Eurosceptic Telegraph's bizarre claim of the dominance of Berlin and Paris

I rarely write something positive about any political leader from a right-wing party, but today, I praise and admire Angela Merkel, a German Chancellor from centre-right Christian Democrats, for her efforts and success for the EU "mini-treaty" for which EU leaders reached an agreement today. It is one small step for the EU, but one giant leap stepping close to the just world; the creation of the new Superpower that truly embraces the values of human rights, social democracy, environment and poverty reduction, and that restrains the excess of current, unilateral Superpower, is desperately needed (the EU has larger area, population and GDP than the US).

It was a result of tough compromise, finally realised by Merkel's diplomacy. Britain won the concessions everything it wanted. I think that Britain should be committed to the European Charter on Human Rights, one of the best human rights instruments in the world; but that Blair agreed to the mini-treaty is a positive step. However, considering the concessions Britain was awarded, the claim of the Telegraph article that "the Franco-German alliance" dominates the new EU is bizarre. It seems that the sole purpose of the article is to frighten the British public away from the EU. If not, why does it have to emphasise that "Both leaders (Merkel and Sarkozy) checked into the Amigo Hotel"? Hinting the existence of conspiracy between Berlin and Paris, it claims that "a new division of labour emerged" that Merkel using a carrot and Sarkozy a stick to deal with Poland. The problem here is, according to the Independent, that "Germany, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, threatened to press ahead without Poland". But it offers no evidence of the perceived Continental dominance except friendship between Merkel and Sarkozy (which is a normal relationship for leaders of allied countries).

The Telegraph fears (or or wants to incite fear) that Britain will be left out of the EU decision-making process. It concludes that "Mr Brown, who steps into the prime ministerial shoes next Wednesday, will lack this experience and will not have his EU summit debut until October". Well, a new Prime Minister (by definition!) lacks Prime Ministerial experience, but he has served as Chancellor for a decade. If Brown is unexperienced, who would the Telegraph want for a new Prime Minister? David Cameron, who wasn't even an MP when Brown assumed the Chancellorship? And has the writer forgotten that Sarkozy sworn in as President just a month ago? This paragraph is neither a proper criticism against Brown, nor against the EU; that Brown won't have his EU summit until October has nothing to do with his alienation from the EU; October's just four months away! If the EU held summit every month in Brussels, I'm confident that the Telegraph would surely slam it as waste of money or excessive control of the EU over individual member states.

No matter how much the EU is portrayed by conservative or populist media as a bunch of aloof bureaucrats in Brussels, the EU has created the tolerant, peaceful and prosperous postwar Europe. Probably for the first time in European history, Europe hasn't had a war for more than six decades, and even less likely, almost implausible to have one in future under the EU. The project of the EU, that has led the world in human rights, social justice and environment continues on, and though not being a European myself, I'm excited to follow this grand project of the 21st century.

Animal Rights; "Extremists" or Liberators?

British police arrested 30 animal rights activists; or "extremists"; for their actions to save innocent animals from torture cruelty.

Most articles reporting the raid, such as this one from the Reuters and the Daily Telegraphy article, are inexcusably biased; while widely quoting from the police statement, they don't refer to the comments of animal rights groups at all. Even Reuters article rather looks like a press release from the police, and Telegraph article concludes with the comment "these extremists are threatening dedicated researchers", without ever introducing the animal rights activist's ideas that these "dedicated researchers" can also be abusers of animal rights. The Sun, the most circulated English-language newspaper in the world, went on to describe the activists 'terrorists' in their headline (with the quotation marks).

Even the BBC article is extremely biased against the activists; they give the activists only one paragraph (two lines) in the bottom while devoting ten paragraphs to the police. The Independent coverage was slightly better as they reported that "Freshfields Animal Rescue Centre in Merseyside was among the places raided. The centre, which has been established for more than 25 years, takes in unwanted animals from across the region", but nonetheless isn't any different in a sense that police view (and those who support the police that the animal rights activism is morally indefensible) on animal rights and property rights are "true", "credible" viewpoints that readers need to succumb to.

Where's the principle of "objective" journalism? I know objectivity is an illusion, but can't they even pretend to be objective? It seems that the mainstream media hardly tells the animal rights activists' perspectives and reasons for their activism. Radical animal rights organisations, such as the Animal Liberation Front and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (whose leader was arrested this time), don't advocate any actions that harm humans; "The ALF's credo states that no harm shall come to any sentient being". They believe that to liberate animals from cages, which is "burglary" when animals are considered "properties" of human owners, is justice. I don't necessarily support all of their actions, but their points that animals shouldn't be abused as properties, their actions are quite reasonable ones for them.

This post is neither to support nor to oppose actions taken by the ALF/any of the arrested activists. I'm a vegetarian and I fully support animal rights, but I'm myself ambivalent about ALF-type radical animal rights activism. However, I can confidently say that the activists' case deserves to be fairly and equally treated, and reported, by the media. When the public is bombarded with animals-as-properties argument and given virtually no opposing arguments, it looks like "common sense"/the natural way of treating animals even though it is just a social construction, just like slavery used to be. Animals-as-holders-of-rights arguments may sound "extreme", only because the mainstream media treats them as extreme views not worth listening to; not because it is ethically wrong.

Vive la Presidente Royal!

What do you think of Segolene Royal? Probably you might think that she is a better alternative than Sarkozy as the centre-left candidate, but she is not competent and able enough, or "lightweight"? I've been getting that kind of impression from most articles on Royal's campaign. I'm sick and tired of reading how incompetent and inexperienced she is, how struggling and desperate her campaign is. Like this new AP article. Where are the opinions of 'experts' who believe Royal can win? I've heard of her comment she allegedly made in China gazllion times; where is the mention of her speech that steadily stood for the human rights, condemning the "war crimes in Chechnya" committed by the "corrupt regime"?

It may be true that in the "polls" conducted by the media show that Royal is trailing Sarkozy, but it's because the media itself report as if her chance of occupying the one of the most powerful jobs in the world at the Elysee Palace were already precluded. They say that French voter's voting behaviour is notoriously hard to detect in the polls, but still regard the opinion polls as the oracle correctly prophesising the future. What's the use of updating the newest poll everyday and analysing the difference of few percents between candidates in the opinion poll (well within the margin of error) when nearly half the French voters haven't decided whom to support? The bandwagon effect, not the shortcomings of Royal herself, is what truly blocks her noble road to the Presidency. The media report on polls actually have a profound influence on the voter behaviour; if Royal supporters believe the poll that says Bayrou has a better chance of beating Sarkozy in the second round, they might not vote accordingly with what their conscience tells them, robbing the deserving victory away from Royal.

(As I can't read French it is just an analysis of the English-language media's report on Segolene Royal and the French election. Obviously on the election itself French newspaper's impact is far stronger than the English-language media, so if you can read French your views on the French newspaper's stance on Royal are much appreciated.)

Paris-based International Herald Tribune (published by the New York Times), for example, called Royal's economic policies "far-left". What sort of freedom-hating communist woman is she? Well, she dares to raise the minimum wage and "to tax capital more than labor". "She also promised free tutoring for students that have difficulties keeping up" and "she would tax companies in relation to what share of their profits is reinvested in equipment and jobs, and what portion is paid to shareholders"; what a despicable Stalinist! "Under her presidency, she said, young women would get free contraception", the article goes, after making the baseless assumption that "she seemed to have something to offer to most groups in society without saying how much the combined measures would cost".

This article appears in the top page (fourth-highest in the ranking) when you Google "Segolene Royal", making this biased article matter more than it deserves.

Sarkozy indeed gets accused of his cold-hearted and ruthless comments and forging a close tie with Le Pen, but his ability to perform the top job is far less frequently questioned compared to Royal. Well, he has a media-created image of 'alpha male' or 'top cop', tough yet capable man to make a change.

Royal's campaign is in a way different from some other high-profile female politicians that she doesn't suppress her femininity. Three women have so far become the head of government in the G8 countries; all of them are from the conservative/right-wing parties (Thatcher, Merkel and Kim Campbell in Canada) who got elected by showing she was more masculine (Thatcher) or at least not "feminine". I don't necessary think emphasising femininity is a better way for female politicians, because it can lead to the old-fashioned embrace of femininity and rejection of non-feminine female politicians (e.g. smear attack on Helen Clark that she doesn't have a child). But it concerns me more when politicians who emphasise femininity are derided as lightweight, implying femininity has no place in politics while the media seems to take the Sarkozian macho attitude to denote capabilities as a drastic reformer.

I don't know if the media's biased coverage on Royal is because of misogyny or the media's capitalist bias, or the bias only existing in the English-language media because of its dislike of the French rejection of Anglo-Saxon free market capitalism. But anyway, no matter what the dubious opinion "polls" tell us, Segolene Royal has a realistic chance of winning the Elysee Palace. Her victory is crucial in transforming France as a viable and attractive alternative to the Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Vive la France, vive la Presidente Royal!

When Patriarchy marries to Reality TV in Italy

Italian public broadcaster has purchased and aired the obnoxious Turkish reality TV programme. For details of the programme read the Independent article above; basically the show asserts that the extreme form of partiarchy that dictate women are birth-giving machines or household slaves, as "reality". The producer, intentionally or unconsciously, professes his misogyny; according to him, the programme deals with "relationships that are eternal". Wow, I can see his desire that he wants partiarchy to be an eternal reality like the gravity, (by the way the latter's not really eternal!) but as you know it's a mere social construction that is to be smashed.

The whole story is a perfect example and evidence of the harm commercialism in the media does to the social justice. It proves that the conflict between the values of public service broadcaster and commercialism is inevitable in any country. It seems that the president of RAI perfectly understands the nature of the programme, as he commented it was to "put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive, leading inevitably to unreasonable if not degrading behaviour" and the public broadcaster shouldn't be providing such nonsense to the audience. Commercialist reality TV itself is evil enough. But when it marries to patriarchy, the child fathered by patriarchy and borne by a birth-giving machine called the media commercialism is certain to be horrendous and grotesque.

Ahmadinejad-like Conservative's attack on Faye Turney

Polly Toynbee at Guardian did the brilliant analysis on the British conservative media's report on the Leading Seaman Faye Turney, who was kidnapped by Iran. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2051499,00.html Citing plenty of examples of misogynistic comments about Turney written in the papers, Toynbee concludes that "the Daily Mail believes pretty much the same as President Ahmadinejad".

This fundamentalist misogynist sentiment is not only disseminated by "trashy" tabloid papers; also by Murdoch-owned "quality" broadsheet paper, the Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1596699.ece What a nonsense... Ms. Turney deserves warm support in Britain, not kind of hostilities she was forced to endure in Iran. It is ironic that those who are most vocal in support of the 'War on Terror' and love to condemn the "Islamic fascism" support the backward, bigoted Iranian agendas... Conservatives in the West and the Middle East seem to hate each other but they indeed share values that subjugate women into femininity, domesticity and maternity. We must be united against both of them.

Concentration of Media Ownership and the "Public Sphere"

I thought I'd introduce an essay I submitted last year for my Media Studies class. It is about the media and society, and I outlined my fundamental views on the media which is the basis of this blog. I thought I could share it with you and I would love to hear your comment on the issue!

The commercially driven media is a part of institutional processes that reinforces and perpetuates the existing capitalist hegemony. Media’s influence on our thinking and society is profound, thorough and deep, because as Jim Morrison said “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind”. This quote accurately describes the media’s primary impact in shaping the mould in which people view and analyse society. It is possible to be critical of explicitly controversial or biased media coverage, but it is hard to defy the superstructure of thought media creates. Media controls the mind by setting up this invisible superstructure.

The existing media structure reinforces the capitalist hegemony mainly in two ways; one is influence of commercialism on journalism (commercialism and journalism are inherently incompatible (Adorno, 1958)) and concentration of media ownership into the hands of few transnational conglomerates (TNCs).

The overwhelming majority of the today’s media is commercially operated in the Western World. For example, in the United States of America, the Superpower of the World that has big impacts on other countries, all of the biggest TV stations (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN) are owned by private companies whose sole purpose of existence is to maximise shareholder’s profits; the noncommercial, publicly owned PBS is a minor one. In New Zealand the situation is even worse; even the government-owned TVNZ operates on a commercial basis, as a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). The sole difference between TVNZ and other private TV stations is that TVNZ’s shareholder is the government. TVNZ attempted to include Reithian ideals as the public broadcaster and the Charter was written but it proved to be impossible for TVNZ to pursue the Charter and its commercial goals at the same time: Ian Fraser, the former head of the TVNZ, called this incompatible goal “rendering unto God and unto Caesar at the same time”.

BBC in Britain and ABC in Australia are examples of few remaining public broadcasters, but they are rather exceptions. The only major non-commercial newspaper in the Western World is the Guardian in the UK; most papers are commercial. Record companies, movie distributors and other media are no different.

The capitalist principles shouldn’t and can’t be applied in the media “market” because simply value of some products can’t be determined solely on a commercial basis. For example, schools are operated on a non-profit basis (it includes private schools). Who wound want to go to a school (or who would want their children to go to a school) whose primary or sole purpose is to maximise profits and children’s education is a secondary concern to them? Media is the same, media has a noble and crucial mission to educate citizens to make wiser decisions in society; media is one of the four essential ‘pillars’ of the modern democratic society.

High quality journalism, just like high-quality education, has an intrinsic value in it. But under the strictly capitalist system, its popularity is the sole determinant of the value of a product. If demand is high, price goes up. If demand is low, it is deemed as not as worthy as highly demanded products. Theodor Adorno, a cultural critic and a prominent Frankfurt School thinker, argued that “the sole determinant of the value of culture is people’s evaluation” in a capitalized market of culture. Capitalism treats people as consumers, while media should treat audience as citizens.

For some consumer products whose only purpose is to provide immediate, sensual pleasure, market capitalism is probably the best way to allocate resources and decide what to produce. For example, if particular ice cream is not popular, probably it is not delicious (which means it doesn’t give much pleasure or satisfaction to consumers), so it is not as valuable as delicious ice cream which fulfills its purpose to provide pleasure. But as I argued before, the main purpose of journalism is to educate citizens and presents a wide range of opinions to citizens. The success of tabloid newspapers illustrates that the high-quality journalism, which is more worthy, is not as popular as tabloid journalism. But the price mechanism of the market capitalism sends wrong signal that tabloid journalism us more worthy because it is popular. Here lie the reasons for fundamental incompatibility of journalism and commercialism.

Because of this, high-quality journalism is under produced in the society if media is motivated by profit maximisation, at the expense of healthy democracy and choice (the phenomenon is nothing new in the Western society, though the process has been intensified since the eighties. ‘Yellow Journalism’ in the early 20^th century shows us that media became sensational if they pursue money, at any time). In other words, good journalism that explains the nature of complex truth, presents well-thought opinions and investigates some hidden evils has positive externality of consumption, while tabloid, sensationalistic journalism has negative externality of consumption. Even the free market capitalists agree that these externalities can’t be internalized if it solely relies on the market forces. Media producers are afraid that innovative coverage might not be popular and generate profits, because they have an obligation to the shareholders to maximise profits. So they continue tabloid ‘journalism’ which they know to sell well. Thus, under the ‘free’ market system that is supposed to provide choices to the people, they lose a choice of high-quality journalism and are confined to a narrow range of cheap sensationalism.

The example of TVNZ News illustrates it well. After it became commercially-driven SOE in 1989, Paul Norris, the head of News in TVNZ back then, brought in the American adviser Fred Shook who drastically changed the TVNZ News to a visual, photogenic one. He taught newswriters how to pick a newsitem that can match sensational picture, and how to write news script accordingly with the picture. TVNZ “deliberately changed its news to tabloid journalism”, a media critic Gordon Campbell writes. This example is only a tip of iceberg in a wide, frozen ocean of the Western commercial media.

The consolidation of media ownership is another reason and way to why and how the existing media structure reinforces the status quo. Not only most of the biggest media today are commercially operated, they are mostly owned by the few richest TNCs whose scales are unprecedented in human history, and whose sizes exceed the entire GDP of some countries. Notorious Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp owns hundreds of TV stations, newspapers, publishers and other various media companies in many Western countries, constantly disseminating Murdoch’s right-wing propaganda. Not only Murdoch-owned Fox News, “the Big Three” in the US (NBC, CBS, ABC) and CNN, are owned by GE, Viacom, Disney and Time Warner, all the TNCs. Canadian-based CanWest owns TV3 and C4 in NZ, Channel Ten in Australia and various TV stations in Canada. NZ is the only country to allow 100% foreign ownership of media. The Aspers, owner family of CanWest, has a strong link with the Israeli right-wing party Likud, and according to the inside whistleblower, “any news item that goes against Asper’s line goes unreported” (Bill Rosenberg, 2003). German Beltersmann dominate the TV stations in the continental Europe, and Clear Channel Communications own a thousand radio stations in the US (they banned John Lennon’s Imagine after 9/11 because of its peaceful messages). These companies control the media, and our mind.

Obviously the messages that these ultimate winners of the dog-eat-dog capitalism send wouldn’t be the ones that are critical of the existing hierarchy. They control the mind, to benefit their interests. The messages they disseminate include material growth is always desirable, anti-globalisation/environmental/animal rights activists are radical nuts who disrupt the society and order, and capitalism rewards those who deserve wealth (poor people are poor because of their own problems e.g. laziness). Because we are constantly bombarded with these negative messages by TNCs who control the media, to a certain degree our mind is subconsciously controlled by them.

Goebbel’s domination and manipulation of media under Nazis is a classic example of government propaganda. But today’s domination and manipulation of media by TNCs is essentially no different; corporations, instead of fascists, control our mind (probably their messages are not as dangerous as Nazi propaganda, but the essence of the control is the same). Jurgen Habermas, an influential Media theorist in the Frankfurt School, proposed the notion of the “public sphere” as the ideal structure of media. Public sphere is a place (not necessarily the geographical place) where everyone, regardless of their class or wealth, can communicate their opinions, freely from the state or corporate control. Only with the public sphere, citizens are truly free and can make up their own mind. But with the concentration of media ownership, the richest (bourgeois), who own the mode of production, control the mind of proletarians who don’t have the mode of production. Karl Marx argued that bourgeois exploit proletarians physically (sweatshops), but they exploit them psychologically (media control) as well.

There are many examples to prove “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind” principle. Media ownership matters. More than one-third of the American journalists admitted that news items that might harm the owner’s interests often go unreported (Rosenberg, 2003). Before the Iraq War, American media broadcasted 25 times more of pro-war opinions compared to anti-war opinions (Noam Chomsky, 2004). Because of their repeated, combined use of “Saddam Hussein” and “9/11” in a same context, 70% of Americans believed that Hussein was involved in the 9/11, which is totally wrong (Michael Moore, 2003). White, male, middle-aged businessowners or professionals (who usually control the media) are usually depicted as reliable, decent, kind and hardworking citizens while representation of the working-class tends to be “lazy” or “drunken”, negative ones (Richard Bustch, 1996). Despite increasing female role models in influential positions, women (especially young) are often depicted as objects, sexual or not, taking a male point of view (Gloria Steinem, “Sex, Lies and Advertising”, 1991). Simone de Beauvoir, a French feminist, analysed that women are designated the role of “the Other” while men are the Subject, in her masterpiece “the Second Sex”. Media reinforce this structure. Non-white ethnic groups are often depicted as the Other in the Western media, such as the Dangerous (people of Arabic origins after 9/11), the Humorous (for example, Asians for their poor English, in comedies) or the Pitied (Africans who live in poverty) (Heinemann Media Studies Textbook 1, Karen Koch). In this way, our views are shaped within the superstructural mould that these dominant elites build. Jim Morrison is exactly correct in saying “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind”.

Richard Butsch once said “production of the ideologies is a natural outcome of the commercial media operating in the capitalist market”. To examine it more deeply, the Marxist approach is useful (I already used it several times). Marxist concept of commodity fetishism describes today’s society’s obsession with material goods remarkably accurately. “False Consciousness”, which means that proletarians are deceived about the nature of capitalism, the very system that is the cause of their oppression, and support it because of their misguided idea about the capitalism. Corporate, commercial media are the tools for the dominant elites to perpetuate “false consciousness”. He criticized the libertarian notion of freedom, meaning that people are free as long as they are free from the deliberate interference from the government. This ideology is the common justification for the free-market capitalism, and often disseminated by the dominant media. Are we really free, even if we don’t have an access to the wide range of thoughts, and have to choose between cheap, sensationalist gossip of celebrities and capitalist, consumerist propaganda (they are often the same)? Are we really free, if we aren’t empowered enough to form a balanced, own opinion? Are we really free, if we aren’t wealthy enough to communicate the alternative viewpoints? Such freedom is meaningless.

Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt School philosopher, eloquently described this condition as “reasonable, democratic unfreedom”. Unfreedom, not oppression. To change this unfreedom to the genuine freedom, freedom of mind, the Habermasian public sphere, public service broadcasters and decent regulations on the consolidation of media ownership are essential. Without these, the dominant elite continues to control the mind by controlling the media, with their extreme capitalism and consumerism, at the expense of people’s welfare, healthy democracy, and the real freedom.

The Media's "the right to smack" crusade

The Section 59 debate continues to divide the country into two camps, the progressive, enlightened one and one who isn't comfortable with making a progress, and the media, in the past few days, seems to be siding with the latter. Look at all the pro-smacking propaganda dominating the country's media sphere, all the overemphasis on the family fanatic's "pro-smacking protests", "the public opinion is against the bill", etc! The small protest is even reported all over the world, from London to Los Angeles, as the AP wrote from the pro-violence point of view. The Sydney Morning Herald went further to suggest that Kiwi kids love to be hit, grossly emphasising the tiny number of kids in the marches who was brought there and brainwashed by their parents, as if they represent the New Zealand children.

For the polls, they don't even disclose the exact question and method of the opinion polls which they use as the basis of all the reference to the public opinion (a poll yields significantly different results, depending on wording of questions and methodology), and even more, it is natural when the media bombards the public with the irrational fear and emotive parental rights claims, just like a right-wing propaganda machine does, the majority is against it. The media is creating the public opinion themselves and is reporting it which they themselves created. The media has the power to make a sensible policy look like "PC-gone-mad" or whatever, for example, imagine if the media were against the nuclear free policy, had disseminated the fear of terrorism day and night with horrific and graphic images, and a security alliance with the US was the only way for us to protect ourselves from terrorism, how many people would support the nuclear free policy.

This article indeed introduces both perspectives, but it ends with the argument of the opponents that it "catch(es) everybody" (implying "good, loving and caring" parents), which sounds convincing in the article because it is not rebutted. And what is this nonsense reader's opinion page in the Herald, most of them angry rants from regressive right-wingers? Titles of article like "Smack debate fails to sway MPs" or more blatantly, "Public opinions say 'no', but Clark and Cullen say 'yes'"? I didn't know that the Herald had become a propaganda newsletter of the Nationals or the Maxim Institute. Where are the opinions of children's organisations who tirelessly work for the children's welfare, know about the children's issues better than anyone else, and support the bill?

History heads for the social progress, and this is inevitable. There are always people who can't accept it, so some of these backward conservatives in the 19th century opposed Kate Sheppard, inciting fear that voting and political discussions would divide and destroy peaceful families. We think, "what a silly and inane argument", more than a century later. The people will look back pro-violence-against-kids arguments in future in the same way as we see the anti-suffragists now. This futile effort to cling to the "rights to use violence against others because they are young", the remnant of patriarchy, is doomed to fail. Sometimes our MPs know better than the media, and parliamentary democracy exists to protect the country from the hysteric public opinion created by the media. Well done the Greens, Labour, the Maori Party, Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, you are looking forward not backward. It is great to know that we live in a country where the decent and rational Parliament, not some corporate-owned crazed media, is in charge of our children's rights.

Jennifer Brunner; an unsung guardian of Democracy

Have you ever heard of Jennifer Brunner? Probably most people in the world have no idea whatsoever who Jennifer Brunner is, unless you are her friend, you live in Ohio, or you follow the US Politics so closely and know what and who really matter in our world. Ms. Brunner is the woman whose work is crucial and essential in saving the democracy in the country with a democratic tradition and the global influence. Indeed, she is the woman who might save the entire humankind from catastrophic damages.

She is the Secretary of State of Ohio, who is in charge of administering elections in Ohio. Ohio is the most important "purple" state in the US whose vote was decisive in giving Bush four more years to destroy civil liberties, Iraq, America's worldwide reputation and the Right to Choose. It will be crucial in 2008, too. She is working to rescue Ohio from the election process marred and plagued by frauds that changed the course of history, and to enable it to conduct a fair election in 2008.

She asked all of four members of Cuyahoga County election board to resign, to reform the board so the elections are properly conducted in Cuyahoga County. Cuyahoga County, which includes the most populous city of Cleveland, is heavily Democratic, and was the main battleground of the 2004 electoral coup (read below). Three of them followed and resigned (some reluctantly) to restore confidence in the voting system; though one Republican member, Bob Bennett (who is also a chairperson of the Ohio Republican), is obstinately refusing to resign. Brunner has started the procedure to fire heavily partisan Bennett. She is, not only a believer in the genuine democracy, but also determined and capable. Jennifer Brunner deserves more media attention, recognition and praise for her ambitious, noble and Heraculian task to restore the American Democracy. Let us hope that Brunner successfully completes the task to get the US and the world out, after long eight years, of the dark tunnel called the Bush "presidency".


You might reject the election fraud in Ohio in 2004 as a mere left-wing conspiracy theory, but read this article before you jump to the conclusion. It's no wonder if you can't believe what you are reading; your eyes are not deceiving you, it IS real, Cuyahoga election workers were found guilty , in the Court, of rigging the Presidential Election in 2004. They are sentenced to 18 months in prison.

So WHY is this groundbreaking news not widely reported at all? It is an AP article; many Ohio papers, Washington Post, LA Times and a few other American papers reported it, (outside the USA only the Guardian did). While just a tiny handful of papers reported, while the others (supermajority) didn't say a single word on the Court verdict. And I don't know the treatment of the article in printed newspaper for each paper (e.g. how visible it was) or even if they published it or not (sometimes newspapers put AP articles in their website while not publishing that in their printed paper). It is not a mere issue of petty, local fraud case; these criminals stole something invaluable called Democracy. What it means is that THIS VERDICT OFFICIALLY CASTS A DOUBT ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S LEGITIMACY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The hardest media bias is to detect, and the worst, is not biased articles; it is the absence of media reports on an issue. When the media doesn't even tell you that such a story exists, how would you be able to even think about the issue, let alone to criticise someone in power? It is, essentially, a thought suppression. And in this case, not only that so few newspapers fulfilled their role as journalists, the AP article doesn't tell any details of the case; the alternative media tells the truth. The mainstream media has the power to shape the political agendas, but we are empowered not to conform to the values disseminated by them and agendas they promote. Our thought need not, and should not be suppressed by the systematic agenda-limiting machines of the commercial, corporate media.

Is she scientifically beautiful?

There are some researchers who claim that Naomi Campbell is the world's most beautiful woman scientifically. And there is a respected, liberal newspaper that reports the research. I am sure that the Independent has better stories to tell, considering it is owned neither by Rupert Murdoch nor by Larry Flynt.

Beauty is subjective. The researchers would have probably thought of the Platonic 'form' of beauty, the absolute criteria of beauty to which everything can be compared. Well, this 'standard' of beauty is based on winners of a beauty competition (the article doesn't even mention which country, it is possible that it is a Polish one, considering that the research was conducted by the University of Gdansk). It is so obvious that the concept of beauty depends on culture and is shaped by culture; no matter if you agree with postmodernism or not, we all know that Peruvians or Samoans have different standards of beauty from the Polish or Americans. And it goes without saying that every individual has different views on beauty.

If the research were only flawed and useless I could have just ignored it, but this kind of research on beauty promotes ugly ideas, such as that beauty only stems from physical appearance. 'Beauty' is a deep concept, and it is certainly not something that can be measured by number; the beautiful mind, not pretty face, sexy legs or 19.5% calf girth to height percentage, is the real beauty. I don't think anyone is beautiful unless s/he has a beautiful soul. The ideology behind this research reduces real, living human beings to numbers, things, objects.

This research isn't only targeting women, so it may not be explicitly sexist, but the comment of the leading researcher's "Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection" is outrageous and outright misogynistic. This poisonous view that women's virtue is attractiveness, and 'unattractive' (from men's point of view, only based on physical appearances) women are not as worth as 'attractive' women, sickens me to the core of my heart. Placing utmost values on physical attractiveness is objectification (it is same for men too, objectification of both women and men is hardly better than objectification of women, but objectification of women is more serious because it is entrenched in the society).

I am annoyed, saddened and exasperated to see that this sort of nonsense is coming out from the academia, which ought to be the beacon of society to guide the public to the path of wisdom and justice, not the servant of the beauty industry. The holy grail of the fashion and beauty industries? Measuring a person's (especially a women's) worth and beauty only by BMI or waist-to-chest-ration is holy? It is nothing more than inane, it is ugly, and nothing less than unholy.

Blog Against Sexism Day: Objectification of Women and Media

In her masterpiece 'the Second Sex', Simone de Beauvoir, a French feminist, analysed women's roles and positions in the society from an existentialist point of view. "She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other", she perceptively wrote. "Now, woman has always been man’s dependant, if not his slave; the two sexes have never shared the world in equality", she wrote in 1949, heralding the age of second-wave feminism. Fifty-eight years later, are the two sexes sharing the world in equality today?

The progress feminism has made in last sixty years, at least in the Western world, has been nothing less than phenomenal; feminist thinkers and activists, such as Betty Friedan and Kate Millet, transformed our thinking and started to shift the very basic paradigm of the society. We had Roe v. Wade. And now, in 2007, I'm writing this from a country where the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament, and the Chief Justice are all women.

However, we shouldn't get too illuminated and blinded by the brightness of feminism's success; it would be wrong to assert that feminism has achieved its goals, even in the West. The two sexes have never shared the world in equality, and aren't sharing the world in equality, in 2007. Women haven't even achieved the equal political representation (if you doubt it, try to name a country that has 50% representation of women in Parliament, or a female Prime Minister of Sweden, which is undoubtedly one of the most feminist countries in the world), and this fundamental structure of the society which de Beauvoir depicted, designation of women as the Other, is yet to be broken down.

"She appears essentially to the male as a sexual being. For him she is sex – absolute sex, no less", she wrote in 1949. Her account has never been more relevant than in now. As you can see, women are depicted as sex objects, everywhere, in media. Everywhere. Sexualisation of women, and recently young girls, gravely harms their mental health and self-esteem, the crucial factor in their Mind and well-being. (I recommend you to read a full report of the American Psychological Association on this topic, at here.) This dogma that the main source of a woman's worth is her sexual or physical attractiveness. This ideology that the kindness and intelligence are less important for women; Body above Mind. The indoctorination that women should pursue the 'ideal' body image that is digitally enhanced and a total illusion, or otherwise she is not as worthy. This relationship between the One and the Other.

It is ironic that sexual liberation was one of the main themes of the sixties, and one of the main goals of feminism. Feminists fought to break the old, hypocritical sexual chastity imposed only on women, virginity worship, and constraints that deprived women of sexual pleasure. Now, the sexual revolution seems to have been successful; and women are still treated as the Other and the Object. Why has this happened? I think one of the answers is that the sexual revolution ended up far more successful than feminism. When sexual freedom is introduced into a society that hasn't deconstructed the patriarchy, the outcome would be a grim one; from this unholy union of sexual freedom and patriarchy, it is natural that pornography and sexist advertising are born. I am not saying depicting sex or naked bodies is inherently sexist or objectifying; the real problem is how we treat them, how we depict them. Or rather, how the media depict them.

Why was the sexual revolution so successful, then? Because the sex revolution met the needs of the capitalist society; businesses loved it. The commercial media loved it. Sex sells. In a capitalist society, what contributes to the interests of business-owners survives. In a society where the media is privately owned by a company whose sole motive is the profit, anything serves the profit-maximising crusade of the media owners flourishes. Rupert Murdoch must love the sexual revolution because that's why he could make millions or billions of pounds from the Sun, which shamefully has the highest circulation of any English-language paper in the world. Obviously, no matter how just it is, the commercial media isn't interested in shifting the paradigm of the patriarchal system. And how can an agenda be successful when it isn't even reported well by the dominant media (which is mostly dominated by men)?

In this society, masculinity is tied to men, and femininity is tied to women (as names suggest). It is important to dismantle these gender roles so that we don't stigmatise 'feminine' men or 'masculine' women. Also equally important is to value qualities that are considered 'feminine' at the moment. Childcare shouldn't be considered as a job for women, and the pay for childcare staff should be higher than the Wall Street traders.

'War on Terror'; there's something to do at home, Mr Howard

John Howard is anything but what the name of his party suggests; liberal. With his uncritical and absolute faith in Bush, and relentless imposition of conservatism, he earned Australia an honourable title of the 51st state of the US. He is a zealous supporter of the Bush's "War on Terror" in the Middle East. However, it seems that he has something to do at his home; I mean, his real home, home electorate of Bennelong, in North Sydney.

Howard has held Bennelong for 33 years, however, due to the demographic and boundary change of the division, it has now become a marginal seat. For this year's election, Maxine McKew, a nation's foremost and eminent journalist from ABC (a public service broadcaster), is standing for Labor in Bennelong to defeat the Prime Minister. With McKew's serious and realistic chance to oust Howard from the Parliament, the Bennelong race is going to embody the change that progressive Australians have long hoped for.

However, terrorism, against which Howard has been passionately fighting, clouded the fair political contest; McKew has been threatened to death. Men were found holding torches underneath her car at home. And it was revealed that a Green candidate who ran against Howard in Bennelong three years ago also received numerous death threats. It is a threat against democracy, and especially when candidates running against the most powerful politician in the country are repeatedly threatened, the matter is even more serious.

So, titles of newspaper articles like 'McKew refuses to back down' aren't really appropriate. Refuses to back down? Does the Herald Sun expect McKew to 'back down', giving in to violence? Would the Herald Sun write 'Bush refuses to introduce Sharia law' or something like that after 9/11? McKew should be praised for her determination and courage, so 'Labor's McKew stands firm' (ABC) is better.

Why the Prime Minister doesn't condemn this violence? It's about democracy, the very thing that Howard claims to be fighting for; it's violence against democracy, the very thing Howard claims to fighting to eliminate, in the War on Terror. Doesn't he care because who is threatened is his opponent, or War on Terror is just an excuse for him to support Bush? And why all the press, except ABC, a public service broadcaster, don't report that the Green leader Bob Brown urged Howard to condemn the death threat? I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but "When people stand against John Howard there are some people in the community who react in a threatening and unsettling way", I wonder who's behind all the attacks.

Then, the Sydney Morning Herald published a bizarre article that says it was not a politically-motivated attack. SMH starts the article titled 'McKew car theft theory' by stating "Police investigating reports of men shining torches into the car of Maxine McKew... are considering whether they might have been simply trying to steal it". Police are expected to consider every possibility so this fact is meaningless; consideration doesn't mean it is true, or even it is likely. However, SMH twists it and goes on to claim that 'The Herald understands the incident is not believed to be politically motivated'. What? Based on what? I can't see why SMH can get away with it without providing basis for that. Furthermore, later in the article, it refers to the very evidences that indicate the crime was politically motivated; 'The former ABC TV journalist also received two unsigned hate letters last week but their contents have not been revealed. Police are also investigating an anonymous call about Ms McKew to the national security hotline, but have not revealed what the caller said.' How reasonable is it to say that when McKew is continuously receiving hate letters and death threats, suspicious men sneaking under her car were 'simply trying to steal it'? This article doesn't make sense at all, but many people who skimmed through the article would have simply thought 'oh, it wasn't a political violence to disrupt democratic process or anything, it was just a car theft. It must be true because a credible broadsheet like SMH says so'. And then, Wikipedia, one of the most influencial media in the Internet, said 'police believe this was an attempted car theft', based on the SMH article (I deleted it).

War on Terror? Bob Brown seems to be the best leader for the sacred war to defend liberty and democracy.

Commercialism ignores the importance of journalism

According to the NZ Herald report, TVNZ is going to target the investigative journalists in their plan to cut spending.

It's a typical example of the failure of commercial media model. Investigative journalism is the most important part of media organisations which enable them to fulfill their role as one of the society's integral pillars. There are many other things that are far less important than investigative journalism! What's the raison d'etre of the media? To critique and restrain power.

Commercial media model in which media organisation's primary purpose is profit maximisation is fundamentally flawed. Investigative journalism is expensive and may not have the highest rating, but has an intrinsic value in it that can't be taken into account in the capitalist market. That is why we need a non-commercial public broadcaster!

Update on Kirsty Gillon; corruption in the media

I found another post on Ms. Gillon in 'I See Red' blog, with a comment by Ms. Gillon's daughter, Paula Gillon. Please read it, it's the other, more credible side of the story that the biggest newspaper in this country didn't allow the readers to know. It reveals astonishing truths about the case, I didn't imagine the extent of distortion in the article.

It seems to me that if conspiracy theories are problems, the real problem lies in the commercial media who broadcast these programmes to tens of thousands of young people in the entire country without regards to its educational effects, for the sake of ratings and profit maximisation, not in a teacher who promotes critical thinking to her students in her classroom, by showing programmes about conspiracy theories.

Furthermore, Paula tells us the most striking element of this story; the writer of the article (Stephen Cook)'s "daughter is in my mother’s (Ms. Gillon's) class and it is her friend who made the complaint. " What an abuse of power, corruption. Journalists exist to reveal the abuse of power by others, not to abuse the power they have themselves. Not to slander a teacher they or their children's friend don't like, with all the misinformation. What an unfair society it is, that media personnels with unofficial, unsanctioned yet phenomenal power can damage reputation of anyone they don't like, or they don't agree with. Such misinformation, to the extent revealed by Paula, seriously undermines the factual credibility of journalism itself. I can detect the bias in articles. But it is almost impossible to see factual errors in articles when I don't personally know the people (which applies to most cases).

It is sad to see that a teacher with critical views and analyses, whom we should treasure more than anyone else, is socially punished in this way, by private power. Also, I'm reminded how the Internet is great, without the Internet I couldn't have examined the other side of the story and that article would have been the absolute authority...

Learning is About Questioning Everything

Education is important. Great teachers can transform student's thinking upside down. Education creates future; and teachers create education. We need more teachers who are innovative, liberated and espouse critical thinking.

However, the New Zealand Herald tells a story of Kirsty Gillon, a history teacher at Takapuna Grammar School in Auckland, negatively. The article is titled "Teacher promoting conspiracies investigated". Unfortunately, this article is unfairly biased against Ms. Gillon in many ways.

Firstly; the photo used in the article. What a horrible photo, she's wearing black sunglasses, and looks absolutely harsh, stern and unpleasant. Readers would never get an impression from this photo that she's a kind, friendly and passionate teacher. If the Herald had shown Ms. Gillon kindly smiling, the impression of the article would have been very different. Visual image is incredibly powerful. Not knowing her personally I don't know if she is kind or stern, but this image is not necessary the correct representation of her personality.

The entire article has a tone that is supportive of views against her. It introduces several opinions of 'academics' who disagree with her teaching style, while her point of view is briefly introduced in one sentence, in a dismissive tone; "Gillon told the Herald on Sunday she was merely trying to promote "critical thinking" among her students." She deserves the full right of reply. It is unlikely that it is the only thing she told the Herald; what part of her point did the Herald cut? Why aren't there any opinions in the article that support her teaching style?

I mean, what on earth are 'conspiracy theories', and are these even bad? 'Conspiracy theory' is merely a name for a theory that goes against the majority opinion. Who is to determine that a particular theory is 'conspiracy' and thus is not worth to be subject of a serious, academic discussion? Surely we haven't forgotten the age that geocentrism and the flat world were the majority views with authority, and the Galileo's theory was dismissed as heresy and he was persecuted. When Schliemann started the excavation of Troy no one else believed the Trojan War existed in reality. Were these theories wrong?

Professor Langley talks about 'stepping over the line', but it's just his personal opinion that the fake lunar landing theory is on the other side of 'the line'. I agree that Holocaust revisionism has no place in schools, but it is because it is hate speech, not because it is a "conspiracy theory". But except hate speeches, (again, there arises a debate over where to draw a line to define hate speech, but in this case the fake lunar landing theory is clearly neither racist, nor sexist nor prejudiced against a particular group of people.) a variety of theories, regardless of its popularity, should be allowed to be expressed by teachers. Some scientists propose that the lunar landing was fake and some journalists think a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon. I don't agree with these theories, but we all know what Voltaire said; 'I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'.

I'd further point out that this article has a contradiction within it. In the beginning of the article, it claims that 'she told them (students) in class that The Apollo Moon landing was an elaborate hoax filmed in Area 51'. But later, it goes on to change the reality; 'Gillon told them she believed the lunar landing was filmed in Area 51.' If you can't see a vital importance between these two, think about this example; 'she told them that God exists' and 'she told them that she believed God exists.' In the former she talks her belief as a matter of fact, while in the latter she talks her belief as her belief. I don't see anything but positive in a teacher explaining her unconventional view to students as her belief and to challenge them to be critical and make up their own mind.

If you think about it carefully, it is a scary thing; a teacher is accused when s/he voices opinions different from an official/majority view. How about a teacher who says the Kennedy wasn't assassinated solely by Oswald? And a teacher who tells a student that he believes Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand? Is it just to say that he doesn't have the right to say so just because it contradicts against the US government's point of view? A teacher who passionately teaches the way how the corporate-owned commercial media and its advertisers are brainwashing us into believing that capitalism is the only viable option in our society has the power to radically challenge student's conception of the society, the most valuable gift a teacher can ever give to students. Shall she be investigated and told to shut up? If it happens it is called censorship, or suppression of academic freedom and the freedom of speech.

Probably, it is fairly reasonable to say that a mainstream theory should be the one that's mainly taught in classrooms. But usually, there isn't a single, absolute, indisputable Reality, especially in social sciences and humanities. Learning is not about memorising 'facts' which others deemed them to be truthful. Learning is about developing an ability and practice to analyse and discern what are facts and realities, among multiple of views presented. In other words, leaning is about questioning everything. And that is for what schools should exist. If you just want to learn the established, conventional view, read a textbook at home. Schools ought to be a place of enlightenment.

Finally, an overwhelming number of ratings and comments on the ratemyteachers.com website expresses support, admiration and love for Ms Gillon. The comment the Herald chose seems to be fair and balanced, but what the Herald didn't report was the absolute majority of exceptionally positive comments like 'Best teacher at TGS', 'one of the best teacher in the world', 'she inspired me to become a political leader!', 'Gets the entire class discussing the topic with people's own opinions', and 'I learned so much in her class. I'm gutted im in the other history class this year', and instead they singled out the comment referring to her 'conspiracy theories', to quote in the article. I also note that almost all comments after the Herald article was published criticise the inaccuracy of the article. She never denied the Holocaust, several commenters wrote, and asked 'What's this nonsense in the paper?? Totally false and I hope she sues!'.

Where's the truth and the reality?

The real problem; single parent families and stepfamilies, or stigmatisation of them?

UNICEF published a comprehensive report on children's welfare in developed countries last week. It was widely reported as it contained an explicit ranking of 21 countries that arouses competitive spirit among nations. For some countries who gloriously topped the ranking, it is time to celebrate; congratulations the Netherlands and Sweden. But for countries that are lagging behind, it is time for some homework, discussions and blame-game. The UK narrowly beat the US for the worst place this year; therefore, not surprisingly, the British media is providing a great amount of stories of the plight of British kids and how to improve children's well-being.

However, the Daily Telegraph's article reporting the 'scathing' UNICEF report exploited this opportunity by stigmatising certain families as the source of the problem. I don't know if the report was 'scathing' to the UK, it just complied the set statistics and Britain happened to come last; there is always a country that comes last (Thatcherites might not notice, but competition always creates losers). But the real problem with the article is the second sentence of it; "The nation's high number of single parents and step-families has contributed to the ranking", the Telegraph claims, as if it were the main reason of the country's place in the ranking.

To single them out as a problem is a blatant disregard for their rights and dignity. But is it even true? Even if it were true, is it the focus they should devote half the article on?

I should point out that a part of the responsibility rests with UNICEF that included the 'percentage of children living in single parent families/stepfamilies' as the negative factor. In the page 23 of the report, it notes a legitimate concern that it 'may seem' 'unfair and insensitive'. (Well, it doesn't only seem, it IS.) Then it goes on to claim that 'at the statistical level' 'there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being'; obviously, correlation doesn't imply causation! It provides no evidence that proves the causation. It included the single-parents/stepfamilies data only because of that weak allegation of correlation. (It admits that the correlation was mainly researched in the UK and the US, not in other 20 or more OECD countries). Furthermore, even if they had shown the causation, there are already separate categories for problems that they claim are related to single parents/stepfamilies, such as 'a greater risk of dropping out of school', or 'poor health'. It doesn't make sense to include factors that are correlated to negative factors, not only negative factors themselves, unless they don't consider single parents/stepfamilies in themselves as evil.

Despite its so many grave flaws, the Telegraph chose to highlight the weak 'statistical evidence' part in the beginning of the article, instead of so many other valid points in the UNICEF report. And though Britain's relatively high percentage of single parents/stepfamilies indeed has 'contributed' to its bottom ranking as they are listed as criteria, its impact is minimal; even if Britain had none of single parents/stepfamilies in the country whatsoever, Britain would still be the second-worst in the ranking after the US.

It then goes on to claim that 'The nation has far more single-parent families than any other EU nation'. According to the UNICEF, it is simply untrue. Latvia has 18.6% and 17.7% of Estonian kids live with a single parent. The Iron Curtain no longer exists; the Baltic states are also a part of Europe! And indeed the UK had the highest percentage of single-parent families in the EU countries that are included in the ranking, it was far from 'far more'; the UK has 16.9%, while Sweden has 16.8%! How can a 0.1% difference (the smallest difference possible in the data) be described 'far more'? Then, according to the Telegraph, what is narrow margin? Denmark and Norway has 16.5% and 16.2% respectively; intriguingly and ironically, Sweden and Denmark, the second and third highest in the percentage of single-parent families, came second and third best in the overall ranking!!! If you look outside the Europe, the US has 20.8% of kids living with single parent families, making it nearly 4% higher than the UK figure.

Instead of attaching stigma to single parents and stepfamilies, it is time to learn from the countries in which children are well and happy (not only for the UK, but for New Zealand, and other countries that didn't do well too). The Independent articles reporting the successful examples of the Netherlands and Sweden illustrate that they didn't come to the top of the ranking by blame-game and alienation. In the Netherlands 'from a tender age, their opinions are valued, their wishes respected', and Sweden is the first country in the world to ban violence against children, called corporal punishment, in 1979. 5 out of top 7 countries ban corporal punishment, including all top 4. Only 2 out of the bottom 7 do. Here I'm only showing statistical correlation, not causation; but it is still worth examining, as corporal punishment is in itself evil while single parent families/stepfamilies are not.