Image via Wikimedia Commons

Kevin Drum in Mother Jones today disagreed with Greg Sargent of the Washington Post when Sargent said “The attention to Occupy Wall Street notwithstanding, news orgs tend to find right wing demonstrations of popular unrest inherently more newsworthy and deserving of sustained coverage than left wing ones.” Drum points to the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980’s, the anti corporate globalization protests of the 90’s and the demonstrations against the war in Iraq as examples of coverage. He says “The problem, I suspect, isn’t that popular movements of the left get ignored, but that the left hasn’t been mounting any popular movements lately.”

I would say that populist progressive movements do get coverage, but the details of how that coverage plays out is more important. First, both the anti corporate globalization movement and the anti-war movement got more negative coverage from mainstream news sources than movements like the Tea Party have. In addition, the Tea Party has its own completely sympathetic conglomerate (Newscorp), which has much more reach than an organization like Media Matters or websites like Mother Jones. The conservative right has also pretty much owned talk radio exclusively since the 90’s, and well funded organizations like Freedom Works have been on the streets since the early 2000’s.

One of the biggest issues is that rank and file Democrats and the Obama campaign are seen in the same light by the right and much of the mainstream press as representatives of the “left,” which they are clearly not. But since conservatives have done an incredible job not only convincing a huge swath of Americans that the President is a “socialist,” but completely changing what that term actually means (socialism and communism are the same thing, both are the same thing as fascism and therefore, anyone to the left of Reagan may as well be a terrorist), mainstream coverage of progressive movements is at first, smaller and second, nearly always negative.

One only needs to look at this article from Smart Money about how the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t only a group of shiftless, jobless hippie layabouts – but also a violent and scary group of potential terrorists. Publications like Smart Money, or Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, as well as many other media conglomerates like the Tribune Company, have a vested interested in vehemently opposing a movement like Occupy Wall Street. After all, their investments depend on keeping things status quo.

Fact is, true progressive movements have a harder time gaining steam, because they’re not only facing opposition from the right, they face opposition from the center as well. Plenty of Democratic politicians have the same ties to big business that Republicans and other right wing organizations do. Groups like the Tea Party were instantly latched onto by well funded conservatives. Movements like Occupy Wall Street have had to start completely from scratch.

                          

Earlier this week, Fox News reporter John Stossel asked a question that often pops up from the right wing media on a slow news day: “where did all the anti-war protestors go?” Stossel suggested anti-war protestors were really just “anti-President Bush,” citing a study by “two college professors,” with no reference to where the study came from. He called the drop off in attendance at rallies from this mysterious study “amazing” (the mystery study he quotes says after Obama was elected president, attendance went from thousands to hundreds) and said that “protestors have remained silent over Libya.”

The study Stossel references was authored by two social scientists, Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan and Fabio Rojas of the University of Indiana. Research was conducted at various anti-war rallies in the U.S. from 2007 to 2009. Heaney and Rojas have been following the anti-war movement since the 90’s, paying particular attention to the political affiliations of people in the movement and tracking the ebb and flow of participants. The study found that participation in anti-war demonstrations “dropped by an order of magnitude” from ’07 to ’09.

Stossel and others in the right wing media seized on this, painting anti-war demonstrators from the last decade as hypocrites who gave up on a lost cause. Making this assumption based on Heaney and Rojas’s study trivializes the anti-war movement and trivializes the study as well. Movements, especially those surrounding huge issues like war or trade policy, aren’t based on party affiliation alone. The study found that the largest amount of people who “left” (stopped coming to protests) were democrats, right after Obama was elected into office. That’s not surprising, given the amount of lip service Obama gave throughout his campaign about ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So why aren’t those millions of people back in the streets since we’ve escalated the war in Afghanistan, escalated drone bombings in Yemen and now are involved in the Libyan conflict? Probably for the same reasons mass demonstrations saw their numbers dwindle only a few months after the start of the Iraq war. There were huge protests during the lead up and shortly thereafter, but once the conflict continued on for months, then years – plenty of people started questioning how much of an effect a march in the streets was having. The business of war continued as usual, whether or not a few hundred or 10,000 took to the streets during rush hour.

Support for public protests ebbs and flows based on world events, based on public perception of effectiveness of a movement. In participating in various demonstrations against war and other U.S. Policies for more than a decade, I’ve found that more people attend a rally or hit the streets when there’s a catalyst, like a sudden escalation in fighting or casualties, or the anniversary of the start of the conflict, etc. But just because someone isn’t in the streets every day or even once a year, doesn’t mean that person doesn’t identify as “against the war.” With a media that serves as a mouthpiece for continuing conflicts and escalating others, no real exit plans in sight, and politicians who make strategies to “get out” and then change them a year later, it’s no wonder the public has become desensitized to seeing violence across the middle east every day. Anti-war protestors haven’t gone anywhere, they’re simply trying to find new strategies to wake the rest of the public up from their complacency.

                          

To survey narrative theories – understanding the nature of a story and what makes one up.

To better understand the role of narrative in security contexts – asking what role stories play in political radicalization and how they influence participants in politics.

To survey the state of the art in narrative analysis and decomposition tools – “How can we take stories and make them quantitatively analyzable in a rigorous, transparent and repeatable fashion? Are particular approaches or tools better than others for understanding how stories propagate in a system so as to influence behavior.” (emphasis mine)

The Defense Department has always had an interest in collecting information – from the mass data mining project that was the Total Information Awareness Office (defunded in 2003, with some pieces shifted to other agencies) to “capturing knowledge” for analysis and use with artificial intelligence. The Pentagon has also maintained a very cozy relationship with the mainstream media, embedding reporters in military units and providing plenty of its analysts to propagate its agenda. One would think the DoD already has a handle on storytelling.

While plenty of Americans might buy word from the Pentagon at full price, it’s the hearts and minds of the rest of the world DARPA could be after with theoretical workshops like STORyNET. Max Eddy at Geek System points out that crafting a good tale could help with messaging in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kit Eaton at Fast Company suggests such research could be good for influencing more favorable outcomes for the U.S. in the social revolutions spreading through the Middle East.

While we shouldn’t expect anyone from the Pentagon to craft the next Harry Potter anytime soon, the prospect of things like STORyNET workshops combined with other information collecting and propaganda mechanisms bring us one step closer towards our own Ministries of Truth and Peace.

(H/T to AEM and the Poetry Foundation for spreading the word first)

                          

And this guy will educate the world about 9/11 and the NWO

Since it’s easier to find fifteen minutes of fame failing on American Idol than a minimum wage job, I’ve decided to launch my own product line, based on a reality show that someone will offer me once they see what the RTV industry is missing. All of America knows today’s photo under the “do not take checks from” sign at the liquor store is tomorrow’s headshot. Since my headshot hangs in every major liquor store in the Chicago metro area, it’s only a matter of time before a producer from Fox connects one of my products with my grimace. Products such as:

A guide to an ordinary man’s night out: A lifetime of debt and poor decisions (like hiring my cat as a financial planner) makes extravagant evenings in the midwest’s hottest restaurants and clubs nearly impossible. But everyone loves a night out, even if it’s just panhandling at the bus station. Since panhandling should be a solo activity to avoid boxcutter fights over profit shares, my book will show the easiest ways to have find food and fun on the spare change from couch cushions. Tips include how to make malt liquor in a gas station sink and how to turn the lottery line at 7-11 into an all night rager. Bonus: Comes with a pullout map of Chicago’s finest dumpster eating options.

Foreclosed Fashions: Retro threads never go out of style, whether they’re leather chaps or your dad’s tattered flannel shirt collection. My new clothing line combines the best of yesterday’s fashions and today’s slightly damaged styles. Foreclosed Fashions is completely eco friendly, since digging through the Goodwill dumpster emits zero carbon into the atmosphere.  In addition, my clothing line is completely sweatshop free, since congratulatory pats on the back count as a living wage for unemployed college graduates.

Yet to be titled workout videos: A pseudo celebrity needs to be in his or her peak physical condition. But let’s face it, the local gym is for sneaking in to shower last night’s shame off, and my personal trainer told me he’d call the cops if I came back after I declared 2011 “no pants new year.”  My workout video collection however, will teach simple steps to a better body without the need for a full set of wigs and fake mustaches. Titles include – Cross country training: How to pick a fight that will keep you running for life. Better than Yoga: A step by step guide to a flexible body through home break ins. Monkey House Muscle: Which zoo animals to wrestle and which ones to let rest.

With products like these, aimed directly at the average Joe or Jane waiting in the unemployment line, I should have producers banging down my door to capture my fabulous life. I’ll be waiting, guys – and don’t forget – 2011 is no pants new year.

Coming this summer: There's only soup for one in Gordon Ramsey's "Bread Line"

                          

It seems somewhere along the line the word “Nazi” devolved to something of a schoolyard insult like “dork” or “geek” on the political playground. The fetish American partisan politics has for labeling the opposition party didn’t just show up around the year 2000. Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Reagan all had their detractors shouting “Nazi.” (1)

Maybe a portion of America zoned out when history teachers covered WWII, but Nazi’s didn’t terminate contracts, they terminated people. Nazi’s committed genocide, tortured, brutalized and murdered millions, attempted to conquer the world and committed countless other war crimes and atrocities. While many of the Nazi’s of WWII are long dead, their legacy survives in plenty of folks who don swastika armbands, pray to Odin and assault those who aren’t straight, white and proud. (2)

Often, when the Nazi card gets played, it’s when comparing the actions of a person, organization or government to that of the S.S., or Stasi, or KGB, or other dictatorial secret police organizations. When someone calls an opponent or rival a Nazi – it’s usually referring to some injustice related to the stifling of opinion or dissent, curbing civil liberties, or other behaviors common to most totalitarian societies. In other words, most of the time, Nazi actually means “fascist.”

The right may have a harder time using the term today, since so many U.S. policies and practices stemming from neoconservatives in the last few decades (3) skirt the fascist line pretty closely. But still, not many active politicians or other Americans advocate eugenics, deny or advocate another holocaust, or hope for an Aryan master race to rule the world.  Why then, should anyone throw around a word representing something so vial to describe anyone who disagrees with a point of view?

The American political system has become so hyperbolic and so histrionic, we’ve lost some context for things that are truly evil. Comparing partisan politics and the actions of media moguls to that of the behavior of butchers and genocidal maniacs isn’t helping prevent another Hitler from rising to power. If anything, it’s further numbing our understanding of what real Nazi’s were. It’s time to retire the accusation from our political discourse.

1. Full disclosure – I’m sure I’ve called plenty of people Nazi’s in the past, so I’m just as guilty here.
2. The Nazi legacy also lives on in the U.S. thanks to the CIA and other American intelligence officials giving former Nazi’s safe harbor.
3. See the following: PATRIOT ACT, Torture Justification (arguably though, a pretty Naziesque behavior), Pre-emptive war, COINTELPRO, the Information Awareness Office.

                          

Hopfinger’s account of the incident appears slightly less hyperbolic . He stated he was surrounded by both private (non-uniformed) security guards and Miller supporters after he followed and attempted to ask uncomfortable and unwelcome questions. Hopfinger admits to pushing a guard out of the way, but only after he began to feel threatened by what seemed like a mob. While Miller’s campaign said Hopfinger was trespassing on a “private” event, that event was held at a public school that citizens were invited to via Facebook and other websites.

What might be a small local incident that can be easily handled by local law enforcement and judicial bodies highlights a few extreme problems with our electoral system, as well as how we perceive the press. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Hopfinger pointed out that Miller has “drawn a line in the sand” regarding answering questions from reporters about his past. Miller’s security said that the reporter “should have assumed” from the signs outside the public school that the event was private. The event was billed as a town hall meeting.

All of this sounds too familiar.

The 21^st century style “town hall” rally first popped up during the 1992 presidential election, where Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr. and Ross Perot attempted to have a more “conversational” type of debate, paying attention to ”Real America,” particularly undecided voters. Since then, the format has become increasingly popular and is now essential in today’s campaigns. During the Bush years, the former President had plenty of town hall type meetings, many of which were carefully crafted and stacked with supporters.

So here we have a candidate who refuses to talk about his past, even though his political party often drudges up the past of its opponents to discredit them, who believes that a town hall meeting is a private event only for supporters. When faced with confrontational questions or opposing viewpoints from a journalist, private security guards “arrest” and detain that journalist, only to release him when actual law enforcement shows up. As plenty of writers have pointed out, had this happened at a tea party rally or been a Democratic candidate, the outrage from the right would be deafening. Had the shoe been on the other foot, they would’ve been right to be outraged.

Sadly, the whole incident highlights the exact problem with American political discourse. Politicians manufacture an event that appears “for the people” on paper, surround themselves with supporters and shield themselves from having to dissect their own talking points. The only difference between now and 1992 is that things have become more heated and less civil. Did Hopfinger cross a line hounding Miller? It’s possible he may have been overzelous, but demanding answers to important questions is what a good journalist does (although sometimes they could be nicer about it). Did Miller cross a line by having Hopfinger handcuffed by a private security firm? Absolutely. To let such behavior go without challenge undermines the fabric of Democracy, which is encouraging political debate, not silencing opposition.

                          

Courtesy Wikipedia

No one should believe that Fox and Friends is a bastion of journalistic integrity or even slightly interested in fact checking. However, the morning show took the cake in redefining those two terms this week when co-host Brian Kilmeade, declared “Not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim.”

So, I suppose this would mean that the following terrorist organizations are somehow secret Muslims:

Provisional Irish Republican Army (Catholic)

Ulster Defense Association (Protestant)

Real IRA (Catholic)

Sons of Freedom (Christian)

National Liberation Front of Tripura (Christian)

Babbar Khalsa (Sikh)

The list could go on. If you spend more than ten seconds even on Wikipedia, you might learn that there are even Hindu terrorists targeting Muslims.

Fox News said Brian would “clarify,” which probably means he’ll mention one of the organizations at the top of the list, like the IRA and talk about events that happened ten or twenty years ago. My guess would be that somehow, he’ll fail to mention more recently active groups, like the Hutaree. In March, 8 Hutaree “Christian warriors” were arrested in connection with a plot to kill local police officers in the hopes of touching off a larger confrontation. He’ll also probably assert, as others have, that he was referencing the 9/11 attacks specifically. If that were true though, why this sentence that follows his assertion: “And that is ridiculous that we got to keep defining this – the people that equate Timothy McVeigh with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, which is growing and a threat that exists.”

Is Brian tacitly implying that McVeigh was not a terrorist? Is he implying that acts of violence perpetrated by Good white Christians motivated by political and religious ideology intended to induce fear in governments or societies (you know, the definition of terrorism) is somehow less evil than terrorist acts by Muslims? Is he perhaps suggesting that we develop a new classification of terrorists – one where we give men like McVeigh or the Hutaree sympathy? I thought terrorism was terrorism and to be opposed no matter the color, creed or national identity of the terrorist. I would like to believe that he’ll “clarify” on Monday, but I’m not holding my breath.

                          

According to the article, SSDI eats about $180 billion annually. To put that in perspective, we gave the banks nearly 4 times that for tanking our economy (job well done!) and we give just as much to the Pentagon every year. But, according to James Ledbetter and an economist at MIT, America needs to rethink eligibility criteria because some of those claiming mental illness are faking “exaggerating.” While the numbers don’t exactly lie – SSDI claimants have increased since the late 1950’s –our understanding of mental illness has too. To show an increase in claimants without pointing out that the numbers begin at a time when we still lobotomized people and homosexuality was considered a mental illness is at best, irresponsible. (Full disclosure: I worked as a “job developer” for a number of years (someone who finds work for people with disabilities) and I have a close relative with a mental illness.)

Plenty of people with disabilities work when they’re able to. Many times, people on SSDI and SSI *wish* they could work or work more. However, the barriers to working a full time job aren’t only physical. Try competing in the job market when you need someone to chaperone you on your job interview or when you can’t understand the 100 question “personality” tests at the local retail outlet. While most potential employers comply with the EEOC in name, plenty will find a reason to not make a reasonable accommodation. Since SSDI is tied to Medicare, many people with disabilities can’t work more than a certain number of hours for fear of losing Medicaid, which is the only lifeline to much needed prescriptions and medical care. Finally, it’s not all that easy to get benefits – the screening process turns down plenty of people who should be immediately eligible on the first and second applications. We’re certainly not “paying people to stay out of the workforce for the rest of their productive lives.”

If anything in SSDI needs “fixing,” it’s the fixing the fact money available for people who cannot work like the “average” American (who is also struggling to maintain a job) receive so little money. Based on the $1,000 a month average, that’s $12,000 a year, a number barely above the poverty line. If a nation’s greatness is really measured by how it treats its weakest members, we failed that test for now.

                          

Creative Commons License

The right wing found a new way to say President Obama hates the troops by complaining that he won’t visit Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day. Instead, Joe Biden will lay a wreath at the Veteran’s Cemetery while Obama visits Chicago and tours the beleaguered Gulf of Mexico. Of course, such an action may as well be a treasonous spit in the face, as the President is Commander in Chief and every president ever has always laid a wreath at Arlington. Folks like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and others have called Obama’s Memorial Day plans “offensive” and disrespectful. Except, as Media Matters reports, one has to wonder what the Glenn Beck’s of the world would’ve said regarding Reagan and both Bush’s when they skipped ceremonies on Memorial Day at Arlington.

There might be cause for offense if the president were planning on drinking a Pabst while wearing an American flag as a Speedo and rocking out to Jane Fonda instead of doing something to honor the troops on a holiday for them. However, Obama is planning on participating in a commemoration at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Illinois. To echo one commenter’s statement on Media Matters, does every presidential recognition of veterans have to be limited to those buried in Arlington?

Rather than take the moral high road and launch into a long think piece on what holidays like Memorial Day have become (hint: SALE ON LAWN FURNITURE, WE PAINTED AMERICAN FLAGS AND BOMBS AND COOL SHIT ON IT. BUY TODAY, LIMITED TIME OFFER!!!), I’m going to take the low, petty road and ask – why does the right wing punditry hate Illinois’ veterans?