Opinion
5 ways to stay sane during cable TV's coverage of a tragedy
It's been a big news week – and a long one for ill-served viewers. Here's a survival guide from one weathered veteran
The marathon coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing has set into motion the all-too-familiar. When something awful happens, the human impulse is get informed instantly. That often means rushing to a TV and gaping at the unfolding drama. It's an understandable reflex, but usually, a self-defeating one, like scratching a sore or drinking sea water.
It may satisfy the immediate urge, but beware the consequences. CNN's false report about arrests was as predictable as it was irresponsible; live TV coverage is a world of blunder. So, if you must tune into 24-hour cable news for the latest, there a few things always to bear in mind:
A watched pot never boils. Following violent crimes and disasters, the intensity of the coverage is inversely correlated with the prospects for advancing the story. Incidents last as long as they last – usually, seconds – then they are over. The "when" and "where" and some of the "who" (victims) are immediately obvious. The rest of the "who" (the culprits, the missing), plus the "why" and the "how", can take days or weeks or months to unravel.
The latest developments usually aren't. Desperate to add to the endlessly repeated basic facts, reporters will breathlessly pass along tiny bits of detail gleaned from authorities speaking unofficially, possible witnesses and cousins of possible witnesses. Do not be fooled by the urgency in the journalists' voices. The details are second or third hand and usually wrong. "Unconfirmed report" means "not true". "Confirmed report" means "probably not true".
Get your brain a screen saver. That's what computers use to keep a single image from being etched into the screen. If a tragic news event is caught on video, TV will show you again and again what happened until it is forever burned into your consciousness. Eventually, this denudes even the most shocking footage of any informational or emotional clout – not to mention, meaning – and turns it into little more than a GIF. If you absolutely must hang on to every word, consider switching to the radio.
If you knew what went on in the kitchen, you might not eat at the restaurant. The cable channels have a handful of anchors and a handful of reporters. They may look authoritative, but they don't constitute anything remotely like a robust news-gathering machine. The channels do employ a whole mess of producers, but their principal job is to book experts and pundits, who may have credentials and make-up, but are basically just guessing.
Bad news does not necessarily have larger significance. When calamity erupts, your favorite network will be live on the scene for hours or days. Logos will be designed. Concern will be etched on the anchors' faces. Thoughts and prayers will be expressed for victims and their kin. But neither the amount of airtime nor even the body count are reliable measures of intrinsic importance. A fatal spasm of violence (in the west only), or a mass shooting, or even a missing blond person (if cute), will always trump, for instance, a budget vote or telecom lobbying or other events lacking yellow police tape that affect a large percentage of the population every day. As the saying goes: if it bleeds it leads. The corollary is: Citizens United – the supreme court ruling that fundamentally altered the scale and transparency of US political campaign funding – didn't get a logo.
They shoot horses, don't they? You've seen film of the dance marathons from the 1930s – those desperate people circling the floor for hour on end, day and night, in the hopes of winning some pitiful prize. When you tune into 24-hour cable after a tragedy, ask yourself the question: "There is nothing being accomplished through this awful spectacle, so why am I watching?"
Let's be honest about Kermit Gosnell's abortion 'house of horrors'
The only cover up happening about Gosnell's abortions is how pro-life activists deserve some of the blame
By now you've hopefully heard about the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor who allegedly ran a filthy health clinic where he performed illegal abortion procedures. Gosnell is accused of killing seven premature babies and one woman, among other crimes. Pro-choice and lefty journalists covered Gosnell years ago, when the grand jury report detailing the allegations was initially filed. Now the trial is under way, and anti-abortion activists are insisting there's been a cover up by ideologues intent on averting honest discussion about the case in order to suit a cynical politics agenda.
They're right. But the ideologues doing the cover up are on the pro-life side.
Coverage of shocking crimes often plays out the same way: there's a lot of coverage when charges are first filed or an arrest is made, and then again when a verdict comes down. While Nancy Grace and cable news may offer wall-to-wall coverage of a handful of trials every year, for the most part, reputable national publications cover news when it happens, which isn't in a state court trial play-by-play. Local media does that.
That's exactly what's happened during the Gosnell trial. When the grand jury report was first filed, it got attention from almost every major writer who covers reproductive rights and gender issues – Amanda Marcotte at Slate, Michelle Goldberg at the Daily Beast, Katha Pollitt at the Nation, Kate Harding at Salon, Lori Adelman at the Grio. Mainstream media, too covered it: the New York Times, CNN, NPR, CBS, the Washington Post, Time magazine. That was in 2011. Now that the trial is underway, local Pennsylvania media has covered it, with reporter Tara Murtha doing a particularly thorough job. When a verdict is handed down, it will undoubtedly be in the national spotlight again.
So why are anti-abortion activists claiming that no one is covering the trial? And why are usually reputable, fairly moderate male writers believing them?
The goal of "pro-life" activists isn't to draw attention to an illegal butcher in order to protect women and babies. The braying about Gosnell is a ploy to shame the media into covering the issue from the anti-abortion perspective, conflating the illegal procedures performed by Gosnell with safe, legal abortion. That conflation is necessary for the pro-life side to use the media coverage to promote unnecessary regulations of clinics, purposed solely to make abortion less accessible, and advocate for the very things that allowed Gosnell's clinic to exist in the first place.
Understanding why women went to Gosnell requires understanding just how inaccessible abortion is for low-income women, who are disproportionately women of color, and for rural women. The most common reason women give for terminating a pregnancy is economic: they can't afford a child. A majority of women seeking abortions already have at least one child, and know exactly how difficult and rewarding parenthood can be. Forty-two percent of women who terminate pregnancies live under the poverty line, and another 27% live close to it, meaning nearly 70% of women who have abortions are already living in financially perilous circumstances.
Low-income women who rely on mediciad and Title X for their health care aren't able to use federal funds to pay for abortion, thanks to the anti-choice Hyde Amendment, which segregates abortion out into a unique category of medical procedures that poor women must fund out of pocket. Things aren't necessarily better for women with private insurance: eight states have laws on the books that prevent private insurance companies from covering elective abortions. Ongoing attacks on Planned Parenthood and funding for contraception have also made it more difficult for low-income women to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Anti-abortion terrorists have succeeded in scaring a good number of doctors, nurses and staff out of working at abortion clinics, either by flat-out shooting doctors and bombing facilities or by engaging in extended harassment and intimidation campaigns. Ninety percent of abortion clinics report experiencing some type of harassment. Without employees willing to risk their lives, clinics close, and women have to travel farther – and spend more money – for care. Eighty-seven percent of US counties have no abortion clinic, and women in vast swaths of the country have to travel hundreds of miles in order to obtain an abortion. Once they get to the clinic, they can at times be greeted by a crowd of aggressive protestors. At least one woman said she went to Gosnell's clinic to avoid the anti-abortion mobs outside a more reputable one.
Anti-abortion ideologues have also succeeded in passing laws that require doctors to tell women outright lies about abortion that no reputable medical organizations back – for example, that abortion causes breast cancer, that fetuses feel pain or that women who terminate pregnancies have long-term mental health problems.
Twenty-six states have mandatory waiting periods, where women are treated like incompetent children and forced to go home and think about their requested abortion for 24 or 48 hours. Since patients are required to have the initial consultation in person, that means that a woman traveling for an abortion either has to make the trip twice in a few days or stay for multiple nights in a hotel. For low-income women, those added costs for gas, the bus, childcare and housing, in addition to the cost of the abortion procedure itself and lost wages from a day or three off of work, can be prohibitive.
Scraping together several hundred dollars or more, when several hundred dollars is more disposable income than you usually see all year, takes weeks or months. It requires borrowing money from friends, pawning jewelry or unnecessary items, working overtime, scrimping on food, or doing whatever necessary to put aside a few dollars at a time. While a woman is desperately trying to save up money to end a pregnancy, the pregnancy progresses, and abortion gets both more complicated and more expensive. Impediments to abortion don't actually decrease the abortion rate, but they do increase the late-term abortion rate, and they do make things more difficult, shameful and expensive for women seeking to terminate pregnancies.
One in three American women will terminate a pregnancy in her life. Many of these women could be helped by universal health care, contraception coverage, sexual health education, affordable daycare and a variety of other policies routinely promoted by feminists and opposed by pro-life Republicans. But instead of giving women the tools to both prevent unintended pregnancy and care for wanted children, the "pro-life" right dedicates its money and effort making abortion more difficult and more dangerous. The goal isn't the promote life, it's to punish women.
That's where the Gosnell case comes in. Troy Newman, a pro-life leader and the president of Operation Rescue, is among the loudest voices sounding the Gosnell alarm. He's also talking about how Gosnell is a gift from God to the pro-life movement. What Gosnell is accused of doing in his clinic is horrifying and illegal, which is why he's on trial. His illegal acts are no more an indictment of safe, legal abortion than one child-molesting doctor is an indictment of all pediatricians. But pro-lifers like Newman are glad Gosnell exists, because they can use him to tar all abortion providers. These are the folks who want abortion to be dangerous, gruesome and unregulated. Of course they're thrilled that they finally found a real villain. The senior policy advisor of Newman's organization, by the way, is a "pro-life" activist who served two years in federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic. That woman, Cheryl Sullenger, is also a regular contributor to LifeSite News, a leading anti-abortion website. It's not that there are bad apples in the anti-abortion movement; the bad apples are the movement.
We shouldn't be covering Gosnell just because a handful of anti-abortion loudmouths demand we do. We should cover Gosnell because the case is newsworthy, which is why so many media outlets did cover it when the grand jury report was filed. In covering the case, we should also look at how to prevent future Gosnells. The pro-choice movement has an answer: remove the barriers that made vulnerable women go to Gosnell in the first place. Make safe, early abortion accessible and affordable, and help women prevent pregnancy in the first place. The pro-life answer is to double down on abortion restrictions and outlaw the procedure wholesale, a move that would do little more than create many more Gosnell-style houses of horror.
The Gosnell case is a story precisely because it is unusual. Before abortion was legal across the country, women dying from botched abortions wasn't particularly newsworthy. Legal abortion in the United States is today one of the safest medical procedures around. It becomes dangerous when it's outlawed or functionally illegal, and when women are desperate and shamed.
Widespread adoption of pro-life laws created one Gosnell. We shouldn't make more.
How Anonymous have become digital culture's protest heroes
The hacktivist collective's justice campaign for internet bullying victim Rehtaeh Parsons, shows how they've made online protest mainstream
In 2007, the hacktivist collective Anonymous was dubbed the "internet hate machine" by Fox News for their trolling campaigns. Six years later, they are the white knights of the digital realm, seeking justice for the now deceased 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons, an alleged gang rape victim who killed herself after bullying by her Nova Scotian classmates. This is just one of the collective's high profile causes in the past week, but in terms of good PR and an agency for change, it compares to their actions on Steubenville.
They call it #OpJustice4Rehtaeh on Twitter, and all types of people – from journalists and teens to women who normally wouldn't associate with Anonymous – have been spreading Anonymous' related material in the name of Parsons since Tuesday, after news of her mother turning off her daughter's life support made global headlines.
The concerned non-Canadians and feminists in faraway places that joined in the online protest don't consider themselves "hacktivists", nor are they afraid of the FBI or their peers labeling them as terrorist sympathisers. The spooky criminal portrayal of Anonymous has melted from the public consciousness, to be replaced with an image of strangers in pale masks passionate about improving society, one cause at a time. Since Anonymous causes are varied and inspired by current events, jumping on this form of vigilante-motivated activism – or what some would call clicktivism – has never been more popular. Or as in Parsons' case, as effective.
The goal of #OpJustice4Rehtaeh was to seek justice primarily by getting the Canadian justice and police department to review her case. None of the four teen assailants were convicted despite capturing, and then spreading photographic evidence of their alleged crime at Parsons' school.
A Change.org petition by Parsons' mother was heavily circulated, and it hit 100,000 signatures within days. "For the love of God do something", wrote Parsons' father on Wednesday in a personal blogpost addressing the justice minister of Nova Scotia. His words validated #OpJustice4Rehtaeh, launched the day before.
Anonymous' successful leveraging of the press and social media helped them identify the four rapists in just a few hours, which they then threatened to disclose unless their demands were met. No hacking was involved as this time, Anonymous was apparently a friendly tip line.
They were able to get this information so quickly, wrote an Anon on Pastebin, because "dozens of emails were sent to us by kids and adults alike, most of whom had personal relationships with the alleged rapists. Many recalled public confessions made blatantly by these boys in public where they detailed the rape of an inebriated 15-year-old girl." Why this same information was not sent to the police at the time of the investigation over a year ago is not apparent, though Anonymous hinted it sent this information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in a more recent release.
Despite a Canadian minister previously telling the media the case was closed and would not be reopened, by Thursday the tune had changed, proving the collective's efforts were not in vain. In addition to submitting new evidence to the RCMP and putting pressure on the Canadian Department of Justice, Anonymous organised a rally outside the Halifax police department on Sunday. Roughly 100 people attended, including Parsons' mother. Speaking on her behalf as her partner, Jason Barnes told Canada's Herald News in an interview, "Leah's been… very happy with the things that Anonymous has done for us and really stepped forward and made this a large enough issue to make people think, and see it." Out of all the operations recently carried out by Anonymous, #OpJustice4Rehtaeh has had an incredibly high "effect real change" rate of just a few days.
Before you scoff at Anonymous expertly using PR and social media to change the world, consider this: Obama's technical team for his re-election campaign in 2012 took measures to DDoS-proof their websites as well as avoid Anonymous' attention at all costs. Anonymous expert and author Gabriella Coleman shared with me a forthcoming report for the Centre for International Governance Innovation which states:
"Anonymous was treated as (potentially) even more of a nuisance than, say, the foreign state hackers who infiltrated the McCain and Obama campaigns in 2008. Had Anonymous successfully accessed servers or DDoS the campaign website, it would likely have ignited colossal media attention and potentially battered the campaign's reputation. Although this alone would likely not put Obama's chances for re-election at risk (the team was confident there was no controversial information to leak), a visit from Anonymous was treated as a real possibility and liability."
Anonymous' core strength lies in its PR tactics, not its boots-on-the-ground protests or actual hacking skills. Besides #OpJustice4Rehtaeh, in the last week Anonymous attacked North Korean social media accounts, then Israeli websites in solidarity with the Palestinians. While both operations apparently caused no substantial impact (North Korea is still a dictatorship, and Israel hasn't changed its stance on Palestine), they were both highly publicised, which is enough of a win for the group now primarily concerned with mobilising activists through the spread of information. If fact, Anonymous has been making headlines on an almost weekly basis for over a year now.
Australian security expert Stilgherrian calls this adoption of multiple causes, going beyond Anonymous's initial defence of internet freedoms, as proof they have become the "Hello Kitty of activism," but Coleman likens Anonymous's current, accepting form to something more organic: a fungus. "They refuse to die and they seem to bud in new places and situations," she explains. "They spore and spread" around the globe because clicktivism is easy and fitting with our already established digital habits.
There isn't enough bleach on the internet to kill the spread, but it looks like we web citizens wouldn't want to even if we had enough chemicals. We've all been infected in one way or another now, and our participation, however small, has evolved the fungus into something more manageable. Regarding the Parsons case, Anonymous is now withholding the names of the minors involved "out of respect for Rehtaeh's mother." The internet's love machine is a more fitting nickname.
25 ways the Internet is making you fat, stupid and poor
[Man lying on sofa via Shutterstock.com.]
Jay-Z's 'Open Letter' on Cuba trip kicks a brick out of cold war wall
Jay-Z's rap struck a chord because America is ready to drop the Cuba embargo. Let's hope President Obama is listening
"Hip-hop is the CNN of the ghetto." It was Chuck D of old school hip-hop group Public Enemy who first said these words. Yet Jay-Z the family man has proven that this saying is still true and has re-established his iconoclastic rep with his fans. Did Jay-Z and his wife Beyonce visit Cuba legally? Does it even matter when his response to the controversy, a rapidly produced song called Open Letter, is trending on Twitter and forced a response from the White House due to some of its lyrics?
Jay-Z's new rap is already in heavy rotation on pop and hip-hop radio stations across America. But you may be wondering why the voice of the Jigga is so influential here in the US. Jay-Z is not just an artist, he's well-known as a major mogul, a cultural trend-setter and as a high profile mega-donor and friend to President Obama and his family.
The lyrics in Open Letter referring to "boy from the hood but got White House clearance" could refer to either his trip to Cuba or to his famous visit to the White House situation room a couple of years ago. The Cuba trip has attracted the attention of Cuban-American conservative lawmakers who asked the Treasury Department to confirm the legality of the trip. The White House has said that the president, a known fan of Jay-Z's music, did not coordinate with Jay-Z or Beyonce on the trip. That may be true, yet once again, the far right is out of step even with their own constituents. The president's policies on Cuba are closer to those that Americans, even Cuban Americans, prefer. It seems more likely that Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican from the Miami, Florida area, is using public criticism of Jay-Z's trip for media attention.
Polls over the last few years consistently show that Cuban Americans (and Americans generally) think the US travel embargo is out of date. The most recent Florida International University poll revealed: a majority (57%) favors lifting all restrictions on travel, 60% oppose restrictions on family travel, and 57% even support re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Oh, and a whopping 80% of respondents believe that the embargo has "not worked very well" or "not worked at all".
In fact, Cuban-American support for the trade embargo in general has been dramatically decreasing over time, especially among younger people. President Obama's administration has eased restrictions on family travel to Cuba and instituted a "people-to-people" travel program intended to facilitate cultural exchange. These programs have been popular – hundreds of thousands of Americans have visited Cuba since the new rules were put in place. Only Canada sends more people to Cuba, and given that Canada and Mexico are two of the most popular illegal entryways for Americans to go to Cuba, it's clear that there is room for trade and travel growth among Americans.
Cuba is the only country in the world that Americans are restricted from visiting. If you can get a visa, the US government allows you to go anywhere else in the world, even places like Syria, Iran or North Korea. When Hov (another moniker for Jay-Z – short for Jehovah) says in Open Letter:
"I'm in Cuba, I love Cubans. This communist talk is so confusing. When it's from China, the very mic that I'm using"
This resonates with younger people who see a policy that is out of step and hypocritical given our close trade and diplomatic relationship with China, the largest communist country in the world.
Sanctions can work – the former economic isolation of South Africa toward the end of apartheid the current tensions with North Korea are proof. But they only work when many nations come together in agreement to apply economic pressure. We would influence Cuba's internal environment more rapidly if we normalized all relations, just as we did with countries like China and Vietnam. A popular lyric from "Open Letter" that's quoted says:
"Obama said 'chill, you gonna get me impeached.' But you don't need this sh*t anyway. Chill with me on the beach."
It's a soft pushback not just on Congress, but on Obama, the fair weather friend in the White House. Americans admire someone who is bold enough to stand up to the leader of the free world – and invite him to relax the beach.
On Twitter, there's nothing but applause for Jay-Z's new recording. Here's a few examples:
This guy said "hear the freedom in my speech" lol #jayz #ilovehim #hov #openletter
— Samantha Kristine (@sam___e) April 12, 2013
Im trying to chill w Obama n Jay up on the Beach #OpenLetter
— May 28th (L.M.B.Y.B) (@CD_Watkinz) April 12, 2013
i like what HOVs chattin bout, on #OpenLetter.
— lily huntley (@lilyhuntley1) April 12, 2013
Yall would be suprise at the amount of americans that goes to cuba every year.....BUT WHEN BEY AND JAY DO IT.. ITS A PROBLEM? #OpenLetter
— JessecaChan (@Jesse_hov) April 12, 2013
Twitter leans young, and is heavily used among Latinos and blacks in America, so it's a bellwether to watch. Ultimately time will tell whether Jay-Z and Beyonce's trip opens the door to a change in policy. As Jay-Z raps, "The world's under new management". The US embargo with Cuba is one of the last cold war walls to fall. Looks like it's ready to topple with the Jigga giving it a musical push.
Civil war is the price Afghans will pay for the criminals the West installed
This week civil war was predicted, a result of giving so much power to warlords after the Taliban's overthrow
This week the defence select committee published a report which concluded that civil war in Afghanistan is likely when international forces leave next year. If the predictions of Securing the Future of Afghanistan are correct, the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence share much of the blame.
When I returned to Kabul in January and asked an American journalist I'd known in 2001 his view of the situation, he said: "When you look at the facts on the ground, it is hard to believe that civil war is not inevitable."
The facts on the ground include the militias the west has set up in the countryside in a desperate attempt to shore up the barely legitimate Karzai regime. Sadly, these militias, plus the many Afghan private security companies, have contributed to a proliferation of armed groups that will be roaming the country after 2014. Ironically, in the MPs' report, the Foreign Office acknowledges the need to disarm the Taliban, yet omits to mention the problems of re-arming these groups, presumably because they are "the good guys".
What is so tragic is that back in 2001, the west did have the opportunity to assist Afghanistan on its path to peace. But myopia, jealousy and score-settling took precedence over dealing with the political problems that had led to the arrival of the Taliban. Using the maxim "My enemy's enemy is my friend", the US military took sides in a continuing civil war and co-opted the strongmen of the Northern Alliance. In theory, this was to reduce the need for American "boots on the ground".
These regional chiefs, or warlords, were mostly brought back from exile. They were unpopular, having committed war crimes during the civil war. But instead of sidelining them, the US and UK re-empowered them with cash and weapons and made them the allies' sole reference points. They still are, to the bemusement of ordinary Afghans, many of whom, particularly in rural areas, would have preferred a more genuine engagement with the more legitimate local leadership. Unfortunately, the use of strongmen to fight al-Qaida and Taliban has led to chaos in rural areas and a further fragmentation of the tribal system that we should have worked with instead.
As an election monitor in 2002 when a transitional administration was convened to start the state-building process, I witnessed how the warlords were given political legitimacy. The US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, sidelined the popular former king and made a Faustian bargain with the warlords to allow them into the meeting. This paved the way for them to hijack the state-building process.
The democratically elected Afghans were ignored. The press did not report this, perhaps because it did not fit the narrative of democracy and images of Afghan women putting ballots into boxes. But it marked the end of any pretence that the international community had come here to deliver a "liberal peace" (encompassing democracy and human rights). So the strongmen returned to their fiefdoms empowered, while ordinary Afghans were cowed.
The result – extreme corruption, insecurity, inequality, poverty and violence – is what you see today: a crisis of impunity in Afghanistan. Sadly, our complicity in this is all too often ignored and, instead, analysis centres around historical prejudices: "These Afghans have always fought one another."
Increasingly, these criminal elements – often integrated into international organised networks – took ministerial or local government positions. They became the state. Which is why so much money has been poured in but has been lost to corruption. It is why, however many courthouses the British build, or training we give the Afghan judiciary, there cannot be a properly functioning justice system because there is no impartiality. Because the powerbrokers, having evaded the law themselves, have no interest in strong institutions and a decent justice system.
There can never be true reconciliation in Afghan society until the past is dealt with and those who have committed crimes are made accountable.
By the start of 2001, a famous commander of the 1980s anti-Soviet war, the Pashtun Abdul Haq, had spent two years devising a peace plan aimed at toppling the Taliban. The former king was to be the glue to unify different groups, and Haq engaged Ahmed Shah Massoud – the Northern Alliance leader assassinated in 2001 – tribal leaders and Taliban within the regime's military who were willing to defect. They had held meetings in Bonn and Istanbul. People were willing to work with him because of his history as a guerrilla leader and his record of bridging the ethnic divide. However, in Whitehall and Washington DC, his plan was dismissed.
Today the politicians are hoping that the "bad guy" Taliban will somehow reconcile with the western-backed regime of Hamid Karzai. But the reality is that the Taliban hardliners are controlled by Pakistan, while in Afghanistan many people continue supporting the Taliban because they know they will soon be back. They have already filled a vacuum in providing justice and security in rural Afghanistan, where the government has been corrupt, incompetent or hampered by the US military strategy, which has bred insecurity and chaos.
In reality, the west is using the talks to give itself a chance both to get out of Afghanistan and to claim that the state is stable. For both reasons, Pakistan's co-operation is needed, and Islamabad is driving a hard bargain with the US, even suggesting that Afghan military officers must be trained in Islamabad. In Kabul this year, several Afghans asked me: "Why is the UK appeasing Pakistan?"
Unfortunately, it looks like the need for a quick exit will mean the west caves in to Pakistan's demands. At that stage, we will have gone full circle in Afghanistan since 2001, with Pakistan once again back in the driving seat and civil war the only realistic outlook.
Don't be fooled by the Senate vote to debate gun control
Despite this simulacrum of adult bipartisan politics, NRA-fearful senators lived to run away another day from meaningful gun laws
The Senate likes to think of itself as the cooler, more statesman-like representative body. They roll their eyes at the antics of House members, the showmanship that comes with being one of hundreds rather then one of a hundred.
But the vote Thursday to deny gun control opponents the chance to filibuster proposed legislation showed that the Senate isn't any less self-absorbed or any less petty than the House, it just moves slower. That the vote itself was a victory for gun control advocates just shows how low our expectations for meaningful gun control have sunk.
True: 16 Republicans voted to let the bill move forward into debate. Also true: of the 68 total that voted to let the bill move forward, 21 have "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association – ratings that will suffer should the NRA make good on its threat to use today's vote as part of its overall "score".
On the plus side: standing up to the NRA is a good thing. On the down side: many, if not most, of the Republicans who voted to let the bill proceed to debate have already decided to vote against the bill itself as it stands. Some – John McCain, Max Baucus, Tom Coburn – have explicitly telegraphed that intention.
These senators have spent today assuring the NRA and gun advocates that a "yes" vote was not, in fact, in favor of the bill, but rather, as Coburn put it:
"We ought to have this debate. America needs to know where we stand."
This sounds awesome; it sounds like Coburn is arguing for accountability from lawmakers! But it's not like anyone is confused by the intentions of those who voted to filibuster the bill.
I take that back: the NRA isn't confused. If you're new to the issue, however, you might think that Senators Mark Rubio, Mike Lee and Rand Paul were talking about something else entirely when they put out a statement decrying the vote. Its closing paragraph doesn't even mention guns:
"Unfortunately, the effort to push through legislation that no one had read highlights one of the primary reasons we announced our intention to force a 60-vote threshold. We believe the abuse of the process is how the rights of Americans are systematically eroded and we will continue to do everything in our power to prevent it."
The magnitude of the Newtown tragedy should have made it politically untenable to be against gun control. All it's really done is made it politically untenable to sound like you're against gun control.
The presence of Newtown families at the vote makes it all the more difficult to call out today's vote for the miserable shuffle forward that it is – if it's forward movement at all. But their presence also demands that we be honest about what's happened. We cannot let this count as a victory; it's just a continuation of the fight … a rhetorical battle whose cost is counted in real lives: over 3,000 since the Connecticut shootings.
Reporters on Twitter covered the Newtown families' reactions in real time. One asked, "It's a step, right?" On Twitter, NBC's Mike Viquiera asked:
Scenes from a vote: Newtown families emerge from chamber. What is a word that captures a look of both grief and success on a person's face?
— michael viqueira (@mikeviqueira) April 11, 2013
Keep looking in the mirror, America, you will probably get another chance to see it.
Pedalling myths: The anti-bike lobby is flat out of plausible arguments
Oliver Burkeman: With the 'bikelash' reduced to incoherent rants, pro-car common sense is losing traction. Allow me to ride to the rescue
If you hold the view that bikes, and bike lanes, are among the greatest evils threatening society today, you might at first have been pleased to see this week's Toronto Sun column by Mike Strobel, which has circulated widely online. Initially, it appears to stand in the fine tradition of anti-bike screeds such as those by the New York Post's Steve Cuozzo or Andrea Peyser, or the New Yorker's John Cassidy. All are on the frontlines of what's been called the "bikelash", brave fighters willing to stand firm against the growing popularity of cycling across north America. (One of the most prominent developments, New York's long-awaited bikeshare progam, is due to launch next month.)
Take a closer look, though, and you'll notice that something's amiss with Strobel's piece. The average bikelash commentator, no matter how dyspeptic, considers him or herself obliged to come up with some sort of argument. That's why, for example, you'll see Peyser paying vastly disproportionate attention to the tiny number of truly awful accidents caused by cyclists. It's why Cuozzo likes to conduct dubious amateur surveys to try to show thatnobody uses bike lanes. But Strobel's rant against what he calls the "bicycult" is almost entirely devoid of argument. This is as close as he gets:
"The nitty-gritty: Streets are designed for cars, not bikes. Especially in winter, which is most of the time … Cars are common sense. They are our era's horses. They're also vastly greener and safer than your dad's Buick. They will never go dinosaur, despite the bike cult's best efforts."
Still, you've got to sympathise with Strobel's predicament. All the major cycling-related arguments have been won: bike lanes are popular; they don't hurt local businesses; more biking doesn't lead to more accidents; bike lanes make pedestrians safer and don't impede the flow of car traffic.
To anyone who agrees that cycling, much like genocide, is a phenomenon that all decent people should condemn, the implication is clear: the anti-bike lobby urgently needs some new arguments. It's my honour, therefore, to suggest a few they might like to use:
1. In some contexts, bikes are much more dangerous than cars. Consider a heavy bike, dropped from a height of 20ft onto a playground where numerous small children are playing, innocently unaware of the tragedy about to befall them. Now compare this to a car parked on a quiet street. Only the most biased, Brooklyn-dwelling NPR listener could deny the obvious: the bike, in this example, is much, much more dangerous.
2. If you support gun control, you should support bike control. Milquetoast liberals are always objecting to the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", because the widespread availability of guns makes it more likely they'll be used for nefarious purposes. Well, just follow the logic. Bikes can be used for nefarious purposes, too: consider scenario 1 above, or the popularity of bikes among drug-dealers. It's a no-brainer, therefore, that bicycles should be subject to the same kind of ban currently proposed, in the US, for semi-automatic weapons.
3. Any true progressive should support cars over bicycles. The first bicycle dates from 1817. The first car dates from 1886. Are you a progressive or aren't you?
4. The popularity of bikes leads to newspaper "trend stories" like this one, about how some women who ride bikes also wear fashionable clothes. This is actually a pretty good argument.
5. Cyclists are bad people. Let's give Strobel some credit here: he points to Lance Armstrong, whose case proves that all cyclists are liars. It also seems likely that, in the near future, neuroscientific research will confirm that the same part of the brain lights up when cycling as when committing serial murder. The evidence isn't in yet, but are we really going to wait to dot every "i" and cross every "t" before taking action to counter the horrendous possibilities?
OK, that should do for now. Take heart, bikelash commentators! Now is not the time to backpedal. Steel yourselves and keep fighting, until that glorious day when bikes are gone forever.
© Guardian News and Media 2013
[Bike riders via Shutterstock]
Liberal evangelicals: We aren't the mean-spirited, one-issue religion you see in the media
A white Evangelical leader who found his calling in the Civil Rights movement? A Pentecostal pastor organizing against mass incarceration? Far from the monolith the media portrays, Evangelicals aren’t all right-wingers and fundamentalists. They are diverse, complex, and undergoing change. Many are fighting for justice.
Summits on Tenth, a new Internet video series produced by AlterNet and the Nathan Cummings Foundation, features conversations that blast through conventional thinking on pressing contemporary issues. The first episode, “Evangelicals Building a Just America,” brings you Reverend Dr. Joel C. Hunter and Pastor Michael McBride --two dynamic church leaders that defy the public image of Evangelicals.
Simon Greer, CEO of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, uses his skills as an experienced organizer and leader to bring out some surprising insights from the Reverend and the Pastor.
Below, you can watch segments from the premier video of Summits on Tenth and below that, the full-length version embedded from the Summits on Tenth YouTube channel. What these leaders had to say may surprise and inspire you; it did for us. Thank you in advance for watching and sharing.
Watch Alternet for future Summits on Tenth episodes, which will tackle a variety of provocative topics, including the role and impact of fracking for natural gas in our energy debate.
And the full episode:
Equal pay: Raising minimum wage will help women – and the economy
Copyright ImageClick to View Jennifer Diagostino, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Justice, CWA Local 1122 vice president, John Mudie, center, and president, Jim Wagner, right, participate in a rally in Buffalo, N.Y., Feb. 25, to call for a raise in the state's minimum wage. Op-ed contributors…
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.