January 31, 2008

The scientist as actor

My Canadian readers may be familiar with this common phenomenon: I have a few American readers of this blog, and even among them, it is not uncommon to hear frustrated expressions of desire to become Canadian when their politics adds another razor-wire loop to the loopiness that it is.  My Canadian readers will also be familiar with the both the feeling of flattery tinged with a small amount of guilt: justified guilt that it is not deserved.

Via ReWind.it at Bread'n'Roses, we find this charming bit of news in the Notional Pest:

Until now, Environment Canada has been one of most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.

It says all media queries must now be routed through Ottawa where "media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call; this could include: Asking the program expert to respond with approved lines; having media relations respond; referring the call to the minister's office; referring the call to another department," the presentation says.

Gregory Jack, acting director of Environment Canada's ministerial and executive services, says scientists and "subject matter experts" will still be made available to speak to the media "on complex and technical issues." He would not explain how "approved lines" are being written and who is approving them.

This sort of thing will be no surprise to anyone following the saga of the frankly excellent Linda Keen, the Canadian nuclear regulator who stood up to a Canadian government presently dominated by an unadulterated Bushian neocon.  (Her total smackdown testimony linked from here.) And by dint of that, these tactics should be highly familiar to American readers, as they were learned from You Know Where.

November 30, 2007

Obligatory slightly-belated November post

I've been planning to do this all week, but never got around to it until it was too late:

HAPPY END OF NOVEMBER!!!

Yes, yes, I have been away.  My posting is controlled by a carefully attuned "guilt thermostat", or guiltmostat, if you will.  At this point, my guilt-level is too high to post but too low to overcome the fact that it is too high to post.  Actually, having posted this, I may have just gone over that limit, but I don't know if I'll be able to keep it up.

On the other hand, if my guiltmostat drops quickly enough, it may go below the "too-high-to-post" threshold, in which case I'd be positively logorrheic.  You like that image, right?  Logorrea, right?

Of course, I am playing with time here.  But then, I am Mandos.

September 13, 2007

As usual, the Onion delivers

In The Know: Are America's Rich Falling Behind The Super-Rich?

Via the comments at Sadly, No!

April 07, 2007

Some kinds of Internet censorship don't quite work

From the Grope, I found this news article about Thailand's military government blocking YouTube because of videos insulting the King.  Naturally, any electronic link to the outside world can be subverted:

Tech-savvy Web surfers in Thailand have been able to access the videos through proxy servers – computers outside the country that relay YouTube content back to the original viewer under the guise of a different Web site. Proxy servers are a common way of evading censorship around the world.

These kinds of targeted blockages are very hard to enforce, as anyone who's asked the US media companies, some of whom are dropping Digital Rights Management technology, which is an attempt to use people's own computer hardware to enforce blockages.  But it's too easy to set up alternate ways to gain access to digital material. 

What does work, however, is monitoring people, which is appallingly easy and creates a more widespread chill over speech.  What also sometimes works is very large, blanket bans.  But if you want foreigners to stop insulting your monarchy on the Internet, you're probably out of luck.

November 14, 2006

My first YouTube upload: an old favorite

Remember that old Bloc Québécois campaign theme song from '04?  Like, the ridiculously catchy one that is still the best political theme song ever?  With the music video with all the singers and the flags?  Well, here it is on YouTube:

So. Catchy. And flagelicious. And I just love that "And you" thrown in the middle in English. The Bloc does know from songs!

This is and has been freely available on the Bloc web site, of course, since it was created.  However, to my surprise, it had never been put up on YouTube (and hence made somewhat more searchable and reachable by random surfers).  So I decided to use it to help me play with YouTube a bit---by uploading it.  That puts a video in my account.  Aren't I cool?

September 02, 2006

David Warren: discovered by Majikthise

(Inaugural post as a member of the non-partisan blogging alliance.)

Aww, how cute.  An irritating pipsqueak that was, alas, inflicted on us Eastern Ontario folk for far too long has finally hit the bigtime in the wingnut world, and it's good to see a fellow Ottawa boy do so well.   David Warren, whom many Canadians know quite well, has been featured on Majikthise, who deigns to condescend to him thus:

Majikthise : Islamofacists handled them, now the mother won't take them back: I'm not all that theologically sophisticated, so correct me if I'm wrong: You can't be a martyr for somebody else's faith, can you? Warren doubts that correspondent Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig are Christians, but he's still miffed that the captives didn't take one for the Jesus team.

The shorter Warren: Who knows what these guys actually believed, but obviously, they're cowards if they won't martyr themselves for a religion they probably don't even believe in.

Warren, you see, has had this Troo Christian shtick going for a while, after he loudly proclaimed his conversion to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism.   It's a transparent ideological ploy whose silliness I don't think I need go into, but I'm just amused that he was blogged by Lindsay.  We'd never have heard of him were it not for the takeover of the Southam newspaper chain in Canada by Conrad Black.

 

February 09, 2006

North, Women, South, Media

Twisty Faster writes:

I Blame the Patriarchy - European Honky Dudes Whacking Wives At Alarming Rate: I say this because our racist conceits are more thoroughgoing than we care to admit. As I have oft opined, Americans display a notably high tolerance for the suffering of others, especially when those others are brown. Like white dudes and their birthright of male privilege, Westerners are indoctrinated from birth with a sort of first-world entitlement. This allows us to keep “exotic” cultures at arm’s length, to luxuriate in a cavalier unfamiliarity with their strange, primitive ways, and ultimately, to think of them as ideas rather than people, as less real than we are, and therefore less important. My own unscientific, blog-centric survey, based on the much-lower-than-average number of comments generated by posts that focus on violent misogyny in “third-world” countries, is that even seasoned patriarchy-blamers are rather less outraged by ritual stonings in Pakistan or mass rapes in Rwanda than they are by Dove soap’s attempt to pass off skinny white models as fat girls.

A lot of very good comments ensue about how women are represented in developing countries and the relation to women's rights in the West and matters of imperialism, colonialism, and violence.  Most of the commenters understand why Western feminists commenting on developing countries can be a bit of a minefield.  I'd like to point one very important thing out, though, at least regarding the usual subject of Western handwringing.

Someone pointed out earlier that women's rights are a point of conflict between the West and the Muslim world.  I'd like to emphasize that this is very much a two-way street.  Hypocritical Western powers/media/etc use women's rights as a bludgeon against extraneous interests of the Muslim world.  This has caused a lot of the Muslim world to regard women's rights as an instrument of Western domination---a totally predictable effect.  A lot of progress that might have been made has been retarded by this perception. 

In the media, women's lives in the Muslim world are treated like some form of prurient horror show---in relation to the lives of Western women.  I mean, we see an unrelenting parade of misery.  All of my family comes from that part of the world, and, truth be told, there isn't much more misery there as far as I can tell as there is here.  Not THAT much more misery, that's for sure, and in some cases perhaps less (options for women vary a lot by class and geography).  And, unfortunately, even Western women who consider themselves feminists contribute to this, such as, for instance, people like Irshad Manji. 

What it does is provoke resentment about the West, even for women.   Women in my family can do nothing but shout at the TV in frustration when the plight of women in their countries is used essentially for propaganda.  I remember in a CBC TV report about Pakistan (perhaps more than one), some of the women were speaking Urdu, but the translation captions were deliberately skewed to make things sound much closer to Western stereotypes than what was actually said, and some important sentences were simply glossed over.  It's hard to see this as anything but propaganda, and a lot of the Muslim world resents the hypocrisy and associates feminism with it.  And, in any case, it necessarily obscures the search for solutions.

Of course, I am not denying that there aren't problems.  Big problems.  But I can presently count few successes brought about by foreigners, even women, in addressing these concerns.  The best successes are typically brought about by the women who live there, on the ground.  That doesn't mean necessarily that successes can't come from outside, or at least support and honest advice can't come from outside.  But we haven't really seen it that often.

July 15, 2005

The Judith Miller Show

Wow, Ian Welsh takes a pretty strong stand against Judith Miller:

Tilting at Windmills - Miller and the Public's Right to Know: Judith Miller has acted directly against the public interest. She is going to jail, not to protect your right to know, but to protect people who have used her as a disinformation asset. She is going to jail to protect her right to continue to lie to the public and to protect those who have used her to lie to the public.

In the specific case of Judith Miller, I agree totally.  Her role at the NYT has been deplorable throughout.  However, let me play devil's advocate: in this case Miller is taking a blow for sources that we consider to be mendacious, but it's still the case that reporters do and should seek well-connected sources and vice versa.  If reporters can be coerced through a legal proceeding to reveal the sources (even if the sources are dangerous liars), wouldn't this put a chill on reporter-source interactions, assuming this is a bad thing?  I mean, a court could turn around and do this to reporters working with non-lying sources...

July 07, 2005

Idle note in the midst of sorrow

I was reading Le Monde's coverage of the London bombings when I noticed an interesting mistake in an article on blog-coverage of the chaos.

Le Monde.fr : Des témoignages immédiats par centaines sur le WebLe blog de la mairie de Londres a également relayé tout au long de la journée les informations sur la situation, les blessés et les victimes.

The unfortunate part, though, is that the linked site is actually NOT the official blog of the mayoralty of London.  It is instead a site devoted to opposing New Labour.  Red Ken is insufficiently radical for them, you see.   But the reporter who wrote the article didn't read far enough into the blog to find this out.  I'll check back later to see if they've corrected it.

April 16, 2005

Al-Jazeera = Al-Hurra?

Abu Aardvark discusses the proposed new al-Jazeera channel that is supposed to be an equivalent to CSPAN (or CPAC for Canadian readers).  However, he makes an interesting side-comment about al-Jazeera English Version, apparently to be rolled out later this year, although he seems to doubt that:

Abu Aardvark: AJ-Span: I'll be eager to see how this develops - it's far more interesting (to me) than the English-language al Jazeera supposedly coming later this year, which I expect to be as much of a costly failure as al Hurra is for the US.

He seems to be setting up an equivalency here.  I wonder why he thinks that.  Everyone in the Middle East knows what the US is going to say; that's why al-Hurra is a failure, it's so transparent as to be silly.  But not everyone in the West has access to an Arab perspective, and I think that there is actually some curiosity there.  So it may be easier to attract viewers and advertisers.  We'll see.