 |
|
|
||
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsBuy it!Most EmailedVisit our sponsors |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
| |
Google AdsThe Big Dialog
| ||
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1078 guests online.
Online users | ||
Instant CongressUpcoming eventsWords to live byI of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what? Subscribe Buttons                    | ||
Feh.
If you're now at the point where you're seriously comparing CNN or PBS to Faux, Wallner, then I can only suggest that you stop overdosing on stupid pills.
The problem with Faux is, simply put, that experience suggests they will do everything they can to put all of our candidates in an unfavorable light. After all, this is what Faux does every other day, and there's no reason to suspect that they'd behave any differently during a televised debate. I can easily imagine them asking Obama whether his middle name indicates support for terrorism, asking PanderBot about her husband's affairs, asking Edwards about his record as an ambulance-chaser (which is what they called him in 2004), asking Richardson about rumors regarding his affairs, and so on. That would be in line with the steady diet of anti-Progressive talking points that this channels viewers are fed every day, and anyone, such as you, who thinks that one debate controlled by the propaganda-feeders at Faux will suddenly convince their viewers to vote for our guys in a primary is just mind-numbingly stupid.
This is a no-brainer. Faux is a conservative, pro-R outlet dedicated to electing Rs. We do not need to assist their campaign to be seen as 'fair and balanced' by providing them with access to our candidates. Faux needs to be marginalized as the partisan propaganda outlet it is, and this is just one part of that.