Allow me explain my own actions, especially since the wars that signaled the end of the "Vietnam Syndrome." Starting, for me, in 1983; That's when Ronald Reagan, under false pretenses, invaded the tiny island of Grenada. Population 100,000. I protested in the streets. In 1989, George Herbert Walker Bush, acting under false pretenses, invaded Panama, killing AT LEAST 3000 civilians in El Chorillo alone. I marched in protest here in Madison WI, with about 12 other people in minus 10 degree Fahrenheit weather. All throughout the 1980's I protested, wrote letters to the editor, called talk shows in vociferous protest against Washington's funding of the Nicaraguan Contras and Salvadoran Death Squads. Got arrested at an anti-nuke rally in Colorado on Hiroshima Day (Aug 6) 1987.
Protested the 1991 Gulf War as an unspeakable crime against humanity AND international law. Ditto for Clinton's "Drive-by" wars and his murderous sanctions against Iraq. Protested the NATO bombing of the former Yugolslavia. Continue protesting the 2001-present war in Afghanistan, and George W. Bush/Barack Obama's 2003-2010 Iraq War too.
The reason I do so is because, like it or not, I am an American citizen, and feel a special responsibility for the blood shed in MY name. But I will try to pay more attention to the horror in Sudan. It's kind of tough; so many years, so many tears, so many wars. Probably sounds like I'm boasting, sorry, didn't mean it that way. It just seems so overwhelming at times. I still remember being 10 years old when Allende was overthrown by ITT/Kissinger/Nixon/CIA. Ten thousand people, mostly students jammed the University of Wisconsin-Madison Field House. People had the Power. Even in America! To look around me now - that world is so, so long ago and seems so, so dead. But we will bring those kinds of crowds back to the UW, I am sure of it!
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Margaret Warner is a dork & News Hour SUCKS.
"Oil Leak Drama Draws Public Outrage, Outpouring of Ideas:"
This link simply won't be posted by my computer in a very complete and colorful way, at least not right now. But I'm going to post it anyway, for a number of important reasons:
1. I watched the televised report tonight, and it was very instructive in terms of how PBS tones things down.
2. In watching the report, I learned that more than 80 percent of Americans are "following events in the Gulf closely"; that, at least, is a very hopeful sign.
3. Margaret Warner is either an idiot or is deliberately attempting to "dumb us down." Maybe both?
MARGARET WARNER:
"Paul Saffo, beginning with you, the public's fascination with this story, what is driving it? Is this like other disasters, or is there something more at work here?"
Dan Goldstein: Well, duh, Margaret. This might "only" potentially release 2.3 million BARRELS of crude oil into the Gulf by August!
MARGARET WARNER: Bill Nye, how do you see it? Do you find this a McLuhan-esque moment, a turning moment?"
Dan Goldstein: No Margaret, you genius, it's not really a turning point. It's only the biggest oil spill EVER in American History. This could end up being the worst environmental calamity of all time. Only a few other ecological disasters are comparable.
One more interesting point: during the broadcast, the "ever-controversial" Margaret Warner only referred to the public's "fascination" with the Gulf catastrophe. But the headline for this link at least concedes that there is also considerable "outrage." I suppose I can only infer that the nightly TV broadcast reaches a lot more viewers. PBS' boob-tube presentation certainly wouldn't want to alert the massive TV audience to the actual OUTRAGE that is out there. PBS' web coverage is forced to make a concession to REALITY.
Really, who in their right mind would bother with PBS' insipid coverage if they had the time to choose other options, mostly on the internet? That's why the web version above admits that people are pissed, and the TV version doesn't. Sorry if this is rather boring, but amateur media analysts like me find it fascinating.
BTW, the guests, as opposed to the host, are a bit more honest - they use terms like "horror" and "terror." That's all too typical. Listen to the broadcast or read the whole transcript, if for some absurd reason you want to see just what a clod Margaret Warner is! And I'm not singling her out; she's just one of the very worst.
This link simply won't be posted by my computer in a very complete and colorful way, at least not right now. But I'm going to post it anyway, for a number of important reasons:
1. I watched the televised report tonight, and it was very instructive in terms of how PBS tones things down.
2. In watching the report, I learned that more than 80 percent of Americans are "following events in the Gulf closely"; that, at least, is a very hopeful sign.
3. Margaret Warner is either an idiot or is deliberately attempting to "dumb us down." Maybe both?
MARGARET WARNER:
"Paul Saffo, beginning with you, the public's fascination with this story, what is driving it? Is this like other disasters, or is there something more at work here?"
Dan Goldstein: Well, duh, Margaret. This might "only" potentially release 2.3 million BARRELS of crude oil into the Gulf by August!
MARGARET WARNER: Bill Nye, how do you see it? Do you find this a McLuhan-esque moment, a turning moment?"
Dan Goldstein: No Margaret, you genius, it's not really a turning point. It's only the biggest oil spill EVER in American History. This could end up being the worst environmental calamity of all time. Only a few other ecological disasters are comparable.
One more interesting point: during the broadcast, the "ever-controversial" Margaret Warner only referred to the public's "fascination" with the Gulf catastrophe. But the headline for this link at least concedes that there is also considerable "outrage." I suppose I can only infer that the nightly TV broadcast reaches a lot more viewers. PBS' boob-tube presentation certainly wouldn't want to alert the massive TV audience to the actual OUTRAGE that is out there. PBS' web coverage is forced to make a concession to REALITY.
Really, who in their right mind would bother with PBS' insipid coverage if they had the time to choose other options, mostly on the internet? That's why the web version above admits that people are pissed, and the TV version doesn't. Sorry if this is rather boring, but amateur media analysts like me find it fascinating.
BTW, the guests, as opposed to the host, are a bit more honest - they use terms like "horror" and "terror." That's all too typical. Listen to the broadcast or read the whole transcript, if for some absurd reason you want to see just what a clod Margaret Warner is! And I'm not singling her out; she's just one of the very worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)