Child Health has posted a video on the consolidation of the media into the hands of a few. This is a prime example of what happens to Freedom of the Press and the Marketplace of Ideas when the public only hears the opinions of Too Big Too Fails. As the video illustrates, the newsroom editors, TV station editors, and others will decide what the NEWS is…that is why you need to get your news from several different sources with differing opinions…the truth is somewhere in-between.
We used to be the envy of the world for our Freedom of the Press….now we rank 46th in the world.
DN! had a piece up yesterday on environmentalists being killed for trying to protect the land, air, and water…for all of us.
147 killed in 2012, compared with 51 in 2002…nearly three times as many.
Jose DeSilva (sp?) says what Joe Kane said in Savages— that some poor person will accept the dinero of the corporations and aid in the destruction of the forest. This is how they divided tribe members in Savages–they picked a few vulnerable ones and split the loyalties. Divide and Conquer in action….
As you listen to the video, it is really shocking how this is going on and not being reported. I mean, how obvious is it that these are deliberate acts…an axe in the head of an environmentalist…Penetra being murdered right after speaking out for the environment…and we never hear of this in the lame media? Yet…they are right there to label environmentalists as nuts and whackos who should be condemned.
This is not good. They say it’s not the Russians, but pro-Russian Ukrainians…but I dunno…
Ukrainians are passionate, that’s for sure, but to seize a police station? That says to me if it is Ukrainians, that they felt confident enough with *someone* backing them to pull such a stunt. *Someone* has to be orchestrating all of this behind the scenes…*someone* whom is power hungry and has a lot to gain.
<sigh>
Meanwhile, I hope my Russian reader is doing okay. I worry that your seeking information may have landed you in trouble….praying for you…
A problem that plagues peaceful protestors are those that wish to cause trouble.
The problem is in knowing if they are bad actors looking to stir things up for their own amusement or agent provocateurs–sent in by agencies or the oil companies themselves to give the non-violent activists a bad name. The next problem is banishing them from the movement.
The person calling himself “james Moore” in the piece is typical. Not knowing the writer of the piece, it’s hard to know if this person said those things or whether it is fabricated to make them look bad. Or worse–to put this out there to justify police crackdown.
Like I’ve said before, I won’t support violence and many folks who would otherwise support environmentalists will back away from violent protests.
Setting police vehicles on fire is not violence in that it hurts a human being, but it is destructive…and is counterproductive if you think about all the toxins you’re sending into that very environment you’re trying to protect. You might feel a release of frustration for a moment or two, but in the end, it doesn’t further your cause.
Dispatches from the Underclass has a post up on academic freedom and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I clicked on the link to the letter, and the part about the union’s collective bargaining agreement stood out:
“institutional discipline or restraint in their discussion of relevant matters in the classroom…” [the CBA prohibits] “explicit or implicit threat of termination or discipline for the purpose of constraining a faculty member in the exercise of his or her rights under such principles of academic freedom.”
~~~~~~~~
“Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”
This was clarified later with the following:
“The intent of the 1940 statement is not to discourage what is “controversial”. Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.”
~~~~
This is one of the reasons that teacher’s unions must be protected–they protect teachers that bring up uncomfortable subjects with passionate debate. The Vietnam War would probably still be going on if it weren’t for the passionate debates of that time. And the Afghan war would have ended long ago. The Iraq War would have never begun had there been passionate debate on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction and as I previously posted, the way that Iraq society was presented to us and the reality of their society.
As the letter continues, the use of the word “balance” is questionable (Faux News, anyone?). It’s a vague term that can be interpreted in many ways…it’s a word that anyone in power can use to silence those that present valid complaints. One student made a complaint against the professor. Then Dr. Corey had the student “spy” on the professor and report back on whether it was “balanced” or not. WTH?
I disagree, however, with the letter’s statement that “students don’t possess the training or expertise to challenge a professor”…this is not giving students enough credit. Again, I’m thinking of the 60s and the students questioning professors and all authority. They raised valid questions. It’s not that students don’t have the training or expertise, but that one single student, with biases, should not be allowed to shut down an entire class because he/she does not agree with the way the subject is presented. He/she is a student, and as such, has to take some responsibility towards his/her education, and that means not always agreeing with a professor.
If the student disagrees, then he/she has options: quit the class, or listen and perhaps examine why he/she is opposed to the professor/subject matter….and maybe, just maybe, change one’s mind after evaluating the subject. It’s known that Israel does not present the Palestinian side of things in their schools. I don’t think they speak of the Palestinians at all, but in negative terms. Where’s the balance there?
The assessment of Professor Chehade’s classroom was one of openness. He allowed differing viewpoints…which is what you want in…ahem…a balanced classroom. Other students’ assessments were one of openness.
Something else that nags at me while reading this–did this student purposely take this class in order to get it cancelled? Because a class such as this is probably an elective–one that a student has an option of taking among several in that particular subject matter–so I would question the student’s motives if that were the case. The more I read, the more it sounds like a set-up. And the spineless administration caved at the first “shove”.
Another thing that bothers me is that we don’t live in a vacuum–this is only one class in that student’s career. If the student wants to get at the truth, he/she can take more classes taught by other professors whom will offer a different perspective. The student can also take the initiative and read books on the subject to gain a broader perspective. There is also the community- other students, friends, parents, neighbors, whom also can offer their perspectives. My experience has been that the truth is somewhere in between.
It’s important to note that professors are not given free reign to do as they please in their classrooms–as the letter states–proselytizing (although I can state that some of my professors came close to this, thankfully, it was just a few of many good professionals); and teaching subjects that are not a part of that section.
And just for the record, I would love to attend Professor Chehade’s class.
I found 5 Broken Cameras on youtube:
In the next part of the report, the controversy about free speech about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict at the University of Michigan. Be sure to click on the link where Max Blumenthal writes about the smear campaign. There is a video by Dishell up that speaks volumes.
In the speech, Max is passionate. He is Jewish and yet is speaking out on what he calls apartheid by Israel. The whole idea of Israel being “pure” is so ludicrous. There is no such thing as a “pure” race. We’re all mutts, so to speak. And as Blumenthal illustrates, one couple can’t even be together because of this stupidity. Can you say Romeo and Juliet? Can we ever learn anything from history…?
Warrior Publications has this up on the Mi’kmaq Warrior Trial. This is the first I have read of someone on the First Nations side having a gun. In the reports that I read, no one mentioned this…so this destroys some of the credibility of the reporting.
Because I am not down with bringing guns….you may not have the intention of using it, but bringing it makes it easier for someone to get hurt. You may only intend on using it in self-defense, but the other side does not know your intentions. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword, as they say.
If you are doing this for your children, be an example to them. Show them how to stand up for your rights without violence.
And the other side? Only an unethical coward would shoot someone whom is unarmed.
People have a right to protest, especially when their rights to their land are being pushed aside for dirty fracking, but I will not support violence on either side.
In Russia, the will of the state is expressed with signals of varying subtlety; the invocation of “national traitors” is among the less oblique examples of the genre. A new Web site called predatel.net—the word means “traitor”—has recently launched, featuring a list of public figures that the site’s anonymous creators deem to have betrayed Russia, whether by criticizing the annexation of Crimea or by supporting Western sanctions. As the site’s short manifesto puts it, “We believe that Russian citizens who insult our soldiers and who cast doubt on the need to fight neo-Nazis are traitors, no matter whether they are talented journalists, writers, and directors.” The site has a form for users to “suggest a traitor.”
~~~~~~~
Holy crap. The Salem Witch Hunt on steroids. Label someone a “witch” on the internet, where the accused has little access to protest their innocence…or put forth a differing point of view without being labeled a “traitor”…pfft. Cowards.
Weak arguments attack the person (Ad Hominem). Strong arguments attack the idea.
I found a news piece on Alexi Navalny’s sentencing hearing:
Finally, the link to Irina Kalinina has this:
Dmitry Kiselyov, probably the single most influential person in the Russian mass media, considered by many as the Kremlin’s chief propagandist, provides another distinctive voice on Russian television. He is best known in the West for his idea that the internal organs of gays were not fit for donation and, more recently, for his reminder that Russia could turn America into “radioactive ash.”
~~~~~~~~~
…and he calls the Ukraine people’s fight to keep their independence, a “mass psychosis”. Seriously.
(hat tip Diane Ravitch) The Dish posted this awesome video of a musical flash mob in Ukraine–the equivalent of our First Amendment (Freedom of Assembly) in action.
There’s just something about the defiance with music from the soul…brought tears to my eyes. If you recall, “Ode to Joy” was the only classical song my poor mother could get me to play, and until just recently, I could not play it, due to the mercury.
Eagle 
You must be logged in to post a comment.