For those of you super nice people emailing, etc. wondering why the content has dropped off and not been consistent, Documentary Filmmaking has become the new focus of my work recently and the following is the result of this article - “Groundbreaking Canadian GuitarMaker Strikes Chord Internationally” , on first time luthier Pete Swanson which I successfully pitched as a source story/premise for a Short Documentary on the subject, entitled ‘String of Genius’. (The story also appeared in different forms in print and online media, including Dynasty Communication’s ‘Pulse Magazine’ (cover story), and Quebecor Publications).

Months later and a fantastic crew (more info next post), and an (i think) wonderful short piece emerged, which will debut at Sheridan Technical Insititute, in Oakville, Ontario, on Wed, Dec.16, 2009 -  alongside approximately 8 other fantastic short Documentaries (5-8 minutes).

For now, here is the sample footage/promo piece put together by our Camera/Director of Photography. The music is supplied by Sigur Ros alum Jonsi and Alex from ‘the Riceboy Sleeps’ release (info: “Iceland’s Jon Thor Birgisson (the ethereal-voiced lead singer and frontman of Sigur Rós) and his boyfriend Alex Somers (a member of the band Parachutes and the designer of much of the graphic contact for Sigur Rós‘ albums)” source: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll )

This should also explain why so many people thought Brian Eno’s music was the backing track!

Enjoy!, and tommorrow I will post the rest of the crew/logistical information. In the meantime, I am working on my second, longer Documentary, in Development, on War Resisters in Canada, working title: ‘A.W.O.L.’ More to come on that soon including an informational website.

The completed Documentary will NOT appear on youtube, etc. as it would jeopardize efforts for Film Festivals and Screenings, etc. For those in the media interested in review versions, interviews behind the story, etc., or potential screeners, organizers, et al, please email me as usual. (Do take a minute or 2 to rate the sample footage on youtube.com though!)

Production Stills taken can be viewed here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/globalpunditorg/4055043514/ and other great photos will be linked to Sunday’s post  - freaturing photos from Josh Tenn-Yuk, our Cam/DOP master shooter.

And of course, visit www.DagmarCustomGuitars.com !

www.GlobalPundit.Org

“Fighting Fire with Fire”

~By Steven Bradley Scott

After writing The Unethical Boycott of Whole Foods Inc., I received a lot of feedback.

  In this article I seek to clear up any confusion I have caused and respond to some of the critiques.  In this way I seek to get to the bottom of my points and, if at all possible, give credit to my critics who I feel ask important and fundamental questions regarding the nature, not just of my article, but of the issue at hand. 

 I also, admittedly, seek to verbally abuse the boycotters out of their idiotic stupor. I can only hope they are not so terrified by privatized healthcare that they will miss my points.  Oh, and a final carrot before the steak, I feel that public healthcare system would be a huge step forward for the United States – don’t confuse my critique of your mass-hysteria with delusion.

“I think that consumers should have the right to decide where to shop based on whatever criteria they choose.  If the shareholders/board of directors fires him or tells him not to talk about it, then yes, that’s an issue.  But, the consumers who are choosing not to shop there are entitled to do so.  To me, it’s the same as choosing not to donate money to a company who openly supports apartheid in Palestine.  I’m not suggesting that they stop talking about it, I’m just choosing to spend my money elsewhere.  Although, I have to say that the fact that this happened at Whole Foods seems painfully ironic.” – Alex Taylor

Alex, I agree, consumers not only should but do have the right to decide where to shop.  In the United States, they have the right to make such a decision based on the criteria they choose; I would not take that away.  In this case, they have decided shun a store because of the expression of a political opinion by a CEO.  There is an attempt here, as there is in other critiques of the article, to draw a parallel between the current boycott and one of a company for its official practices - this is something I resist.

  As you point out, “…that this happened at Whole Foods seems painfully ironic”, I couldn’t agree with you more.  From this we can derive something very important, that this opinion is likely counter to the business.  As such, this is not likely an official position, making this boycott different.  It is different because it is not the company’s practice which you are protesting against, or its political position, and that makes the boycotters ignorant.  They are ignorant because they are not affecting the entity which has offended them.

  However, that is not their only transgression against reasonable conduct; they are also repressors.  What makes them repressors is their lack of self-discipline. Their decision is an emotional one, based out of a lack of a disciplined approach to a complex issue, an over simplification of the situation which is simply dangerous for those involved.  It is an oversimplification because its motives do not take its implications into account. 

 Nowhere is there a consideration that the boycott could result in negative consequences for Mackey.  In fact, I would suggest, if such a result were the result the boycotters would be pleased.  Does that sound unfair?  Well, then I’ll never shop at your store again.

  Nowhere is it taken into account that the result of such a boycott could stifle communication and dialogue.  If it does either, either, then it has suppressed opinion.  In either case, it does nothing less than jeopardize those innocents which work at the stores.

  The pawns of this debate, on both sides, are those with much to lose.  The boycott has attacked the employees of the store while claiming to defend them, the relatively poor and the uninsured.  Every disciplined reader of this should divorce political opinions they oppose from the people that harbor them.  Act on actions, incitation, but not opinions.  Note that I continue to use the word “opinion”; note the significant difference between this and action.

It would appear, based on this and other feedback, that I have not done a good enough job of understanding the “point” of the boycott.  So, let me elaborate on my position, to try and determine the point.  The action is a boycott of Whole Foods Inc., immediately after the publication of an op-ed, which expresses a political opinion of the CEO.  However, the purpose of the boycott is supposedly not to suppress the speech of the CEO, but to express their right to choose a supplier of food, because they disagree with John Mackey about a political point.

  So, come with me down the rabbit whole, will ye?  What, exactly, separates the obvious implications of your actions from the actions themselves?  Very little, I would say.  The point of something can be derived from the consequences of it, what better way to judge an action is there?  Here I would say the hearts are in the right place, but the brain has not thought enough about how to get there, so it loses every time.  What is the point of the boycott? 

Here are the options:

1.     It will result in the repression of the CEOs free speech

a.      Through stockholder insistence

2.     It will result in the loss of jobs at Whole Foods Inc.

a.      Through lost profits and closing of stores

3.     It will result in increased profits for local groceries

a.      Through boycotters switching (a potential bonus?)

4.     It will result in increased profits for groceries with less stringent ethics

a.      Through boycotters switching

5.     It will result in the increased purchase of fast food

a.      Through boycotters potentially breaking their habits

6.     It will result in the intimidation of other well-known  individuals

a.      Through fear of repercussions of the expression of their opinions

Please note, only 1 and 6 have any impact on the bill, and even then it is limited.  If they do occur, I would (as is likely obvious by now) deem such impacts negative.  Note that I do not generate this list with the assumption that it is complete, and its accuracy may come into question, but I challenge the reader to add a point which conflicts the points above.

  I also challenge those who claim that, if the bill to fix current health care crisis is passed, such a boycott was ethical.

  Please, post a comment with an effect which negates the above, or an effect which supports the bill in an ethical manner.

  Also, while you do so, bear in mind the controversy around the bill and the importance of libertarianism (if you share such a philosophy, which Single Payer Action assumes its members do).  Have I missed something?

  You are not funding a political campaign, you are paying someone to run a store.  Or, as Single Payer Action garbles, “…we are responsible for putting money into his Whole Food bank account so that he can continue his campaign without resistance.”  Despite the fact that Mackey clearly has resistance, what else is wrong with this statement?  Probably that you paid him for his services which, I assume, he performed for you admirably.  Obviously, this criminal and his unethical organization must be stopped.

“Interesting article. I wonder if your position sustainable though. If I’m convinced by your argument, should I withhold my contribution to Single Payer Now, to discourage their interference with free
expression? The boycott itself is a form of expression. In calling to boycott the boycott, you seem to violating the free speech (as you define it). I see your point that we should resist having ideas
silenced by consumer boycotts; it would be a bad thing (e.g.) if publishers were boycotted for printing the Mein Kampf. But on the other hand US politics– and the debate over health care particularly– is so utterly corrupted by money politics that can hardly blame the Single Payer movement for fighting fire with fire. The single payer option has completely shut out of the debate– despite its being the option most favoured by >50% of voters. Matt Taibbi has speculated that Obama may have made a secret deal with
private insurers to take that option off the table…

…Another point, which I didn’t raise, is that the constitutional right to free speech really does not apply to this matter, because this is a conflict between private actors (i.e., Whole Foods and Single Payer Now).  The Charter applies only when *government* interferes with basic rights and freedoms.”

- Bryan Thomas

“While I think that it’s unfair to punish a corporation for the political opinions of its CEO (for comments that were not meant to be representative of Whole Foods), I do agree that American liberals need to start fighting fire with fire in this debate. As Bob Cesca recently wrote, taking the high road may be the admirable thing to do, but when up against such corrupt (and in the case of the moralized health care
debate, irrational) foes, fighting with everything you’ve got may be the only way to get results. Bush may not have had the public’s best interests in heart, but he was able to push through a lot of legislation by taking this road – and certainly, this is an issue that has much more popular support. I’m inclined to think that in this case, the ends justify the means.
Not that a boycott of Whole Foods will have any sort of substantial impact on this debate nationally, but at least it’s encouraging a political dialog.” - Amanda Caswell

Two friends, I thank you for writing me.

In terms of calling to “…boycott the boycott,” I am not suggesting violating free speech.  Such individuals do have the right to express their opinion, they should be expressing it, and they should not be punished for or stopped from doing so.  However, their boycott has the intent of suppressing other individual’s opinions; in their objection they have chosen to suppress and punish, that is the difference.  Expression can take many forms, it is true, but when one’s infringes on another’s, it is inherently unethical.  Its intent, in this case, is to repress rather than to express.  I am calling for reasonable discourse and an expression of all opinions without fear of repression, what I deem to be one of the fundamental components of any democracy, which the US claims to be.  As Alexander Meiklejohn once said:

Whatever the immediate gains and losses, the dangers to our safety arising from political suppression are always greater than the dangers to the safety resulting from political freedom.  Suppression is always foolish.  Freedom is always wise.

You are right to point out that the definition of freedom of speech, in American law, specifically relates to government suppression; all of which is covered under the First Amendment. 

 This Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws which infringe upon free speech.

  Naturally, subsequent decisions would be based primarily around this amendment and its focus on the role of government. 

 So, obviously, American courts would not rule that a corporation, pressuring an individual to silence, on pain of firing, would be violating freedom of speech.  Indeed, employees have no legal protection for freedom of speech and may be terminated at any time.  Think now of a business, anywhere in the world, and ask yourself if that employee should have the right to speak their mind without being fired.  Think of an employee in China, who speaks out against their repressive regime while making the shoes you wear, and ask yourself if they should be fired for presenting a political position.  Think of them arriving home, their face wet with tears, to tell their family that the one large employer in the city has fired them.  Think now of their family’s reaction, the fear that they cannot support themselves, the concern that they will soon be on the streets.

  How is it different?

  How is it defensible?  It is not, sir.  It is never defensible to use local laws to justify your position.  To say that killing is wrong because it is illegal is as base a defense as any.  To say that freedom of speech only protects those against government suppression completely misses the point.

You’ve both touched on something which, I think, is central to the current thinking of the health care “movement” (if it can be called that), the concept of “fighting fire with fire”. Without going into too much particular detail on why I disagree with this approach, I would like to offer some perspective on the history of this phrase. US settlers in the 19th century used to light fires to create a break in the burnable foliage. As a fire has nothing to burn, when it reaches a line of ash, this prevented its spread to other areas.

Though I acknowledge that analogies are often inaccurate and misleading, I find this one illustrative, so allow me to continue. In the case of fire, for it to properly fight fire, it must burn. Fire has two fundamental natures: to burn and to spread. In its wake it leaves ash. In its spread it can be uncontrollable. Frequently, due to their own lack of control, the settler’s fires created more harm than good.   Of course, you could find all that out with a simple Google search, but search around yourselves and see the signs.

 Perhaps “We Didn’t Start the Fire” (my apologies for such a cliché Billy Joel reference), but it IS raging. It is raging all across the United States, blowing up into Canada and across the pond to the UK. Some are taking sides, calling the others out, and sounding the alarm bells. Now, this is a crisis, health care in the US has been a crisis for a while, they need change immediately. However, not everyone agrees on its nature, or on the nature the bill has taken. If you hadn’t noticed, the Single Payer option has already been dropped. I would like to see it come back, perhaps it has since I started writing this response, but in either case let us push for it in a respectable way.

What actions justified may also be held accountable for. I do not envy those uninsured Americans, forced to choose between fingers (i.e. Moore’s film “Sicko”), or placed in debt for a heart transplant. My heart cries out for them, but they will not hear my call, they will only know when this bill is passed. Of course, that is assuming I am right, which is to say that it will lead to an improvement in the system. I do not doubt that it will, but many do, even if they have simply been lied to.

Lies spread, but eventually are vanquished… the fires of precedent are harder to quell. If we boycott, harass, or take any other action to suppress dialog, we are sanctioning the suppression of dialog in any case. We are calling any future, similar actions, by either side (right or wrong), acceptable by proxy. Worse, you are validating the harassment of democratic representatives. You are saying that this is acceptable behavior, because you would engage in it too if provoked.

Take this energy you have, take it and spend it on writing letters, holding demonstrations, picketing; these are all acceptable. But when you do it, do it where it matters. Do it outside the local hospital; do it outside the insurance companies’ whose practices you so resent; do it outside your local government office; do it at the White House! As Howard Dean once put so eloquently, “YYAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG”

Where, oh where, have the hypocrites come from? Calling out names and burning down houses; spreading fires in all directions. Now they loot and kill, calling for retribution, but finding only the death of honest and questioning men. Committing suicide to get health care, killing themselves to shut out those who would deny them. Even as an atheist, I can only pray that they will come to their senses; before history is written by them, all over again. I can only pray they will come to their senses, before they perform some action which justifies the other.

Fear the righteous man - for he is ruled by fear.

Most Sincerely,

~Steven Bradley Scott

reach us at Editor@GlobalPundit.Org

Groundbreaking Canadian GuitarMaker Strikes Chord Internationally

(video of interview with Peter Swanson at his studio)

Stephen Dohnberg from frame to completion - Peter inside his workshop. L - his first cutaway model in the works.

stephen dohnberg peter swanson displays on of his creations

Stephen Dohnberg Peter Swanson outside his workshop

stephen dohnberg peter swanson of dagmar custom guitars

Op Ed: The Unethical Boycott of Whole Foods Inc.

By Steven Bradley Scott

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill,On Liberty, 1859

It is difficult to talk about freedom of speech without getting on a soap box.  However, I feel a moral responsibility, as many others have already stood on theirs and launched vicious attacks to suppress free speech. The most recent case of this would be the call to boycott Whole Foods Inc. by the organization Single Payer Action .  

 The reason behind the boycott is that “…Mackey has launched a public campaign to defeat single payer national health insurance.”  If you haven’t already, you should go read the statement calling for the boycott.

What is perplexing about this article, more than anything, is its use of rhetoric illogic to promote its fundamental goal; to punish a man and the company he runs for speaking his mind.  Quoting Mackey, the statement is made “We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health…” which Single Payer Action promptly agrees with.  They then go on to say that “…we are all responsible for our own civic lives and our own civic health.

  We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom and make wise civic and consumer choices that will protect our nation’s health.”  And there, in essence, is the rub.  The essential belief is that, by boycotting Whole Foods Inc. stores, members of Single Payer Action will be protecting the nation’s health.  They believe this is true because they believe that the actions and statements of the CEO have been a danger to the health care reform bill’s progress.  The goal, then, is to quiet the CEO’s political opinions, thus quelling resistance to the current bill.  It’s not unreasonable, either, that they would be successful.

  A mass reduction in Whole Foods Inc. profit margins would be seen as the direct result of the CEO’s political statement, stock prices would drop, and the company’s stakeholders would likely gag Mackey.  If Mackey is squelched, then the US will be one step closer to health care reform and preventing the 60 deaths of “…Americans every day due to lack of health insurance.”

 So, that’s the plan and the desired effect, but is it just?

 I believe not.

  Fear, especially mob fear, is manipulative.  It leads to unjust persecution, torture, discrimination, ignorance, and (most significantly in this case) oppression.  To illustrate this, allow me to cut away all of the unnecessary details of what has occurred, placing this conflict in its most rudimentary form to see where it leads.  You have two groups: Group A and Group B.  Group A currently has control of the government, but requires Group B’s consent to pass bills, and they have just proposed one.  Group B is concerned about the bill and many of its members have written about it.  Group A is upset by this, saying that Group B is spreading lies, which may or may not be true.  Nonetheless, for each Group B member who writes about it, Group A has decided to place an economic sanction on Group B.  I credit my reader to see where I am going with this – it is unjust for a party to take actions to quiet another party in order to push through legislation.  In addition, it is a dangerous precedent to set.

  Imagine that the situation was flipped, from a left/right political perspective, with the Chapters CEO spoke out against Abu Ghraib.  Then, let’s say the Republican Party responded by picketing outside of Chapters and boycotting it.  How about another, more extreme example?  Say the government decided to go to war and those who agreed began raiding shops whose owners dissented.  This would be dangerous and violent behavior, but the effect is the same, and the effect is the issue.

  The point is clear, if this was applied equally to both sides, it would be seen as unfair by both.  Naturally, that is what’s happening.  When we break our code of ethics we can offer no ethical ground on which to stand.  When we break our laws, such as those related to freedom of speech, we invite others to break them as well.  I thought the last eight years of the imprisonment and torture of innocent men in Guantanamo Bay would have taught us that; sadly, I was wrong.

To believe in free speech, is to refute those who would suppress the expression of free opinions, regardless of their nature. 

~”Steven Scott has been described as an intellectual dissenter and an
advocate for free speech and human rights. He currently resides in
Waterloo, Ontario.”

contact editor@GlobalPundit.Org

Dagmar Custom Guitars - Special Presentation/Preview

Join us on Wed., August 19 as we interview Peter Swanson - the mastermind behind Dagmar Custom Guitars (based in Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada) - featured in their debut at the Montreal Guitar Show among many of the world’s prime luthiers! This all comes just over ONE year into Dagmar Custom Guitars birth into the competetive and astounding world of guitarmaking (aka ‘luthiers’). 

At about 2 pm-ish, we’ll take you though a tour of Dagmar’s workshop, talk to Peter about his creations and designs - and the interesting things in store for Dagmar Custom Guitars . This includes Queen’s University’s use of Peter’s Guitar Designs in a project they have underway using Fiber Optic Technology to take the piezomagnetic pickup well into the future!

A full and alternate print interview will appear in Pulse Magazine’s Aug 27th Edition - but this will be a chance to hear how the guitars sound, and give Peter a chance to go into greater detail about the specs for all you muso/tech geeks (respect, for I am one of us). 

I’ll be breaking in my Qik.com page : www.Qik.com/globalpundit.org using my Samsung Omnia SCH i910     - it has a 5 megapixel cam, versus the original iPhones we used covering the DNC, RNC, and other events - and I’m hoping it will offer better resolution than the technology did exactly 12 months ago. The Nokia N95’s really killed for that purpose back then!

An archived version will also appear at our GlobalPundit.Org YouTube Page, so either way, enjoy!

Also, you’ll be able to view Peter’s Creations, and Dagmar’s finished works at our Flickr Page, so have a peek there, too.

Here is a preview: Peter’s interview on Dagmar Custom Guitars at the Montreal Guitar Show…

editor@globalpundit.org

 as always, please feel free to contact us with comments, suggestions, and if you’d like to submit some material - please definitely drop us a line.

By TIFFANY MAYER , STANDARD STAFF

But after a large tree branch fell onto the antique wrought iron fence and vestibule of his heritage house, the Yates Street resident wants to warn others to tell the city if they have trees on the boulevard in front of their homes.

Otherwise, Dohnberg said, they could be on the hook for any damage a city-owned tree may do to their property.

That much is true for him and his mother, Judith, after a rain storm last month downed a branch from about 15 metres up a towering tree on the boulevard in front of their home.

Dohnberg didn’t realize what happened until he stepped outside a few minutes later.

“You just heard a little sound of cracking,” he said. “It wasn’t even enough to make us run to the front of the house.”

But seeing the fallen limb from a tree that had otherwise appeared healthy made him run for his camera, and the phone.

Dohnberg snapped photos and called the city to alert them to the problem.

He said the city staffer who came to see the damage remarked that the trees on Yates Street should have been looked at sooner, but staff have been busy.

Acting forestry director John Bellehumeur referred The Standard’s request for an interview to Bob Riediger, the City of St. Catharines’ operations manager.

Riediger declined to comment because the city’s legal department is now dealing with Dohnberg’s case.

The day after the city staffer surveyed the damage, Dohnberg said he delivered a letter to the city’s legal department detailing what happened with the hope the municipality would take ownership of the damage.

A month later, Dohnberg said the family received a response, but not the one he was expecting.

In a letter from the law firm Cunningham Lindsey, Dohnberg was told an investigation was done, revealing that the city “had not received any previous complaints relative to the condition of the particular tree prior to the date of loss, therefore, the City of St. Catharines did not knowingly allow a dangerous nor deficient condition to exist.”

As a result, the law firm said the city isn’t liable and Dohnberg’s damages claim was denied.

Dohnberg said the damage wasn’t extensive — the antique fence is bent and the vestibule’s roof has been covered with plastic to prevent potential leaks until repairs are done.

But that isn’t the point, he said.

“They refuse to pay for it, which is what’s infuriating,” Dohnberg said.

He added the tree looked healthy and given the height of the branch, it was impossible to tell if anything was awry.

“Nobody here’s an arborist, so it’s kind of hard to tell,” Dohnberg said. “This would indicate that unless you are, in fact, an expert, the city bears no responsibility, ever.”

Dohnberg plans to appeal to council at a meeting this month.

Meanwhile, a staff report on the tree inspection procedure is forthcoming.

USER COMMENTS:

Reply | Report | Page Top

Post #3 By kipster, 1 day ago | 1 Votes | Vote:

WHITEOUS INDIGNATION

Linda Milazzo

“How cute!” my adults would say when they passed a black baby or a small black child. They’d grin approvingly at the baby and smile their acceptance at the baby’s mom. Sometimes they’d extend a hand to brush the baby’s cheek to prove their gentility. And then they’d walk a bit further, lean into each other and snark the zinger that angered me then and now, “yeah, they’re cute now but wait till they get older.” There it was. There it is. The not so subtle prejudice I witnessed in my family that millions of impressionable children witnessed in theirs.

As far back as I can remember I was offended by this language. But others in my family, in my generation, were not. Many assumed the attitudes and language of our adults and continued these prejudices into their adulthoods. Some more strongly than others. Some used the “N word.” Some used “ditsoon,” the Italian pejorative for blacks. In my large extended family, that includes several police, racial insensitivity was the norm.

That same racial insensitivity ran throughout my New York community. They weren’t violent racists. They didn’t burn crosses on black people’s lawns. They held no memberships in the Klan. They never attended segregated schools or used “white only” bathrooms. But somehow they just knew that they were “better.” They had that white smugness - that air of superiority I still witness on some faces. I see it on the faces of certain whites in the House and Senate when they speak of President Obama. I see it on the face of CNN’s Lou Dobbs when he conspires against President Obama. I saw it on the faces of the thick blue line of police unions on July 24th when they challenged three Black officials (President Obama, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons) for speaking against racial profiling and the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates.

I’ve seen persistent smugness from Gates’ arresting officer, Sergeant James Crowley, in his encounters with the press. This supposed expert on racial sensitivity has shown no sensitivity at all. But he does seem pleasantly taken with his fame. And why shouldn’t he be? He out-maneuvered the President. He arrested a man for yelling-while-at-home and scored a beer at the White House as reward!

And, of course, there’s no chance of an apology. Not from smug Sergeant Crowley!! He’s the winner! Here, see for yourselves:

The police unions, the few officers of color who fell meekly behind their blue line, and the many who won’t acknowledge their part in perpetuating inequality, made a dreadful error in supporting Crowley’s arrest of Gates. This is a win for racism. Rather than narrow the gap of insensitivity, they’ve expanded the racial divide.

On December 13, 2007, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan introduced the “End Racial Profiling Bill of 2007″ (H.R. 4611) into the 110th Congress where it died, just like other Bills before it in previous sessions of Congress and the Senate:

110th Congress: S. 2481Dead
109th Congress: S. 2138Dead
108th Congress: S. 2132Dead
108th Congress: H.R. 3847Dead
107th Congress: S. 989Dead
107th Congress: H.R. 2074Dead

End Racial Profiling legislation is long overdue, yet it will probably languish for many more years because legislators don’t Do The Right Thing (love ya, Spike!!). If such legislation did exist, Professor Gates would have more leverage to challenge Sergeant Crowley. But just like single-payer health care, that which levels the playing field is too uncomfortable for Washington to do. Only when We-The-People rise for equality will reforms be enacted. Until that time, law enforcement will retain its power to target certain victims. Corporations will retain their power to target certain victims. Be they the Sergeant Crowleys of America, the Aetnas or the Cignas, inequities will continue until The People make them end.

~Linda Milazzo is a regular contributor to GlobalPundit.Org

If you would like to contribute articles, audio, or video, please email us at editor@globalpundit.org

!!! Please Visit Our New Qik.com streaming page at www.Qik.com/GlobalPunditOrg where we’ll be streaming live events in the near future and crossposting them at www.youtube.com/GlobalPunditOrg !!!

Provincial Tories’ Find New Leader’s Footing on Fractured Ground

Will the new, non-centrist Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario find success reaching back to the Mike Harris years? Or rather is it the Bill Davis Big Blue Machine that is the key to Progressive Conservative success?

Tim Hudak is the new leader of Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Since the announcement of his candidacy, it was generally assumed that Hudak would walk off with the gig. The only real surprise was that it took three ballots.

The voting was based on a “preferential ballot” system, where party members choose and simply cast one ballot. In the course of three tallies, Hillier, Elliott, and Klees fell as 25,429 participating party members made the 41 year old Niagara - West Glanbrook MPP their new leader.

In short, it’s been an odd ride for the PCPO – culminating in party leader John Tory stepping down, unable to get any momentum for the party, not to mention a seat in his own riding. Out of the gates of the final tally (Hudak 54.7%, Klees 45.5%) came the expected platitudes about party unity and unseating McGuinty’s wasteful, spend-happy Liberals.

I am more interested in what I found to be absent in the events surrounding the convention.

The lack of immediacy or urgency, and the lack of cohesiveness

There won’t be a provincial election until 2011 - something we’re reminded of on the widget (aka The Countdown Clock) of the Convention website, http://www.unitedandstrong.ca/: a countdown of 829 days, 8 hours, 43 minutes, and 9 seconds…

That is plenty of time for the Provincial Liberals to mess things up (more, or less, based on ones perspective), but it’s also a political eternity by any measure. With plenty of time the Ontario economy could be expanding in such a way that would help the Liberals sway or propagandize voters into thinking that they had had something to do with it.

But amid this lack I speak of, I also think there is a concern among members of the PCPO to define itself too narrowly. Although more often than not I spoke to (admittedly younger) party members who thought the ‘Progressive’ tag should be dropped from the name; there was a more pragmatic component of party membership that at least looked uncomfortable with this notion.

If anything, 829 days could be a dangerous thing for the PCPO and the new leader. Although it is six years since the merger of the Federal parties to make the ‘Conservative Party’, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party at this new moment feels like an extension of the federal version.

But Klees and Elliot supporters seem to instinctively know that the party caucus is made up of more than Harperites hoping that playing from the right will differentiate their policies from their political rivals. However, this doesn’t mean that the policies will bring success with power. That’s a form of hubris that is as dangerous as it is foolish.

On various occasions, on various message boards over the course of the leadership campaign, culminating in the Cover it Live blog window employed by the Convention website on the convention day, people posted their hopes for a provincial party that would extend the mandates of the federal.
Would the Progressive Conservative Party not be more likely to achieve power if it maintains its progressive element, making it more inclusive to voters?.

Interestingly, as I participated in the CIL blog discussion, I saw that my more expansive observations about the party’s history were being moderated into the ether.

Tim Hudak is clearly a Mike Harris protégé. It was the campaign selling point. This is a good thing if you think Harris was a good thing. This does cast the new leader, whose campaign slogan was “Right For Ontario”, as exactly that: an overtly conservative party that really only seems to strike this chord and only this chord that emerged with the election of Mike Harris. When I attended the leadership conventions of Frank Miller, and Larry Grossman, no one walked away with a concern that although fiscal responsibility was a goal, it would mean sacrifices for the province’s have-nots.

So in essence, the party has a few heady weeks ahead of it with a new leader, a sort – of new legacy, and slightly over 2 years to convince Ontarians that it is the political machine to bring Ontario back into wielding the economic might that defines Ontario.

But the PCPO aren’t going to be as successful as they were between 1995 and 2002 by implementing the same playbook, as political situations don’t unfold like Rubik’s Cubes.

On the lone televised debate, featured on TVO’s ‘The Agenda with Steve Paikan’, candidate Elliott offered some closing remarks that were ones that those within the party’s confines might best heed, and that was a message of communication, of reaching the average Ontarian.
“We need to have a strong economy in order to be able to help vulnerable people.”

A more esteemed premier, Bill Davis who was able to govern from 1971 to 1985, was quoted by the Star as saying
“This party will not succeed unless (Hudak) sits down with the other candidates, with people like John Tory and others, and finds some form of consensus.”

An approximate 25,429 of about 43,000 eligible party members came out to vote in their respective ridings.

40,000 registered members in 2009 is down from the 100,000 registered members in 2002.

Jingoism Isn’t Journalism! Why I Don’t Trust CNN & Corporate Media To Cover Iran

~Linda Milazzo

As a critic of media, in particular of cable/satellite “news,” I’m troubled by American corporate-media, in particular CNN’s near non-stop coverage of the turmoil in Iran. Not because the story isn’t important. It’s critically important and warrants the personal coverage it’s getting from the Iranian people as they bypass corporate channels to tell their stories on facebook, youtube, flickr and twitter.

Thanks to Iran’s tech-savvy society, old-time corporate media is now relegated to the position of new-media aggregator, whoring its visibility to co-opt the Iranian people’s new-media messages to America and the world. Old-media, and specifically CNN, are learning the difficult lesson that with or without their vast resources and state of the art studios, the Iranians’ stories will be told. And they’ll be told to tens of millions more viewers than cable and satellite programs tend to reach.

Despite CNN’s attempt to co-opt the scope of new-media in the Iranian social justice movement and present it as a novel approach, social networking venues have been used by activists around the world to broadcast and document grassroots activities that corporate-media either buried or refused to report. Youtube and flickr have long been used by grassroots organizations in the United States and elsewhere to document and corroborate socio-political actions such as marches and rallies which opposed the Iraq war, Bush administration policies and corporate greed, but weren’t in corporate-media’s interest to cover since they challenged their power elite: their corporate advertisers and their government cronies.

As a participatory journalist who’s been present at a multitude of marches and rallies that were spurned by corporate-media, I’ve consistently used new-media to document corporate-media ignored or buried events. Witness in this article written in August ‘08 during the Democratic National Convention, the baton bashing of a woman anti-war activist in Denver by a Colorado law enforcement officer that was virtually ignored by corporate-media. For the past several years the anti-war movement has photographed for flickr and video’d for youtube the number of attendees at its events to counter the reckless underreporting by corporate controlled print and TV news.

As reported by Indymedia, the St. Paul police routinely beat and arrested progressive protesters during the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minnesota when they protested the improprieties of their government, yet these events got little corporate-media coverage and no visible anchor sympathy was shown for the beaten. Instead, Americans who have challenged the policies of the US government have been mocked and overlooked by their own country’s media, while those in other nations who challenge the leadership of non US allies like Iran, Argentina and Bolivia get enthusiastic coverage. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Why is corporate-media so willing to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the people’s movement in Iran and graphic images of the Iranian government’s brutality, but unwilling to cover the progressive anti-war movement in America and the police brutality here?

Jingoism isn’t journalism!

Again, I don’t mean to diminish the momentousness of the socio-political happenings in Iran, nor the valor of the Iranian people as they face off against their tyrannical government. I’m in awe of their patriotism and heroism and I want them to prevail.

Still I question whether corporate-media’s intense coverage and uncharacteristic emoting are in the best interests of the people of Iran. As the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s graphic violence against the people is continually televised, some in this country may soften to the idea of American intervention in Iran, as happened with Iraq after ongoing corporate-media/Bush administration/anti Iraq indoctrination.

Absurd inflammatory statements have already been made by corporate-media representatives, notably by CNN, that can drive the case to support military action. Witness the video below of CNN anchor Don Lemon’s wanton assertion of a correlation between Iran and Rwanda, suggesting that Iran may be the new Rwanda and the United States may suffer similar regret for non-action as it did for not interceding in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Here’s the video of Lemon making that ludicrous comparison, which he has made more than once:

I question the motives and involvement of the same corporate-media that sold an unnecessary preemptive war and profited from its prosecution. I’m suspect of a corporate-media that co-opts people’s personal media reports, then re-frames and retells them using the same corporate launch pads that propelled an illegal war. I’m distrustful of the same corporate-media that refuses to show graphic murders in Iraq that involve our American military, but broadcasts murders by the military of a nation America opposes.

And worse, I’m infuriated by that same Corporate News Network, CNN, that had the temerity on Sunday to feature Paul Wolfowitz being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer in a discussion on Iran. The same Paul Wolfowitz who was a principal architect of the Iraq war, and who on Sunday used the ominous words “the darkness is falling” to support his argument for outside “assistance” for Iran.

Really, CNN, have you no shame?

I’m nervous folks. I hear the drums of corporate-media pounding to engage Iran — and they aren’t pounding diplomacy. I see a clear and present danger. I hope I’m wrong. And I sincerely hope Barack Obama maintains his politically sound disengagement and doesn’t follow the drum beats to war.

THE “F” BOMB- Has It Finally Arrived?

~by Larry Fedoruk

 It can take years to break through in popular culture. Just ask any non-Idolesque singer. Ask any musician, actor, artist etc. Getting the word out there can be a long and arduous task and raw talent or appeal is not always a deciding factor. Timing is everything we are told, being in the right place at the right time. That of course implies luck as a factor, or “getting your big break” as some put it.

 Others will say that you make your own breaks. 

 I’m sure it’s a combination of everything. Even heathens like myself like to imagine that every once in a while the “forces” align and something comes of it. Of course we heathens also like to believe that outside of science, there are no forces, and that the studies of alignment and coincidence are simply things people do to pass the time and to make themselves look much cleverer than they actually are.

 Marketers will tell you there are forces,…and methods, and formulas and ways to get the word out there. I suppose. I have heard about things like Coca-Cola and the new Big Mac Snack Wrap, so they must know something. To quote their line, “Finally! The taste of a Big Mac in a snack.” Do you understand? “Finally!” Marketers somehow tapped into a force, a need, an underlying current of desire…and gave us the solution.

Of course, marketers such as Coke and McDonald’s cheat.

 They mostly just buy media. Any idiot with money can buy media. Actually, media relies on those idiots. Also, media have their own marketers who in turn glom on to established brands like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s to use as their own media. The circle is not only vicious, it’s morally bankrupt. It’s quicksand; it’s an eddy, an abyss, a killer indeed. Few get out alive. Plus, anybody who failed the real estate exam or was drummed out of used-car sales can call themselves a marketer. I’m sure a failed used-car sales person was the one who came marketing back and told them, “From this moment forward, instead of used cars, they shall be called previously owned vehicles.”

 So what does this all have to do with the F-bomb? 

 Well, it’s been around for years and may I add, without the assistance of the aforementioned media abyss who still frowns heavily upon it. There are countless stories, legends, theories of origin from the Latin, the Greek, the Roman, the caveman and on and on. Which ever you choose to believe is of course up to you. One thing we can agree on is that it’s almost always been here. It has transcended time, space and language. It is popular, true, but never culturally accepted. It has enjoyed a massive cult following and we’ve all chuckled at the e-mail of how it functions as a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, in the middle of words etc. But it has never broken through.

 As a matter of fact, those who continually used the word are thought to be of lower intelligence, limited vocabulary, et al. I say, you find a great versatile word like that you’d be a fool not to use it, and often, but that’s just me. Many have tried to push it forward, from Lenny Bruce, to George Carlin, to Bono, with many “hip-hop” stops in between. Granted, they’ve all contributed to this recent breakthrough but still it hasn’t really been part of almost universally accepted popular culture. Until now.

 How did this happen? Let me share the following theories.

 Step 1: The transition of the term “F-word” into the more widely used “F-bomb”.

 Initially this would seem like a step backward, after all a bomb is much worse than a word. Sticks and bombs and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me. But I believe it had the opposite effect. If for example in the past, in mixed company, you were relating a story of how someone in an inappropriate setting used “the F word”, (”…and then he said the F-word, right in front of the principal!”) it caused significant gasping as if you had used the word itself in your story. When instead you use the term “F-bomb” (”…and then the kid starts dropping F-bombs around Father Ian…!”) it is your implied editorial that this was a ghastly thing to do. Yes, bomb is much worse than word and by using the word ‘bomb’ I am saying this was a hideous attack. Tacit, but deadly. The suggested inference makes it much more culturally acceptable to at least talk about F-bombs.

 Step 2: The almost global acceptance of the euphemism “freakin”.

 Oh sure, generations have tried euphemisms before, from flippin’ to farkin’ to friggin’, frickin’ and frackin’ and so forth. All of these substitutes have had their moments but “freakin” (sometimes also the more correct “freaking”) has broken through. Think about it, a freakin’ moron much more conveys the meaning of the original word than a friggin’ moron, or a frickin’ moron? Granted, it’s still not the word but at least the message is clearer. Lenny “flippin” Bruce opened the door for George “freakin” Carlin. See, it just works.

 Step 3: The increased usage of the term “effing”.

 This is about as close as we can get without using the word and it’s my favorite substitute. Proof of that is that there are still places you can’t even say effing. The great Ben Folds has a song called “Effington” on a recent album where he sings about Effington being a wonderful effing place as he makes his way to Normal. (Effington, SD to Normal, IL I believe.) This term has “always been there” yet we never thought to use it until recent times. Sometimes you just gotta say “You’ve got to be effing kidding me!”

AND

 Step 4: Wtf?

 God bless the texters. (I’m a heathen, so that’s just an expression.) Not that MTV is the final arbiter of pop culture, but recently they introduced a new category for their 18th annual 2009 MTV Movie Awards, “BEST WTF MOMENT”, defined as this year’s most jaw-dropping movie moment…AND these awards will be broadcast on regular abyss, oops, I mean media. What a coup! Wtf is not just for texting, it has become verbal also as the new language invades the spoken word. lol, btw, bfn. See, we always knew that initials could work and that’s why we said F-word and F-bomb but actually grabbing an F-bomb phrase and initializing it for common use is pure genius and a great step forward.

 I know what some are saying. “This still isn’t the word itself. We still can’t say it in many situations.” You are correct. But at least we’re closer than we’ve ever been. Freakin, effing and wtf are as near as we’ve ever come and it has shown that you can’t keep a good word down. That my friend is a breakthrough. There are those of us that will keep fighting the good fight until one day there is at least a NAFTA, a North American F-This Agreement. A-bombs and H-bombs can melt my bones, but F-bombs will never hurt me. Drop one on someone soon.

 Larry Fedoruk hosts the ‘Larry Fedoruk Show’ from 3pm - 6pm on News/Talk CKTB , in my (the editor’s) opinion, the crown jewel in CKTB’s programming. If you listen, I think you’ll agree. And you can listen, via internet streaming, if you don’t live in the Toronto - Niagara - Buffalo corridor. Larry’s take on daily events leave you thinking and laughing. Larry is an author, a humourist, a poker player, a musical encyclopedia (don’t miss Name That Tune on his show!), a self described “Beatles baby”, and a father (I wonder how young his kids were when he taught them the “f bomb”?) The fact of the matter is, Larry is a true gentlemen and has likely never had to have his mouth washed out with soap.

reach us via Editor@GlobalPundit.Org