Money for Nothing? Or Buying Votes?

Analysis …

The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued a 5-4 ruling Thursday that struck down prohibitions on political campaign contributions by corporations, saying that such measures aimed at control infringe on corporate First Amendment free speech rights. The decision means that corporations and unions will be able to spend unlimited funds on independent campaign expenditures. Reactions to the decision ranged from outrage by some who said the ruling has made U.S. democracy more corrupt to indifference because such practices are already in place anyway. What do you think of the ruling?

The American Prospect |  “If the Court rigidly insists that Congress can regulate only to prevent quid-pro-corruption, narrowly defined, then Citizens United has implications that extend well beyond what corporations can do. Justice Kennedy’s own opinion even hints at the possibility, as he notes that the evidence supporting the “soft money” limits – which apply across the board — rests on evidence about the connection between money and political access. While Justice Kennedy backed off from saying anything definitive, we may find that it was the Court’s discussion of corruption, not corporations, that matters most in the long run.”

Matt Welch @CNN |  “Even if you just can’t bring yourself to believe that people who take civil liberties seriously have long-held serious civil libertarian criticisms of campaign-finance laws, or if you simply think they’re all wrong, I’ll offer this last salve: It has never been easier for groups of citizens to swarm together and flow money through the Internet toward campaigns and candidates who excite them. Ask Ron Paul — or more relevantly, Barack Obama — what’s more powerful: $10 million from Dr. Evil Industries, or $10 each from 1 million people who can actually vote?”

Julian Sanchez |  “Why is it that so many people who clearly do think books and magazines and talk radio shows enjoy unambiguous constitutional protection, despite being corporate funded or operated, are simultaneously absolutely sure that paid broadcast spots are in an utterly different category? If one is above all concerned with exacerbating the translation of economic inequality into political inequality, it seems rather odd.  In effect, it means you only get to use your corporate money to get your agenda on the airwaves if (like GE or Time Warner) you’re big enough to buy them wholesale. But that’s OK, because you can pump money into all those other means of trying to influence voters; it’s just broadcast advertising that’s out. So I’d like to flip the reductio question around and ask: Given that people seem to mostly agree that all this other stuff constitutes protected political speech, why do so many people have such a different attitude about paid ads?”

Informed Comment |  “In Web 3.0 consumers will likely download content via the internet at will. Media is becoming pull media– individuals pull down what they want when they want it. Television may have to go to an iTunes model of charging per episode. In a pull-media world, for advertisers of any sort, whether pushing products or candidates, to get their message out and control it will become more and more difficult. Pull-media allows a fracturing of viewership (or participation– many consumers will be playing games rather than watching passively). The fact is that viewership for the 4 networks has already plummeted, and the advertising rates that companies now pay them to air commercials are unrealistically high, and appear to be a function of habit. What else could you do? There are hundreds of channels, then you add in the video blogs, the online gaming, and the blogs. Even if a network only pulls in a household share of 9 for the evening rather than the household share of 65 that that Gunsmoke used to on CBS, at least you’ve got that many households in one place, which is rarer and rarer. One of the few things Rupert Murdoch is right about is that there is not enough advertising to spread throughout the internet so as to support any particular newspapers or magazines. The buy of a half-hour attack ad by e.g. Morgan Stanley on CBS dissing Obama on October 25, 2012 just may not mean then what it would have meant in 1960 when CBS had a large proportion of television viewers and most Americans were television viewers, and there were only 3 networks. And if the attack ad is inaccurate, it will be shredded on social media or just ignored. All the vicious attacks on Obama, after all, did not prevent his landslide victory, since voters were tired of Republican shenanigans. Reality is still more important than media depictions of it.”

Alas, a Blog |  “As I think about it more…say goodbye to stopping global warming. In fact, bring it on!!! And there go environmental regulations!! And our food system will be going STRAIGHT to hell. No pass go, do not collect $200. Let us not even begin to think of the effects on the rest of the world. Remember how corporations did nasty things to Latin America with the full backing of the US gov’t? Does anyone think that they will stop now? Bolivia for instance, is already under pressure for its lithium.”

Best of the Web ..

The Advocate’s Foolish and Sad ‘Gayest City’ Ranking  |  Box Turtle Bulletin

I appreciate the Advocate for many reasons, not least of which is that they are a gay magazine that is still in business. But their recent effort to light-heartedly identify the “gayest cities” in the United States betrayed our community’s occasional inclination to still buy into the most negative stereotypes as though they define us.

Yes, It’s Perfectly OK to Have a Wind Turbine Near Your House  |  Global Comment

I too worry about unintended effects of wind energy on wildlife populations, particularly birds. We clearly need to minimize these impacts as much as possible. However, to limit wind production in a core wind-producing region because corporations and landowners worry the state will change makes no sense in the face of an urgent energy and climate change crisis. These localized concerns have far-reaching implications that affect national and international events, from funding for wind projects in Congress to rising sea levels and growing numbers of climate refugees in Bangladesh.

Human Rights as Animal Rights  |  alias Bruce

Recently, a person I was talking with suggested that when we talk about civil and human rights, we ought to start bringing the rights of non-human beings into the discussion as well. Her idea being that just as we link, say, black rights with women’s rights with gay rights, we need to begin to link the rights of humans with the rights of other sentient beings. So that the welfare of non-human animals becomes part of the everyday progressive discussion about “justice” instead of being quarantined to the PETA and environmentalist end of the table.

This project gets messy. Because it is full of human ideas that we cannot just slap onto animal consciousness. For starters, what exactly is “sentience?” Who has it and who doesn’t? Is it even a fair standard? Can a non-sentient existence rank as highly on a worth-of-experience scale as a sentient one? And what is “freedom” or “the pursuit of happiness” to a garter snake?

Making maps to fight disaster, build economies  |  TEDTalks

As of 2005, only 15 percent of the world was mapped. This slows the delivery of aid after a disaster — and hides the economic potential of unused lands and unknown roads. In this short talk, Google’s Lalitesh Katragadda demos Map Maker, a group map-making tool that people around the globe are using to map their world.

Help for Haiti edition

Analysis …

NPR reported this weekend that logistical bottlenecks in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince was keeping aid, such as food, water and medicines, from reaching those in the earthquake-stricken country who need it. Chaos and violence were causing additional woes. Meanwhile, as people in the U.S. sought ways to aid  earthquake’s victims, some folks began to wonder what actions they could take to help — and also wondered whether donations would really make a difference and if they really would go to the people who could benefit from them.

Lawyers, Guns and Money |  “(You simply can’t offload supplies from ships without dock cranes. You can’t land planes full of relief shipments and inflatable hospitals without a functional control tower. To save lives, search and rescue crews must get their equipment from tarmac to disaster zone efficiently. Helicopters need landing zones not decimated by rubble. And most importantly, military folks with the choppers need to be able to communicate with the civilian aid agencies who have the supplies.)”

Felix Salmon |  “It’s human nature to want to believe that in the wake of a major disaster, we can all do our bit to help just by giving generously. And if there’s a silver lining to these tragedies at all, it’s that they significantly increase the total amount of money donated to important charities by individuals around the world. But if a charity is worth supporting, then it’s worth supporting with unrestricted funds. Because the last thing anybody wants to see in a couple of years’ time is an unseemly tussle over what happened to today’s Haiti donations, even as other international tragedies receive much less public attention.”

Philanthrocapitalism |  “Effective giving needs the head and the heart. As all our hearts go out to the people of Haiti, we offer three thoughts about how to give. First, give money. This may sound obvious, but aid agencies are swamped at this time with offers of food, clothing and other goods. Even when these goods are needed, it is far more cost effective for charities to buy and ship exactly what they need than sorting out gifts in kind. Second, give it to an organisation with a track record of effective action. Thanks to the internet, it has never been easier to find out who those organisations are. Third, why not match fund what you have given to Haiti with a gift through kiva or globalgiving to someone suffering just as much, but less dramatically, elsewhere in the world?”

Global Post |  “If you’re considering doing your part, that’s great. But, experts say, whatever you do, don’t donate anything but money. Under no circumstances should you mail care packages, toys, food or clothes. Don’t even think about sending drugs. The response to prior disasters shows that regardless of your intentions, you will only be making matters worse.”

This Week in Education |  “After you’ve used your cell phone to text a donation to help the people of Haiti — last night’s edition of  Marketplace reported that over $3 million has already been donated this way — start thinking about how cellphone microdonations might change the face of education giving in the future.  With text message giving, no credit cards are required, not even a visit to a computer.  Even the smallest amounts can help.  It’s an easy, fast way to give in a world that really likes thing easy and fast.”

Stuff White People Do |  “I’ve often watched privileged people make themselves feel a little better about the relative advantages they have by donating money to various “causes.” Some big-name organization will come along soliciting donations, and because the privileged person recognizes the big-name, they feel safe giving money to it. Or rather, they think, giving money through it. Because they’ve heard the big non-profit’s name before, they feel assured that the money will get to the people in need that the organization claims to be helping. Trouble is, many of these big-name organizations don’t end up giving all that much of the donated funds to the people who need it.”

Foreign Policy |  “This September, Haiti qualified for the cancellation of $1.2 billion of its $1.9 billion in external debt.  To ensure the recovery of the nation and the livelihoods of its 9 million citizens, the IDB and any other lenders should fully cancel any remaining debt obligations.”

Salon |  “The explosion of Haitian text-giving is proof that new technology can give a boost to our better nature, even as it simultaneously enables our most prurient impulses. For every flame war, let’s have a virtual food-bank drive. For every nasty-gram, let’s, in some small way, try to help alleviate suffering somewhere. It’s easy. All you need is a phone.”

Also on the Web …

What Martin Luther King Would Say About Haiti on His Birthday  |  Jack & Jill Politics

Today is Martin Luther King’s birthday. Today a horrific tragedy is going on in Haiti. While some men of the cloth are using the incident to spread their twisted world views, Martin surely would’ve used the occasion to spread wisdom and good will and encourage his fellow man to help out our Haitian brothers and sisters in need. But still what happened in Haiti is deeper than that.

For King, giving money to Haiti would not be enough. In order to be good citizens of the world, it is not good enough to just to give money, we must make sure to end the economic and social climate that led to the disaster.

The U.N.’s Loss  |  Alas, a Blog

Humanity’s best impulses will be what helps the nation of Haiti to rebuild from the catastrophe in Port-au-Prince, and not just in the immediate future. The United Nations will remain in Haiti long after the minicams have gone home. They will not solve all the problems that plague Haiti; no organization can. But they will continue to help, as they have been helping for years.

And while it’s fashionable in some corners to criticize the United Nations, I hope we don’t forget that.

Requiem for Port-au-Prince  |  Foreign Policy

Port-au-Prince bustled. The garden-filled capital city of 3 million was flocked with hills, covered in chalk-white buildings, home to palaces and slums. Tap Taps, the colorful shared taxis, ported citizens through the city, the onomatopoetic name referring to the custom of tapping coins on the side of the cab to stop it. Tourists walked through the Champ de Mars. Tiny fishing vessels filled the bay, cruise ships looming further out. For the first time in decades, Haiti was peaceful and growing, President Réné Préval well-liked internationally and at home, the economy expanding while nearly every other in the Caribbean contracted.

The day before yesterday, a high-magnitude earthquake leveled much of Port-au-Prince. Here is a remembrance of the city — founded 260 years ago — in the words of famed residents and visitors, including Langston Hughes, Edwidge Danticat, and former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Haiti in Ink and Tears: A Literary Sampler  |  The New York Times

The energy of souls not lost springs back into the living world, not only through one of the few surviving religions that allow believers to converse face to face with the gods, but also in an extraordinarily rich, fertile and (in spite of everything) optimistic culture. Haiti offers, keeps on offering, a shimmering panorama of visual art and a wealth of seductive and hypnotic music, much of it rooted in the rhythms of ceremonial drumming. For the past 50 years a remarkably vivid and sophisticated Haitian literature has been flowing out of Creole, an ever-evolving language as fecund as the English of Shakespeare’s time. The Haitian world is not all suffering; it is full of treasure. Here are a few of the many voices, native and not, inspired by Haiti. —Madison Smartt Bell

Invasion of the Body Scanners?

Analysis …

The attempted airline bombing on Christmas Day has prompted discussion over whether airports should start using full-body imaging scanners on passengers and staff as a way of improving safety and security. Some experts say the scans will provide better protection against attempts by would-be terrorists to sneak explosives or weapons onto planes; privacy advocates say the scanners harm civil rights more than they protect them.

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen |  “What I like about the idea of making full body scans universal and mandatory is that it could help to further remove that element of human judgment from the process by placing individuals who are viewing the images of those being scanned in another room where the scanee is out of sight, limiting the scanning to legal adults only, and requiring that all information obtained be erased following a “clean” scan. Assuming all of that is properly coordinated (perhaps a big if, I suppose), then I think that, as far as air travel goes, full body scanners could stand to improve the application of civil rights.”

AlterNet |  “The body scanner is sure to get a go-ahead because of the illustrious personages hawking them. Chief among them is former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff, who now heads the Chertoff Group, which represents one of the leading manufacturers of whole-body-imaging machines, Rapiscan Systems. For days after the attack, Chertoff made the rounds on the media promoting the scanners, calling the bombing attempt “a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery” — all without disclosing his relationship to Rapiscan.”

New Scientist |  “In the aftermath of the incident aboard a US-bound airliner on Christmas day in which a passenger attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear, governments are rushing to install full-body scanners at airports to thwart similar attacks. But their efforts could be stymied by the fact that the scanner technology has not yet been certified as fit for purpose by national governments – and manufacturers will not invest in mass production until it has.”

MoJo Blogs |  “We go nuts whenever a terrorist tries to set off a bomb, but we also go nuts over an effective, noninvasive technology just because it gives TSA screeners a brief glimpse of our body fat level? That’s crazy.”

Boston Globe |  “Like drug trafficking rings, terrorist networks strive to be more nimble and adaptive than the government bureaucracies that aim to outsmart them. Upholding one technology as a panacea will not make flying safer. Ongoing adaptation of intelligence, interrogation, and technology will. As Winston Churchill said: “To improve is to change; to be perfect is have changed often.’’”

Best of the Web …

Oppose Afghanistan But Not a Pacifist? Tough!  |  Religion Dispatches

While Obama used his Nobel Peace Prize speech to legitimize Afghanistan using just war principles, soldiers are currently unable to invoke these principles in refusing to serve. When we punish soldiers who heed their moral compasses, we deny them religious freedom, and our democracy is threatened. It’s time to allow those who oppose the war on ethical grounds the option of ‘Selective Conscientious Objection.’

Lacking in Self-Esteem? Good for You!  |  Time

New research has found that self-esteem can be just as high among D students, drunk drivers and former Presidents from Arkansas as it is among Nobel laureates, nuns and New York City fire fighters. In fact, according to research performed by Brad Bushman of Iowa State University and Roy Baumeister of Case Western Reserve University, people with high self-esteem can engage in far more antisocial behavior than those with low self-worth. “I think we had a great deal of optimism that high self-esteem would cause all sorts of positive consequences and that if we raised self-esteem, people would do better in life,” Baumeister told the Times. “Mostly, the data have not borne that out.” Racists, street thugs and school bullies all polled high on the self-esteem charts. And you can see why. If you think you’re God’s gift, you’re particularly offended if other people don’t treat you that way. So you lash out or commit crimes or cut ethical corners to reassert your pre-eminence. After all, who are your moral inferiors to suggest that you could be doing something, er, wrong? What do they know?

Loneliness in Numbers  |  Atlantic Correspondents

We can now easily connect with friends on different continents without waiting two weeks for a letter, talk via computer without the expense of international long distance, and share new baby or other photos with hundreds of friends and relatives in a single posting, via personal Web sites and Facebook pages. … But are there hidden costs to all this connectedness? Is it possible that for some, there is loneliness, not safety, in numbers? Two essays by Willaim Deresiewicz in The Chronicle for Higher Education–one last January, and one penned only a few days ago, argue that it is. In his most recent essay, Deresiewicz quotes two studies, one from 1985, and one from 2004, that show a marked decline in people who have a “close confidant.” In 1985, only one out of 10 people said they lacked such a person in their life. In 2004, that number had climbed to four out of 10. And that was before so many blogs and social networking sites expanded the number of options (and distractions) for how we spend whatever social connection time we have.”

The Neurons That Shaped Civilization  |  TEDTalks

Neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran outlines the fascinating functions of mirror neurons. Only recently discovered, these neurons allow us to learn complex social behaviors, some of which formed the foundations of human civilization as we know it.

Climate of Doubts

Analysis …

After intense talks in the past few weeks, delegates to the Copenhagen Climate talks passed an accord that recognizes the world’s need to halt the rise of global temperatures, but lacked targets for reducing carbon emissions. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the accord, which was backed by the U.S., an “essential beginning,” but said it must be made legally binding next year. Many countries criticized the deal, saying it didn’t go far enough. Some watchers of the climate talks wondered whether the U.S. and other industrialized nations could muster the will or the vision to actually make changes necessary.

Open Left |  “A decade ago, the coalition of “Teamsters and turtles” that disrupted the WTO talks created some space for developing nations to more effectively oppose the agenda being pushed by US and other advanced industrial nations.  But many of those nations were not that prepared for opposition.  Ten years later, in Copenhagen, the what had been a fairly adventitious and partial convergence had matured to the point where the official representatives of the underdeveloped nations have become some of the most eloquent and advanced advocates for a fundamental transformation in how the world works.”

The Associated Press |  “Around the world, countries and capitalism are already working to curb global warming on their own, with or without a global treaty. In Brazil more rainforests are being saved, and in Chicago there’s a voluntary carbon pollution trading system. People recycle, buy smaller and newer cars, and change lightbulbs. But the impact of such piecemeal, voluntary efforts is small. Experts say it will never be enough without the kind of strong global agreement that eluded negotiators at the U.N. summit this past week in Copenhagen.”

CSMonitor.com |  “With several key decisions, Obama has set the scene for expanding the reach of climate-change imperatives – and science – into the lives of everyday Americans. He has made a “green economy” a hallmark of the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February. He has prioritized the cap-and-trade bill and put into effect new auto mileage standards. And the Environmental Protection Agency has for the first time characterized carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as a pollutant that it can control.But he has spent virtually no time engaging the public about the truth of the science. The climategate scandal, in which leaked e-mails alleged that support for the manmade global warming scenarios were politicized, played directly into a growing ambivalence. The result could be flagging public support of drastic climate change measures, says Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee.”

Miller-McCune |  “As the year comes to an end, Congress is haltingly assembling a plan to reform the health care system, while world leaders scramble to effectively address climate change. Given that, on both issues, the status quo is clearly unsustainable, why is the process of making needed changes so problematic?
While the question of precisely who must sacrifice for the common good (you first, by all means) plays a huge role in both debates, another, less-obvious dynamic is also in play. According to New York University psychologist John Jost, humans have an innate desire to see the structure of their society as fundamentally just and, thus, a strong reluctance to making major changes.”

Religion Dispatches |  “Global warming has been described by skeptics and deniers as a religion, and not in flattering ways. But many organized religions are taking climate change seriously, as a science. And while the tensions between religion and science date back centuries, the current climate change movement acts as a playing field where an atheist like Christopher Hitchens stands in agreement with an evangelist like Rick Warren: both believe it’s real and deserves urgent attention. Yet there is one issue that makes both camps squeamish: rapid population growth, which scientists say will make some regions even more vulnerable to climate change. Neither religious “creation care” advocates nor traditional environmentalists feel fully comfortable talking about it, and one major religious leader said it doesn’t even come up for discussion.”

On the Web …

Get Pregnant, Get Court-Martialed  |  Truthdig

Remember when protecting women’s rights was given as a justification for invading countries? Well, the U.S. general in northern Iraq has added pregnancy to the reasons why a soldier could be court-martialed—a list that includes selling weapons and taking drugs.

The Net Advantage  |  Prospect Magazine

It is impossible to know how the next few months in Iran will unfold, but the use of social media has already passed several tests: it has enabled citizens to coordinate with one another better than previously, to broadcast events like Basij violence or the killing of Neda Aga Soltan to the rest of the world, and, by forcing the regime to shut down communications apparatus, the protesters have infected Iran with a kind of technological auto-immune disease. However great the regime’s short-term desire to keep the protesters from communicating with one another, a modern economy simply cannot function if people can’t use their phones. The regime may yet crush protests, but even if they do, the events of June to November this year will still have broken the old illusion of a happy balance between democratic, theocratic, and military power in Iran.

Pearl Clutching and Urban Planning  |  Alas, a Blog

Our society likes to wring its hands and bleat about the poor pitiful children once the shooting starts, but we don’t tend to pay attention to the roots of the problems before everything goes wrong. This latest spate of failed gentrification efforts are going to have brand new bad areas springing up as the residents struggle to make it with no tax base, poor infrastructure, and the same old issues of race and class. It’s ridiculous to paint these pictures of scary bad areas that are the result of some foreign event horizon that no one can understand when we know how places get this way. For starters you get rid of the grocery stores, instead allowing liquor stores that sell food or whatever little corner stores spring up to be the only place within walking distance to get groceries. Then you take away (or never start) bus routes, and the ones that are in the area have shortened hours and limited routes so it’s difficult for the remaining population to get to work. Oh, let’s not forget schools that lack necessary equipment so the students are ill-equipped to succeed academically in a society where education is key. And of course there’s the added impact of poverty and institutional racism. Why the mention of racism? Well, how do you think we get to the place where only certain neighborhoods are allowed to turn into war zones? It’s no accident that I can get cops in my neighborhood to respond a lot faster than people living in Englewood.

Speaking Out Against Uganda’s Anti-Gay Law

Analysis …

Last week, evangelical Christian Pastor Rick Warren denounced a piece of legislation in Uganda that would execute or imprison members of the LGBT community, or lead to the prosecution for anyone who failed to turn into authorities members of the TGBL community. Warren, who has had ties with Ugandan political and religious leaders who champion this bill, condemned the proposal and said it stands against the Christian tenet to love one another. Over the weekend, bloggers examined Warren’s move, and also presented the complex history and context of the path that led to it.

Spiritual Politics |  “It’s worth noting that Warren mentions that he expressed his “opposition and concern” to “the most influential leader” he knows in Uganda, the Anglican archbishop. Thus far, the Anglican church in the country has contented itself with opposing the bill’s death penalty provision (for repeat homosexual offenders), but otherwise has taken no official position. A few weeks ago, one Anglican bishop, Joseph Abura of the diocese of Karamoja, wrote an opinion piece endorsing the legislation in no uncertain terms. … Under the circumstances, the bill needs all the opposition that can be mustered, belated or otherwise.”

Andrew Sullivan @The Atlantic |  “I just want to say that I will continue to oppose Tom Coburn in many areas on the question of homosexual equality (although I think we’d agree on a huge amount where it comes to government spending and borrowing). But this statement is one I and many others are deeply grateful for – and it could help save gay lives in Africa.”

The American Prospect |  “Conservative African clergy frequently speak of homosexuality as a prime symptom of Western enervation. This is the great irony of anti-gay politics in Africa: It appropriates quintessentially American culture-war rhetoric in the name of fighting Western influences. Like Hamas repurposing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Africa’s anti-gay demagogues channel their biases into an American narrative about a sinister international homosexual “agenda” that must be combated in order to preserve national vitality.”

Alas, a Blog |  “A new report released today details the role that US-based renewal church movements have played in mobilizing homophobic sentiment in at least three African countries. “Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches & Homophobia,” written by Rev. Kapya Kaoma for the progressive think tank Political Research Associates, was the result of a yearlong investigation into the relationship between conservative clergy on two continents, which has hastened divisions within denominations and has “restrict[ed] the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.” Renewal groups and their neoconservative ally, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, have long sought to conservatize or split mainline American churches—frequently over gender or sexuality issues—and liberal scholars have traced many of the mainline schisms that have dominated headlines over the past several years to groundwork laid by the IRD and others.”

Box Turtle Bulletin |  “The inability of LGBT people to reveal themselves to their own family is perhaps the greatest obstacle to improvement in Ugandans’ attitudes toward gay people. Uganda’s main opposition newspaper, The Monitor, has just published an amazing profile of a lesbian couple which seeks to begin to change all that.

“The couple (one is out while the other remains closeted) are rightly worried about the Anti-Homosexuality Act that is now before Parliament. This interview, which The Monitor calls “the first of its kind with a newspaper journalist,” provides ordinary Ugandan readers with an extremely rare look at the day-to-day concerns of LGBT people, without the monstrous stereotypes which run rampant in the country — and which have been reinforced repeatedly by American Evangelicals who have been meddling in Uganda’s affairs.”

On the Web …

Yep, That’s Houston, Texas, Y’all  |  Pandagon

Annise Parker won the Houston mayoral run-off yesterday, which means that Houston is now the biggest city in U.S. history to have an openly gay mayor.  This will almost certainly cause a lot of people to say, “Is this the same Texas that we hear so much about, the Bible-thumping, gun-shooting hellhole?” And the answer is yes, that’s the very same Texas.  Here’s the dirty little secret about Texas: It’s more liberal than you think.  Or, to put it another way, Texas (like most of the country) is divided in the same way that the nation is, down population density lines more than by “red” versus “blue” states.  It’s not just Austin that trends blue.  All the major cities went for Obama in the last election, at least within the city (suburban counties trended red).

Faux Friendship  |  The Chronicle of Higher Education

In our brave new mediated world, is friendship becoming? The Facebook phenomenon, so sudden and forceful a distortion of social space, needs little elaboration. Having been relegated to our screens, are our friendships now anything more than a form of distraction? When they’ve shrunk to the size of a wall post, do they retain any content? If we have 768 “friends,” in what sense do we have any? Facebook isn’t the whole of contemporary friendship, but it sure looks a lot like its future. Yet Facebook—and MySpace, and Twitter, and whatever we’re stampeding for next—are just the latest stages of a long attenuation. They’ve accelerated the fragmentation of consciousness, but they didn’t initiate it. They have reified the idea of universal friendship, but they didn’t invent it. In retrospect, it seems inevitable that once we decided to become friends with everyone, we would forget how to be friends with anyone. We may pride ourselves today on our aptitude for friendship—friends, after all, are the only people we have left—but it’s not clear that we still even know what it means.

The Tragedy of Hope  |  Andrew Sullivan @The Atlantic

Obama has never been a pacifist. Never. His opposition to the Iraq war, as he said at the time, was not because he was against all war, but because he was against a dumb war. He is, in so many ways, a Niebuhrian realist. And with Niebuhr, there is the deeper sense that even though there is no ultimate resolution in favor of good over evil on this earth in our lifetimes, we still have a duty to try. It is this effort in the full knowledge of ultimate failure on earth that is the moral calling. It is to do what we can, knowing that it will never be enough.

When a Penny Matters  |  SmartMoney

In a recent study in the Journal of Consumer Research found that when pens were priced at $1.99 and $4.00, only 18% of the participants chose the higher-priced pen; but when the pens were priced at $2.00 and $3.99, 44% of the participants selected the higher-priced pen. That one-cent price drop makes the $4 pen seem a lot cheaper.

For whatever reason, we can’t take our eye off that leftmost digit. But we can at least try.

Townhalls & Firewalls

Analysis…

President Obama’s recent trip to China has sparked a wave of debate.  From economics to an uncensored Internet, numerous comments have conspired regarding the recent trip abroad.  Largely, the differences between the two nations, the United States and China, are what contribute to the conversation.

The Huffington Post |  In talking to a group of graduate students from the China University of Political Science and Law, one of Beijing’s most prestigious universities, President Obama’s rise to power has filled them with the hope that the impossible, or at least the improbable, is achievable.
For the students, many who have little recognition of a world before President George W. Bush, President Obama represents a new approach to the global order, an approach that they eagerly look to be a part of.

NPR |  President Obama visits China at a time when the world’s two most powerful economies face very different fortunes.
A humbled United States is slowly recovering after sparking the global financial crisis. China, on the other hand, has handled the downturn with ease and appears to be leading the world out of recession, while increasing its influence in Asia.

Time |  The official U.S. buzzword for President Obama’s visit to China this week is “pragmatic cooperation,” but behind the scenes, U.S. diplomats have been aiming for something a little closer to subversion — at least when it comes to getting around China’s “great firewall” of official censorship and information control.
There is a long history of Chinese officials censoring the comments of U.S. presidents. In 1984 when President Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Beijing, state-run China Central Television cut portions that referred to the Soviet Union, religion and democracy. During Obama’s inaugural speech in January, China’s state television cut away when the president referred to previous American generations that had faced down communism. The line that followed was also edited from television broadcasts and from transcripts on many Chinese news portals: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Online outreach by the Obama Administration is designed in part to bypass such censorship, and increase direct communications with the Chinese people. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for one, has been particularly aggressive on the issue since taking office.

Personal Democracy Forum |  Obama made the argument that Internet freedoms are human freedoms, playing off China’s vibrant — if restricted — base of Internet users. His townhall with “future Chinese leaders” was broadcast online, and questions came, as they have with domestic townhalls, from the Internet, quote-unquote. Chinese young folks used their social networks Xinhuanet and Sohu, as well as from the website of the U.S. embassy in Beijing, to send in questions for Obama. And Obama — who hasn’t always done a great job in recognizing how participatory technologies change the nature of engagement with government — here pounced on the moment, telling his web-savvy Chinese audience, “I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.”

The Daily Dish |  Thirty years from now, the most important aspect of Barack Obama’s interaction with China will be whether the two countries, together, can do anything about environmental and climate issues. If they can, in 2039 we’ll look back on this as something like the Silent Spring/Clean Air Act moment in American history, which began a change toward broad environmental improvement. If they can’t….

News…

Are you an authentic American?  |  Racialicious

So how does one question who or who is not an American? Does it have to do with language, race, ethnicity, how long one has been in the United States – or is it about the more legal aspect of possessing citizenship.

Haunted by Gorbachev’s ghost  |  Truthdig

It has become a pub bore’s cliché to argue that we will never prevail in Afghanistan because no foreign power ever has: not even the Russians, whose nine-year occupation cost the lives of 14,000 of their soldiers and 35,500 wounded, and which ended in humiliating retreat in 1989. Those Cassandras irritate Western leaders, whose response is to insist that it is different this time. “We are not an occupying army,” Gordon Brown told the BBC on Friday. “It’s not like previous interventions. … We are actually creating the conditions by which the Afghans themselves, and not an occupying army, can run their own affairs.”

High court won’t hear Washington Redskins case  |  NPR

The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to weigh in on a 17-year legal challenge by a group of American Indians who contend the Washington Redskins football moniker does not deserve trademark protection because it is racially offensive.
In sidestepping the controversy, the justices did not comment on Harjo v. Pro Football, Inc. The court’s refusal to hear the case leaves in place an appeals court ruling that the plaintiffs waited too long to challenge the National Football League trademarks.

Why Americans hate to love the government  |  The New Republic

Anyone who has followed closely the debate over national health insurance has probably noticed some peculiar inconsistencies in Americans’ attitudes toward the legislation. A Pew Poll released on October 8 found “steady support” for specific elements of the health care plan, including the public alternative to private insurance, the employer mandate, and the requirement that everyone have insurance. Nonetheless, popular support for the plan itself was declining, with 34 percent “generally [in] favor” and 47 percent “generally opposed.”
What accounts for this disparity? Certainly, some people fear that Medicare will be cut, or that “death panels” will be set up, but one of the most persistent concerns is not about specific provisions; rather, it’s that the federal government will be taking over health care.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed and U.S. Justice

News & Analysis …

The BBC reported this weekend that senior U.S. Republican officials are protesting the Obama administration’s move to try 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others in New York. While Democrats approved the move, members of the GOP said that the move puts U.S. residents at risk. No date has been given for the trial. News outlets and bloggers in response examined whether the U.S. would be able to handle the security, and whether the Mohammed and the other suspects can find justice in a U.S. trial.

NPR |  “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says his city is ready to handle the trial of the men accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks. His comments followed the Obama administration’s announcement Friday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others would be transferred from the prison at Guantanamo Bay to New York to face prosecution. The city may be prepared to tackle the security and logistics of such a trial, but the emotional challenge may be more difficult. … It would be hard to find a New Yorker who didn’t feel their world change that day.”

ThinkProgress |  “The U.S. justice system apparently isn’t good enough for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who believes that the White House has a “Department of Law“). Last night she went on Facebook and posted a message calling the Obama administration’s decision ‘atrocious.’”

Lawyers, Guns & Money |  “Obama and Holder are not trying to reestablish the rule of law, they are engaged in a game of political chicken with their real constituents (the transnational Left) and, because they blinked, they owe a tribute of American lives to their overseas masters. The problem with such paranoid stylings is that 1) Mohammed and his compatriots were tortured and 2) the entire world already knows that. What can these men say against the United States that hasn’t already been published by international news syndicates?”

Center for American Progress |  “I worry, however, that the Obama administration may unintentionally hand Al Qaeda a propaganda tool should it—as Holder strongly suggested—seek the death penalty for these men. It is in the strategic interests of the United States to deny these most heinous Al Qaeda terrorists what they want most: martyrdom. Al Qaeda will exploit an execution by the U.S. government as a significant propaganda victory, no matter how fair and legitimate the trial. Life imprisonment, however, would cause Mohammed and his co-conspirators to be forgotten, like Ramzi Yousef and other terrorists currently wasting away in obscurity in U.S. jails, a far harsher punishment for these terrorists than execution.”

Glenn Greenwald @Salon |  “Obama is certain to be bombarded with all sorts of right-wing idiocy and fear-mongering as a result of his decision to bring 9/11 defendants into the U.S. in order to give them trials.  Doing that is clearly the right thing to do:  trials and due process is how civilized countries treat people who are accused of engaging in terrorism.  Given how Democrats and Republicans will talk about this decision, media coverage will almost certainly fixate on the narrow question of whether (a) 9/11 defendants should be given trials in the U.S.  or (b) we’re all now Endangered because these Omnipotent Monsters are being brought into our communities (in handcuffs, shackles, and maximum-security prisons).”

Best of the Web …

Relationships 2.0: Are you my real friends or are you just virtual?  |  What Tami Said

When I began writing online about the things that are most important to me, I soon found a small group of cyber-friends who inspire me, who write things that seem like they tumbled from my own mind, who share some of my beliefs, opinions and obsessions and challenge others, who crack my shit up on the regular. I found my tribe–folks who speak my language–online. We e-mail, DM each other on Twitter, recommend each other for writing jobs, meet up to run 5Ks, give advice, send notes of encouragement to one another, share family pictures, sometimes even talk on the phone. I have not met most of my virtual friends in person, yet what I derive from these relationships is important to me. In fact, I credit my cyber-relationships with sparking some important personal growth over the last two years.

But Taylor cautions that I shouldn’t mistake the virtual relationships I cherish for real relationships. … Is Taylor correct? For all the in-depth conversations with like-minded folks in forums, for all the Twitter conversations that last too late into the night, for all the personal e-mail exchanges with virtual friends, are we losing the true meaning of “relationship?” Or, is new media redefining what relationships are? My online friendships may be quite different from my in-real-life ones, but I think they are equally as valid.

Once Common, Now Disappearing  |  Kottke.org

From a book called Obsolete, a list of things that were once common but not so much anymore: blind dates, mix tapes, getting lost, porn magazines, looking old, operators, camera film, hitchhiking, body hair, writing letters, basketball players in short shorts, privacy, cash, and, yes, books.

God, the Army and PTSD  |  Boston Review

In a 2004 study of approximately 1,400 Vietnam veterans, almost 90 percent Christian, researchers at Yale found that nearly one-third said the war had shaken their faith in God and that their religion no longer provided comfort for them. The Yale study found that these soldiers were more likely than others to seek mental health treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) when they came home. It was not that these veterans had unusually high confidence in government or especially good information about services at VA hospitals. Instead, they had fallen into a spiritual abyss and were desperate to find a way out. The trauma of war seems to be especially acute for men and women whose faith in a benevolent God is challenged by the carnage they have witnessed.

Of course, not all veterans with mental health concerns are led to VA hospitals by a loss of faith: many simply want to get a night’s sleep without being terrorized by nightmares. Whatever kind of assistance they are seeking, it has been in increasingly short supply. The decline in resources for veterans’ mental health services started in the 1980s, as part of a nationwide effort to move psychiatric patients into outpatient treatment. The number of inpatient psychiatric beds fell from 9,000 in the late ’80s to 3,000 by 2008.

During the Iraq war, however, the great difficulty veterans experienced in getting psychiatric care—greater than before—was not a product of cost-cutting, but of conviction: many Bush administration officials believed that soldiers who supported the war would not face psychological problems, and if they did, they would find comfort in faith. In a resigned tone, one prominent researcher who worked for the VA, and asked that he not be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the press, explained that high-ranking officials believed that “Jesus fixes everything.”

Social Media’s Connections and Divisions

Analysis …

Not too long ago, the Tides Foundation recently convened Momentum 2009, a forum bringing together the world’s most creative thinkers and dedicated activists to discuss progressive ideas aimed at community change. Fora.tv has posted dozens of discussions from Momentum 2009. We’re occasionally spotlighting these talks and paring them with related news and information that complement the Momentum speaker’s topic, or add a new branch into the conversation. Watch, read, learn and participate in the dialogue by posting your thoughts in the comments below.

Allison Fine, senior fellow on the Democracy Team at Demos: A Network for Change and Action in New York, dispels myths about social media and shows how members of every generation are using these tools to connect, organize, and activate.

Recently, bloggers and social media watchers have been discussing the different ways online networks have helped people — for example, flood victims in the Philippines found help via Facebook and Twitter — or might be dividing people, as studies have found class and culture divisions between users of different social media networks. The discussion over the social divides found online erupted last week as the U.S. Secret Service began investigating a Facebook poll that asked whether President Obama should be assassinated.

GOOD Magazine |  “We’ve heard this idea floated about newspapers before, but now Ethan Zuckerman asks: should we think about Facebook, Twitter, and other social media as public goods? In the absence of viable business models, people are starting to wonder if these online titans—which have no problem raising money, or building an audience—should be supported the same we support schools, nonprofits, and other institutions we deem valuable to society.”

New American Media |  “Although marooned in their homes by flood waters dumped by Tropical Storm “Ondoy” (international code name: “Ketsana”), many Metro Manila residents still found the means to help strangers and neighbors stuck in traffic or perched on rooftops by turning to social networking sites on the internet. On the hugely popular social networking site Facebook, the majority of the users’ status updates—a feature in which users talk about their current state of mind or recent activity—carried government hotlines people can call for rubber boats and dump trucks.”

The Global Sociology Blog |  “Social media reproduce classism, racism, sexism and homophobia. If anything, they facilitate the transmission of such prejudice as fast as they can wire money from New York City to the Cayman Islands.”

The Root |  “[Social media] is their hanging out after school. It reflects all kinds of things back at us that mirror and magnify what we like to pretend doesn’t exist.”

Feministe |  “Call me naive, but I always assumed the rise of Facebook usage, at least among my friends, had more to do with usability than any other function. MySpace was created as a band promotion site, not for individuals, whereas Facebook was created for individuals to connect. And to date, MySpace seems more design and tech clunky than Facebook does — that is, if I ignore all your invitations asking me to join your farm/restaurant/mafia ring. Nevertheless, the evidence appears to be stacking up in a way that reveals a new kind of digital divide, one in which social groups are choosing not to connect with or communicate with one another.”

Pew Forum |  “As the real world grows more tolerant of differences, the virtual world grows with hatred. Complaints against groups on social networking sites that call for threats, violence and hatred toward people who are Jewish, black, gay or have disabilities are on the rise even as Americans celebrate the 19th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the country rallies around its first black president, and gay marriage is legalized in some states.”

News …

• Can you tell me how to get/how to get to Shara’a Simsim: ‘Sesame Street’ takes Ramallah (Read more).
• The economic toll of being a gay couple (Read more).
• The frozen afterlife of Ted Williams gets a little stranger (Read more).
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s flip-flop on it’s belief in climate change (Read more).

Net Neutrality vs. Healthy Competition

Analysis …

The FCC this week called for rules that would ensure that all Internet traffic is treated equally. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a speech to the Brookings Institution that the proposed rules were not about government regulation of the Internet, but a call for all Internet providers to respect the network’s neutrality by allowing equal access to all content and being transparent about network management. Industry critics said the FCC’s proposals would prevent innovation and investment.

Read Genachowski’s speech here.

Cato-at-Liberty |  “What we’ve actually seen are some scattered and mostly misguided  attempts by certain ISPs to choke off certain kinds of traffic, thus far largely nipped in the bud by a combination of consumer backlash and FCC brandishing of existing powers. To the extent that packet “discrimination” involves digging into the content of user communications, it may well run up against existing privacy regulations that require explicit, affirmative user consent for such monitoring. In any event, I’m prepared to believe the situation could worsen. But pace Genachowski, it’s really pretty mysterious to me why you couldn’t start talking about the wisdom—and precise character—of some further regulatory response if and when it began to look like a free and open Internet were in serious danger.”

Political Animal |  “The usual suspects are already complaining about the dreaded Obama administration wanting “government regulation of the Internet” — that the government helped create the Internet is a point often lost on conservatives — which I find oddly reassuring. Genachowski has already challenged the talking point: “This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet.”"

Truthdig |  “Genachowski’s use of the word lawful leaves the door open for ISPs to crack down on file sharers who eat up a lot of bandwidth trading copies of movies and software. Banning illegal activity isn’t an outrageous idea, but it does wade into murky water where the Internet is concerned. Do you let ISPs block access to a site about marijuana because marijuana possession is illegal? What about child pornography? Who would make these decisions and who would hold companies and individuals accountable?”

Obsidian Wings |  “To be grossly general, just imagine roads.  The world today would be much different if the Ford Motor Company owned the interstate highways and could block Hondas from using it.  In short, you could imagine a “closed” interstate highway system.  But that’s not how the interstates work.  They’re “open.”  Anyone can use them.  Any “device” with wheels will work on them. The Internet could have very easily evolved into a “closed” network, but it didn’t.  Instead, the Internet is open because we adopted policies in the 1960s and 70s that required it to be open (namely, we prevented AT&T from strangling it).  The FCC today is merely protecting what has always been.”

OpenLeft |  “Without action by the FCC, large corporations would become the gatekeepers of internet access at the disadvantage of individual users and small businesses. The FCC’s new rules– which I have called for since I first ran for office– prevent a two-tiered system that favors large, established businesses over individuals and small businesses. The rules also prevent large providers– such as Comcast and Verizon– from abusing their market dominance, putting profits over the principle that the internet should be an open market place of ideas.”

News …

• Faith groups join with activists on immigration reform (Read more).
• How the YouTube hit “Stand by Me” went global (Read more).
• Study shows female lawyers with masculine-sounding names are more likely to become judges (Read more).
• Why is there still global hunger when farms produce more than enough for the world to eat? (Read more).

Facebook-to-Facebook Conversations

Now that school is back in session, I’m able to have actual, face-to-face conversations with people with whom I’m Facebook friends, rather than just randomly talking at them via status updates, page sharing, wall posts or chats.

And what have we talked about?

Facebook, of course!

• “Did you see what she put as her status update? Talk about too much information!”
• “Have you tried this application?”
• “I found the person I needed to talk through because he’s a friend of someone that I’m friends with on Facebook, and he came up as a friend suggestion.”
• “I have a hard time balancing my personal Facebook persona versus my professional one …”
• “My friend put “Going to Austin for the weekend” as her status update. I had to send her a message to let her know that that wasn’t a very good idea to let the whole world know that her house was going to be empty. She changed it to add “I’m glad my sister is housesitting.”

And on and on. An entire lunch discussion was centered around Facebook and how this social networking phenomenon has enhanced or completely wrecked our lives.

It’s hard to believe that Facebook has only been around for five years; I’ve had an account since about 2006, I think, back when only students could sign up for an account. When Facebook changed its policies and started letting anyone sign up — not just students but also our parents, our bosses, our co-workers, our professors, our clergy! — I remember thinking, “oh no, there goes the neighborhood!” I didn’t want the entire world to know what I was doing or thinking; I only wanted my “real” friends to have that privilege — the people that I was hanging out with on a semi-regular basis, with whom I’d had deep conversations and whom I probably couldn’t shock anymore just by sharing my thoughts, even if I were trying. Now I’d have to edit. The worlds that I had thought were so compartmentalized were now colliding daily and hourly via status posts and rambling notes. Now each piece of my life is able to send out little sticky fingers to poke into other parts.

That’s one reason why, according to an article published in the New York Times, people are starting to drift away from the intrusive interconnectivity that can be Facebook:

Another friend, who didn’t want his name used, found that Facebook undermined his whole notion of online friendship. “It’s easy to think of your circle of ‘Friends’ as a coherent circle, clear and moated, when in fact the splay of overlap/network makes drip/action painting a better (visual) analogy.” Something happened to this drip painting that he won’t discuss. He said, “Postings that seem private can scatter and slip unpredictably into a sort of semipublic status.”

That friend was not the only Facebook dissenter who was reticent about specifics. Many seem to have just lost their appetite for it: they just stopped wanting to look at other people’s photos and résumés and updates, or have their own subject to scrutiny. Some ex-users seemed shaken, even heartbroken, by their breakups with Facebook. “I primarily left Facebook because I was wasting so much time on it,” my friend Caroline Harting told me by e-mail. “I felt fairly detached from my Facebook buddies because I rarely directly contacted them.” Instead, she felt as if she stalked them, spending hours a day looking at their pages without actually saying hello.

And that intimate detachment is true to a certain extent for me. My contact with my Facebook friends can be fleeting, giving the illusion of intimacy without having to go through the trouble of working for it. Often, I see my friends’ thoughts and interests, and my response can vary from chatting via IM, a comment, sending a message or a post, or just stay limited to my own thoughts; I don’t even have to take the trouble of clicking “comment” and talking back, and yet I feel like I’ve  made some kind of connection.

But can’t that happen with friends when we are face-to-face? During a conversation, instead of answering their thoughts, I keep mine in my head, afraid or just disinclined to throw them into the pool of discussion, lest they roil the waters or out of fear that they’ll sink, unnoticed, to the bottom. The textual nature of Facebook seems to make my participation or lack more noticeable.

Facebook, of course, is just a tool, something that lets us manage our lives. I think the social networking aspect of it also allows Facebook to act as a lens that shows us how those networks affect us and others in our virtual and physical. We really see how our lives aren’t compartmentalized; we see where the connections are made in our world. A Facebook application called Nexus that shows you a map of our Facebook relationships, and the myriad ways we are connected, and gives you an visual idea of how our compartments connect. Here’s mine:

I was surprised at how my constellations overlapped, how my friend networks connected in ways I hadn’t imagined, beyond the six degrees of separation. And instead of feeling intruded upon, I felt rather happy. I like it that I have a wide spectrum of friends; I like it that they are able to see all my sides, and I, theirs.

I also had a textual moment this week that revealed those connections: A friend of mine, someone I used to work with but haven’t spoken to outside of Facebook for more than a year, posted this as his status update:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

And I thought, well, I do agree. So I posted it as my status and left it there for the entire day.

By the end of the day, my Facebook news feed page was filled with people using this message, or variations upon this message that were personalized to fit the Facebook poster, as their status update. People from all my various networks had picked up this meme. I can’t say that they picked it up from me; it’s going around to such a degree that odds are they picked it up from other people in their other networks, too. But I was amazed to watch this meme of support for health care reform spread through Facebook connections. And I wonder how we can mobilize those connections to get them off the computer screen and into the world.

Next Page »