Behind the scenes look at Occupy Boston

You really have to go down to an Occupy Wallstreet protest and spend a couple hours walking around camp to understand it. Its an anarchist collective, in the philosophical and historical sense of the word. Its a club for manic late night conversationalists. But one thing i its not is: a political organization with a poised agenda. Nobody knows whats going to come of it. At best it's a think tank. Its a place where you can go to express your frustrations and not worry about making sense. And everybody is already a member. They're pretty accepting down there.

October 5


I didn't really know what I was doing on my first day. I've filmed cinéma vérité before but usually when people were expecting me. I filmed The Tommy Dean Show. Even a Westboro protest. But this was a more intimate setting. I was behind the scenes and capturing people at their most vulnerable. Some of them asked me to stop and so I did.

October 7


On the second day, people remained apprehensive about the camera. People tried to lecture me about asking before I film them but to avoid confrontation, I ran away.

October 11


This was the day after the mass arrest. People were especially apprehensive, forcing me to grow some courage and start introducing myself to people. Once I explained myself to people, they seemed more happy to have me around. A few people maintained their distrust but I was able to avoid them.

Edit: October 24



I would be down at Occupy filming more but I've been fighting a cold. Boohoo me! ;-p

Candidate Kickoff Party At Havana

I shot another video about Seattle city counsil elections for Washington Bus! This year I took a reality approach. Host Alex Miller does a little intro / outro and provides the (somewhat silly) questions.



Appearing in this video is: Michael Taylor-Judd, Sandy Cioffi (who has since dropped out of the race), Maurice Classen, Sally Clark (incumbent), Bobby Forch, and Tom Rasmussen.

I shot this video with my Sony NEX-VG10 and Brody Willis helped me out on sound. I love his microphone. It did a great job at isolating the sound. Also, I love how he threw up a little 500w bulb in the corner. It doesn't work on every shot but from time to time, you'll see a little highlight to separate the subject from the background. Just a smidge.

Original music was provided by Dan Roeder. As an independent filmmaker in Seattle, I can't overstate my gratefulness to local film score composers. I met Dan through a networking event hosted by Catherine Grealish and at the time I didn't think I would be using any composer talent but I guess I was wrong!

Edit: Check out the Washington Bus blog post here!

The Tea Party's Robin Hood

Errol Flynn is not in this movie. Sorry to break your hearts but this is not a re-make or even a re-telling. It is a separate work to be appreciated on its own and free from comparisons. Its gritty. It drinks mead. And much like the story of English folklore, it is told not only to entertain but also to carry rhetorical message.

I am convinced many films are born out of whimsy. Danny Boyle really wanted to make a Bollywood movie and thus we have Slumdog Millionaire. Likewise, Riddley Scott thought it would be really funny if Robin Hood was a hero of libertarian principles. Libertarian ideas are popular in film. Look at Iron Man.

Crowe's Robin Hood has two notable opportunities to deliver his political view of the world. In the exposition, he declares that the common man has the power to make England rich. In the conclusion, he preaches the values of liberty and the natural rights included within the American constitution. He was truly ahead of his time, wasn't he?

Also, the evil power hungry King John has a beautiful scene in which he blames his predecessor's futile war. He says he inherited so many problems. Sound familiar? He also concludes that the kingdom has no choice but to tax its way out of debt.

This is a story about politics. To keep your attention, Mr. Scott delivers plenty of action and cinematographer John Mathieson gives us all the glitter and glamor we expect from a meticulously crafted story.

Scott is obviously planning for a sequel. The entire film feels like exposition and thus it feels shallow and simple. The philosophical scenery is painted in broad strokes of black and white. If Brian Helgeland's story is to develop this story, he wants to lay a thick foundation and save the subtle touches for the sequel. The irony being, there probably won't be a sequel. If Scott was serious about making a sequel, he should have dropped some Easter Egg clues to the potential development.

Negative reviews such as from The Village Voice express a lament over the film's failure to deliver on the initial hype of the film. I see opportunity to make right on these wrongs in a sequel. What we have is the groundwork for blockbuster sequel of Matrix proportions. What the Larry and Andy Wachowski did for Descartes, Riddly Scott has the potential to do for John Stewart Mills.

Scott's Robin Hood ultimately failed with critics because they are unable to separate the folk lore from its previous interpretations. Errol Flynn's gaiety and Disney's cute Socialist undertones are difficult icons to overcome because they are so ingrained into pop culture and remain powerful after several decades.

My question is, why does Robin Hood fail where Batman succeed? It is strictly politics?

American Auto Makers (phony) Decleration of Independence

I don't think I'm alone here. I'm skeptical of these reports and I'm disappointed by the lack of coverage. Articles like this are plentiful. They tell us the White House is pleased to inform us about our "investment" in General Motors and gives us reason for new faith.

They are quick to point out that the hypocritical Republican Party came up with this whole bailout idea in the first place and it is quite strange how they are so morally against big government now that they are no longer in power. And of course, I think this is pure comedy gold. Seriously. Dear GOP: WTF?

Questions left unanswered are, why are the neo-Keynes trumping their horns as though the debt is returned in full? Numbers seem to indicate to me, less than 13% of the loan is returned. But what is with the misleading headlines?

I also have bigger questions. Such as, where is this money coming from? Is GM selling cars, making a profit and repaying their loans in gold bars? Is the man behind the curtain manipulating the money and paying off its loans with prospective stock options?

Most importantly, am I the only one who cringes when Mr. Ed Whitacre talks about a company all Americans can be proud of? Because it creeps me out.



Of course, there are answers to these questions floating around the internet. My friend half jokingly suggested that he would condone the act of robbing liquor stores in Detroit to pay back the loans. Today, he admitted that he might not be far from the truth and gave me this link.

If GM is truly using taxpayer dollars to pay back taxpayer loans, why isn't this information more prevalent in new media? Why isn't this news story all over the front of the New York Times, LA Times, Wall-street Journal and every alternative newspaper in the country? Because it seems pretty freaking important to me.

I guess it's lost somewhere in la-la land along with the wars.

How Neighborhoods Change and Why People are Often Left Behind

"Neighborhoods change," said Lyle Bicknell. Like the people who create them, "communities are continually evolving. They get richer. They get poorer. They change in complection. That's just the human condition."

Lyle is the big man at Neighborhood Planning. His job is to lead a team of skilled city planners in aiding Seattle neighborhoods along to realizing their inner ideal. Yeah. Its pretty holy stuff.

The ideal neighborhood is self contained and sustainable, said Lyle. Of course, it hasn't always been this way. What was ideal in the 1950s might not be ideal in the post-global warming, post-housing crisis American landscape.

At the turn of the century, for example, cities like Seattle and San Francisco relied on the street car system to keep their neighborhoods connected. A good trolly line could connect urban families from the apartment to the grocery market to the public park. At the end of the day, workers could follow a trolly line from the office to the bar back home.

After World War II, America was able to resume its love affair with the automobile and families shifted from urban living, out to the suburbs. This shift was made possible, I imagine, due to low gas prices and low interest housing loans. But if the low prices of the strong economy paved the roads to the suburbs, family values and desire to own land fueled the transition.

Let us refer back to our Platonian understanding of the relationship between things and ideas. Ideas, such as the perfect neighborhood, are the models by which city planners and developers shape things such as real neighborhoods.

The Pike / Pine Corridor for example, is a beautiful manifestation of neighborhoods. Ideals in the flesh. God came down to Earth and said, 'let there be a neighborhood' and God saw that it was good. In this case, God was a team of urban developers like Liz Dunn, urban planners like Lyle Bicknell and small business like Cupcake Royal. No single person can take credit for the success of the Pike / Pine Corridor.

What happened between the beginning of the 20th century and end of World War II was not a rebuilding of cities but a metamorphosis in American values. Specifically what changed is, the values of people who had money.

Suburban life was the ideal maybe in the 50s, said Lyle. But we are beginning to see things differently. People want more options.

Wait. What happened?

Global warming, unstable gas prices, the internet and evolving family values are among the factors to be considered but return to urban life, like the sprawl of the 50s, was ultimately determined by the values of people with money.

Through the 20th century, the ideal lifestyle was to live in the suburbs with Sloan Wilson and The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. Somewhere along the way, people became sick of life in the suburbs and decided to move back to the city. The age of Ricky Ricardo gave away to the age ofJerry Seinfeld.

When money leaves the suburbs and returns to the city, urban neighborhoods experience growth.

Neighborhood growth is a beautiful thing, said Lyle. When a light rail line is introduced to a community, for example, everyone benefits. Local businesses benefit from the extra foot traffic, streets are relieved of congestion, property values go up and everybody prospers.

Of course, as one thing is gained another is lost. Such as with the transition from the street car to the personal automobile, there is a story of triumph and tragedy to be told behind the mass yuppie congregation in areas like Ballard.

The problems arise when we look to preserve what is already there, said Lyle. People notice when local icons such as when Mr. Spot's Chai House was forced out its formative Market and Leary location and sent looking for a home elsewhere.

Short sighted is the narrative about Ballard small businesses closing up shop when you consider the small business owners who have taken their place. Still relatively new to Ballard are Delancey, Bastille and Blackbird's Field House.

Also short sighted is the narrative that tells how condo developers are kicking out the artists when you consider how Nicole, and artist in her own right, has been experimenting with her nationally recognized Blackbird brand. Blackbird's Candy Shoppe could be compared to such bold career changes as Dylan goes electric.

I sincerely doubt anybody will long for another rendition of Knocking On Heaven's Door at Mr. Spot's Chai House.

And yet, we can't help but to reflect upon what we have lost.

As cost of retail space goes up, businesses that cater to low-income communities are expected to either grow with the neighborhood or move out. The customer base of endangered retail stores, such as Mr. Spot's then must decide if they are going to start hanging out at Bastille or follow their retail stores out of town.

There is a story in here about what it means to grow together with your neighborhood. It is also a story about what is so attractive about city living in the first place. That is, you need to duck dodge and weave everything they throw at you or else, the city is going to wash you away with the rain.

Ballard developers may be setting themselves up for failure if they do not plan to serve a diversity of cultures. And "there is a notion," Lyle explains, "that neighborhoods are like forests and tend to thrive better with a diversity of cultures. The monoculture forest is most vulnerable because if anything happens, everything dies."

Brothers Keeper

I used to have a friend who I will call Chuck. I loved Chuck like a man might love a brother. In the prime of our love, I would have given the shirt off my back for Chuck. Because he was my brother and I loved him.

I met Chuck when I was living in squalor in the University District. He worked at the convenient store up the street and he was my neighbor in an apartment house.

When I decided to begin the long struggle of pulling myself up by my bootstraps and go to school at Seattle University, Chuck remained where I left him. I didn't speak to him for two years.

Then, a phone call out of the blue. He needed help.

He slept on my dorm room floor for a lengthy period. My love life suffered. Understandably so, my partner did not want to sleep over when I had a strange man sleeping under my bed.

Chuck was kind of like a pet. I could not make him a key to my dorm so I would have to be there to let him in at night. Often I would come home and he would still be there, waiting for me.

Once, I came home and I caught him attempting to enter in coitus with a friend of mine. At that point, I was tempted to get Chuck neutered and reduce his natural urge to breed.

At this point I start asking myself about the value Chuck brought to my dorm room. Chuck was an expensive pet. I paid with my wallet to keep my fridge stocked so we wouldn't starve. I paid with my sex life. I paid with the risk of being caught breaking the rules of my housing agreement. What did I get in return?

A friend of mine one congratulated me on being kind enough to help the homeless, one man at a time. Of course, this was the same friend who I later found grooming a cross class romance under my bed so her opinion of my generosity was a bit biased.

The irony of sacrificing my love life for the benefit of his is not beyond me.

If Chuck and I started an epic scale rock band of such artistic genius of MGMT proportions, the price to pay might have been diminished by the infinite rewards of the riches and fame that come from being MGMT.

If I was able to support Chuck on a journey of self fulfillment, I could justify the physical expenditures by the non-material benefits. If I could have helped Chuck perfect his resume and watch him get his first stable job. If our late night conversations about our true inner selves resulted in a life changing decision, to join the military or commit to a life of religious piety, I could justify my sacrifices.

My partner rather wisely suggested to me that I did this for Chuck out of guilt. She could not explain it to be, but with growth and hindsight I am able to see what she was trying to tell me.

When I struggled in the University District, my parents supported me in the same way that I later supported Chuck. They helped me pay the bills when day labour was not enough. They helped me pay for food so I would not starve and they waited patiently for the moment to come when I would decide to change and choose to engage.

Chuck was not lucky enough to have parents like mine so I felt guilty. And from this guilt, I was able to reap nothing but dependency.

Providing for Chuck with what little provisions I was able to acquire for myself was out of a shameful kinship based on an inability to own up to my own responsibility to myself to further my own destiny. My negligence to own my responsibility turned into an unjustified feeling of responsibility for my friend Chuck.

I do not want to say that I am not my brother's keeper but I am compelled to amend all notions of brotherly love with an explanation of personal growth and co-development rather than co-dependancy. Friendship can be a beautiful thing but without notions of friendly competition and challenging each other to grow, I am afraid to say that the bonds of love can just as easily turn destructive.

Sheriffs First Act

The Sheriffs First Act (HB-2713) is scheduled to be out of committee February 2. It is part of a package of small government themed house bills, Matt Shea explains in full in Resist DC, an article he wrote for a small government think tank.

The Sheriffs First Act affirms the County Sheriffs role as the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county by regulating the jurisdiction of federal employees to perform arrests, searches and seizures in Washington State. It asserts that the federal government was created to serve the states and not the other way around.

It is not unconstitutional, said Shea. People who say this do not understand the history behind Anglo Saxon Common Law.

The social logic behind these small government house bills is to empower the people of Washington State and affirm the value of local knowledge. For example, nobody understands the interests of Clallam County than the people of Clallam County.

The Squim Gazette documents a story here about Clallam County Sheriff Bill Benedict, who wants to delegate the disposal of unused prescription medications to the man who initially dispensed them, Cy Frick of Frick's Drugs in Squim. Trivial conflict with federal DEA ensues.

Fox television show Bones alludes to sovereignty rights of local sheriffs in January 14 episode titled "X in the File" in which local sheriff character refuses to release evidence of a crime to federal agents.

Both mainstream news sources and progressive bloggers describe this recent push for small government legislation as coming from a wacky fringe element GOP, an effort to undermine the union. But it is important, says Shea, to make a distinction between national politics and state politics. At a state and county level, Shea says, GOP politics have traditionally been in favor of small government practices.

Update: Ron Periguin, undersheriff at Clallam County gave me a call. He said he would not be surprised if the Sheriffs First Act is soon found to be unconstitutional.

Analysis of the Obama Doctrine

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo could easily be the most important and most defining speech in his career. In it, he discloses the full Obama Doctrine. He begins by telling us about the necessity of war and leaves us with his feelings on charity. War for peace and giving what is required. You can watch the speech in its entirety below or read the text.



There are two parts to Obama's speech. The first half is his philosophy of war and the second half is his philosophy for peace.

Interesting how Obama accepts the award and reluctantly places himself in leagues with people such as Martin Luther King. When King delivered his speech, he accepted the prize on behalf of his people, or as he said it "beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold."

You can read the acceptance speeches of Albert Schwitzer, George Marshall, Nelson Mandela or any other laureate on the Nobel website. I look forward to reading the lecture of Paul Krugman.

I am intrigued by Obama's recap of history. He recalls the US involvement in World War II as selfless and heroic. He twice cites the Balkans as evidence to the effectiveness of 'peace through strength' and once refers to Korea. He insists history shows us the spoils of war may include lasting peace while maintaining King's contradicting philosophy, that “violence never brings permanent peace."

We know that North Korea is not a democracy and we know that the Balkans are run by the mafia. Funny how his success stories are not success stories at all. And interesting, how Obama chooses not to talk about how FDR's Machiavellian tactics brought democracy came to Japan. But of World War II, Obama speaks mostly about the European front, in which US involvement is a mere footnote by other accounts.

(citation, i admit, is missing here)

Obama makes it clear that Gandhi and King, in all their greatness, could not stop Hitler's armies or bring peace to Europe. He neglects to tell us that all of Kennedy's armies could not put an end to the Cold War, either.

Obama concludes his justification of war by identifying the war tactics of The United States as the ideal by which all just wars are modeled. When he says "I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war," he is indirectly condoning and aligning himself with the acts of war committed by George W Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gone are all campaign promises of change.

In a transitional paragraph, Obama makes an interesting reference to Guantanamo Bay. He says he is against torture and that is why he ordered the closure of the prison. Funny, how there is no real deadline for the closure. Sometime next year, he says.

Obama says there are three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

The first is through imposing tariffs on trade and other economic restrictions. Obama says "sanctions must exact a real price."

The second is through recognition of man's natural rights as outlined in the American constitution and echoed in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Obama said "I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear."

The third is through economic security and opportunity. Obama gives us the nut of the Obama Doctrine when he says, "for true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want."

The third path to peace is most interesting because it directly reflects his policy on domestic issues of education and nationalized health care.

My questions for Obama are:

Do trade tariffs truly prevent war or maintain peace? Is it possible to maintain conversation while a country is in alienation from the developed world? I would like to research and discuss how open trade aided in the cultural evolution of India, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Is it possible to force a country to respect the natural rights of its citizens without violating the natural rights of that country's leaders? I would like to research and discuss the legitimacy of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom and The War of Northern Aggression.

And finally, whose responsibility is it to restore hope to the hopeless? In what way is duty different from charity? Is it morally justified to force man to do good?

Interesting, how Obama talks about war. He refers to it as someone might talk about the weather. Americans do not seek this war. It is miserable like the rain and from it, we are inclined to seek protection. But keep faith, Obama says. Keep faith in humanity's tenacity to rebuild. We must maintain our faith in human progress, he says, and he never takes ownership of his war.

Edit: Thanks Fjahma for reminding me, Obama is now in ranks with great people such as Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat.

The Decline and Fall of the Republican Party

I caught this video from my favorite progressive blogger and I want to share it with you. Its about the proposed Republican Purity Test. Its a suicide pact. Its tearing the party apart. It begs the question, what is the GOP going to do next? Are they going to splinter off ala reformation style?



Conservative economists Gary Becker and Richard Posner wrote about the deterioration of party politics, signs pointing back as far as the 1960s.

During the republican presidential debates Ron Paul said (among other things), the base of the republican party shrunk because of the war issue. Ron Paul continues to tell Rudy Giuliani that 9/11 was Islamic backlash against American Interventionism.

Senator Lindsay Graham dishes out some backlash of his own against Ron Paul's intervention of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has fragmented into two camps. One group is the carrying the zombie corpse of The Bush administration and everything it stood for. That is, government bailouts, government sponsored monopolies in the health care industry and war mongering in the Middle East. The other group are the librarians who are against all that.

The Republican Party is in serious need of organizing and prioritizing their values. They may find that their survival into 2012 will call for compromise of various social issues such as legalized abortion, legalized gay marriage and legalized recreational drug use. Young conservatives do not buy into the hypocrisy of a political platform that preaches small government in economics and yet insists upon a federal church of morality.

Working Class Hero

From NY Times opion:

“A working class hero is something to be,” John Lennon, that product of ragged Liverpool, sang just after leaving the Beatles. “Keep you doped with religion and sex and T.V.”

As someone who had a union card in my wallet before I owned a Mastercard, I don’t share Lennon’s dark view of blue collar workers. But as long as they can be distracted by people who say all government is bad, while turning a blind eye to manipulation at corporate levels, they’re doomed to shouting at phantoms.

I have been thinking about the big government versus big corporate groups. In your mind, which one is more evil? More importantly, are they mutually exclusive? Most Republicans and Democrats argue as though we have an either/or situation.

If the government isn't running things, then the evil corporations are going to rape us in our sleep!

Somebody once told me, the problem with big business is their ability to bribe the government. I think this kind of insight is very short sighted. He should have said, the problem with big government is that it opens the doors to lobbyists and special interest groups and as of late, corporate execs looking for bailouts.

How are we going to put the power back in the hands of the people? I do not think this comes from artificially inflating the power of either government or corporate fat cats. Power for the people comes from preserving options.

Why do you think non-paid internships are on the rise? I somehow doubt it is because our employers are not taxed enough.

Rush to buy: issue of free speech

Rush Limbaugh wants to buy the St. Louis Rams. Al Sharpton is leading the crusade against Limbaugh’s efforts, arguing that Limbaugh is unfit to own a sports franchise because he is a racist and an addict; clearly an irresponsible role model for young Americans. While the drug possession charges are general knowledge, the racist argument is yet to be determined.

Common sense dictates that Limbaugh is a staunch conservative and therefor a racist and tainted with prejudice. But where are the facts?

Notwithstanding lack of evidence, is Rush Limbaugh entitled to his opinion? Or is his money no longer good?

This is an important ethical question for our generation to answer. Is it true that 'hate speech' is the antithesis of democratic free-speech and must be censored? If Limbaugh is a racist, should he be bared from participation in public radio, in sports, in business? Is Limbaugh’s money no good or is Limbaugh, in a free society, free to both speak and spend his money as he pleases? Is the NFL unable to stop him?

This discussion might be better framed as good or bad marketing: Does the NFL as a publicly traded organization have the freedom to pick and choose the partners it affiliates with?

David Sirota wrote in Huffington Post: Forget the double standard of Rush Limbaugh, a free marketeer, now decrying as outrageous the NFL corporation's logical business decision to protect its brand from his taint.

Sirota dismisses a good point. The St. Lewis Rams may, as a PR strategy, choose to turn down Limbaugh's offer to buy the franchise. But this decision should come from the Rams and the strategic decision will rest in the symbiosis of brands, weather or Limbaugh’s values are acceptable to the St. Louis Rams and their fans. Of course, we might safely assume that the target audience, Rams fans, are also Limbaugh fans. So.... it would make no sense to stop Limbaugh.

Freedom Watch hosts an interesting conversation:

parking in the neighborhood

sdot will be hosting a community open house september 17, at first baptist church. please come and voice your opinions.

parking on capitol hill is a longstanding issue. are there too many people and too many cars to all park happily in the area? do more people need to ride the bus? do we need to tear down some unwanted buildings and put up a parking lot?



frankly, nobody can answer these questions better than the people who live on the hill, the people who bring value to the area. what city organization knows better for capitol hill than the residents and small business owners who live and work there? if sdot does not get your input, how will they know what to do?

i will be there to ask for an expansion of the zone 21 permit. i think anybody who buys a parking permit should be able to park anywhere on the hill and not worry about 1hr restrictions or putting money in a meter! so i hope to see you there and maybe afterward we can all grab a drink at rosebud!

mccain's little girl

these are ideas i can get behind. a republican christian conservative that feels strongly for marriage equality. i'm starting to wonder if we did the wrong thing, voting in obama?

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Meghan McCain
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage

i like when meghan says blogging won't make the republican party cool for the younger generation, that the republicans need to focus on the message. wait... you mean to tell me that medium is not more important than the message?

this is the sort of opinion i'm trying to find for my one minute for marriage program.

question, where am i going to find these people? blogging doesn't seem to be the trick.

this could be the twilight of the big fight for marriage equality. the young people have reviewed the facts and they are voting yes on marriage equality. the fight is drawing to a close but that does not mean it is time to let up. i would like to see the community step it up a notch and burn all that extra wind we've been saving up. now is the time to sprint that final stretch before the finish line.

edit: i also like when she says she doesn't want to practice what she herself can't preach. actually, i think she flubbed it intentionally. but whatever... =)

how to build a country

i would imagine that the process of developing a fully functional country is similar to the development of a fully functional adult. the difference is this: countries are vaguely composed of thousands of adults. therefore, developing a country is 1000 times more complicated. right? and we all know that developing an adult is a task of quantum absurdity.

the concept of this article is interesting. it is about kosovo.

as you read the artilce, you should be thinking of iraq.

clothes for revolutionaries

what can i say about this article?

i'll outline it:
1) republicans in ohio
2) gather 14 bags of clothes
3) send them to kosovo

those poor defenseless impoverished kosovians will be so grateful for the generosity from the powerful nation of america!

i think we should bake ourselves a cake and congradulate ourselves on a job well done. we are so progressive!

obama wins the heart of bosnia and kosovo

the triple door was packed and there were only two servers tending the bar. there was a band on stage, awkwardly holding their instruments. the audience was looking at the television set above their head.

"this is the best day of my life," a girl told me. her boyfriend was standing in the corner, unable to do anything about his deliriously drunken lover.

downtown seattle was erupting with a sense of community that has never been expressed before. high fives and hugs between strangers and people happily honking their horns. everybody was filled with so much joy.

i saw a parade of ten cars, filled with young black teenagers, armed with video cameras, poised to capture the spectacle that they had created.

this feeling is apparently shared around the world. bulgarian newspaper printed this article today about bosnia and a balkan newspaper printed this article about kosovo. the titles of the articles are more important than the content.

then i found this article. skip ahead to the last paragraph where it talks about the non-partisanship of the public news media. there are a number of different reasons why this paragraph may have been written.

america is very polarized. you must not confuse the polarization for passion because the feelings are fleeting. i will wait until valentines day, when president obama opens all of his seasonal greeting cards. will we still love him six months from now? from my experiences, the american people love to set themselves up for disappointment.

assignment: neil horsley

neil horsely himself posted this video on youtube.

i told neil, " news and rhetoric should not be confused. news does not cast moral judgment. rhetoric does and also calls for action."

he replied to me right away: The very subjects chosen as "news" proves a moral judgment is being made by the news media. Why report when a law is broken? A moral judgment has been made by the news media that breaking the law is bad. Every news report telegraphs a moral presupposition that is obvious to people with eyes that see and ears that hear. Oh wait! Now I see why you didn't understand that news DOES cast moral judgment.

my statement to him is, "the idea of news and the application of news are arguably two different things. for practical purposes, the lines between news and rhetoric are fuzzy. but the idea of news and the idea of rhetoric are different."

"news does not report violations of the law because it is bad but because logically, it violates public safety and compromises the integrity of the marketplace. its goal is to bring attention to conditions. the analysis of those conditions is up to the viewer.

"rhetoric is different from news because it overtly dispatches a call to action. the news tells you that your neighbor has been robbed. the manipulative rhetorician tells you to buy a gun because you are next. you could argue that the news also encourages you to find means to protect yourself but this is only through inductive reasoning on your behalf."

i am curious how he will respond to this but i do not expect it to be very insightful. neil is the type of man who relies on violence to get his point across.

if you follow this link read the description that he gives his video, you will see: "This provides a good overview of the abortioncams project as well as the kinds of media attacks the project creates."

Look at the last part. This video is a good overview of the kinds of media attacks (Neil) creates through his videos.

This is fascinating to me.