We Are at War with Eurasia

Reaction Paper #2

---

War time Propaganda in the USA, a literature review


"The Rhetorical Roller Coaster to War: San Francisco Chronicle Headlines 8/2/90-1/15/91" by Carol Wilder and Adam Colby is a brief survey of the tone in newspaper reporting headlines over the given time period. The tones of the headlines were sorted by readers into 4 categories: No News, Bad News, Mixed News or Good News. The categories are a reflection of how war reporting was conceived on a given day. According to the authors, the reporting showcased an erratic representation of the war in Iraq, which left the readers in a confused state. The authors also noticed that, "...percentage of 'No News' reporting during this pre-election period was more than twice the overall averageWilder, Carol, Colby, Adam. "The Rhetorical Rollers Coaster to War: San Francisco Chronicle Headlines 8/2/90-1/15/91." Magazine. 11.2 (1992): 110-120. Print. " leaving them to believe that it could be part of a Pentagon moratorium on war reporting during that period. However, for this conflict this was not confirmed by the authors. Although this was a good idea to sample reporting, I feel that this research could be expanded, perhaps to other conflicts and more newspapers. This sample is too small, although it does reflect the authors thesis that the reporting from a day to day basis was ambiguous and could lead to readers being confused as to the ongoing nature of the conflict. Quantitative analysis of news reporting is important for giving a solid, numerical backdrop to an author's theoretical approach. Wilder and Colby do original research which happens to support their theory. In Michael I. Niman's piece, "Spinning the War, Lessons in Propaganda Niman, Michael I. "Spinning the War, Lessons in Propaganda." ArtVoice 2003: Print. ", the author conglomerates statistics from a small handful of other reputable sources to make his point. Some of the evidence the author cites to support his argument include a survey from Editor and Publisher of the first week of the latest invasion of Iraq. In that study Editor and Publisher found 15 stories that were later proven false and retracted or changed. The author also cites a study by FAIR which found anti-war news previous to the invasion to be almost totally invisible and 3/4 of those consulted regarding the invasion on television news were or had been at some time working in government. This article and the report cited by FAIR comes out 5 years before the investigative article in The New York Times by David Barstow, "Message Machine, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand".Barstow, David. "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand". New York Times, April 20, 2008 Barstow's article was the result of a lawsuit brought to the Defense Department by the New York Times for communications detailing years of talking points propagated by the Pentagon for military analysts. This extensive article documents how the Pentagon was directly paying many analysts, many of whom worked for military contracting companies which compete for contracts, to appear on television news program and echo their policies. According to this article, this had been going on for years in attempt to defend against criticism of the war and to falsify a sense of widespread objective support for their policies from seemingly credible sources. This article is a solid documentation of one of the latest and most widespread occurrences of state sponsored war time propaganda. In another article that was published this month, we learn of Blackwaters purchasing of support of Iraq's officials after the Sept 2007 Nisour Square incident where Blackwater employees killed 17 civiliansMazetti, Mark Risen, James. "Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq after 17 Die." New York Times 11 Nov 2009, . Blackwater had been awarded top military contracting positions within Iraq after the invasion. Top executives, including the President (at the time) Gary Jackson, approved the $1 million bribe after the company received widespread criticism of their actions. This article is framed as a corruption article, but is evidence of a private contractor's attempt to buying positive publicity after an extremely negative and well publicized incident within a war zone. In May of 2007 documents were released about another incident in Haditha in 2005 where 24 civilians were killed by US Marines. Von Zielbauer, Paul. "Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings" New York Times, 6 May, 2007

The immediate response within the chain of command was to blame the deaths on the actions of insurgents. However, later officers were charged with covering up the incident. This article is also framed an incident of corruption. Lorie Robertson writes in the American Journalism Review in 2003 Robertson, Lorie. "Bagdahd, Urban Legends." American Journalism Review. (Oct/Nov 2003): 26-31. Print. writes about Pew Research polls, The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) polls and the (then) current understandings of the war in Iraq. According to those polls there was a large divergence between how the American public understood the events in Iraq and it's surrounding policies and what had actually happened in the lead up and during the initial invasion. In the PIPA survey they found that those who claimed to watch FOX news were more likely to believe that WMDs were found in Iraq. The author ascribes this to the possibility that, "there's something in the way that news is presented..."Robertson, Lorie. "Bagdahd, Urban Legends." American Journalism Review. (Oct/Nov 2003): 28. Print. on FOX or that people are making assumptions based on their values and previous knowledge of Saddam Hussein. She also notes that a lot of the misconceptions found in the polls could be a result of the president's announcements and declarations during that time. However, she does so without implicating the president or FOX news. Also in the article is a comparison between the knowledge and attitudes of newspaper readers with people who watch the news on television. Her research is instead somewhat removed from the political debate and acts more to interpret the information as isolated incidences. The article is a presentation of findings with smatterings of quotes from other journalists as to how this information should be interpreted. In a more critical look at news coverage during the invasion of Iraq, The Nation blasts CNN's embedded news coverage as serving the Bush administrationDouglas, Susan J. "CNN War Casualty" The Nation, April 14, 2003, pg 8. . The article itself is more of a blurb but points to evidence within the coverage of CNN's self censorship and sycophancy with the administrations policies. The article does not make the claim of straightforward propaganda, but does imply that CNN has showed journalistic weakness in it's reporting on the war and argues that the channel should aim to inform the public objectively and not to serve the purposes of the administration. evidence within the coverage of CNN's self censorship and sycophancy with the administrations policies. The article does not make the claim of straightforward propaganda, but does imply that CNN has showed journalistic weakness in it's reporting on the war and argues that the channel should aim to inform the public objectively and not to serve the purposes of the administration.

In another article from The Nation by Kai Bird and Max Holland, the authors reveal how the Reagan administration had been funneling money through the N.E.D. (National Endowment for Democracy) to an organization called, The Freedom HouseBird, Kai and Holland, Max. "Freedom House Journalists". The Nation. 24 May 1986 pg 720 . This organization selectively chose democratic movements from all over the globe, mainly those that were allies to the US at the time, and forwarded news stories written by neo-conservative allies to journalists in about 50 other countries. The point being, to use a third party seemingly impartial source to deliver the administration's agenda to foreign countries. The author's concluded that the attempt at propaganda in this case proved ineffectual and was a waste of federal money.

Ray Eldon Hiebert catalogs the tactics used by the Bush administration during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to keep the conflict essentially TV and reporter friendly, in his article, "Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary ReviewHiebert, Ray Eldon. "Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary Review." Public Relations Review. 29.3 (2003): 243-255. ". Hiebert asserts that "communication tactics" evolve with new technology in order to win the media war on the home front. He covers everything from the falsification of evidence by members of the CIA to US forces destroying the Iraqi media infrastructure and it's replacement by military radio. Hiebert also notes importantly, how the development of live streaming news from the front lines changed the way we saw the war. A program by the Pentagon, Combat Camera, produced almost 1,000 still digital images a day and 25-50 video clips per day and distributed them to news mediaHiebert, Ray Eldon. "Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary Review." Public Relations Review. 29.3 (2003): 251

. Of course these images being hand chosen by the Pentagon, were not made known by the viewers their origin. In conclusion Hiebert argues that due to the changing/ rapidly expanding use of propaganda and misinformation in warfare, there remains a need for a strong independent press.

George Kateb, in his article, "The Novelty of War"Kateb, George, "The Novelty of War". Good Society Journal. (2007) Vol 16. Issue 2. p25-31 takes the lies of the Bush administration in the run up to the war as a given and asks imperative questions surrounding what the real motives for the invasion of Iraq were. In this case the author argues that the American public would've accepted many reasons for war with Iraq, however, since none of them given to us were true, the only purposes these lies served was a smokescreen for the real reason(s). Kateb ads an important question to the debate regarding the use of propaganda for this invasion. Will the American public ever know the real reasons behind the invasion, if it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction nor the ties between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein? In this case the author is not merely collecting information regarding incidences of purposeful deception, nor trying to to quantify any evidence pertaining to the issue, instead, the author is trying to make sense out of how and why the nation as a whole was mislead on such a large scale.

Umaruh Bah describes the history of development communication research out of Cold War propaganda studies inside higher education in his article, "Daniel Lerner, Cold War Propaganda and the US Development Communication Research: A Historical CritiqueBah, Umaru. "Daniel Lerner, Cold War Propaganda and US Development Communication Research: A Historical Critique." Journal of Third World Studies. XXV.1 (2008): 183-196. Print. ". Bah posits that the development communication research sprung directly from US Cold War propaganda objectives. In it he identifies higher education institutions that received large amounts of money from the federal government to help them spread their policies and increase their support internationally via social science research and specifically follows the career of Daniel Lerner, a communication and propaganda researcher. This article does not seek to define a paranoid vision of widespread propaganda, but instead identifies where the government directly paid higher education institutions for results that would show US policies favorably. The New York Times does a good job of covering stories on a day to day or short term basis of events as it pertains to the conduct and cover ups on the battle field. They also did an excellent job suing the Defense Department for access to their files surrounding the use of military analysts to echo the military's messages. Within the sphere of academic writing, I would like to see more surveys and cataloging of uncovered cases of straight out misrepresentations that were later found to be false with more coherent theories behind them. For instance, George Kateb asks, "Why?". If all of the stories and tactics used by the Bush administration in the run up and follow through to the war were found to be false, what are the real reasons behind the invasion? I would also like to see more work in the vein of Wilder and Colby analyzing the headlines in major newspapers during strategically important moments (such as run ups to invasions). I feel that the "roller coaster" theory may have more to it than was provided in their short survey. Overall I feel there are a lot of holes to fill pertaining to the research of the modern use of US government propaganda, but there is also a lot to build from.

Astroturfing the Ether

Astroturfing the Ether

Grassroots organization and campaigning is as old as the typed word. When Martin Luther posted a list of qualms he had with the existing Catholic Church doctrine, he protested as someone with inside knowledge, but with little power given to him within the chain of command to change the institution itself. Grassroots is generally used to imply a movement built from the bottom up of the socio-political hierarchy. A movement that is not based in a traditional organization, where people come together for a common cause. Since the time of the earliest grassroots organizations where people have fought together for everything from religious freedom and labor rights to health and environmental protections, those with vested interests in the status quo have fought back. Sometimes powerful industries and governments are blatant about advocating for their interests however, often times they are not. When powerfully interested parties use front groups to advocate for their point of view, it is termed, 'Astroturf'. The debate over net neutrality is at its core between consumer advocates and telecommunication companies protecting their interests and vying for more control over the public communication infrastructure.

Net Neutrality has become more of an issue in recent years as complaints against Internet Service Providers have been brought to the FCC for blocking or throttling certain types of internet traffic. ISPs argue that they are throttling certain types of traffic such as file sharing to maintain all other traffic at a certain pace. Those for net neutrality see the ISPs actions as discriminatory and an attempt to control content. ISPs are arguing for the ability to tier and throttle traffic while the net neutrality groups are fighting to protect the open playing field the internet is predicated on.

Hands Off the Internet is one such astroturf organization that is totally funded by telecommunication companies and numerous other business interests. Hands Off the Internet was founded in 2006 to lobby against net neutrality. Currently it is co-chaired by Michael McCurry and Chris Wolf(Free Press, Nov 9, 2009,) . Michael McCurry also works for Public Strategies Washington, "a full service government relations and lobbying firm." (Public Strategies Washington, Nov 9, 2009) The member organizations of Hands Off includes, AT&T, ADC Communications, The National Association of Manufacturers, Sunrise Telecom, Inc, My Wireless, and The American Conservative Union among many others. Hands Off is just one organization among a team of groups being funded by the myriad companies with anti-neutrality interests. Other astroturf groups being funded by telecommunications companies include Freedomworks, Net Competition, Citizens for a Digital Future, and the American Consumer Institute. According to the site, the mission statement of Hands Off begins as follows:

"Hands Off The Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users, manufacturers and network operators united in the belief that the Net’s phenomenal growth over the past decade will continue if government does not attempt an unwise effort to regulate a market that is otherwise working to give consumers the choices, freedom, prices and diverse experiences they desire in the new age of the Internet."

There are many problems with this statement. First, for the claim that "internet users" are a part of the coalition appears to be a farce. Why, you ask? A functional grassroots organization or one supported in part by internet users would have a functioning mailing list. The button, "Stay Informed: Sign up for our mailing list" doesn't work and hasn't in weeks. Second, there is no where for any 'member' to contribute to their cause financially or otherwise. Third, there is no proof to the claim that government regulation will inhibit the type of growth of the internet that we have witnessed in the last 10 plus years is wrong. In fact the growth from the internet is due largely to the EXTREMELY low barriers to entry. Anyone has the ability to create a website/blog/internet business and it runs just as fast as every other site. As Internet Service Providers (ISPs) seek to gain the power to tier or discriminate content, the capacity for easy start up businesses and the free exchange of ideas will be greatly hampered as sites will be charged for the use of bandwith. Net Neutrality is the legal prevention of ISPs having the power to discriminate against content. I digress.

On Thursday Nov 5, 2009, I sent an e-mail to Hands Off the Internet with questions regarding their operations and their membership but have not yet received a response.

In 2006 Hands Off The Internet began airing commercials framing net neutrality as an infringement on consumer choice. If passed, net neutrality would lead to unnecessary government regulation meant to profit "big online companies" that want consumers to pay for internet infrastructure (Hands Off the Internet, Youtube Channel, Nov 9, 2009) . In another commercial produced in 2006 Hands Off claims that US companies have NEVER blocked content instead blaminig Canadian companies of doing so. In 2005, however, the American company MRC, LLC paid a settlement of $15,000 to the FCC for blocking customers from using the internet to make phone calls (Sarkar, Dibya, "Net Neutrality bill would bar net providers from slowing traffic", AP, Feb 14, 2008,). In 2008 the FCC upheld a complaint against Comcast for blocking file sharing ("Google Aims to Expose Network Meddling", Techweb, Jan 28, 2009). On May 22, 2008 the co-chairs of Hands Off, McCurry and Wolf, wrote an op-ed to the New York Times in response to a call for net neutrality, claiming that there are already rules and regulations in place to protect users from such "hypothetical problems".(McCurry, Mike, Wolf, Christopher, "Letter; Regulating the Net", New York Times, May 22, 2008) Conveniently, McCurry and Wolf fail to note these instances of ISP interference.

Astroturf organizations are not a new phenomenon. David Collison in his article "Corporate Propaganda: its implications for accounting and accountability," writes of many cases throughout history where business groups have intentionally concealed their identities as a source and published material to sway public opinion. According to Collison, this is a form of propaganda. One of his examples includes The National Organization of Manufacturer's (which is not so ironically, one of the member organizations of Hands off). In 1939 the organization was under congressional investigation due to their widespread and misleading campaigns against the growing labor movement. They published material that seemed to be from a third party objective source and distributed the information to churches, schools and community associations. Considering the outcomes for labor and business interests, the campaigns by NAM were successful in swaying public perception in their favor. Today groups like, "Citizens Against Food Taxes" and the "Clean Coal of America" coalitions are campaigns built to look like citizen movements, but heavily funded by industry insiders.

To the average TV viewer watching the Hands Off the Internet commercials it is not obvious who is funding the message. On the site the members are stated despite that it is not widely acknowledged as a well constructed extension of the noise machine with only business interests in mind. Through Hands Off the Internet, telecommunication companies get to frame the debate as an issue of excessive government regulation, the interest of big internet companies, or whatever will throw the average consumer off the trail. They have money to sink into national cable television spots and to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into congress to support their position. Since 2006 Hands off has spent over $250,000 a year lobbying congress (Free Press, Nov 9, 2009,) . In such front groups dollars substitute citizen members, those with accumulated wealth will act to keep the wealth in their hands, regardless of public good. On the other side of the spectrum, organizations like Free Press and Save The Internet rely on small donations from tens of thousands of donors and the efforts of numerous individuals communicating to their congressional leaders their wishes.

Hands Off the Internet is an astroturf group funded by the telecommunications companies to advocate against net neutrality. It is funded by oligopoly telecom companies and is not widely supported by internet users. Hands Off like the other front/ astroturfs seek to confuse the debate around a consumer issue to sway the debate toward the favor of the industry. Fundamentally, as Collison posits, this takes away from real grassroots organizations and muddles the national debate to the detriment of real socially democratic values. When these powerfully interested parties use front groups to advocate for their point of view, they are effectively laying Astroturf into the grassroots conversation; they create artificial confusion in the public by constructing the appearance of citizen debate.

Reaction Paper 1

Understanding Media Studies
Fall 2009


Collison's, "Corporate Propaganda: its implications for accounting and accountability" is a solid historical and economic case study overview of how powerful corporate entities have maintained and expanded control through the use of propaganda to the detriment of social-democratic values.

Propaganda, as defined by Collison (pg 856), "is a tool that can be used by powerful interests, often covertly, to support and proselytize a prevailing ideology." This paper does go into other uses of the term "propaganda" that have been applied throughout history. However, for the point of his paper, Collison emphasizes the covert use of media outlets by corporate interests to persuade public opinion toward the favor of capitalist entities and principles, among the other uses of the term "propaganda" throughout history. Specifically, the message that has been emphasized and reiterated and forced upon the public as a virtue via corporate propaganda, is the principle which emphasizes the Maximization of Shareholder Value (MSV) above all else. Collison also points to an inadvertent form of propaganda at the basis of the MSV. That being the misinterpretation of the fundamental capitalist text, "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.

Collison notes that the textbook education of accounting and finance students is focused completely around the crux of the maximization of shareholder value (MSV) above all else. The MSV among other precepts in finance and accounting texts are written as uncontested facts when they are indeed contestable. In reaction to this capitalist mythology that permeates such text books and as Collison shows later, our collective consciousness, he sifts through Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations". Overall his selection of texts from "The Wealth of Nations" were important for showing how the neo-classical interpretations of Adam Smith misses important historical context and the integral humanistic values that were a part of Smith's tome. The free market is not one with no rules as is implied by modern pro marketers, the free market is one in which there are no monopolies, charters, and land trusts. Those entities actually restrain free movement and association, much like the large corporate entities that today exist (and own large media shares) and continue to have a vested interest in business as usual. Collison points to a modern example of the dissonance between Smith and modern corporate interests, (pg 862)"Financial Times contributors are fond of words like "ominous" to describe real wage rises: such words are not used to describe profit increases. This is a distinction that did not commend itself to Adam Smith, who berated recipients of profits for their double standards in complaining about wage costs while remaining silent about the costs of their own rewards.

Constant repetition of only selected parts of Adam Smith's classic economic work with little regard to the historical context and the actual values from which he was writing helped to create and maintain a skewed and monopolistic marketplace. One in which labor, public health and environmental concerns are easily written off as Bolshevism. Collison uses examples from the "Wealth of Nations" to prove his point and brings Smith back into the conversation at various points throughout the paper to reiterate the dissonance between capitalism in the last 100 years and what was laid in the original text.

Through the use of a historical examples, Collison ties together how the bastardization of Smith was brought into being and then used to initiate and justify propaganda campaigns which in effect defeated democratic social movements and undermine real democracy. As a particularly salient case study, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) was created by corporate entities to change public opinion against the strikers. From the methods that NAM employed they appeared as an authoritative grassroots organization and used language to discredit the strikers and unions during early turn of the century labor unrest. As a response to corporate interests losing their footing in the public realm, NAM had done a scary yet excellent job at passing off disguised information to everything from schools to newspapers a 1913 Congressional investigation found.
Thus they were effective in discrediting movements aimed at creating social benefits and value. According to Collison during times with higher levels of social unrest hegemonic powers fought back through covert propaganda campaigns to ensure that power remained in their hands, (pg 870) "In the war's aftermath business propaganda was again put work....The Dominant themes were the same as those of the 1930's: symbolic linking of business free enterprise with democracy, the family, the church and patriotism and identifying government regulation of business and those who supported such steps with communism and subversion.

Collison notes numerous studies both historical and recent of manufactured stories being presented as news without the public knowing the original creators. He also sights a study from 1997 by Carey detailing how US business was spending $1 billion dollars a year on "grassroots propaganda. A current example of this falsified grassroots propaganda can be seen in such campaigns as, "Americans Against Food Taxes" <http://www.nofoodtaxes.com/> whose members include Coca Cola, 7-11, and Burger King. The historical pattern of passing off business favored information is not a thing of the past as we would like to believe, as we recall in recent years the blow out over the creation of fake news by PR groups sent to news programs and aired as news, without any disclosure as to the origin of the video (Center for Media and Democracy, )

These examples are a key part of the success of such propaganda. According to Collison, (pg 857)"...one of the simplest and most powerful techniques of corporate propaganda is based on flagrant deception - the simple concealment of the involvement of the sponsors of propaganda. This deception is acknowledged as being part a of a process, along with the fact that news organizations do rely on advertising dollars and thus are limited in their abilities to report on stories that would negatively effect their advertisers and essentially their bottom line as a money making industry.

All considered, Collison made his point well. That being that hegemonic control over the means of communication and the messages heard through those channels is in detriment to social democratic forms and that it is important in being able to recognize the patterns utilized by corporate propaganda in order to work towards a more socially democratic society. However, to be slightly critical of Collison, he only mentioned the use of propaganda in accounting and finance text books early on and seemed to barely touch on the topic in other sections, despite the title of this article. I think perhaps Collison wrote the paper first and added the mention of accounting text books to get the paper published in this journal. Which, to a certain point could compromise the integrity of the entire article. However, because as whole the article is so well referenced and his logic is solid throughout Collison succeeds in getting his point across and hopefully enlightening his readers.

Collison, David J, 2003, "Corporate Propaganda: its implications for accounting and accountability", Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol 16, pg 862, Dundee UK, University of Dundee "

Abstract Assignment Fall 2009

Understanding Media Studies
Fall 2009

Collison, David J,(2003), Corporate Propaganda: It's implications for accounting and accountability, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol 16, Issue 5, pg 853

Critique of accounting text books for perpetuating the seen propaganda model of Anglo Saxon Capitalism and further explores how said propaganda is used to for the interests of those in the elite class. Defines propaganda, how it has been used in the past and how the author is using it now. The author also discusses how said propaganda is perpetuated in the media and pressures countries outside of the Anglo Saxon sphere to adhere to their model of capitalism. The crux of the critique is based two seen deceptors: The first regarding the interpretation of the work of Adam Smith and the second is the concealment of the originators of propaganda. The author references historical and other social science works.


Djankov, S., Nenova, T., Mcliesh, C., Shleifer, A., (2003) Who Owns The Media, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol 46, No 2, pg 341

Survey of the media in 97 countries exploring who owns the media and to what effects those appear to have on democratic and economic freedoms. The sample information is taken from a variety of sources such as the UN Human Development index, survey's of media ownership and other indicators of democracies and economic well being. Out of pool of information they find that most media are owned by either wealthy families or governments. Most governments own broadcast outlets instead of other forms of media. The two theory of government ownership they use to analyze the data are: "Public Interest Theory" and "Public Choice Theory". "Public Interest Theory" is that in which government ownership of public media makes up for market failures, such as PBS or BBC. "Public Interest Theory" is where government ownership undermines economic and political freedoms. From the information they gathered, they found evidence to support, "Public Interest Theory".

Kelly, D., Stack, Michelle (2006) Popular Media, Education and Resistance, Canadian Journal of Education, Vol 29, No 1, pg 5

An investigation into the media saturation of Canada's youth, their poor representation in the news media and the commercialization of schools and curricula. The authors cite research from other social scientists and news stories and end by discussing how new media technologies can shift the paradigm away from consumer culture, to a creative and thoughtful culture that is also civilly minded.

Intellectual Autobiography

Why would someone leave behind their home along with everything and everyone they have ever known to go to a large and expensive city, with no job prospects, very little money and to incur $50k in debt? That is a great question.

The short answer is that I am a reckless idealist.

The long answer is a little more involved. There have been many influential educators and experiences in my life. If I had to start with just one influential teacher, it would have to be Ms. Marilyn Berman. She taught high school courses in Women's Studies, Film, Psychology, Law, etc. The class discussions and readings where a refreshing change from the sexist and racist banter of my peers at the time. These classes were the most challenging and intellectually satisfying classes I had yet taken. I soon became close with Ms. Berman (who was a radical feminist in the 60's). The books that I read in my high school years seem precocious too me now, but started me on a path. At the time I wanted nothing but more of the radical ideas and intellectual stimulation and began borrowing books from her classroom collection, including Ann Moody's, "Coming of Age in Mississippi" and Claude Brown's, "Manchild in the Promised Land". Outside of class I picked up some radical books such as Abbie Hoffman's, "Steal This Book", Hunter S. Thompson's, "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" and James Loewen's, "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Ms. Berman was not the only influential teacher that I had. Mr. Kepple, who taught Modern American History, allowed us to draw historical connections in US foreign policy decisions. Mr. Kepple taught us about "Domino Theory" and U.S. cold war policies, which gave us some context for the following year when the U.S. was attacked with domestic airliners. Mr. Macinini was my star science teacher. He taught Earth Science and Astronomy (among other courses). Both of which I took and absorbed with gusto. It is because of Mr. Macini that I remain scientifically literate. Even if that literacy is limited to reading Sci-pop magazines like Seed or maintaining the ability to point out constellations in the night time sky or that I still remember nerdy factoids like; 1 A.U. is equal to the distance from the Sun to the Earth which is equal to about 93 million miles and it takes the light from the Sun approximately 8 minutes to reach the Earth (so if the Sun blew up, we wouldn't know for 8 whole minutes).

Context was something that I subconsciously craved, the majority of my education seemed out of context. The teachers that I am most influenced by gave me the context to make the important connections.

I was an early radical and angry adolescent. Although I wasn' t old enough to vote in 2000, I wanted to vote for Ralph Nader and paid attention to the fall out of the election including G.W.'s gift from cousin Jeb and the Supreme Court. (Thinking about this now, I think it is hilarious that any high school sophomore would want to vote for Ralph Nader, but I did.) The politics and events of the following eight years combined with my undergrad education at UMass Boston, a public (and very liberal institution) all added fuel to my fire. Outside of class assignments I was reading authors like, Howard Zinn, Assata Shakur and Emma Goldman. I also began frequenting many of the independent movie theaters around Boston. The independent movie theaters were where documentaries began poisoning my mind. My favorite documentary to this day is still The Corporation , which I saw at the Kendal Square Theater in Cambridge, MA.

Despite my early hatred for politicians and the entire political process I reluctantly decided to take a Political Science class. Needless to say, I fell in love with the field and finished my degree in Poli Sci. As part of the required reading, all the Poli Sci students had to read the New York Times every day. The stark difference between what I read and what I saw on TV news infuriated me. The Bush administration had gotten away with so much law breaking and so little of it was actually discussed on TV news. On a day-to-day basis one could witness the HUGE differences in reporting. It was then that I really started to understand the intersection of money and control within the political and media apparatus. I understood it before, but I felt more like a conspiracy theorist without any reasonable basis for my beliefs.

Although I was an early radical, I was afraid of collectivism and disliked many of the options for campus involvement at UMass. There was the Socialist Alternative, which was stuck in the rut of a Soviet book discussion group. It took me about 3 months to realize that they were zealots of a romantic fantasy based movement and had no intentions of doing any pragmatic service, i.e. food drives, shelter work, voter registration, letter writing campaigns, etc. In the end I road with them to a few anti-war protests in NYC and Washington DC and ignored them on campus. (In a recent update, I heard the shamelessly overtook the UMass Boston Human Rights Working Group. The S.A. members joined it, outnumbering the original members of the H.R.W.G. and voted to make it a part of the S.A., so now they can have rhetorical arguments about human rights AND socialist utopias, marvelous.)

As a Political Science undergraduate I interned at the MA State House. During my internship the constitutional convention on gay marriage took place and was passed in Massachusetts. I volunteered at The Pine Street Inn homeless shelter. One summer I traveled to Montana for two weeks to volunteer for Project Vote Smart. These were early signals of me wanting to turn my ideals into action.

My intellectual interests were somewhat varied. I took on Spanish and Economics as two separate minors and joined the International Relations certificate program. Our Economics department at UMass teaches a heterodox curriculum. Heterodox meaning they teach Classical Economics and everything else including labor, environmental and many other areas of economic analysis. In my third year I traveled to Cuernavaca, Mexico for a winter semester where I studied Spanish, but also got a valuable lesson from all of my teachers at the Universal Spanish School about Mexican politics and culture.

After completing a thesis on the civil war in Sudan, I graduated from UMass. Beside it being a mammoth undertaking and thus a test of my will, I learned a lot about neo-colonialism, extractive economies and civil wars fueled by Western consumption. I also met two people from different regions of Sudan who gave me first hand insight and understanding of the conflict, none of which I would've learned in my normal course of study.

After graduating I quickly evolved into a media junky. Two Februaries ago I became a member at my local community access TV station and started my own live call in show. On The Soap Box , my co-host and I would comment on current events and theory, but in a very casual and often pundit-tastic manner. Every day I watched DemocracyNow!. I also began writing for Spare Change News (a small newspaper that is part of the Homeless Empowerment Project in Boston and Cambridge). While working for them I got to meet and interview Amy and David Goodman. Amy was my latest and greatest indie heroine. What she had built with DemocracyNow! was quite a feat and something to be admired. Her influence definitely pushed me toward media activism.

An even bigger reality check/ motivational jump kick came in summer 08, when my father was arrested for a retroactive anti-immigration law. He was imprisoned for over 6 months while being constantly threatened with deportation. The law itself is retroactive with no statute of limitations and in my view is double jeopardy (double jeopardy only counts for citizens) because his time was paid way back in 1979. We rallied everyone we could, fought the system and eventually won. The government coming into my parent's house and forcefully removing him with NO NOTICE added a personal flair of injustice to my already agitated political persuasion.

Now my educational goal is to learn solid production and research skills in order to create engaging advocacy media and to learn theory in order to be an educator of media literacy. Ultimately I want to engage the two in order to refresh civic engagement within the political/economic process on a large scale. Currently, I am working with Witness.org and see myself getting involved with youth media education some time in the next year.

In ten years I will be working in the same city I live in, hopefully somewhere back in my home state of MA. I will take public transportation and live in a tiny apartment due to my crushing tuition debt and my lust for All Natural American Spirits. I will be working for a public high school, community access TV station or a public university where I most likely will be the Union Representative. I will teach my students the possibilities of using the many tools at their disposal for local involvement and participation while very much being civically engaged myself. Perhaps I will write a short book about the intersection of pedagogy and phenomenology, and I will have a cat named, "Camus".

AstroTurf! HA!

Coming Soon....

To This blog space will be posted, "Intellectual Autobiography; Or How I Decided to Leave Everything and Gain the Most Debt of My Life, En Serio"

The Story of Stuff

Storyofstuff.org

I was reminded of the above mentioned web movie while doing the homework for my class, Social Networking and Sustainability. Our first assigned reading is, The Great Work, by Thomas Berry.

The author makes a declaration of sorts regarding the need to act across all social spectrum to create an ecologically sustainable way of life. He makes great points, although I feel it would go over many people's heads. Especially since our health care debate has all but imploded on itself from mis communication and misunderstanding.

I am pondering the points of social cohesiveness and why we have such a split polis

The story of stuff is a great 10 minute video about the perils of running an infinite economic system on a planet with finite material. Check out Storyofstuff.org

Art & Copy-A review

To show this movie at an independent movie house and sell it like and indie movie is insulting.

Last night I went to the premier at the IFC theater and heard from 4 of the people involved in its making.

First, a little about the film:

A history of the movers and shakers in the advertising business. It was produced by "The One Club". In their own words The One Club, "is the nation’s foremost non-profit organization for the recognition and promotion of excellence in advertising."

The movie turned out to be one huge ad for the advertising industry. It was written to be about the creative minds behind ads. They stick in factoids about how much TV Americans watch, how many ads we see in a day, but the writers seem to be unphased by the media saturation. The movie attempts to make you feel all warm and squishy inside for the artists that drive our nations consumption habits. You know, the ones that make us fat, unhappy, addicted to prescription medicine, that make us buy tons of useless shit and throw it away in 2 months.

But I digress.

The movie was insulting.