The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- Ben Cohen: Iran and Anna Nicole Smith
- David Roberts: Pooping Where You Sleep: Bad for the Economy
- Kevin Downey: America's Got Talent, Pleading for Its Susan Boyle
- Sasha Abramsky: Breadline USA Part III
- Jackson Williams: Republicans Identify Their Problem: It's The Packaging!
| Ben Cohen: Iran and Anna Nicole Smith | Top |
| While I'm fairly sure whole scale fraud occurred in the recent Iranian elections, the level of coverage and scrutiny of the Ahmadinejad regime has been somewhat bewildering. I touched on this in a previous article , but I think it is worth exploring some more. The American media and even blogosphere has been completely obsessed with the elections in Iran, and have covered it with the same fervor as the death of Anna Nicole Smith. There are breaking alerts, in depth specials, round table discussions, and expert analysis from a variety of talking heads. While the Iranian elections were certainly important (and the death of Nicole Smith not), there is a common thread. Both events have nothing to do with what is really going on in America, and both events allow the media to exercise a great deal of focus and attention without offending anyone that matters. The million dollar corporations responsible for bringing us news have vast resources, amazing cameras, digital technology and increasingly spectacular graphical capabilities. When they want to focus on something in depth, they can bring an insane amount of detail to a topic no matter how large or small. What matters is that it has no bearing on entrenched power interests in the United States. Currently, the U.S government is acting as a giant welfare state to a corrupt banking system, pouring trillions of dollars of tax payers money to enrich the scoundrels responsible for the economic crisis in the first place. There is also a giant lobbying effort by the pharmaceutical industry to block meaningful health care reform, another illegal war going on in Afghanistan, and a continued build up of the military industrial complex, all of which cost an insane amount of money. The outcomes of the above have serious consequences for regular people, yet the corporate media presents a microscopic view of the topics, refusing to ask meaningful questions and supporting the status-quo. If the news media were to function properly as an independent counterbalance to government and corporate power, we'd have far more rigorous analysis of where tax payers money was going. Instead of the usual 'entitlements for the lazy' argument the Right loves to wield, we'd hear more about how the rich are stealing from the poor and middle classes, and more about the greed of the banking industry. We would know that there is no such thing as the free market - that it was a phrase coined by the powerful to convince the weak that they had no where else to go. That you either survive or die, and no one would be there to help if you lost your job, or had to foreclose on your house. We'd know that a luxurious welfare system exists for the most well off, and food stamps and lectures would be there for the poor. We'd know that privatized health care was a complete failure, and that a government run system works best. We'd know that the U.S government engages in illegal activity around the world, propping up corrupt regimes, financing coups and subverting democracy whenever it threatens its economic interest. But we don't. We know that Anna Nicole Smith died of an overdose, and that no one knew the identity of her child's father. We know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a corrupt clown who has abused his people and democracy. Interesting, yes. Relevant? Maybe. But when the United States is on the brink of economic catastrophe, it might be useful to know why. And our media system simply doesn't seem to care. When a corrupt economic system keeps you wealthy, it pays not to speak out about it. The major media players are owned by various corporate conglomerates with a huge interest in maintaining the status quo. We don't hear alternative voices questioning that power because every good journalist and producer knows, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. Ben Cohen is the Editor of TheDailyBanter.com and founder of BanterMediaGroup.com More on Iran | |
| David Roberts: Pooping Where You Sleep: Bad for the Economy | Top |
| grist.org Let's take a look at a few studies that have come out recently and see if we can find a common thread. A West Virginia University researcher found that "coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits," reports the Charleston Gazette . The Mountain Association for Community Economic Development found that "the coal industry takes $115 million more from Kentucky's state government annually in services and programs than it contributes in taxes," reports the Lexington Herald-Leader . A recent peer-reviewed paper in the journal Science found that areas of Brazil that cut down their rainforests to sell the wood or plant crops "do see a short-term boost in per-capita income, life expectancy, and literacy rates," reports The Vine. "But once the trees are gone, those gains disappear, leaving deforested municipalities just as poor as those that preserved their forests." The International Fund for Animal Welfare found that "in 2008 whale-watching generated $2.1 billion of tourism revenue worldwide ... more than double the estimated $one billion generated by the industry in 1998," reports Agence France-Presse. Said Australia Environment Minister Peter Garrett, "Whales are worth much more alive than dead." The University of Michigan found that "the Detroit Three automakers can become more profitable and slow the growth of their Japanese rivals if they simply meet tougher new government-mandated fuel economy standards," reports the Detroit Free Press . These are disparate areas of study and disparate conclusions. One thing they all have in common: an environment-degrading practice often defended as necessary to economic health is revealed, upon closer inspection, to be uneconomic. I wonder how many other allegedly economic environment-degrading practices would also be revealed uneconomic if examined with a fresh eye? It's almost like the economy is embedded in an environment, and degrading the latter ultimately degrades the former. More on Economy | |
| Kevin Downey: America's Got Talent, Pleading for Its Susan Boyle | Top |
| America's Got Talent kicked off its new season last week with big ratings. Two episodes. The week's two highest rated shows. That, you'd think, would be good enough for the show's producers to can their choreographed attempt to create the U.S. version of Susan Boyle, Britain's Got Talent's lumpy runner-up. But, no. Last night, Talent zeroed in on country bumpkin Kevin Skinner, an aww-shucks-type unemployed farmer who perfectly fits the Boyle mold - rumpled clothes and the skin of a man who's worked outdoors for years. Talent's likeable and frequently teary-eyed judges, David Hasselhoff, Sharon Osbourne and Piers Morgan, pounced. Skinner's a respectably talented singer who might bring down the house at a country fair or a truck-stop bar (that's not a knock - I wish I could sing well enough to bring down any house). Talent went overboard in trying to make this ugly duckling its swan. In fact, Morgan said as much without uttering the "SB" words - Susan Boyle. Talent also went overboard with Carol Lugo, a goodish dancer from Jersey City who got a standing ovation for simply saying, "I'm 62." Ooh-kay. America's Got Talent is a lot of fun to watch. And its ratings prove it doesn't need to try so hard to find an underdog it can cling to (and that NBC can build a massive multimedia promotional campaign around). Meanwhile, there were some genuinely talented people on last night's show, including Skinner. He got Talent's plum final segment. You know, the final few minutes when the music swells, the audiece gasps and the judges flail their arms, mouths agape, to ensure that we viewers know they're floored. Thia Megia, a 14-year-old girl from California, was a good singer who I'm guessing will make it to the finals. And magician Jay Mattioli was impressive. | |
| Sasha Abramsky: Breadline USA Part III | Top |
| Over the past several days, my family and I have been driving across country. A couple days ago, we were in Moab, a remote part of Utah situated in the heart of red-rock country. One evening, my daughter and I took a boat ride up the Colorado, the trip narrated by a crusty old-timer with a great love of the land and an almost equally great suspicion of outsiders. Moab was, he told his passengers proudly, over a hundred miles from the nearest Wal-Mart. It was, quite simply, splendidly isolated. Now, in Moab's case, distance from big-box stores is, indeed, something to be happy about. The town is self-contained, afloat on tourism dollars, replete with decent local stores and affordable eateries. To my mind it's a wonderful thing that places like Moab still exist largely outside of the geography of big-box America. But for millions of Americans these days, "desert" means something radically different from, and less romantic than, the splendor of Moab. As the economic vise grips more and more people, increasingly the options for meeting basic survival needs (the purchase of food, access to medicines, and so on) are being squeezed. In rural regions across the country, food workers now openly talk of "food deserts," places where locals have no access to large, affordable food outlets without driving scores of miles. And, with money tight and gas prices on the rise again, that's not a viable option for many of these individuals. For them, the lack of big stores in their towns and villages is a curse rather than a blessing. It represents a consignment to hunger and a humbling reliance on charity (or on over-priced gas station stores selling little more than fast-food and junk food). Visit any small-town food pantry these days and you'll see men and women, young and old, who for the first time in their lives are scared not just that they'll run short of money but that they'll open their fridge one morning and realize there's literally nothing left to eat. In my previous Huffington postings on Breadline USA I have detailed anti-poverty policy responses to tackle the growing below-the-radar hunger crisis in America. Today, though, I want to talk about food. There's something clearly wrong with a system of production and distribution that leaves many rural residents with no local source of food. After decades of policy approaches that favor large, corporate food distributors over small-scale operatives we see a crazy end-product: people closest to areas where food is grown often have no ready, nearby, access to buying affordable, healthy food. If we're going to rely almost exclusively on supermarkets to get food from farmer to consumer, we need to find ways of subsidizing their placement in out-of-the-way communities otherwise bypassed by the market. More importantly, in the long-term we need to recultivate local food markets, from fruit-and-vegetable stalls on up to local butchers, as well as the growing of family kitchen gardens. Until the very recent past, such a business model and food cultivation system was the norm. In letting it lapse, in assuming millions of people would forever have the resources to drive an hour or more to the supermarket to pick up food supplies, we dangerously undermined our own community security But those are long-term goals; in the short term, we need to work on getting healthier foods into the hands, and stomachs, of the growing numbers of poor families eking out their lives on the breadline margins of America. Too often, food banks and food pantries have to work with society's crumbs: old, starchy, fatty, sugary, foods. That is, of course, better than nothing. But it's obviously not as good as channeling fresh fruits and vegetables to the pantries to distribute. That's where groups like Ample Harvest come into the picture. Begun last year by West Milford Community Garden director Gary Oppenheimer and a couple other colleagues, the group uses the Internet to link up kitchen garden growers with surplus produce on their hands with local pantries. Ultimately, Ample Harvest's goal is to create databases which will quickly, and easily, show what sorts of foods are needed by which pantries. The group's members could then drop off fresh bags of produce, and, in Oppenheimer's words, the hungry would have a chance at eating food "fresher" than that bought in the supermarket. It's an idea that grew out of Oppenheimer's own experiences. One year, a few years back, he harvested about forty pounds more fruit and vegetables than he could use. He couldn't bear to see it going to waste, and he wasn't interested in selling it, so he took the food over to a local shelter for battered women. The response was overwhelming. Now, the director of the shelter told him, her clients could finally have a decent meal. The next year, he took another few bags of food to the same shelter come harvest time; again, the response was an eye-opener for Oppenheimer. For the first time in months the women would once more get fresh fruit and vegetables. It's a win-win model: the kitchen growers have the satisfaction of seeing their surplus food being eaten, and enjoyed. Impoverished pantry and shelter residents get to eat decent meals. And, down the road, the healthcare system saves money because the population is eating better, healthier, fare. Of course, by themselves, groups like Ample Harvest can't raise people out of poverty and hunger. But they're a good start, a good example of how during tough times individuals can pull together to help their neighbors and shore up their communities. More on Poverty | |
| Jackson Williams: Republicans Identify Their Problem: It's The Packaging! | Top |
| Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota weighed in last Sunday on fellow Republican Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina: "Any time you have leading figures who are engaged in behavior that is sad and troubling and hypocritical...It certainly hurts the brand ." The brand? Interesting word choice, and Republicans have been using it quite a bit lately. We all know that political parties are sold like shampoo or a new car. Yet politics is a somewhat different commodity. The coin of its realm is ideas and good government, not extra conditioning and leather seats. That's why the ministers of the trade -- politicians -- do themselves a disservice when they speak in the language of advertisers and media consultants. Talking inside baseball ("My latest internal poll has me up 5% and I've outraised my opponent by $400,000"), instead of, say, jobs and health care, is akin to Toto pulling back the curtain and revealing the mechanics. Such glibness turns public service into a mere game instead of the higher calling it should be, at least on a good day. Let's be clear: people understand that running for high office is a business that requires professional merchandising. After 200 years, we know the drill. At the end of the day, however, we usually vote on the ideas and vision of the candidates. This is why Barack Obama is president. Republicans need to focus on substance, if they can, rather than worry about re-branding. There is evidence this might be difficult. In September 2002, six months before the Iraq invasion, Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card explained why the war blueprint wasn't rolled out for consumption until after Labor Day: "From a marketing point of view," he said matter-of-factly, "you don't introduce new products in August." No wonder the GOP sees its current state of affairs as a perception problem, something that can be fixed with make-up and better lighting. Good luck with that. More on GOP | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment