You probably heard the great news – after two years of progressive activism, FOX finally cancelled Glenn Beck’s show–but the Boycott Must Go On!!

Dear Kevin,
You probably heard the great news – after two years of progressive activism, FOX finally cancelled Glenn Beck’s show.
Beck was targeted after he slandered President Obama by saying, “This president has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don’t know what it is… This guy, I believe, is a racist.”
Activists at ColorOfChange, Media Matters, StopBeck, FoxNewsBoycott, and of course Democrats.com responded with a boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck’s show. Ultimately over 300 advertisers pulled their ads from Beck, costing FOX over $40 million.
Advertiser boycotts work! And it’s time to boycott all FOX News advertisers:

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-proactiv

We’re starting our boycott of all FOX News with Proactiv, which sells acne medicine to teenagers and young adults. Why?
First, there are lots of other acne treatments. Second, young adults above all are hurt by FOX News, which promotes right-wing policies on race, education, healthcare, the environment, and war. Let’s get our future leaders to lead the fight against FOX News!
Sign the petition to Proactiv and enter the email address of every young adult over 18 you know:

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-proactiv

Beyond President Obama, FOX regularly slanders nearly everyone: Democrats, unionized workers, the unemployed (including veterans and 99ers), environmentalists, feminists, blacks, Hiics, Jews, Muslims, progressives, scientists, and any other group it disagrees with.
FOX News broadcasts rightwing extremist slander, incitement to violence, political propaganda, and outright lies to promote its rightwing political agenda. This is not “news,” but rather a never-ending “war on news” – and it’s all documented in our petition.
Why would any decent company want to fund it? Tell Proactiv to stop advertising on FOX News:

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-proactiv

Thanks for all you do!
Bob Fertik

GLEN BECK ADMITTED in 2007, “I Am RACIST and Barack Obama is very White” THIS MAKES Boycotting FOX NEWS needed NOW

By Kevin Stoda

Dear, American supporters of the Fascist Oddball Xenophobic (FOX) news networks.

AMERICANS are getting less tolerant of your racism and stronghold on our major media.

For example, we have noted that in his 2007 TV program from FOX (See on You-Tube), Glen Beck admitted he himself was racist. Further, Beck then, in contrast to 2009, called Barrack Obama much more white than black. (Apparently, Beck now he has other nonsense to mush men’s minds.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_6A

Using a major news platform to promote racism and to tell people to disrespect a whole presidential administration through mixed truths, outright lies, and xenophobia, is not to be tolerated any more.

On Democracy Now today, Amy Goodman asked Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP what he thought of Wal-Mart’s pull-out from advertising on the Glen Beck program on FOX.

NOTE: Goodman had simply asked , “The whole attack by Glenn Beck that drove this (resignation)? In your response from the NAACP to Van Jones, it says, ´The only thing more outrageous than Mr. Beck’s attack on Van Jones is the fact that there are sponsors that continue to pay him to provide this type of offensive commentary.` Do you support the continued boycott of companies like Wal-Mart of Beck’s show on Fox?”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/8/white_house_environmental_adviser_van_jones

This is a particularly important point because Glen Beck´s HATE CAMPAIGN ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION led recently to a great American policy maker, Van Jones, quitting the government this week.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/06/van-jones-resigns/

Mr. Jealous said, “We certainly support them (Walmart) choosing with their dollars who they’re going to support. I mean, it’s—Glenn Beck is somebody who’s told a seven-year-old girl, a seven-year-old black girl, that he would buy her a ticket back to Africa, that she needed to go back to Africa. And then he comes out, and he says that healthcare is the beginning of reparations. I mean, this guy plays the race card on a weekly basis. He does it very aggressive—you know, in a very hateful way.”

Recall, first, that Van Jones is one of the most important and thoughtful men in America—however, the FOX (Fascist Oddball Xenophobic) news network chose to support a man, like Glen Beck, rather than seeing that tens of millions of Americans need to get health care from promoters like Jones and that our America economy needs to move starting today to the kind of economy that its competitors worldwide are already doing.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/95963/what_will_the_green_economy_look_like/

Let’s quote the wisdom and influential words of Van Jones on the absolute necessity to green the American economy NOW!
“I think it’s really important to point out that we’re sort of at the end of an era of American capitalism, where we thought we could run the economy based on consumption rather than production, credit rather than creativity, borrowing rather than building, and also, most importantly, environmental destruction rather than environmental restoration.”
Jones continued, “We’re trying to make the case in this book that that era is over. We now have to move in a very different direction. And key to that will be basing the US economy not on credit cards, but based on clean energy and the clean energy revolution that would put literally millions of people to work, putting up solar panels all across the United States, weatherizing buildings so they don’t leak so much energy and put up so much carbon, building wind farms and wave farms, manufacturing wind turbines. We argue you could put Detroit back to work not making SUVs to destroy the world, but making wind turbines, 8,000 finely machine parts in each one, twenty tons of steel in each wind tower, making wind turbines to help save the world.”
Finally, Van Jones wisely noted, “So we think that you can fight pollution and poverty at the same time. We think that you can actually power our way through this recession by putting people to work, but we’re going to have to start building things here and re-powering, retrofitting, retooling America, and that that’s the way forward both for the economy, for the earth and for everyday people.”
Note: These statements came from a program on DN from October of last year:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/28/van_jones_on_the_green_collar

Van Beck has written a book of the same title, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems.

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061650758/The_Green_Collar_Economy/index.aspx

America needs such voices as Van Jones in government leadership in America—not Fascist Oddball Xenophobic (FOX) types.

Clean up the American airwaves of all its fascism and racism, today.

http://www.pittsburghurbanmedia.com/a-petition-against-fox-conservative-host-glenn-beck.aspx

NOTE: One way to change the noise of Fascist Oddball Xenophobic (FOX) media moguls is to support alternative media organizations

http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/index

and alternative monitoring websites.

http://americas.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/64380

Another way, is to demand that local radio and TV channels put better programming on, such as Democracy Now or news sources promoted by serious progressive journalists:

http://www.tacomapjh.org/progressive_news.htm

Is Big Media Slowly Killing Our Children? by Dr. Jim Taylor, Huffington Post

Is Big Media Slowly Killing Our Children?

by Dr. Jim Taylor, Huffington Post

Your children’s physical health is the foundation for everything they become and do. As corporeal beings, they, like the rest of humanity, are at the mercy of the fitness of their bodies to handle the ordinary challenges and extraordinary demands that are placed on them during childhood and beyond.

You are responsible for ensuring that your children treat their bodies like temples rather than garbage dumps so they continue to function properly for their lifetimes. This means sufficient sleep, a balanced diet and regular exercise. Unfortunately, Big Media is not only not helping you accomplish this goal, but it’s actually a lot to interfere with your efforts.

Children now spend, on average, more than seven-and-a-half hours a day of free time interacting with technology. That doesn’t even include screen time devoted to school! What do you think children did with that substantial amount of time before this new technology came to dominate their lives? Before the advent of electricity, children worked a lot and played a little, mostly outdoors. Then, with the invention of television, much time has been spent in front of the “boob tube.” With few alternatives, children by default went outside and engaged in physical activity, for example, they ran around, played tag or kick the can, climbed the monkey bars or rode their bikes. Plus, schools provided daily physical education classes that contributed further to a reasonable level of fitness. Unfortunately, many parents these days are so afraid of letting their children play outside unsupervised that they basically place them under house arrest and force them to stay inside.

And when they are locked up inside, what are they going to most often turn to for entertainment? Well, media, of course, for example, playing video games (OK, Wii provides some exercise, but, according to research, isn’t nearly the equal of real physical activity), surf the Internet and engage in social media. Also, physical education classes are few or nonexistent today due to misguided priorities and budgetary cuts. The result? One-third of American children are overweight or obese and 70 percent of them will become obese adults.

The essential question to ask is this: What role does the explosion of media in the last decade play in what many consider to be a public health crisis? A growing body of evidence suggests it’s a significant role. For example, one study found that, among children, preteens and teens, total daily media use was predictive of poor physical health. For preteens, daily video game playing was also a predictor. For teens, daily video game playing and daily hours online were also predictive. Importantly, this research controlled for demographics (e.g., age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and eating and exercise habits, thus strengthening the argument that technology alone was a significant contributor to poor health among young people.

Research has demonstrated that the more time that children spend in front of a screen (including television and video games), the more they ask for unhealthy food and drinks. The reason why is pretty obvious. The torrent of advertising directed at children and teenagers is comprised primarily of fast food, sugary cereal, candy and highly processed snack foods (72 percent of all ads aimed at them, in fact), all significant contributors to the epidemic of obesity that has consumed (pun intended) our country. And, due to what the researchers call the “nag factor,” parents often give in and give their children the junk food they crave.

The Internet has created cross-promotional opportunities that have only strengthened this influence. Children are now exposed to junk food advertising not only on television and in print, but also in social media, product placement on television and in video games, movies, smartphone and tablet apps, and ads that are disguised as online games and web sites.

Children have no chance against this tsunami of unhealthy messages that drowns them in a torrent of poor eating, cavities, sugar addiction and obesity. Additionally, while your children are immersed in media, for example, sitting on the sofa watching TV, playing video games or surfing the web, they are incurring significant opportunity costs in the form of being sedentary instead of physically active.

The influence of technology may also extend to unhealthy and potentially dangerous habits.One study reported that teens who use Facebook and other social media have significantly higher rates of smoking, alcohol consumption, and marijuana use, and are more likely to have sex at an earlier age. The researchers suggest that widespread and persistent exposure to images depicting these behaviors make them more acceptable and may cause teenagers to feel left out if they don’t engage in them. However, it should be noted that this study was only able to establish a connection between television watching and sexual behavior, but wasn’t able to prove that young people seeing these images actually causes this increase in high-risk behavior.

What or who can prevent your children from heading down a road of poor physical health? One word: parents. We certainly aren’t going to get the purveyors of junk food, candy, sugary drinks, and processed foods to change their ways because their products harm children. Profits, for them, obviously trumps concern for children. The only chance your children have is that you are on their side and take active steps to ensure that they grow up healthy.

 

from:  Is Big Media Slowly Killing Our Children?

by Dr. Jim Taylor, Huffington Post

 

Global Zero: Still Working for a Nuclear Free Europe

Liebe(r) Kevin,

 

Engagement, Petitionen und Aktionstage sind wirkungslos? Falsch! Wir haben eine spannende Neuigkeit: Vor ein paar Tagen hat sich eine Gruppe von Global Zero Aktivistinnen & Aktivisten mit Ben Rhodes, einem Top-Sicherheitsberater des Weißen Hauses, getroffen. Wir haben mit ihm die nächsten Schritte hin zu einer Welt ohne Atomwaffen diskutiert und ihm euren Aufruf und Bilder von unserem globalen Aktionstag „Demand Zero“ überreicht. 

Dabei haben wir ihm auch von unserer „Europa gemeinsam für Zero“ Kampagne berichtet und wie es dem Einsatz von Global Zero Aktivisten & Aktivistinnen in Europa zu verdanken ist, dass das Europäische Parlament nun offiziell den Global Zero Aktionsplan unterstützt. Noch einmal herzlichen Dank für Deinen Einsatz. 

Dieses Treffen ist nur der Anfang. Diesen Juni wird sich Präsident Obama mit Präsident Putin am Rande des G8 Gipfels treffen. Wir werden Ihn aufrufen, bei diesem Treffen Verhandlungen über weitere massive Einschnitte im amerikanischen und russischen Atomwaffenarsenal zu beginnen und damit den Weg für die Aufnahme von internationalen Verhandlungen über die weltweite Eliminierung von Atomwaffen freizumachen. 

Jetzt ist es wichtig, dass wir den Druck aufrechterhalten und mehr Menschen über die Gefahren von Atomwaffen informieren. Hilf uns und erzähle deinen Freunden & Freundinnen von Global Zero, indem Du folgenden Link mit ihnen teilst: 

http://www.globalzero.org/de/demand-zero/join-the-movement 

Noch einmal herzlichen Dank für deinen Einsatz! 

Mit besten Grüßen, 

Marion, Marie-Luise, Lauren, Sam, Derek und das ganze Global Zero Team

 

Where the scandal source is? It’s CITIZENS UNITED DECISION,stupid.

		Watch and share this great  3-minute video.   Dear Kevin - The IRS scandal that’s getting so much attention isn’t the whole story.  Chris Hayes of MSNBC explains why, in this great video. Watch it now, then share it. Everyone agrees that the IRS screwed up. But, as Hayes makes clear, the real, underlying problem is that theCitizens United decision took our system of fair-play rules that kept tax-exempt groups out of our elections and “blew it out of the water.” Citizens United is the core problem we need to fix, and we can only do that by amending the U.S. Constitution. Click here to watch this excellent, short video, and to demand that Congress deal with the real problem.  Then, please spread this important video around. Thanks. - Peter Peter Schurman Campaign Director Free Speech For People Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

In 24 hours, President Obama could finally move to close Guantanamo — the most notorious prison camp on earth

Dear friends across the US, 

In 24 hours, President Obama could end more than a decade of injustice by finally closing Guantanamo – the world’s most notorious prison camp. While he preps for a major speech to respond to hunger-striking detainees, let’s send him a massive message: no more excuses — it’s time he shuts down this international disgrace to our country. Sign now:

In 24 hours, President Obama could finally move to close Guantanamo – the most notorious prison camp on earth. 

With inmates on a 100-day hunger strike and massive calls for Obama to act, our president has been pushed to respond with a major speech about the prison. If enough of us demand a plan — he could free the prisoners already cleared for release, and appoint a White House official with one mission: close Guantanamo down! 

We’re at a tipping point. Sign up to demand Obama close this shameful gulag down, and share the shocking facts below so others join this urgent call: 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_shut_down_gitmo_us/?bFIeGdb&v=25082 

The facts speak for themselves:

• Detainees in Guantanamo now: 166
• Detainees facing active charges: 6
• Detainees cleared for immediate release, but stuck in the camp: 86
• Guantanamo inmates on hunger strike: 103
• Hunger strikers strapped down and force fed: 30
• Prisoners who have died in custody: 9
• Children the US has held at Guantanamo: 21
• Detainees tried in civilian court: 1
• “Unreleasable” detainees who can’t be tried for lack of evidence or torture: 50
• Prisoners released by the Bush administration: 500+
• Prisoners released by the Obama administration: 72
• Current annual cost to US taxpayers: $150 million
• Days since Obama first pledged to close Gitmo: 1579
• Days since first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo: 11 years, 4 months, 11 days

For years, Obama has blamed the US Congress for the failure to close Guantanamo. But since Congress granted the Defense Department waiver authority that allows prisoners who have been cleared to be transferred out, Obama himself can free these 86 men. And while he will need Congressional cooperation to close the prison completely, if he truly wants to shut it down, he can task someone at the White House right now to show it is a priority and make it happen. 

Sign now to demand Obama announce a plan to close Guantanamo, and then let’s up the pressure by flooding the White House with calls in these final hours — it’s time we end this shame! 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_shut_down_gitmo_us/?bFIeGdb&v=25082 

When he first campaigned to become US president, Obama promised to close Guantanamo down. This illegal and repulsive prison has led to far too much suffering and fuelled great divisions and hate in our world. Enough is enough. Let’s get Obama to act and close this painful scar on humanity. 

With hope and determination, 

Dalia, Joseph, Allison, Bissan, Nick, Alice, Ricken and the whole Avaaz team

PS - Many Avaaz campaigns are started by members of our community! Start yours now and win on any issue – local, national or global: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/start_a_petition/?bgMYedb&v=25040 

MORE INFORMATION 

Obama to address Guantánamo and drones in major defence speech (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/19/obama-guantanamo-drones-defence-speech 

Guantanamo by the numbers (ACLU)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/guantanamo-numbers 

Gitmo is killing me (The New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html 

How Gitmo imprisoned Obama (Newsweek)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/05/15/how-gitmo-imprisoned-obama.html 

Stop force-feeding inmates and close Gitmo (CNN. Op-Ed)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/opinion/warren-gitmo-hunger-strike/index.html 

Guantanamo hunger strike enters 100th day (Aljazeera English)
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2013/05/201351719348602566.html 

Three Guantanamo Bay prisoners who’ve been on hunger strike for 100 days (VICE)
http://www.vice.com/read/prisoners-in-guantanamo-bay-are-on-hunger-strike 

Yemen wants it’s detainees out of Guantanamo (UPI)
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/17/Yemen-wants-its-detainees-out-of-Guantanamo/UPI-58651368823800 

“Efrain Rios Montt Will Still Face Justice — So Should Henry Kissinger.”

Van Gosse is associate professor of history at Franklin and Marshall College. He is the author of “Rethinking the New Left: An Interpretative History” and the forthcoming “We Are Americans: Black Politics and the Origins of Black Power in Antebellum America.”

Credit: Flickr.

Despite the May 20 ruling by Guatemala’s Constitutional Court, which overturned the original verdict on procedural grounds, the May 10 conviction of that country’s former head of state, General Efrain Rios Montt, for the genocide of Guatemala’s Mayan people, could be a defining event in modern history.

For now, the original trial will pick up where it stood on April 19, when the court had heard all of the prosecution’s evidence, and most of the defense’s. Guatemala’s unrepentant oligarchy, and the lawyers (and judges) who represent them, will do everything they can to derail final resolution and sentencing. But regardless of what happens next, and whether the eighty-year-old genocidaire ever goes to jail, the case reverberates: Guatemala’s steely Attorney General, Claudia Paz y Paz, is likely to move forward with more prosecutions, and next door in El Salvador, bells are beginning to toll for the generals who ran death squads and ordered massacres. Here at home, too, the case sends signals to both current and former U.S. policymakers, if we step back and look at our own history.

Many commentators have stressed that for the first time a living head of state has been convicted of genocide in his or her own country, yet another precedent in establishing the international rule of law regarding human rights and war crimes: first, that a crime against humanity can be prosecuted anywhere, regardless of national sovereignty or executive prerogative; second, that it is the degree of political responsibility for the crime which determines guilt, beyond the question of an individual’s proximity to, or actual participation in, its execution.

Rios Montt’s conviction builds upon the indictment of General Augusto Pinochet by the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon in 1998, and prosecutions at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of Rwandan and Bosnian leaders, as well as the launch and increasing strength of the International Criminal Court. Even if endless appeals keep Rios Montt out of jail, his being forced to face his accusers as they described the extermination of entire villages is a new fact which no leader considering “scorched earth” tactics against a domestic insurgency, or even that leader’s foreign backers, can ignore. Indeed, putting the Pinochet and Rios Montt cases together as precedents suggests the potential for indictments not just in small countries like Guatemala or Chile, but perhaps Moscow, Paris, Beijing, or Washington, D.C.

Rios Montt’s conviction therefore has significant implications for the rest of the world including, most assuredly, us Americans. He was not convicted of personally rounding up Mayan children to be killed, or firing a weapon. His signature was not found on any document authorizing the extermination of the Ixil, the particular indigenous people whose genocide was charged. Rather, he was the intellectual author, the head of state approving military plans naming the Ixil as the internal enemy to be eliminated, in the same way that high-ranking German generals were found responsible for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg, although they personally avoided the killing fields in Byelorussia, and never signed orders specifying that three million Soviet POWs be starved to death. Like Rios Montt, they had authority and were therefore responsible.

Given the verdict in Guatemala, and the findings of the ICJ in a range of cases, why should the legal responsibility for mass murder stop at the water’s edge? That is the question we should be asking, as a people committed to human rights. If we don’t question ourselves, most assuredly others will, and an ill-timed event right on our own Hudson River puts this question front-and-center. On May 23, the Intrepid Museum here in New York City will give former secretary of state Henry Kissinger its annual Freedom Award “for his distinguished career defending the values of freedom and democracy.” Yet, if significant political responsibility for the mass murder of civilians is a crime under international law, Mr. Kissinger should face trial. Consider the following short list of countries in which he might be indicted, like General Pinochet, and perhaps convicted, like General Rios Montt:

In Laos and Cambodia, Mr. Kissinger, as national security adviser to President Nixon, was personally responsible for the systematic, high-altitude bombing of both those countries in 1969-1973, illegal under both U.S. and international law, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

In Vietnam, he oversaw the “Christmas bombing” of Hanoi and Haiphong in December 1972, aimed explicitly at the destruction of civilian facilities, with massive loss of life.

In Chile, he supervised the CIA in trying to block Salvador Allende’s election as president in 1970, and then undermining his government, employing assassination, terrorism, and sabotage, followed by all-out support for General Pinochet’s junta after the U.S.-backed coup on September 11, 1973, as it engaged in large-scale torture and extrajudicial murders of its opponents.

In East Timor, he and President Gerald Ford met with the Indonesian president, General Suharto, in December 1975 and sanctioned an invasion of the island, a former Portuguese colony, which resulted in the killing of an estimated 200,000 East Timorese, a third of the population;

Finally, in 1976, Secretary Kissinger met with the foreign minister for Argentina’s military junta six months after it began its “dirty war,” which led to the disappearance of an estimated 30,000 people, and told him “Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better. If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly.” He also censured the U.S. ambassador, Robert Hill, for chiding the generals about their human rights abuses.

None of these allegations, or the evidence for them, largely from official U.S. records, is new. What is new is how the international community holds national leaders accountable for what was done under their watch. Given the United States’ overwhelming authority in international affairs, our support or the lack thereof has had decisive political weight, and it would be exceedingly naïve to pretend otherwise. No one has ever suggested that Secretary Kissinger, the famous practitioner of realpolitik, was in any way unworldly; he knew exactly what he was doing in the above instances. But history and the law have caught up with him (and with us); the moral or legal claim for leaders as being somehow above the law is in tatters. At the very least, it’s high time that we stop honoring Henry Kissinger.

from: http://hnn.us/articles/efrain-rios-montt-will-still-face-justice-and-so-should-henry-kissinger

How many Typical GOPers go around with our tax dollars… example of Tom Coburn

One of the more unfortunate developments in recent years is the new status quo within the GOP of demanding that emergency disaster aid be offset with cuts elsewhere in the budget, something previously only a minority of members of Congress like Sen. Coburn demanded. This callous new standard led Republicans, including Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R), to vote en masse against aid to the victims of Superstorm Sandy.

To justify his vote against Sandy aid in view of the clear need for aid to Oklahoma, Inhofe claimed yesterday that aid to victims of the Oklahoma tornado is somehow “totally different” than the Sandy aid he opposed.

Extending federal aid to victims of disasters like the Oklahoma tornado is obviously just the right thing to do, but it’s troubling that Republicans now hypocritically demand aid for their own states while attempting to withhold help other Americans who are the victims of tragic disasters.

Rep. Peter King (R), for one, got it right when he called out his fellow Republicans for “hypocrisy” while calling for immediate aid — without offsetting spending cuts — for the victims of the tragedy in Oklahoma:

I think they should get every penny they need. I’ve been through this. We can do the political games later on, the important thing is to get them the aid as quickly as they need it and not to make a political issue out of it.

BOTTOM LINE: Taking care of our fellow citizens when they are in need is what we do in America. Instead of playing politics with tragedies, we need to make sure people get the help they need when disaster strikes.

If you want to help the victims of this week’s tornado in Oklahoma and other disasters, you can make a contribution to the Red Cross HERE.

 

Is The New York Times trying to lead us to war in Syria now?

Dear Kevin Stoda,

The run-up to the Iraq war showed that the New York Times has tremendous power to establish “truth” in the United States—and that when the Times wields that power irresponsibly, the results can be catastrophic. 

Last week, the media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting documented a lack of skepticism in New York Times reporting of allegations of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. [1] Times reporting suggested that the U.S. government had strong evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons. But, as FAIR documented, the U.S. government was not nearly as certain as claimed by the Times‘ initial reports. At the same time that the Times was uncritically reporting these claims, other media were appropriately skeptical. The stakes were high, because it was widely claimed that if the U.S. knew that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, that fact alone would compel direct U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war, even though polls show most Americans oppose direct U.S. military involvement.

Urge Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times Public Editor, to examine whether the Times showed appropriate skepticism in its reporting of Western government claims about the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/syria-nyt

On April 18, the Times reported [2] that, according to unnamed diplomats, the UK and France had sent letters to the UN about “credible evidence” Syria had used chemical weapons. On April 23, the Times reported [3] that Israel had “evidence that the Syrian government repeatedly used chemical weapons last month.” In its print edition April 25, the Times reported [4] that the White House “shares the suspicions of several of its allies that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons.” That same day, with headline “White House Says Syria Has Used Chemical Arms,” the Times then reported [5]:

The White House, in a letter to congressional leaders, said the nation’s intelligence agencies assessed ”with varying degrees of confidence” that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had used the chemical agent sarin on a small scale.

The article cited Sen. Dianne Feinstein as saying “agencies actually expressed more certainty about the use of these weapons than the White House indicated in its letter.”

On April 26, a Times report [6] warned against delaying action to be sure that the claims that Syriahad used chemical weapons were true:

If the president waits for courtroom levels of proof, what has been a few dozen deaths from chemical weapons–in a war that has claimed more than 70,000 lives–could multiply.

In subsequent reporting, the Times referred to allegations that Syria had used chemical weapons in ways that suggested that strong evidence existed to back up U.S. government claims. On April 27, the Times referred to [7] “growing evidence that Syrian officials have used chemical weapons”; on April 28, the Times referred [8] to “revelations last week that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is believed to have used chemical weapons against his own people.”

On May 5, the Times claimed [9] that President Obama’s “credibility” was “at stake” due to his failure to respond to “evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.”

But the next day, the BBC reported that [10] Carla Del Ponte, a senior investigator on a UN team investigating human rights abuses in the Syrian civil war, claimed that the UN had collected evidence that chemical weapons had been used in Syria by the rebels, not by the government, and the official story that allegations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government were known fact began to unravel. 

Outside the New York Times, FAIR noted, skepticism about the evidence pointing to Syrian use of chemical began much earlier. On April 26, Jonathan Landay of McClatchy reported that [11] a source characterized U.S. intelligence on alleged chemical weapons use as “tiny little data points” that were of “low to moderate” confidence. On May 6, McClatchy noted that: [12]

no concrete proof has emerged, and some headline-grabbing claims have been discredited or contested. Officials worldwide now admit that no allegations rise to the level of certainty…. Existing evidence casts more doubt on claims of chemical weapons use than it does to help build a case that one or both sides of the conflict have employed them.

Examining this documented trail of credulous New York Times reporting of government claims that could serve as a justification for war should be a top priority for the Times Public Editor. Urge Ms. Sullivan to investigate.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/syria-nyt

Thank you for all you do for justice,

Robert Naiman, 
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy

References:

1. “Iraq Then, Syria Now? New York Times, sarin and skepticism,” FAIR Action Alert, May 15, 2013, http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/iraq-then-syria-now/
2. “Syria Faces New Claim on Chemical Arms,” Rick Gladstone and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, April 18, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/middleeast/Syria.html
3. “Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons,” David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, April 23, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-syria-has-used-chemical-weapons.html
4. “U.S. Sees No Conclusive Evidence of Chemical Arms Use by Syria,” Mark Landler, New York Times, April 25, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/world/middleeast/us-sees-no-conclusive-evidence-of-chemical-arms-use-by-syria.html
5. “White House Says It Believes Syria Has Used Chemical Arms,” Mark Landler and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, April 25, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/world/middleeast/us-says-it-suspects-assad-used-chemical-weapons.html
6. “Israel Sees U.S. Response to Syria as Gauge on Iran,” David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, April 26, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/israel-sees-obamas-response-on-syria-as-gauge-for-iran.html
7. “Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy,” Ben Hubbard, New York Times, April 27, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html
8. “Lawmakers Call for Stronger U.S. Action in Syria,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, April 28, 2013, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/lawmakers-call-for-stronger-u-s-action-in-syria/
9. “Off-the-Cuff Obama Line Put U.S. in Bind on Syria,” Peter Baker, Mark Landler, David E. Sanger and Anne Barnard, New York Times, May 5, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/obamas-vow-on-chemical-weapons-puts-him-in-tough-spot.html
10. “UN’s Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels ‘used sarin’,” BBC, May 6, 2013,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
11. “As reports of chemical weapons abound, Obama urges caution on Syria,” Jonathan Landay, McClatchy, April 26, 2013, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/26/189773/as-reports-of-chemical-weapons.html
12. “Despite political clamor over Obama’s ‘red line’ in Syria, no clear evidence it’s been crossed,” Hannah Allam, Matthew Schofield and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy, May 6, 2013,http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/06/190516/despite-political-clamor-over.html

USA: Language Experts Claim 10 Minutes a Day to Learn a New Language

Language Experts Claim 10 Minutes a Day to Learn a New Language

Parents in the United States are beginning to realize how important it is to raise their children with a global education. A second language is the best head start you can give your child.

Language Experts Claim 10 Minutes a Day to Learn a New Language 
  United States

Parents in the United States are beginning to realize how important it is to raise their children with a global education. A second language is the best head start you can give your child.

The number of U.S. residents age four and older who speak a language other than English at home has more than doubled in the past three decades. Parents Tom and Claudine RipertCopper are prime examples, having taught their children French from birth. “I wanted them to be able to communicate with their family in France. Many aunts and uncles are from an older generation and don’t speak English. That would mean that my children would lose out on a lot of history and knowledge,” said RiperCooper.

When a new parent are in the troughs of raising kids especially more than one, it may be hard enough to get them through naps, making sure they are eating well, and recalibrating the “normal” household routines. Introducing another language may seem like something that would bring you right over the edge. But this in fact is the perfect time to introduce your child to a foreign language, is when they’re learning their first one. A young child’s brain is wired to pick up language naturally and being bilingual actually builds brainpower. Between birth and 12 years of age, children can learn multiple languages and pronunciation easily.

Studies have found that knowing another language can improve children’s English verbal skills, problemsolving abilities, and test scores. “When kids learn that there is more than one way to describe something (maman, mom, mama) they develop a greater associative thinking pathflexibility in thinking,” says Claudine RipertCopper, the VP of Raising Kids French, a leading expert on bilingual education and raising kids the French way. She hosts a website and blog based in San Francisco Bay area that provides resources and the how to’s of second language learning.

Here are some of her suggestions – on how to start raising bilingual kids.

Allonsy – let’s jump in!!

One of the best ways to introduce a child to a foreign language is through immersion / exposure no English translation. There seems to be some degree of concern about confusing a pretalker by introducing foreign words at the same time as she’s learning to speak her primary language.

“When my kids were learning English and Spanish they could just knew what words belonged to which parent. It’s innate.” says Maria Santos, mother of two children that are growing up in a dual English and Spanish household. Many cities have language clubs or associations where you can gain access to native speakers and potential babysitters. Also foreign exchange students are wonderful as are Au Pairs.

In the car/on the way to school: 10 minutes a day is really all it takes to acquire a language. If you are persistent and pop in the cd regularly the repetition is absorbed effortlessly when children are exposed at an early age. Try a cd that is both spoken and sung. Friends in France – French sing alongs (NBITA Productions available : Amazon.com) $9.95, a low cost, effective way of teaching kids. It is especially helpful hearing the pronunciation of the complete phrases because it is spoken first with time to repeat and sing.

Memory: Parents can teach their child everyday words, numbers, colors, and animals by playing an already purchased game and writing the words on the cards. This way the entire family can practice.

Dual Language books: A visit to your local library for popular children’s books in other languages. There are also new titles that sprinkle non-English words into their stories.

Source: sbwire.com by Josh Chang

Mother Tongue: South African University To Make Zulu Language Compulsory For All Students

Mother Tongue: South African University To Make Zulu Language Compulsory For All Students

A prominent university in South Africa will make learning the Zulu language compulsory for all incoming students starting next year, the first time the country’s higher education sector has ever made such a move to impose the teaching of an indigenous African language.

Mother Tongue: South African University To Make Zulu Language Compulsory For All Students 
  South Africa

A prominent university in South Africa will make learning the Zulu language compulsory for all incoming students starting next year, the first time the country’s higher education sector has ever made such a move to impose the teaching of an indigenous African language.

The University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban called the measure a “watershed” moment in its history, requiring students to be at least bilingual in order to obtain their degrees, regardless of their field of study.

UKZN explained that the decision would encourage “social cohesion” and promote “nation-building and [bring] diverse languages together” in a country still divided by race and culture.

“At a university where more than 60 percent of students are Zulu-speaking, the institution has an obligation to ensure linguistic choices result in effective learning solutions. … Language should serve to bring diverse learning communities together and promote social cohesion,” UKZN Deputy Vice Chancellor Professor Renuka Vithal said in a statement.

“You can come through the schooling system without learning any of the indigenous African languages,” Vithal told BBC.

“It is surprising that this is still the case, nearly 20 years after apartheid ended.”

She added that since Zulu is the most widely spoken language in the country (based on results of the 2011 Census), it makes sense for all South Africans to learn the tongue. On average, almost half (48 percent) of first-year students enrolled at UKSN speak Zulu at home.

In the province of KwaZulu-Natal, about 80 percent of the people speak Zulu, Agence France Presse noted.

South Africa’s Mercury newspaper quoted Professor Leon de Stadler, the director of the Stellenbosch University’s Language Centre, who said that multilingualism is essential in a truly democratic society. But he did not endorse making learning Zulu compulsory.

“It is not always practical or affordable but, even worse, it can create a lot of negative attitude regarding language promotion and language teaching,” he said.

Similarly, Frans Cronje, deputy head of the South African Institute of Race Relations, said UKZN’s decision raised the risk of alienating non-Zulu speakers, and that such courses should be voluntary, not mandatory.

South Africa has eleven official languages, including English, Afrikaans, Zulu and eight other indigenous languages. About one-fourth (24 percent) of the country’s population speaks Zulu as their mother tongue (including President Jacob Zuma), although many other black people also use it.

However, minorities like whites and Asians generally do not speak nor understand Zulu.

Until apartheid ended in 1994, South Africa had only two official languages: English and Afrikaans.

But while English ranks only fifth in terms of languages spoken in South African homes (about 8.2 percent), it still dominates the country’s commerce, politics and media, according to Safarinow.com

Source: ibtimes.com

USA: Five Ways to Improve Foreign Language Training

Five Ways to Improve Foreign Language Training

Experts say goals, job-specific training and human interaction are key to picking up a foreign language for work.

Five Ways to Improve Foreign Language Training 
   United States

Experts say goals, job-specific training and human interaction are key to picking up a foreign language for work.

The biggest challenge with corporate language training is the time and effort it takes to become proficient. “It’s not a problem you can solve immediately,” says Chuck Frydenborg, senior director of corporate sales, North America for Rosetta Stone, a language learning software company.

But it can be done. Experts offer this advice on how to make the most of corporate language training programs.

Set goals: If employees needs to be proficient in a foreign language to do their jobs or to get promoted, let them know exactly what that means, what their timeline is and how many hours they are expected to invest in the training, says Duane March, a language trainer for Mindstorm Group, a training company in Mannheim, Germany. “Then make proficiency part of their performance review.”

Offer job-specific training. Whether in the classroom or online, the most effective training programs are shaped around the trainees’ jobs and industry, says Julia Bonnheim, director of marketing for Livemocha. When courses include common business phrases, examples of emails or phone calls, and specific business documents, it makes the training much more relevant and engaging.

Offer some human interaction: You can have the best self-paced training course, but if the learner never gets feedback, it is hard to stay motivated, Bonnheim says. “Practicing with a native speaker creates engagement and gives learners a reason to keep trying.”

Make it a priority. If learning a language is a strategic business goal, employees should be given time during the workday to take the training, says Melissa Caldwell, a customer care representative for Rosetta Stone. Best Buy Inc., for example, lets retail employees take up to eight hours per month of on-the-job language training to accommodate the increase in Spanish-speaking customers.

Require employees to communicate in the new language while on the job. Ask them to speak that language in certain business meetings, give them foreign language versions of corporate software, or require them to use the language when emailing certain colleagues, March suggests. “It will take time, and they will make mistakes, but it will help them build their confidence and their proficiency.”

Source: workforce.com by Sarah Fister Gale