d3salon's Weblog

If the press turns against us, so will liberty…

d3salon — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:19:17 +0000

I started this Sunday as I do most. Rise early enough to enjoy my favorite political talk shows and then the tail end of CBS Sunday Morning. After breakfast and coffee, I often spend the day relaxing in preparation for the long week ahead along with a few errands. Today, one of those errands took me to Trader Joe’s in Tempe where I suddenly had my relaxed day turned into one of near rage. Just outside of the TJ’s entrance sits a pair of vending boxes for the two local papers. Now, I am not a fan of the journalism of either of our local Phoenix dailies. Today, though, one of them clearly decided to represent one narrow view and position. The East Valley Tribune’s editorial board has fallen clearly on the side of racism and classism with their headline announcing the confirmation of the identity of the Chandler Rapist.

While the Arizona Republic chose a headline of relevant fact, the Tribune decided on divisiveness and hate when it proclaimed the identity based on documented status: “DNA links illegal immigrant to attacks.” This is clearly a decision by the editors to focus on the undocumented status of the accused. While they may feel warranted to include all the known facts of the case in the story, their decision to lead in 1.5 inch block headlines with the accused status cannot be based merely on their desire to inform the public. At best, this is an ill advised example of sensationalism with a conscious awareness of its consequences to the public, at worst, they are expressing the institutional racist position of the East Valley Tribune. Newspapers and journalist have a responsibility to inform. With that responsibility comes another equal one to do so within a manner that does the least harm to the community. You say what needs to be said. Inform with the pertinent and relevant information. The accused’ visa status is factual, and possibly relevant to the public’s understanding of the case. However, the manner in which it is presented to the public bears more on the opinion of the editors than its factual relevance to the case. One need only look to the headline as presented in the Arizona Republic to see a responsible presentation of the information. In the attached photograph(see below), the stark contrast between the newspaper headlines is obvious if not nauseating. What can we do? We simply cannot do too little. We must take a stand:

1. Write a letter to the Tribune. Demand a public apology and more responsible editorial decisions. Write the publisher, the executive editor and the advertising department.

2. Make a list of advertisers you see in the Tribune. Pick national and local, corporate and small business proprietors. Contact the national/corporate accounts and let them know how you feel. Be sure to use the word boycott in your communications. Contact the small/local businesses and let them know how you feel. Let them know their business may be subject to a boycott if the Tribune continues with its editorial policy of racism.

3. Stop buying/subscribing to the Tribune (let them know why)

4. Write to the Republic and let them know you prefer their editorial approach in this one particular example of the headline(Note: read the entire Republic article to be sure you are comfortable with how they present the case itself).

5. Pass this blog post onto others.

We need to find a solution for what is becoming a very divisive issue in our community. All parties involved have legitimate political and economic concerns on this matter. To have all of the voices heard, we need to establish an environment wherein we can communicate and receive information free from the divisive angle taken by the Tribune. They have a responsibility as the local newspaper to help guide us through this with level headed and factual information. Opinions in the form of racist headlines will not help us reach a place of reconciliation and solution. Make your voice heard. Speak out on this matter. Take a stand. The East Valley Tribune has a responsibility to inform the community in a time of crisis. This is that time of crisis. Regardless of race, religion, gender, age or status of citizenship, we are all part of the community served by the Tribune. The Tribune is not in a position to decide who belongs in this community, let alone how we should be presented to our neighbors. This is not in defense of the accused individual. This is in defense of all of us. From the moment this headline hit the street, every person, especially males, who even remotely ”appear” to be hispanic were damaged by the implication. This will only serve to drive a valuable part of our community further from the political process in which their participation is as necessary as everyone else’s if we are to find a solution. It is important that the Tribune be made to understand its power and responsibility. Racism and prejudice are different. Prejudice is expressed by individuals in their personal opinions and choices. It can be harmful or benign. Racism is only available to those wielding power and is therefore always harmful. It can be in the hands of an individual, or in this case, in the institutions of the society itself. Demand that racism be removed from our most important institution. If the press turns against us, so will liberty.

d3salon Presents: Josh Blevins – Song 1

d3salon — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:28:03 +0000

d3salon presents Josh Blevins at Mama Java’s Coffee House in Phoenix, Arizona:

d3salon Presents: Josh Blevins – Song 2

d3salon — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:25:18 +0000

d3salon presents Josh Blevins at Mama Java’s Coffee House:

d3Salon Presents: Know your rights – Preview

d3salon — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:12:45 +0000

Our discussion tonight, December 3rd, will be a preview of our January discussion on habeas corpus and individual rights. We will have a small group discussion at Mama Java’s followed by what I hope to be an active month here on the blog. See you all tonight. Remember, Its your world, talk about it…

d3Salon Presents: Healthcare or Sickcare?

d3salon — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:43:46 +0000

How is your health? How about your healthcare? Are you sure about that? Join us at Mama Java’s Coffee House on Monday, November 5th from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM for a lively discussion on whether healthcare is really sickcare, and how to take control of your health. Our discussion will be led by Christopher O’Loughlin R.N., B.S.N. State health policy liaison for federal cancer advocacy. While healthcare is our feature subject, be sure to stick around for the free-for-all discussion that is sure to follow. Remember, its your world, talk about it…

Ahmadinejad at Columbia

jbogs3 — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:33:17 +0000

Ahmadinejad at ColumbiaOn a September day one of the most controversial men in the world walked off a plane, into a car, and onto the stage of Columbia University.Much different from the publicized, polarized, puppetized dialogue being thrown around the major media networks, President Ahmadinejad’s speech was a critical moment for the Columbia University community, regardless of personal opinions: Columbians, friends and colleagues, were, and continue to be, held in Tehran without charges – taken into custody for presenting dangerous ideas. The School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) which sponsors the World Leaders Forum, it’s faculty and students, present invitations to Leaders whose influence, and at many points their surrounding controversy, provide an important opportunity to teach us, inform us and arm us in order that we might provide excellent advice in our future careers – their decision is not whimsical and criticism on such a large scale is not taken lightly.More so then anything, our campus was careful. It was, more so then anywhere else, widely understood that to deny President Ahmadinejad the right to speak would be to arrogantly ignore the very principals upon which our University, an American institution founded in 1754, took so much pride. We understood that to denounce the intention of his words was important while understanding the limited power his government’s structure provided him. We also noted as a result of his limited endowed power the created political need to feed off the international spotlight, in order to maintain relevance, which made him inclined to be outrageous. It was noted with care that many of Columbia’s students are Iranian and that to speak poorly of an entire culture would be also a mistake. The invitation in every way was intentional and planned.For some reason however, our University could not win. We could not be seen as upholding the rights of all men that create the foundation of our Constitution, nor could our collective efforts to hear the Iranian President speak be seen as a courageous act that even the President of the United States could not rise to meet. Instead Columbia was painted as boldly placing in danger the American Ideal and subscribing to the theories and ideas of a man who is himself, deplorable. Afterwards, our President, Lee C. Bollinger, an accomplished First Amendment lawyer and philosopher, was criticized for denouncing the same points of character in his introduction of Mr. Ahmadinejad that Fox, CNN and MSNBC were critical of just hours earlier.On this note, let me say the following. President Bollinger was not creating sound bytes – he is a man far more eloquent, intelligent, possessing more earnest characteristics then could ever allow him to misuse his words. His introduction accomplished several points if closely listened to and read.1) By addressing from the standpoint of the University why we as a Community, insolated by our academic pursuits from the politics raging around the Iranian President speaking, found it unacceptable on all levels to detain Academics for presenting a controversial point of view at Iranian universities, he made this an academic discussion.2) President Ahmadinejad fancies himself a professor, academic and teacher and thus to address him in this way provided an opportunity for our University to question him in an academic forum. It would be ridiculous to invite a speaker, especially a professor, without pursuing a line of questioning into the validity of his research and claims. That is why President Bollinger noted the broad concern of many nations and then asked a specific question.3) From the personal base that he began his introduction, President Bollinger very clearly began to enumerate why our view, though entirely valid in it’s own merits, was not exclusively found on the Morningside Campus. President Bollinger asked very specific questions so as to remove any doubt that the purpose of the SIPA invitation was to shed light for the benefit of Columbians and Academics alike on his pattern of belief.4) This line of questioning was addressed to Professor Ahmadinejad, a man who has shaped himself to hold “all the traits of a petty dictator” as a leader, but who was given the opportunity on our stage to address these questions of international consequence more openly as a professor, academic and a colleague of President Bollinger’s.Indeed the introduction was harsh. It was blunt. But at what point, where in the academic community, in the American political universe, in our social construct, were issues of such great importance ever confronted tactfully, or as with President Bollinger’s introduction, with more beauty of conviction? To any person who believes this introduction to be inappropriate or rude, I say that you may not have a full appreciation for the urgency of this situation. You do not properly understand the gravity of incivility our government has already shown Mr. Ahmadinejad and more generally the inhabitants of the Middle East. Through labeling his country as part of an Axis of Evil, by our country refusing diplomatic relations, President Bollinger’s comments were hardly comparable to an insult. If you think that being bold in confrontation, aggressively pursuing answers in a candid way is wrong, then please, refrain from serving in the government – we do not have time. Our country is rapidly finding itself in a deteriorating situation on every front and we cannot expect the world to wait, because it simply will not. President Bollinger was using every available moment to be, if nothing else, very clear about what needed to be addressed.Additionally, pundits like Bill O’Reilly have repeatedly bashed our University. Is it safe to assume that if President Ahamadinejad, or even President Bollinger was given time on that show, that they would be treated kindly, gently or remained unchallenged? While the anchors of the major news stations sat comfortably in their studios, isolated from what they were reporting as much as our own President and Congressmen, President Bollinger honestly confronted President Ahmadinejad sitting just ten feet away – carrying the brunt of the blame and scrutiny for our University.My defense aside, this experience was simply unlike anything else. With secret service canvassing the campus and the main buildings and lawns closed to all non-university persons with a tension that had been building for weeks, I gathered on Butler Lawns with several hundred or so of my classmates. We sat transfixed on a massive television screen, surrounded by speakers, sitting just meters away from where Ahmadinejad was speaking. The gates were closed and locked blocking entrance to protestors and news cameras, and there we sat, oddly quiet, awkwardly excited.What would occur for about the following two hours was an exercise in the American ability, exemplified by the Columbian tradition, to listen to an idea without endorsing it, or losing the strength of conviction to oppose it, or the voice to speak out against it or acknowledge legitimacy in it. It was an academic moment that, from the sound bytes replayed on national television, was utterly lost on the majority of our country.What occurred was a man expressing his wish to see morality and a sense of right given an opportunity to be let in again to our life. He spoke of the Qu’ran, and of the sciences and arts as a pursuit simultaneously entwined and critical to religion – something echoed in this country often as well. If we move beyond our painfully conformed and lax minds, we would understand that this man was not interested in the idea that the Holocaust never happened, but rather that we look at this event from one point of view – a view that has lead our country to think too highly of itself, to fight for the wrong objectives and to do in many cases what we once fought. He was looking to express the idea, the frustration that so many around the world share when viewing our country – our ideas are not the only ones, and are not necessarily right.If we would listen closely what we would hear is a man who did not deny homosexuality but rather denied that we must be categorized as such. Indeed, if you read more then just what can be found on the most accessible blog, you will find that in many Middle Eastern and Asian cultures it is not that homosexuality does not exist, it is that these parts of the world do not, have not, and most likely will not readily subscribe to the western language of categorization. To be sure, President Ahmadinejad’s remarks were irresponsible, and as a gay, Division I, NCAA athlete, I take such accusations very seriously, but the truth is that many people do not wish to be categorized – it is limiting. As someone who daily must fight the stereotype that I am weaker and less of a man as the result of being “gay”, I too sometimes would rather not be so easily encapsulated by the definitions of our language. Rather then simply condemning him, let us look at who he represents and the idea that they might not want to be so easily assimilated into a western culture that is, at best, currently ineffective and intolerant.We need to view President Ahmadinejad’s comments on Israel as one that is advocating less interference on our part in a section of the world that, through our debacle in Iraq, clearly is in grave need of better understanding and respect on our part. We must understand that though we accuse him of arming our enemies and threatening our way of life, our need to spread democracy through the world is a threat to theirs. Placing missile defense systems in neighboring countries, invading and conquering two others, and pushing democracy as the pinnacle of human development, we have attacked the very nature of what Iranians believe. Our condemnation of President Ahmadinejad’s country, of Christian churches claiming his pursuit is to begin the final war over the Holy Land, all has lead to a point where we are un-objective in our viewpoint. If anything, we must view his comments, though to us, radical and un-thoughtful, as a balance to those that we have, over the last eight years, been spewing ungracefully at him and his people.Through gasps, cheers, and small clusters of conversation our University and country were given a small step towards understanding a culture that has been challenging for us to embrace. And though seemingly radical in his approach to relaying his cultures tendencies to us, it is often better to consider the extremes of a culture first so as to force our inquiry into that which would be considered to be neutral. This seems to be the greatest benefit from President Ahmadinejad’s lecture – a contrast between leaders and the lead that reflects in many ways our own government. At the same moment though, it is right to consider our own statements, ensuring that if we are to truly lead the world, that we are considerate of the fact that every nations accumulated experiences are different and valuable. This does not seem to include being tied down by excessive formality and disguised politeness: there are serious issues to be dealt with by serious men and women who define respect versus statesmanship to disguise dislike as very much separate. It is a greater symbol of respect to calmly and sincerely consider the thoughts of another then to mock the other person by simply presenting a façade of friendliness.So, yes, Columbia University readily embraced the attendance of a lecture by a man who has questioned the most recorded event in history, challenged the right of a state to exist, and been openly biased to a point we find unacceptable. And yes, Columbia’s President, Lee C. Bollinger, vigorously confronted this man, challenged his credentials, his intentions and his intelligence while giving him ample opportunity to prove these statements false – a gift that President Ahmadinejad could not utilize to it’s full potential. But these things are minor to me in contrast with the greater accomplishment of our University in creating a dialogue among our nation. Beyond our nation, this opportunity has caused protests among Iranian university students demanding the same freedoms as respected on Columbia’s campus. Imagine that – freedom of speech, an acknowledged step to a long-living democracy, without a single bomb dropped. Our University, through all its actions, exemplified that which is courageous, bold and exceptional. Columbia stayed true to itself and maintained the cherished tradition of fighting the established reasons in order to discover some form of truth. Columbia was freedom that September day. And Columbia will stay that way. It is for these reasons that I gladly stand forever as a Columbian: A Son of Alma Mater and defender of the inquiry and rigor in thought that she stands for. I stand forever proud, as a descendent of an academic tradition that transcends time and place yet will forever be found resounding quietly and surely in the echoes of the Hudson Valley.Roar Lion. Roar.James Bogner

Armenian Genocide and You…

d3salon — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:35:56 +0000

Before taking on the recent House Foreign Affairs Committee action (House Resolution 106) regarding the tragic Armenian Genocide in the early 20th-Century, I want to pause to express my sympathy for the victims, survivors and their descendants. It is in so doing that I recognize both the volatility of the subject and question why this of all issues is where the House leadership chooses to expend its political energy. I am intrigued by this type of legislation. While I have a certain sympathy for the issue, it really does concern me that there are so many current pressing issues for the House to address, that they choose to take on something that, while important, is clearly mired in past disputes that do more to complicate current political relationships than heal old wounds. I would rather they directly address the genocide in the Sudan than poke at the political bees nest of a tragedy from the 1920′s. What are the Democrats doing? What is their agenda? Are they showing a real weakness and naivete on foreign affairs. I wonder what implications this should have for our domestic policies? Shouldn’t we make official reparations to the indigenous peoples of this continent that were destroyed in one of the most effective race eradications in human history? Shouldn’t we clean up our own house before judging others? Is Pelosi lost? I fear for the chances of electing someone other than a Republican President if this Democratically led house keeps on this track. She may well make the Republican led Congress look like a safe harbor. One thing is for sure, this is yet another example of how a bipartisan political system will eventually implode. It is a perfect example of why we need more than two voices in Congress. What do you think? It’s Your World, Talk About It…

Jon Bogner at Mama Java’s

d3salon — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:59:53 +0000

Here are two links to the performance last week of Jon Bogner at Mama Java’s Coffee House in Phoenix. Jon performed as part of the d3salon Alive in Person gathering that takes place on the 1st Monday of every month at Mama Java’s from 7 – 9 PM. Enjoy…

Jon Bogner Clip 1

Jon Bogner Clip 2

d3salon Presents: Annie Loyd Pt. 2

d3salon — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:15:57 +0000

Part 2 of the Annie Loyd Presentation at Mama Java’s Coffee House. Annie explains how her vision moves forward. The candidate covers healthcare, immigration and Iraq among other subjects.

d3salon Presents: Annie Loyd Pt. 1

d3salon — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:01:55 +0000

For those of you unable to attend the d3salon event on October 1st, here is the first of several videos from that night. Part 1 is Annie Loyd on being an independent candidate: