Click here to view this media Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has taken after Cornel West’s remarks in an interview at Truthdig.com with strident disagreement. From the interview: No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it. ” Capehart responds : What West said is no less offensive, harmful and wrong than what Dinesh D’Souza said — with an assist from Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — about a presumable anti-colonial and un-American mind-set possessed by Obama. Whereas these folks tried to deny the president his citizenship, West is trying to deny him his inherent blackness. By indulging in the “Obama-as-other” narrative, West is no better than a birther. By making petty complaints in that Truthdig interview about the lack of returned phone calls and not getting Inauguration tickets, West is no different than Gingrich in 1995 , when his displeasure over his seat on Air Force One led to a government shutdown. Melissa Harris-Perry and Adam Serwer weighed in, too with similar reactions. I don’t understand what the goal is when it comes to Cornel West’s opinion. He says in that same interview that if the only backstop against fascism is Barack Obama, he’ll go with that. If the goings-on in Republican states and the United States Congress doesn’t convince you of that, then look to the Supreme Court’s future to understand what’s at stake. So why come out and call President Obama a tool of the oligarchs? It makes no sense, and is suppressive in nature and intent.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has taken after Cornel West’s remarks in an interview at Truthdig.com with strident disagreement. From the interview: No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it. ” Capehart responds : What West said is no less offensive, harmful and wrong than what Dinesh D’Souza said — with an assist from Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — about a presumable anti-colonial and un-American mind-set possessed by Obama. Whereas these folks tried to deny the president his citizenship, West is trying to deny him his inherent blackness. By indulging in the “Obama-as-other” narrative, West is no better than a birther. By making petty complaints in that Truthdig interview about the lack of returned phone calls and not getting Inauguration tickets, West is no different than Gingrich in 1995 , when his displeasure over his seat on Air Force One led to a government shutdown. Melissa Harris-Perry and Adam Serwer weighed in, too with similar reactions. I don’t understand what the goal is when it comes to Cornel West’s opinion. He says in that same interview that if the only backstop against fascism is Barack Obama, he’ll go with that. If the goings-on in Republican states and the United States Congress doesn’t convince you of that, then look to the Supreme Court’s future to understand what’s at stake. So why come out and call President Obama a tool of the oligarchs? It makes no sense, and is suppressive in nature and intent.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has taken after Cornel West’s remarks in an interview at Truthdig.com with strident disagreement. From the interview: No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it. ” Capehart responds : What West said is no less offensive, harmful and wrong than what Dinesh D’Souza said — with an assist from Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — about a presumable anti-colonial and un-American mind-set possessed by Obama. Whereas these folks tried to deny the president his citizenship, West is trying to deny him his inherent blackness. By indulging in the “Obama-as-other” narrative, West is no better than a birther. By making petty complaints in that Truthdig interview about the lack of returned phone calls and not getting Inauguration tickets, West is no different than Gingrich in 1995 , when his displeasure over his seat on Air Force One led to a government shutdown. Melissa Harris-Perry and Adam Serwer weighed in, too with similar reactions. I don’t understand what the goal is when it comes to Cornel West’s opinion. He says in that same interview that if the only backstop against fascism is Barack Obama, he’ll go with that. If the goings-on in Republican states and the United States Congress doesn’t convince you of that, then look to the Supreme Court’s future to understand what’s at stake. So why come out and call President Obama a tool of the oligarchs? It makes no sense, and is suppressive in nature and intent.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has taken after Cornel West’s remarks in an interview at Truthdig.com with strident disagreement. From the interview: No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it. ” Capehart responds : What West said is no less offensive, harmful and wrong than what Dinesh D’Souza said — with an assist from Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — about a presumable anti-colonial and un-American mind-set possessed by Obama. Whereas these folks tried to deny the president his citizenship, West is trying to deny him his inherent blackness. By indulging in the “Obama-as-other” narrative, West is no better than a birther. By making petty complaints in that Truthdig interview about the lack of returned phone calls and not getting Inauguration tickets, West is no different than Gingrich in 1995 , when his displeasure over his seat on Air Force One led to a government shutdown. Melissa Harris-Perry and Adam Serwer weighed in, too with similar reactions. I don’t understand what the goal is when it comes to Cornel West’s opinion. He says in that same interview that if the only backstop against fascism is Barack Obama, he’ll go with that. If the goings-on in Republican states and the United States Congress doesn’t convince you of that, then look to the Supreme Court’s future to understand what’s at stake. So why come out and call President Obama a tool of the oligarchs? It makes no sense, and is suppressive in nature and intent.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has taken after Cornel West’s remarks in an interview at Truthdig.com with strident disagreement. From the interview: No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it. ” Capehart responds : What West said is no less offensive, harmful and wrong than what Dinesh D’Souza said — with an assist from Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — about a presumable anti-colonial and un-American mind-set possessed by Obama. Whereas these folks tried to deny the president his citizenship, West is trying to deny him his inherent blackness. By indulging in the “Obama-as-other” narrative, West is no better than a birther. By making petty complaints in that Truthdig interview about the lack of returned phone calls and not getting Inauguration tickets, West is no different than Gingrich in 1995 , when his displeasure over his seat on Air Force One led to a government shutdown. Melissa Harris-Perry and Adam Serwer weighed in, too with similar reactions. I don’t understand what the goal is when it comes to Cornel West’s opinion. He says in that same interview that if the only backstop against fascism is Barack Obama, he’ll go with that. If the goings-on in Republican states and the United States Congress doesn’t convince you of that, then look to the Supreme Court’s future to understand what’s at stake. So why come out and call President Obama a tool of the oligarchs? It makes no sense, and is suppressive in nature and intent.
Continue reading …NBC’s Lauer Asks if L.A. Times ‘Vindicated’ in Smears Against Schwarzenegger in 2003
May 19, 2011 No Comment
Talking to Los Angeles Times reporter Robin Abcarian about the Arnold Schwarznegger scandal on Thursday, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer wondered if the liberal paper was now justified in accusing the Republican of groping women as he ran for governor of California in 2003: “In some ways, eight years later, do you and other folks at the paper feel vindicated?”
Continue reading …NBC’s Lauer Asks if L.A. Times ‘Vindicated’ in Smears Against Schwarzenegger in 2003
May 19, 2011 No CommentTalking to Los Angeles Times reporter Robin Abcarian about the Arnold Schwarznegger scandal on Thursday, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer wondered if the liberal paper was now justified in accusing the Republican of groping women as he ran for governor of California in 2003: “In some ways, eight years later, do you and other folks at the paper feel vindicated?”
Continue reading …
Former US vice-president says media giant is forcing his liberal Current TV service off air in Italy for hiring Keith Olbermann Former US vice-president Al Gore has hit out at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, accusing it of “an abuse of power” by forcing his liberal TV station off air in Italy because it did not fit in with the media giant’s “ideological agenda”. In an interview with the Guardian, Gore said the Current TV news and documentary channel was told unexpectedly three weeks ago that it could no longer be carried by Sky Italia because of its decision to hire a US left-leaning commentator often critical of Murdoch’s company. He added that the decision reflected how News Corporation operated worldwide. “News Corporation is an international conglomerate with an ideological agenda. It seeks political power in every nation they operate. They wield that power to shut down voices that disagree with the agenda of Rupert Murdoch,” Gore said. The decision, he added, was “a complete shock” but Current TV executives were told “off the record that the decision was taken on News Corp instructions from New York”. The primary reason, he said, was “because Current is launching Keith Olbermann next month”. Olbermann – who styles himself as a leftwing alternative to the rightwing shock jock journalism of Fox News – worked at rival cable news network MSNBC until he left abruptly in January. This came after he was briefly suspended by MSNBC in November for making donations to three Democratic candidates in the midterm elections without seeking prior approval, in breach of company rules. “Olbermann has often been critical of News Corporation,” Gore added. Current TV broadcasts around the world, including the UK, but the channel has been more successful in Italy, where it claims that “one in three” Sky Italia viewers watch at some point during the week. However, Gore said that decision to not renew the channel’s existing distribution deal also had implications in the UK – where News Corp’s takeover of BSkyB is under review on the grounds of “media plurality”. “I know that News Corp is close to reaching an agreement to buy BSkyB. Now I may not be a party to that debate, but if anybody believes that [News Corp] will remain hands off if there are diverse opinions that do not agree with its ideological agenda then they are fools. This is proof positive of their abuse of power,” Gore said. However, Current TV’s existing agreement with BSkyB does not expire until next year, so there is no immediate threat to its UK position on the satellite service in this country. Gore also said he understood there has been “a rapprochement” in the struggle between News Corp and Silvio Berlusconi’s media empire in Italy. Current TV has run several documentaries critical of the Italian premier and his government. “Sky Italia is in the midst of negotiations to enter the digital terrestrial television market and the need Berlusconi’s support,” he said. Gore added that he had a “pleasant personal relationship” with Murdoch dating back to the former vice-president’s time in the White House, and said that he wasn’t sure exactly on whose authority the decision was made to order Current TV off the air in Italy. He said that he didn’t want “to make this ad hominem” but added it was clear that Murdoch and News Corp had too much power. Programming aired by Current TV in Italy has included Citizen Berlusconi, a documentary first produced by the US PBS network, and about the consequences of handing a media mogul formal political power. “Anglo-American political theory highlights the problem. Too much power in the hands of one person is dangerous, no matter the ideology,” Gore said. “The conversation of democracy, which used to happen in newspapers or in other public places now happens on the television screen. But this is a public space in which gatekeepers charge rents.” He cited the example of the 2003 Iraq war, in which News Corp had acted as “an aggressive cheerleader” for the US-led invasion, to the point where “three quarters of the American public got the impression that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of 2001″. This journalism, Gore said, “has consequences” and he argued that “our democracy is much better when there are diverse viewpoints” to inform decision-making. News Corp had not returned a request for comment at time of publication. •
Continue reading …
Almodóvar brings a hypnotic quality to this exquisitely choreographed and compelling tale of surgical obsession Pedro Almodóvar’s macabre suspense thriller is about an obsession that, though not exactly magnificent, has a fanatical intensity. Antonio Banderas plays a Madrid plastic surgeon, wealthy, cultured and respected; he gives brilliant lectures and research papers on advances in face-transplant surgery. Daringly, heretically, he advocates transgenic treatments from animals to toughen the skin. In his palatial home, he has a private operating theatre where he carries out experimental work on Vera, a beautiful woman he keeps prisoner, who is dressed only in a clinging gauzy, flesh-toned material and whose skin has an unnaturally smooth, flawless look. She appears to submit ecstatically to her imprisonment, but this is finally to be the cause of madness and violence. The Skin I Live In is adapted from the 2003 novel Mygale (Tarantula) by Thierry Jonquet, but clearly Almodóvar has taken something from Georges Franju’s 1960 film Eyes Without a Face and possibly also Alejandro Amenábar’s Open Your Eyes from 1997. It is also conceivable that he wants us to think of Evelyn Waugh’s story Love Among the Ruins. But influences and allusions are almost beside the point, given the fact that almost every scene, every shot, must remind you of every other Almodóvar picture. As ever, it is sleek and stylishly furnished, sensually charged with richness and colour, and splashes and gashes of red. There is a surging Hitchcockian orchestral score and a breathless sense of imminent violence: handguns are coolly disclosed in desk-drawers and expensive ladies’ handbags; crime scenes are established in stunning overhead shots. As in many of his films, family secrets are revealed through lengthy flashbacks – something forbidden to contemporary Hollywood screenwriters. There is the doppelganger motif, and the younger guy who likes partying and drugs; there are staircase scenes and scenes in which a middle-aged man watches the object of his desire, enraptured, on a large screen. And perhaps most startling, and most characteristic of all, there is Almodóvar’s great theme of transsexual identity, which speaks of passion, fantasy and escape. The director himself, in various masks and guises, is present in all of this. For those who would like Almodóvar to do something radical – and this was rather how this movie had been misleadingly billed here in Cannes – then The Skin I Live In might try the patience. But I can only say that it kept me gripped from first to last. The sheer muscular confidence of Almodóvar’s film-making language gives it force, and co-exists with a dancer’s elegance and grace. Without this, the story could look strained and farcical. Instead, its bizarre passions are compelling. Almodóvar brings something hypnotic to the surgery-porn aesthetic of his operating theatre of cruelty: the latex, the scrubs, the cold steel, the exquisite yet appalling contrast between wounds and young flesh. It is twisted and mad, and its choreography and self-possession are superb. Rating: 4/5 Cannes 2011 Pedro Almodóvar Cannes film festival Peter Bradshaw guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Nine out of 10 report bullying taking place at school in the past year, with boys aged 10 to 12 the most likely victims More than 20% of children aged 10 to 15 have been frightened or upset by bullying in the past year, according to the first British Crime Survey report on their attitude to the police and personal safety. The BCS report shows that boys aged 10 to 12 are the most likely to have experienced bullying. Overall, nine out of 10 children reported some bullying incidents at school. The confirmation of the extent of bullying in England and Wales is underlined by the fact one in four victims – 6% of children aged 10 to 15 – reported unwanted and nasty emails or texts, or abusive postings on a website. Girls were more likely than boys to have been the victims of cyber-bullying. The BCS also estimates that 1% of children aged 13 to 15 had carried a knife for self-protection in the past year, with 13% saying they knew someone who had done so. But 69% of those aged 13 to 15 agreed that carrying a knife made it more likely that they would get stabbed themselves. Only 17% disagreed. The survey also shows that far from being a generation who see themselves as having been treated as criminals, more than 87% believed the police would help them if they needed them. Nearly half of all children said they knew a local police officer, but this is mainly the product of an intensive programme school visits by the police in recent years. Only 9% of those children in contact with the police because of problems such as truanting, suspensions or drunken behaviour, said they had a less favourable opinion of them. The survey also clarifies some adult assumptions about the lives of teenagers. More than 80% of 10- to 15-year-olds said they hung around with their friends in public spaces. But only one in five said they had been moved on, and that was most likely to have been by a member of the public. The report also shows that 21% of girls but only 9% of boys who used public transport in the past year had avoided travelling on buses at certain times because they were worried about their own safety or because other people were causing trouble. Bullying Children Schools Crime Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …