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…?
Samantha Power is set to mark the 20th Anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda.
It doesn’t seem as though there has been a healing solution–that it could happen again if the conditions were right.
Hotel Rwanda is a graphic film about the genocide…that was ignored by Bill Clinton, even though he knew of the “final solution”. It’s sad to read the Catholic Church’s connection to the advancement of Tutsi…at the expense of the Hutu. Glad that they changed their thinking later, however, to help the Hutu.
Note how the Eugenics ideas are behind the Tutsi being put into power. And the acts of privatization caused poverty and slave labor.
They used identity cards to identify Hutu and Tutsi….the purpose can only be to keep Hutu in their “place”. Gah, it is so much like Nazi Germany…a holocaust not for religion, but for ancestry!
The use of rape as a war tool is highlighted in the piece. It’s often ignored as part of the war casualties numbers, as a woman’s issue, so its inclusion is hopefully a sign of measuring the true numbers of casualties of war. As I read this, I think about the resulting pregnancies…and it just seems so contradictory to their goals of eliminating the other–they ironically reproduce, mixing blood and genes and all they claim to find disgusting.
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.
It’s really depressing that Turkey has apparently supported the violence in Syria. More detailed report here. (hat tip to Jared Leto). I pretty much ignore the WSJ piece, given the bias of Rupert Murdoch. It starts off with the Canadian Ambassador for Religious Freedom protesting Turkey…and yet my blogs on the Canadian gov’t treatment of First Nations people smacks in the face of that.
For those who don’t know, the Armenians suffered through a massacre a hundred years ago. A survivor of the massacre tells her story.
Pando Daily has this up on a technology that takes pictures for advertising numbers…but has much deeper violations of privacy.
It is presented as being innocent…but we all know by now it doesn’t end up that way.
This is outrageous. Plain and simple violation of a person’s right to move about in public without being subjected to an intrusion such as being photographed.
There are so many holes in this guy’s theory it could be Swiss cheese.
For one–just because a person looks at an advertisement does not mean they will purchase that product or service. For instance, I may look at an advertisement on a professional bug killer service, but there is no way that I’m calling that service. The advertisers use bright colors, flashing words or lights, and the usual “grabs” of sex, fear, anger, and love. All of these factors may draw the human eye towards the advertising, but not mean the person will buy it.
It never ceases to amaze me how psychology is used to interpret a person’s thoughts by outward gestures or appearances, when that psychological conclusion is dead wrong.
I went online looking for Rodolfo Saccoman and found this disturbing video:
It is alarming that they are using “feel good” emotions to justify the psychology software program. They’re there to “help” with an impersonal, flawed science (in that psychology has sprouted from misogyny and bullying mindset). Saccoman states that this software will “help” those suffering from PTSD from committing suicide…but methinks that instead it will be used to either label someone as mentally ill who might be having a rough day and just need someone to talk to–not a freaking impersonal computer. Or it will be used as a tool by Big Pharma to force someone to take unproven and unsafe psychotropic drugs. I feel it in my gut that this is what is driving this “help”. I’d like to know if his brother is invested in Big Pharma…it’s not such a big leap when you consider that Saccoman mentions he loves the stocks and even built this software on that model. If they could get more poor souls buying Big Pharma drugs, well, that’s just more money for them.
And then as the video keeps rolling, we get to the *bingo!* moment…when he says he worked for Morgan Stanley. An investment banker who thinks greed is good and screw the public. He claims to hate it, but then goes on to say that he made money…so he couldn’t have hated it too much.
He looks at billboards and says they don’t have any intelligence. You don’t know if anyone is reading them. Really? Because I can think of several instances where folks have become upset at messages on billboards…so obviously people are paying attention to them.
Privacy never comes out of his mouth when speaking about how great this is and how money is being *lost* by not seizing the opportunity for yet more advertising dollars.
He attended a Tony Robbins show, er I mean, inspirational speech, where he claims they “tear you apart, then put you back together” Sounds like psychological abuse to me.
Then he shows commercials for getting people to sign up for this. Note that the target audience is the young, who don’t have the experience to understand how this violates privacy and the ramifications of that. The ignorance of the youth on their right to privacy is appalling.
They have concerns about paying for college (understandable), so this is marketed to them as being a way to pay for college. The subtle play on emotions with their “love story” also reels people in. They also use the “everybody” is doing it schtick with the line “all our awesome friends are also doing it.” Again, invading someone’s privacy and their part in it is never mentioned.
Saccoman repeatedly portrays standard advertising as “old school” dinosaurs. This is another tactic used very successfully by the marketing gurus–nobody wants to be “left behind” so they will buy the latest to be seen as keeping up with the world. This tactic really took hold in the 70s when there was plenty of money in the middle class to buy the “latest”. Thank God I have broken myself of that brainwashing.
Another aspect to this way of advertising is driving around to get the “face” quota. Using gas, spewing fumes into the air, creating more crowded roadways, and possibly causing accidents by distracting people from watching the road and the vehicles around them. Just yesterday, I saw three people talking on cell phones on Indy’s busiest roadways…and they were driving in ways that showed they were distracted and not paying attention to their own driving or those around them.
Again, the emotional tug is used when the fake “son” talks about how his fake “Mom” inspired him. It has nothing to do with the software or the advertising, but is snuck in there to give one the “warm and fuzzy’ feelings.
And the one thing I don’t see when looking at Saccoman’s actual backpack? A sign in big bold letters saying “YOUR FACE IS BEING COLLECTED FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES” on the backpack.
Near the end, he makes an odd statement to “push” for what you want…but then he gets philosophical and says if it flows, it flows…so which is it? Does one push or just let things “flow”?
Lastly, he admires Steve Jobs and Apple. Given their illegal wage-fixing, and this response by Jobs over getting someone fired, well, it kind of speaks of character…why would one admire someone so contemptible?
Eagle 
You must be logged in to post a comment.