Jul
1
Rodeo, Cruelty and American Values
July 1, 2009 | | 2 Comments
Earlier today, a Twitter post by @spgreenlaw reminded me of a paper I wrote a couple of years ago in graduate school. I wrote the paper for a class called “The Meaning of Pets” where we discussed a number of social issues related to pets and the treatment of animals.
And just to make the class more interesting, the news of Michael Vick’s dog fighting broke just as the class was getting started. Of course this provided for many hours of conversation. But it also got me thinking about how animals are used and abused in other “sports” like the rodeo, the circus, horse racing, and other supposedly legitimate venues where animals routinely suffer and die to entertain us.
My belief is that we accept certain kinds of animal abuse and reject others based, not on the suffering of the animal, but on the race and class of the humans involved.
A critical look at the public perception of pit bulls and urban dog fighting during the last two decades exposes public feelings based more in race and class conflict than a genuine concern for the animals involved. The history of the pit bull, for example, has been mostly positive.
For the first half of this century, pit bulls enjoyed a positive image in America. During World War I, these dogs stood for American courage and were featured in a series of patriotic wartime posters”. But this has recently changed. Feeding the negative portrayal of the pit bulls have been depictions of their ‘owners’ that threaten mainstream America. Media reports of attacks by dogs were invariably accompanied by value-laden descriptions of their owners as people whom ‘average citizens’ might find dangerous. Vicki Hearne points out the racial implications of this trend. She says the “pit bull ‘hysteria’, as it is called, is one of the cleverest pieces of racist propaganda I have ever come across.”
On the other hand, the rodeo is also responsible for animal abuse, injury and death. So why is this event so cherished in American culture? I argue that the image of the rodeo is is filled with links to the American dream, the American West, and the rugged individualist, embodied in the white male cowboy. Lisa Peñaloza explains the importance of the Western myth in American culuture
The Western United States has a long-standing culture of vital importance to the national imagery. Central are the heroic accounts of white male explorers, trappers, miners and cowboys…Western Culture…is composed of a common history, identity, belief and values, language, customs, and physical characteristics that are recognized in relation to other cultural group.
Because American society accepts the values represented by rodeo, this sport is allowed to continue despite the harm inflicted upon the animals involved. Until Americans recognize and eliminate these influences of race and class, animals will continue to be used for political and entertainment purposes and their continued suffering will be the price of our ignorance.
Coincidentally, it is almost time for the July 4 celebrations. So think about common identity, belief and values in the celebrations that you see this weekend. Do they tell you something about what an American is? Or, more importantly, what an American is not?
If you are so inclined, download and read the entire paper. Enjoy.
Jun
24
Some Light Viewing on American Empire
June 24, 2009 | Tagged bush, empire, iraq, War | Leave a Comment
First we’ll watch “A People’s History of American Empire” from Howard Zinn.
And now that we know about the American Empire and how it continues to this day, the following revelation should come as no surprise. George W. Bush and Tony Blair knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq months before the invasion so they attempted to find other ways of justifying the already planned conquest.
We all know that there were no WMDs found. We know that this war was not in retaliation for the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. Is it time for the people of this country to demand some accountability for the death and destruction that this government has unleashed upon the people of Iraq? Some accountability for the thousands of Americans and thousands more Iraqis killed in this war?
For this, Keith Olbermann named George W. Bush his worst person in the world. I must agree.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Jun
23
I’m not a fan of my local news station, nor any for that matter. The stories are usually superficial and seem to be targeted at a second grade intellect.
Last night, a story from WRAL in Raleigh took the grade school reporting to new levels. You can watch the video clip from the WRAL website – and they do lose points for not allowing me to embed the video.
The story is a reaction to two fatal industrial accidents in the area in the last month. An explosion at a ConAgra plant on June 9 that killed three workers, and an amonia leak at Mountaire Farms, a chicken processing plant, that killed one on June 20.
The news anchors introduce the story by reminding us of these fatal accidents and early in the piece we learn that North Carolina Department of Labor officials worry that the economy may be affecting safety in the workplace. Allen McNeely, deputy commissioner and director of the department’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health says,
A lot of times, when there is a general downtick in the economy, safety is one of the things that companies don’t seem to put a lot of effort and money into.
This is followed immediately by the reporter stating that no obvious signs of companies cutting back on safety have been seen. So we are now one minute into the piece before any mention that no evidence exists to indicate that these companies had reduced their efforts or funding of safety. But, by now, its too late. The power is with the personal statement directly from McNeely, not with the follow up statement by the reporter. We are led to infer that these companies are guilty of cutting safety in order to save costs. The reporter has not uncovered any evidence that this is true, yet by framing the story this way we are led to believe that lives have been lost because of the actions of these companies.
And now comes the fun part with the fancy graphics. Well, if this were CNN we’d have fancy, pointless graphics. But since this is local news, we get some building blocks stolen from a pre-school somewhere near the studio with labels stuck on with clearly visible scotch tape.
(If you skipped the video earlier, you’ll now want to go back just to see the reporter knock over the blocks.)
And this is what local news reporting has come to? Stupid props and poor reporting.
I’m not arguing that these companies are innocent. There are many documented cases where companies are guilty of placing revenue above employee safety. You could even make a case that this is the norm. (Investigations are still underway for these incidents.)
My point is that this is not reporting on any real news, on any actual fact. We started with a belief that companies seem to cut back on safety in economic downturns and just went from there without evidence to prove that the economy had forced any cuts in safety.
Where is the investigation from the reporter? Where are the interviews with company officials? Where are the interviews with the workers who may have seen evidence of safety issues? Where are the reports of safety violations that may have directly contributed to the accidents? If the reporter did not ask any of these questions, then the story should not have been aired. If the questions were asked, but no evidence was found, then again, the story should not have been aired.
Jun
22
Freedom Isn’t Free?
June 22, 2009 | Tagged freedom | Leave a Comment
I know you have seen the “Freedom Isn’t Free” bumper stickers.
These are usually designed to support American troops and American military actions by proclaiming that we must somehow pay a price for the freedoms that we enjoy as an American.
This has bothered me lately for a couple of reasons.
First, without a government to take away our natural freedoms, freedom is free. Only when a government forces us to submit to it’s laws do we start to lose freedoms. Are we, as Americans, free to privately communicate with each other? Are we free to travel without government restrictions? Are we free to assemble and have our voices heard? While these are some of the basic freedoms we think we take for granted in the United States, the answer to each of these is no.
Second, what price do we pay for freedom and who pays? How many dead Americans does it take to protect freedom? How many have died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past eight years? And to truly count the price of this freedom we should not forget the many more Iraqis and Afghans who have also given their lives for our freedom. Or are their lives less valuable than American lives? I argue no, but I would say that people displaying these stickers may have a different answer.
No, freedom isn’t free, but it’s not for the reasons that the bumper sticker implies. Freedom isn’t free because our government has taken away what is naturally ours. Then they have the audacity to tax us for the freedom they have stolen from us by sending our young men and women to kill and be killed.
That’s not freedom, and it’s not something that I am willing to pay for.
Jun
18
It’s Not About The Election
June 18, 2009 | Tagged iranelection | 2 Comments
I really don’t care who actually won the election in Iran. Any outcome would be bad for the people of Iran, which is why I think the current protests in Iran go beyond support for one candidate over another. This is about people demanding real, significant change (not the superficial kind we voted for last year). What is amazing to me is how hundreds of thousands of Iranians and been able to stand up for what they believe in when those of us in the United States barely notice when our rights are trampled on by the government.
This video explains what the many of the demonstrators in Iran want.
The translation, provided by Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish, are below:
1 (Girl in street): Defending civil rights
2 (Boy next to old man): Counterbalancing poverty/deprivation
3 (Boy pushing away donation box): Nationalizing oil income
4 (Man standing on rooftop): Reducing tension in international affairs
5 (Boy sitting next to satellite dishes): Free access to information
6 (Girl sitting besides her mother): Supporting single mothers
7 (Girl with cast):? Knock down violence against women
8 (Boy): Education for all
9 (Boy infront of man locking car): Increasing public safety
10 (Girl on rooftop): Ethnic and religious minority rights
11 (Man on rooftop): Supporting NGOs
12 (Girl in front of wall): Public involvement
13 (Boy and girl): We have come for? change
14: Change for Iran
Regardless of the outcome of the election, these demands will not change. These are demands for basic rights that we take for granted in the United States (even though you could make the argument that we don’t fully have these anyway).
This is why everyone who supposedly values freedom should be supporting the Iranian protesters, regardless of a meaningless election.
Change for Iran means change for all of us.
Jun
16
Did You Really Expect Change?
June 16, 2009 | Tagged change, obama, privacy | Comments Off
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution. – Hannah Arendt
President Obama promised change and you really believed him didn’t you. You thought that he would be different than all the other politicians that came before – you believed Obama would really keep his promises. Well, how has he done so far? Have you been keeping track of the change?
It would seem that, as president, Obama is no different than any other man who has held political office. He does what is needed to get into power. In this case, it was selling you the “change” that you thought you needed. Then once in power, he does whatever it takes to stay there.
Way back in October, I stated my reasons for being opposed to voting, but concluded that I would vote in order to prevent a continuation of the Bush presidency in the form of John McCain. Now, it appears that we didn’t need McCain to continue the Bush era policies. Obama is doing a fine job of this himself.
Let’s take a look at just some of the collected evidence from the last few weeks.
Government Secrecy
Obama refuses to release a list of White House visitors. The same argument to justify the secrecy of White House visitor logs was made by the Bush administration and was rejected twice by a federal judge.
The location of hazardous coal ash sites is kept secret for national security reasons. These sites are considered hazards to people who live near them, but the Obama administration has decided that secrecy is more important than people’s health.
Obama is continuing to invoke the “state secrets” argument to keep information private, despite campaign promises for more open government.
Obama reversed his decision to release prison abuse abuse photos. This decision does not protect Americans, but actually makes us more like those we claim to be fighting against. We must admit that abuses were committed and we must ensure this never happens again.
Civil Rights
Obama argues to support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) affirming that gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or the right to have their marriages (in the handful of states where same sex marriage is legal) recognized by other states.
Obama has continued the discharge of gay military members under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Since he has been in office, 214 troops have been discharged. Many of these men and women serve in critical specialties such as Arab linguists. Just last week, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from an Army captain who was discharged under DADT. The Obama administration argued that the ban on homosexuals in the military was “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”
Treatment of Prisoners
The U.S. continues to hold prisoners without formal charges for indefinite periods.
- Reuters cameraman Ibrahim Jassam was arrested by U.S. forces in September 2008.
- President Obama announced that he would consider “a ‘preventive detention’ system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried.”
- Obama claims that detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment.
None of this fits with the values of a free society. People held for “crimes” should always have a right to challenge their detention, should always have access to legal representation, and should always expect that their case will be heard in an open court.
Police State
You still think you live in a free country? Well, as of June 1 you aren’t as free to move about as you thought you were. You may now be restricted from leaving your own country if the government does not give you permission to do so.
War
Obama’s choice to head the war in Afghanistan isn’t really who I would want to represent my views.
Funding for war continues to grow, but is shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan. So while we hear all the “good news” about troop reductions in Iraq, more money is being poured into the war effort in other locations.
Corruption
Major donors are named ambassadors. Change? No, just business as usual.
Still believe in change? I didn’t think so.
May
27
Judge Sotomayor’s Misunderstanding of Basic Rights
May 27, 2009 | Tagged freedom, law, sotomayor, supreme court | Comments Off
Yesterday, President Obama announced that he had chosen Sonia Sotomayor as his first selection to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In her short statement, one sentence stood out. This one statement should be enough to eliminate anyone from a court appointment. But beyond this, it should reveal that government has no moral right to exist and to exercise control over the people it pretends to serve.
Sotomayor’s simple statement was “I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.” (quoted from NY Times coverage)
She believes that “the rule of law” grants each of us our basic rights? Our basic rights are not based in any man-made law, but in the fact that we are all human and are naturally free to exercise basic freedoms. Government and it’s laws only restrict these basic rights. If she is right, then our basic rights can be changed by the legislature or redefined by the courts. These are not basic rights.
In her essay, “Anarchism: What is Really Stands For,” Emma Goldman defined anarchy as
the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.
There is liberty without law. In fact, this is the only way true liberty can exist.
She also directly addressed those who rely on government and law to define natural rights.
A natural law is that factor in man which asserts itself freely and spontaneously without any external force, in harmony with the requirements of nature…But its expression needs not the machinery of government, needs not the club, the gun, the handcuff, or the prison. To obey such laws, if we may call it obedience, requires only spontaneity and free opportunity. That governments do not maintain themselves through such harmonious factors is proven by the terrible array of violence, force, and coercion all governments use in order to live. Thus Blackstone is right when he says, “Human laws are invalid, because they are contrary to the laws of nature.”
There can be no foundation of basic rights in law. This is not possible. True basic rights, true freedom only exists without law.
May
26
Word Cloud for Forrest Paper
May 26, 2009 | Tagged forrest | Comments Off
A long time ago, I posted the paper I wrote on Nathan Bedford Forrest and his monument in Memphis. Then I ran across Wordle, a website that generates word clouds from text you give it. Since I have a strange obsession with word clouds I had to give it a try. An here’s the result.
May
19
Theme Song for Worldwide Intelligence Updates
May 19, 2009 | Tagged pentagon, Religion, War | Comments Off
Those Pentagon Worldwide Intelligence Updates need a theme song to go along with the biblical quotes.
May
18
Over the weekend, reports surfaced that daily briefings for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials included biblical quotes. Some of these covers sheets can be seen on the GQ magazine website.
The placement of these biblical quotes on the daily reports seem to be an effort to justify the Iraq war from a religious perspective. This makes President Bush’s remarks about a ‘crusade’ against terrorism seem even scarier.
But as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, I think more biblical quotes should be placed on government briefings. I wasn’t very happy with the quotes that were sent to Rumsfeld. They seemed too happy and uplifting for reports on a war. So, I scanned through my online bible and found just a few new ones to get the folks at the Pentagon started. I’m sure once they see where I’m going, they can easily find more.
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exodus 22:20)
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. (Isaiah 13:15-16)
While I think these are great biblilcal quotes to support our war effort against the infidels, this raises important questions about what we should do with the parts of the bible that really don’t support the killing and war that we need to justify.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matthew 5:44)
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. (Luke 6:27-29)
I, for one, propose that we just ignore these parts of the bible that don’t fit our cause. It’s not like it would be the first time that this tactic has ever been used with the good book.
All biblical quotes are from the King James Version as found on BibleGateway.com