeritus of English from the University of New Mexico, wrote the book in 1972.
Anaya, in a phone interview said, “Freedom of democracy is learned in our school systems.”
“Parents have the right to monitor what their children read, however they do not have the right to tell others what they can read. That is un-American, un-democratic and un-educational,” said Anaya.
The article goes on to say that these parents objected to some of the "nasty" words contained, so with the endorsement of the local administration, they built a bonfire in the parking lot of good 'ole Norwood High. According to School Superintendent Bob Condor, the book contained "filthy language".
"I'm not going to repeat the language. Our job is to protect kids from things that aren't good for kids," he said.
Hey, if it has bad words, just fire up the censorship pyre and be done with it!
The ALA has information about banned books at their website.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Op ed on Infoshop
In my rash of recent posts, I never got around to putting a link up to my own op ed that I penned concerning Ward Churchill, freedom of speech, and attacks from the right-wing limiting that freedom.
Chuck and the good folks over at Infoshop picked up the op ed that I wrote and shopped to several left-leaning websites. With the subject of free speech front and center in the controversy swirling around Churchill, I would have thought a few more websites and bloggers would have had something to say about it. With Bill O'Reilly's nightly character assasinations against Churchill, I kept waiting for someone with a national forum, like Al Franken and Air America to take up his defense. Apparently, free speech that crosses whatever line Churchill was deemed to have crossed by the liberal arbiters of good taste, warrants shunning.
Bloggers like Atrios, Daily Kos, and even David Brock over at Media Matters had nothing to say about calls for censor and demands for Churchill's job at the University of Colorado. Even David Neiwert, who's written extensively on the rise of fascist tendencies in the U.S. was silent about this. Common Dreams, a newswire that carries a wide spectrum of progressive thought and opinion chose to run an op ed criticising Churchill. The obvious clamping down on dissent certainly warranted more commentary from the left. Lord knows it's been all over Free Republic and other right-leaning sites.
I have my own thoughts as to why this is, but I'll save it for a later post. I've spent a good part of the past three days writing, sending emails and making phone calls in support of Churchill. I need some time away from my keyboard. With the temperature in the 50's outside, the spring thaw up here in the Northeast is upon us. I think I'll get out and enjoy the sunshine and maybe put on the x-country skis and take a buzz through the pines.
Chuck and the good folks over at Infoshop picked up the op ed that I wrote and shopped to several left-leaning websites. With the subject of free speech front and center in the controversy swirling around Churchill, I would have thought a few more websites and bloggers would have had something to say about it. With Bill O'Reilly's nightly character assasinations against Churchill, I kept waiting for someone with a national forum, like Al Franken and Air America to take up his defense. Apparently, free speech that crosses whatever line Churchill was deemed to have crossed by the liberal arbiters of good taste, warrants shunning.
Bloggers like Atrios, Daily Kos, and even David Brock over at Media Matters had nothing to say about calls for censor and demands for Churchill's job at the University of Colorado. Even David Neiwert, who's written extensively on the rise of fascist tendencies in the U.S. was silent about this. Common Dreams, a newswire that carries a wide spectrum of progressive thought and opinion chose to run an op ed criticising Churchill. The obvious clamping down on dissent certainly warranted more commentary from the left. Lord knows it's been all over Free Republic and other right-leaning sites.
I have my own thoughts as to why this is, but I'll save it for a later post. I've spent a good part of the past three days writing, sending emails and making phone calls in support of Churchill. I need some time away from my keyboard. With the temperature in the 50's outside, the spring thaw up here in the Northeast is upon us. I think I'll get out and enjoy the sunshine and maybe put on the x-country skis and take a buzz through the pines.
The saga continues...
The scenario often goes like this. Public, or semi-public figure makes comment that is deemed controversial. Routinely, the comment has been taken out of context. Media jumps on story, like proverbial pigs in shit, and figure is forced to defend. Backpeddling, figure most often retracts comment, issues apology, say they didn't make statement, or some variation on that scenario.
Ward Churchill is not backing down from his statements. In addition to having his life pried open like a dented sardine can, fellow activists and others that he has worked with and supported over the past 30+ years are running from him, tails tucked firmly between their legs. Here is a decent article (for mainstream reporting) in the Rocky Mountain News.
To Churchill's credit, he won't answer the mundane details of his life, such as, who is your mother, "It's absolutely indefensible," he said of probing questions into his family history. " 'Who's your mother and where does she live?' Yeah, she needs to be dealing with what I'm dealing with, at 85 years old.
"They're welcome to call my father. They can interview him." He says this because his father is deceased. (I love Brennan's snide editorializing in the midst of his "news" story)
Other related articles:
Free speech
Editorial on same subject
Essay on U.S. foreign policy, in light of Churchill's comments
Then there's this
Ward Churchill is not backing down from his statements. In addition to having his life pried open like a dented sardine can, fellow activists and others that he has worked with and supported over the past 30+ years are running from him, tails tucked firmly between their legs. Here is a decent article (for mainstream reporting) in the Rocky Mountain News.
To Churchill's credit, he won't answer the mundane details of his life, such as, who is your mother, "It's absolutely indefensible," he said of probing questions into his family history. " 'Who's your mother and where does she live?' Yeah, she needs to be dealing with what I'm dealing with, at 85 years old.
"They're welcome to call my father. They can interview him." He says this because his father is deceased. (I love Brennan's snide editorializing in the midst of his "news" story)
Other related articles:
Free speech
Editorial on same subject
Essay on U.S. foreign policy, in light of Churchill's comments
Then there's this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)