| January 2006 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Friday, January 27
Elesha Gayman of DFQC Named DFA Rising Star
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 27 Jan 2006 04:44 PM CST
 Elesha Gayman of DFQC Named DFA Rising Star
Elesha Gayman, a member of Democracy for the Quad Cities, has been named to the Democracy for America Rising Star list.
Elesha,
former Dean Delegate to the Democratic National Convention, is running
for the Iowa House of Representatives in District 84. Elesha's
dedication to her community inspired her to enter the non-profit sector
as a grant writer, fundraiser and volunteer. Now, she is running to
bring new energy to the Iowa State House.
Click here to read Blog for Iowa's in-depth profile of Elesha written by Caroline Vernon.
Click here to visit Elesha Gayman's campaign website.
Click here to visit DFA's Rising Star page.
Thursday, January 19
A 'True Revolution of Values'
by
Caroline Vernon
on Thu 19 Jan 2006 04:35 PM CST
A 'True Revolution of Values'
By Michael Eric Dyson
www.beliefnet.com
Martin Luther King, Jr., warned America about the danger of unquestioning national pride. How far have we come?
Michael Eric Dyson, best-selling author, ordained Baptist minister, and professor of religion at the University of Pennsylvania, says it was Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life inspired him to "embrace social redemption through the written word." In his latest book, "Pride," excerpted below, Dyson explores King's role as an American prophet.
The voice of the dissenter is often the conscience of the nation. Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s prophetic voice rang forth in the first half of the twentieth century; Martin Luther King Jr.’s voice was a clarion call for freedom and democracy in the century’s closing half.
"God didn’t call America to do what she’s doing in the world now," King thundered from his Atlanta pulpit exactly two months before his death at the hands of a cowardly racial terrorist. "God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war." Here, of course, King referred to the Vietnam War, and he took a lashing in public for his dissenting views. He was accused of being unpatriotic. He was charged with moral treason. Other black leaders like Roy Wilkins and Whitney Young lambasted him (though they later came to acknowledge, as did the nation, that King’s views were courageous and correct). And yet, King was one of the greatest patriots this nation has produced. He proved it by giving his life in a fight to defend this country’s best side against its worst. As we struggle for ethical guidance in the shadow of terrorism and war, it is good to remember that dissent helps national flourishing and aids in clarifying our political vision. If King’s actions against war prove anything, it’s that there’s a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is the critical affirmation of one’s country in light of its best values, including the attempt to correct it when it’s in error. Nationalism is the uncritical support of one’s nation regardless of its moral or political bearing.
Patriotism "often takes the form of beliefs in the social system and values of one’s country. Expressions of nationalism, on the other hand, are often appeals to advance the national interests in the international order." This latter version of an insular and narrowly conceived national pride is expressed in the slogan, “my country, right or wrong.” Too often nationalism has prevailed over patriotism in expressions of national pride. The confusion between the two has blurred the difference between love and worship of country, a distinction King never failed to make.
In a commencement address at Lincoln University in 1961, King praised the American dream and the Declaration of Independence, saying that “seldom if ever in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profoundly eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality.” And when he gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech before the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, King reaffirmed that his dream was “deeply rooted in the American dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ ”
But King understood the contradictions at the heart of American society. In his Lincoln University commencement address, King said “since the founding fathers of our nation dreamed this noble dream, America has been something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against herself.” America, King understood, preaches democracy but practices its selective application. Moreover, King understood the perils of an isolationist nationalism that celebrates one’s country at the expense of recognizing one’s global citizenship. In such a case, loyalty to nation might turn vicious, demanding that one subordinate moral principle to narrow national self-interest. In his church sermon, King said that in Vietnam, America had “committed more war
crimes almost than any nation in the world.” And we wouldn’t stop it “because of
our pride and our arrogance as a nation.”
To read the rest of this article, click here:
Wednesday, January 4
Skirmishes in the Information Wars
by
Caroline Vernon
on Wed 04 Jan 2006 04:00 PM CST
Skirmishes in the Information Wars
By Mike Whitney
Online Journal Contributing Writer
onlinejournal.com
There
are only two weapons in the imperial tool chest: force and deception.
The brutal colonial occupation of Iraq has provided us with a lavish
example of the former, but the twin-axel of deception is more abstruse
and difficult to pin down. Sure, there's the flagrant propaganda that
floods right-wing radio and political talk shows, but that tells us
little about the state-sponsored disinformation-programs that permeate
every area of American life.
We now
know that the Bush administration authorized massive illegal spying
operations and is actively engaged in planting pro-American stories in
the foreign press. These suggest that the administration's overall
theory of information management is much more extensive then originally
imagined. In fact, news and information manipulation is at the
forefront of Bush's war on terror, a comprehensive strategy to control
of every bit of information a citizen hears, sees or reads from cradle
to grave. It is information warfare on a scale that would make George
Orwell cringe.
It is
only in this context that we can see that the threats made by George
Bush to bomb Al Jazeera are completely consistent with the
administration's overall approach. Controlling information is seen as a
military necessity and those who fashion an alternate narrative are
Washington's sworn enemies. In this respect, we can understand how Al
Jazeera would have to be destroyed to pave the way for greater
democracy.
When we
observe the isolated incidents of the Bush information strategy it
seems disjointed and incoherent. How does the killing of journalists in
Iraq connect to the "Swift-boating" of Dan Rather or Richard Clarke in
the American press?
How does
Condi Rice's new Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program for aspiring
American propagandists relate to blowing up of Al Jazeera facilities in
Kabul and Baghdad?
How does
the dissemination of false stories in the foreign press connect to the
massive surveillance operations being carried out home and abroad?
Until we
are able to combine the many disparate parts of the Bush information
strategy, we are at risk of seeing these illegal activities as mere
aberrations and not as vital cogs in the machinery of the police state.
There is
nothing arbitrary about the massive cloud of secrecy that has settled
on the Bush administration. The government has built an impervious wall
around itself that conceals the venality of the principle characters
and avoids the transparency required for a healthy democracy.
Conversely,
the administration has defended its use of the various investigative
agencies; including the CIA, the Defense Dept., the NSA, and the FBI,
to probe every area of American life. In fact, the USAPATRIOT Act's new
provisions (National Security Letters and "lone wolf" clause)
completely dispose of the 4th Amendment's right to privacy (or
"probable cause"), allowing the government to spy on anyone it sees
fit. The recent revelations that government organizations have been
spying on antiwar activists, Quakers and environmentalists, strongly
suggests that Bush is now vacuuming up every bit of available
information on political enemies real or imagined.
Is anyone really surprised?
To read the rest of this article, click here:
|
|
