Currently viewing the tag: “bloggers”
Written by Julius Rocas
This post is part of our special coverage Japan Earthquake 2011.
As Japanese authorities are scrambling to contain the on-going nuclear crisis in the quake and tsunami hit Fukushima, governments in its neighboring countries are fighting to control the spread of something equally dangerous – hoax messages that sow unfounded fear and panic in the public about Japan's nuclear problems.
In the Philippines, it all started with a hoax message which circulated via SMS warning the public to stay indoors, swab iodine on their necks and avoid getting caught in the acid rain that was allegedly caused by radioactive material that leaked from Japan's damaged nuclear power plants.
The hoax message soon leaked into social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. However, bloggers were quick in coming out to prove that the messages were false and expose it as such.
Rungitom dissects the message point-by-point to prove it's a hoax:
Why is it a hoax again? Here are the reasons:
- The plume from the site of the incident will not pass Philippine territory as of March 14.
- It does not make sense because the location of the explosion is too far, so it does not affect the local rainfall.
- The wind pattern in Japan showed that the Philippines are unlikely to be hit by any radioactive fallout from Fukushima.
- Acid rain is formed when gaseous substances like sulphur and nitrogen mix and react with water in the clouds. Radioactive materials were in metal form so it would not react with water.
Ralph at Trunk Locker joins the chorus of bloggers appealing to everyone not to simply forward messages via SMS without taking time to check on the facts or veracity of the information:
And please if you received the text message, don’t spread it and might as well tell the person who passed it to you that it wasn’t true. In times of crisis, we Filipinos must learn from the Japanese… they were bombarded with calamities… first was the earthquake, then the tsunami and now the impending danger of radiation exposure due to damaged nuclear power plant… but they remained calm… they remained disciplined. It was said in the news that they were waiting in line for their turn to receive relief goods and there were no reported robbing in shops and grocery stores. All praises to them.
However, some like Tiffany Ann Amores-Amortizado, may have doubted the message after doing her own search on the Internet, but still chose to err on the side of caution:
As a mother of 3 young children, I am a known worrier. And to take necessary or UNnecessary precautions, I WILL PLAY IT SAFE and stay indoors for at least 24 hours.
Still on the other hand Blogged Philippines argues that playing safe isn't really safe:
Some may argue that they just followed what the SMS said because its better to be safe. Yes, that saying is absolutely true if the definition of “safe” is clear. In the case of the Fukushima radiation hoax, how many of us is sure that putting an iodine solution in our thyroid will protect us against radiation? Whether it will help or not, I don't know. What I know is that I'm not sure about it. What if the opposite is true, and putting an iodine solution in your necks will even worsen the case? The point is, before making a decision, make sure that you have FACTS.
In the case of the Fukushima Radiation Hoax, the damage is not big. That's something we should be thankful for. It only resulted to people staying at home, suspended classes, and an increase in the sale of “betadine” solution.
. But think about this: What if the message instead requires a more drastic action? Will you do it?
In an effort to genuinely help out, Korhz shared some tips on how to be prepared when one gets caught in disasters like an earthquake or a nuclear event.
Juan Republic dug deeper into the hoax message, illustrating how Filipino culture with its penchant for gossip have contributed to how it got so viral:
It all started with a chismis – an unconfirmed text message that was repeatedly forwarded because of fear. Whoever was the one behind this fiasco, he succeeded. He induced fear and changed the normal routine of some of the Filipinos. He created an instant talk-of-the town. Or if he did it for fun, for sure, he laughed his ass out.
It’s just so disappointing that some idiots grab the opportunity of a disaster to create something stupid and for self-gratification.
Should our chismis culture be blamed? Our love for showbiz-oriented shows and tabloid-liked stories may be a factor.
…
Unfortunately, they passed the wrong message.
And the rest was an infamous story.
With today’s technology, news and information can be delivered faster. But technology doesn’t give us accuracy or veracity instantly.
Then there's this satirical piece on Mosquito Press hitting back at Filipinos, sharply pointing out that being easily affected by hoaxes is due to their ‘exceptional gullibility.'
This post is part of our special coverage Japan Earthquake 2011.
Written by Julius Rocas
This post is part of our special coverage Japan Earthquake 2011.
As Japanese authorities are scrambling to contain the on-going nuclear crisis in the quake and tsunami hit Fukushima, governments in its neighboring countries are fighting to control the spread of something equally dangerous – hoax messages that sow unfounded fear and panic in the public about Japan's nuclear problems.
In the Philippines, it all started with a hoax message which circulated via SMS warning the public to stay indoors, swab iodine on their necks and avoid getting caught in the acid rain that was allegedly caused by radioactive material that leaked from Japan's damaged nuclear power plants.
The hoax message soon leaked into social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. However, bloggers were quick in coming out to prove that the messages were false and expose it as such.
Rungitom dissects the message point-by-point to prove it's a hoax:
Why is it a hoax again? Here are the reasons:
- The plume from the site of the incident will not pass Philippine territory as of March 14.
- It does not make sense because the location of the explosion is too far, so it does not affect the local rainfall.
- The wind pattern in Japan showed that the Philippines are unlikely to be hit by any radioactive fallout from Fukushima.
- Acid rain is formed when gaseous substances like sulphur and nitrogen mix and react with water in the clouds. Radioactive materials were in metal form so it would not react with water.
Ralph at Trunk Locker joins the chorus of bloggers appealing to everyone not to simply forward messages via SMS without taking time to check on the facts or veracity of the information:
And please if you received the text message, don’t spread it and might as well tell the person who passed it to you that it wasn’t true. In times of crisis, we Filipinos must learn from the Japanese… they were bombarded with calamities… first was the earthquake, then the tsunami and now the impending danger of radiation exposure due to damaged nuclear power plant… but they remained calm… they remained disciplined. It was said in the news that they were waiting in line for their turn to receive relief goods and there were no reported robbing in shops and grocery stores. All praises to them.
However, some like Tiffany Ann Amores-Amortizado, may have doubted the message after doing her own search on the Internet, but still chose to err on the side of caution:
As a mother of 3 young children, I am a known worrier. And to take necessary or UNnecessary precautions, I WILL PLAY IT SAFE and stay indoors for at least 24 hours.
Still on the other hand Blogged Philippines argues that playing safe isn't really safe:
Some may argue that they just followed what the SMS said because its better to be safe. Yes, that saying is absolutely true if the definition of “safe” is clear. In the case of the Fukushima radiation hoax, how many of us is sure that putting an iodine solution in our thyroid will protect us against radiation? Whether it will help or not, I don't know. What I know is that I'm not sure about it. What if the opposite is true, and putting an iodine solution in your necks will even worsen the case? The point is, before making a decision, make sure that you have FACTS.
In the case of the Fukushima Radiation Hoax, the damage is not big. That's something we should be thankful for. It only resulted to people staying at home, suspended classes, and an increase in the sale of “betadine” solution.
. But think about this: What if the message instead requires a more drastic action? Will you do it?
In an effort to genuinely help out, Korhz shared some tips on how to be prepared when one gets caught in disasters like an earthquake or a nuclear event.
Juan Republic dug deeper into the hoax message, illustrating how Filipino culture with its penchant for gossip have contributed to how it got so viral:
It all started with a chismis – an unconfirmed text message that was repeatedly forwarded because of fear. Whoever was the one behind this fiasco, he succeeded. He induced fear and changed the normal routine of some of the Filipinos. He created an instant talk-of-the town. Or if he did it for fun, for sure, he laughed his ass out.
It’s just so disappointing that some idiots grab the opportunity of a disaster to create something stupid and for self-gratification.
Should our chismis culture be blamed? Our love for showbiz-oriented shows and tabloid-liked stories may be a factor.
…
Unfortunately, they passed the wrong message.
And the rest was an infamous story.
With today’s technology, news and information can be delivered faster. But technology doesn’t give us accuracy or veracity instantly.
Then there's this satirical piece on Mosquito Press hitting back at Filipinos, sharply pointing out that being easily affected by hoaxes is due to their ‘exceptional gullibility.'
This post is part of our special coverage Japan Earthquake 2011.
Written by David Wescott
As Japan and the rest of the world struggle to make sense of the devastating earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear scare, science bloggers are sharing facts to help explain what happened. Where science bloggers excel is not only understanding what happens, but knowing how to explain it so anyone can understand.
The Earth deformed
Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel of Scienceblogs.com's Starts With A Bang! provides a basic explanation:
The Earth is built like a giant, spherical layer cake. The inner core — made up of mostly iron and nickel — is the densest of all the layers, while the lithosphere — the Earth's crust — is the least dense… if we want the most stable Earth possible, it would be a perfect “onion”, with the densest, heaviest elements being concentrated at the center, and then — with each outer layer — a progressively lower and lower density. And it wants to be like that, packed as tightly as possible, the same way that a stone sinks in water, an iceberg floats on an ocean, or a helium balloon rises in air… unfortunately, the Earth is not in its most stable possible configuration right now. But, over time, gravity is doing everything it can to help it get there. How? By bringing denser, more massive chunks closer to the center, and uplifting lighter, less dense pieces… And that's what happens — energy-wise — every time we have an earthquake!
Meanwhile, Chris Rowan, a geologist in Chicago, provides a great primer of what happened in Japan his blog, Highly Allochthonous.
Friday's earthquake strongly registered on seismometers around the world, with seismic waves rippling across the North America and maxing out instruments as far away as the United Kingdom. By combining data from the whole global network of seismometers, a picture of how the earth deformed in the earthquake, represented by a beachball-like focal mechanism, can be calculated. The focal mechanism for this earthquake, shown below, indicates compression, along either a shallowly west-dipping or a steeply east-dipping fault.
Focal mechanism for the main shock, and cross-sections of the two possible fault orientations. Source: Chris Rowan, Highly Allochthonous
Interestingly, Siegel and many other scientists (such as Irene Klotz at Discovery News) say that by bringing more dense material closer to the earth's core the earth's rotation speed actually increased – shortening our day by a very small fraction of a second. The principle is similar to what one sees when a figure skater or dancer spins and then speeds up by folding in her or his arms.
Sadly, John Horgan at Scientific American's Cross Check blog says science is not at the point where we can accurately predict earthquakes, though it's not from lack of trying. The most obvious tactic – trying to predict earthquakes by examining previous earthquake data and looking for patterns or precursory events – hasn't worked. Further:
Many other prediction methods have been proposed and in some cases tested. These involve detection of such alleged quake precursors as surges in ground water; emissions of the radioactive gas radon; fractoluminescence, or flashes of light emitted by compressed rock; unusual tidal activity; low-frequency electromagnetic waves; and unusual animal behavior. One long-running experiment in Japan involves monitoring catfish, which are supposedly sensitive to electromagnetic activity that precedes quakes. None of these approaches has proven reliable.
However, this isn't to say that science hasn't saved many lives from earthquakes. For example, thanks to tremendous advances in the fields of engineering.
Tsunamis in slow motion
By now everyone has seen the surreal videos of a seemingly unstoppable wave of debris crashing on shore, engulfing cities and farmland, even dragging burning buildings in its wake. As people begin to ask what could possibly have caused such a thing, science bloggers are stepping in to answer.
GeoMika, a physicist and geophysicist, provides an exhaustive primer on tsunamis, and shows how they differ from tidal waves or wind waves.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute posted a video on YouTube last year (shared by GrrlScientist at Guardian's Punctuated Equilibrium) that shows how water flows during a tsunami.
New Zealand blogger Grant Jacobs also provides a wealth of resources from the US Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other sources on forecasting and warning systems, including an interactive map of buoys the US government places to track tsunamis.
Written by Hamid Tehrani
The recent death of four Iranian park rangers in Iran has stirred Iranian environmental bloggers. The four men were shot dead in a village in Sanandaj in Iran's Kuridstan. Bloggers were invited by a leading pro-environment website, Green Wave (photo above) to write about the topic: “Iran's nature, a place where park rangers are sacrificed. Why?” from March 6-13.
In Lor's blog we read [fa]:
What are the reasons for the death of six park rangers in one year? The responsibility of all pro-environment activists is clear. We should support these park rangers in order to prevent such events in future.
Rifr blog says [fa]
What happened that these four park rangers should deserve to die? Their guns were not ready and it shows they did not expect such an attack. We should remember that in the last 30 years, 110 park rangers were killed and 450 others were handicapped.
Avaye Mohitezit Iran writes [fa]:
One of the victims was Kamal Hussein Panahi, a student of natural resources. He shared his experience with other students. Is it right that a nature and environment lover and keeper should become a target of bullets?
Tabiatbakhtiari writes [fa]:
Has the moral foundation of our society collapsed so much that people get killed for protecting our environment.
Khbarnationalpark writes that Iranian park pangers are denied the basic human rights.
Written by Firuzeh Shokooh Valle
Blogger and journalist Elaine Díaz reflects on the disappearance [es] of the collective Bloggers Cuba, of which she was a member.
Fakhruddin Ahmed starts out well in this op-ed, explaining the genesis of “Islamophobia” with a greater degree of honesty than most Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. have ever displayed. But he soon enough resorts to the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of evading responsibility, pointing fingers at non-Muslims who dare to point out how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. By the end of the piece he has run off the rails entirely, flinging wild charges of racism and bigotry, and blaming Pamela Geller and me for the fact that non-Muslims in America are looking at Islam and Muslims with open eyes, instead of buying into the full-blown campaign of deception, disinformation, and soothing lies that the mainstream media continues to pursue. He never connects up the first half of his piece with the second — in other words, he never explains why Islamic jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism are real, and yet any resistance to them constitutes racism and hatred.
Yeah, sure, Fakhruddin — as if Pamela Geller and I inspired Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas, or Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore, or Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland, or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer, or Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer, or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber, or Muhammad Atta, Anjem Chaudary, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Bakar Bashir, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, bin Laden and all the rest.
The Times of Trenton should be ashamed to print such a farrago, but it isn’t really anything special — just another mainstream media outlet printing a deceptive, disingenuous piece claiming victim status for Muslims in order to deflect attention away from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.
“Examining a painful history fraught with transgressions,” by Fakhruddin Ahmed in the Times of Trenton, March 12 (thanks to James):
There are cogent reasons why roughly half of Americans, according to polls, harbor an unfavorable opinion of Islam. Besides perpetrating the most horrendous crime on American soil on 9/11, Muslims have been responsible for some pretty ugly incidents lately.
The Ayatollah Khomeini challenged one of the West’s core values, freedom of speech, by issuing a “fatwa,” or religious decree, in 1989, for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his controversial book, “The Satanic Verses.”
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were quickly followed by Muslim terror attacks in Bali, Indonesia (2002), Madrid (2004), London (2005) and Mumbai (2008). And when some Muslims went berserk, burning and boycotting in reaction to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006, the rest of the world held its collective breath in consternation.
Muslim terrorists’ attempts to blow up planes, airports, tunnels and subways in America were thwarted. And if Qur’ans had actually been burned by Pastor Terry Jones in Florida last fall, as he threatened to do, some Muslims would have reacted by creating mayhem. Clearly, there is a less-enlightened, fanatically violent underbelly at work in the name of Islam. Understandably, the Judeo-Christian polemic against Islam centers on terrorism.
Submerged in an all-encompassing anti-Muslim hysteria, when non-Muslim Americans see signs of increasing Muslim presence around them, they feel besieged by an intimidating culture. That America’s complexion is transforming from shades of white to brown is difficult for many Americans to stomach; when some of those brown faces belong to Muslims, the transformation becomes downright frightening.
With no prominent Muslim-American voice to assuage those apprehensions, fear begets fear, spawning more virulent anti-Muslim vitriol.
Are Muslims, their religion and their culture a mortal threat to America? Is this the vaunted “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Harvard’s Samuel Huntington had predicted in 1993?
Civilizational narratives are rarely one-dimensional. Western democracies, especially Britain and France, exploited and repressed most Muslim nations as colonial powers over the centuries, souring Muslim taste for democracy. Conceivably, America’s more recent interventions in the Islamic world are fueling Americaphobia. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the concomitant collateral death of thousands of civilians, have exacerbated Muslim-American relations, as have the al Qaeda-seeking drone attacks inside Pakistan that inadvertently kill civilians and whose legality stands on shaky grounds.
We may consider ourselves to be the “good guys” eliminating the “bad guys” before they attack us; but to the child of the civilian we kill in Afghanistan, we are the bad guys. He or she may vow to exact vengeance.
Quid pro quo is in vogue in international relations. America garnered the Muslim world’s gratitude when it rushed to bolster the Afghans after the Soviet invasion of 1979 (which led to Muslim participation in Gulf War I in 1991), and liberated the Bosnians (1995) and the Kosovars (1999) from the Serbs. Muslims were not thrilled, however, when America attacked Afghanistan in 2001 (and has occupied it since); the neoconservatives fabricated WMD “evidence” to facilitate President George W. Bush’s attack of Iraq in 2003; and America started waging an undeclared war inside Pakistan.
Excluded from the debate about them inside America, and reduced to passive observers, Muslim-Americans are chagrined at the spectacle unfolding right before their eyes. Right-wing Republicans see no downside to demonizing the Muslims. It energizes their base, carries no political penalty, and forces the Democrats to defend a progressively unpopular minority.
Democratic defense of Muslim-Americans has not been stellar either, perhaps because they, too, secretly covet the bigot vote. Deprecators realize that Muslim-Americans, who number only 7 million, cannot retaliate electorally, making Muslim-baiting a win-win proposition.
Sarah Palin tweeted last July, imploring “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero. Other Republicans and some Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, attaching intellectual heft to an originally ignorant far-right-fringe viewpoint.
A “moderate” Muslim is being redefined as one who condemns on demand. Detractors are not interested in Muslim points of view; they want Muslim condemnation of Islam. For them, Islam-bashing is the new normal, the new acceptable form of racism. If any other ethnic or religious group was so maliciously mauled, the attackers would be branded incurable racists.
What astonishes Muslim-Americans is that those hurling imprecations at them on television, on the radio and in the blogosphere do not seem to care that Muslim-Americans are watching and listening. It’s as though Muslim-Americans are apparitions that do not really exist or have feelings. Muslims feel like screaming: “Hey, I am in the room. Stop backbiting!”
The virus incubated by right-wing bloggers Pam Geller and Robert Spencer has been spread so far and wide by Fox News that all of America is now infected with an anti-Muslim epidemic. It hurts Muslim-Americans to see their patriotism questioned, their faith defined, distorted and defiled beyond recognition by anti-Muslim bigots through blatant lies. It is un-American to attempt to sacrifice an entire America-loving community, already reeling under vicious attacks, at the altar of higher television ratings.
Fakhruddin Ahmed starts out well in this op-ed, explaining the genesis of “Islamophobia” with a greater degree of honesty than most Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. have ever displayed. But he soon enough resorts to the familiar Islamic supremacist tactic of evading responsibility, pointing fingers at non-Muslims who dare to point out how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims. By the end of the piece he has run off the rails entirely, flinging wild charges of racism and bigotry, and blaming Pamela Geller and me for the fact that non-Muslims in America are looking at Islam and Muslims with open eyes, instead of buying into the full-blown campaign of deception, disinformation, and soothing lies that the mainstream media continues to pursue. He never connects up the first half of his piece with the second — in other words, he never explains why Islamic jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism are real, and yet any resistance to them constitutes racism and hatred.
Yeah, sure, Fakhruddin — as if Pamela Geller and I inspired Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas, or Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore, or Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland, or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer, or Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer, or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber, or Muhammad Atta, Anjem Chaudary, Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Bakar Bashir, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, bin Laden and all the rest.
The Times of Trenton should be ashamed to print such a farrago, but it isn’t really anything special — just another mainstream media outlet printing a deceptive, disingenuous piece claiming victim status for Muslims in order to deflect attention away from jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.
“Examining a painful history fraught with transgressions,” by Fakhruddin Ahmed in the Times of Trenton, March 12 (thanks to James):
There are cogent reasons why roughly half of Americans, according to polls, harbor an unfavorable opinion of Islam. Besides perpetrating the most horrendous crime on American soil on 9/11, Muslims have been responsible for some pretty ugly incidents lately.
The Ayatollah Khomeini challenged one of the West’s core values, freedom of speech, by issuing a “fatwa,” or religious decree, in 1989, for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his controversial book, “The Satanic Verses.”
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were quickly followed by Muslim terror attacks in Bali, Indonesia (2002), Madrid (2004), London (2005) and Mumbai (2008). And when some Muslims went berserk, burning and boycotting in reaction to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006, the rest of the world held its collective breath in consternation.
Muslim terrorists’ attempts to blow up planes, airports, tunnels and subways in America were thwarted. And if Qur’ans had actually been burned by Pastor Terry Jones in Florida last fall, as he threatened to do, some Muslims would have reacted by creating mayhem. Clearly, there is a less-enlightened, fanatically violent underbelly at work in the name of Islam. Understandably, the Judeo-Christian polemic against Islam centers on terrorism.
Submerged in an all-encompassing anti-Muslim hysteria, when non-Muslim Americans see signs of increasing Muslim presence around them, they feel besieged by an intimidating culture. That America’s complexion is transforming from shades of white to brown is difficult for many Americans to stomach; when some of those brown faces belong to Muslims, the transformation becomes downright frightening.
With no prominent Muslim-American voice to assuage those apprehensions, fear begets fear, spawning more virulent anti-Muslim vitriol.
Are Muslims, their religion and their culture a mortal threat to America? Is this the vaunted “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and Islam, as Harvard’s Samuel Huntington had predicted in 1993?
Civilizational narratives are rarely one-dimensional. Western democracies, especially Britain and France, exploited and repressed most Muslim nations as colonial powers over the centuries, souring Muslim taste for democracy. Conceivably, America’s more recent interventions in the Islamic world are fueling Americaphobia. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with the concomitant collateral death of thousands of civilians, have exacerbated Muslim-American relations, as have the al Qaeda-seeking drone attacks inside Pakistan that inadvertently kill civilians and whose legality stands on shaky grounds.
We may consider ourselves to be the “good guys” eliminating the “bad guys” before they attack us; but to the child of the civilian we kill in Afghanistan, we are the bad guys. He or she may vow to exact vengeance.
Quid pro quo is in vogue in international relations. America garnered the Muslim world’s gratitude when it rushed to bolster the Afghans after the Soviet invasion of 1979 (which led to Muslim participation in Gulf War I in 1991), and liberated the Bosnians (1995) and the Kosovars (1999) from the Serbs. Muslims were not thrilled, however, when America attacked Afghanistan in 2001 (and has occupied it since); the neoconservatives fabricated WMD “evidence” to facilitate President George W. Bush’s attack of Iraq in 2003; and America started waging an undeclared war inside Pakistan.
Excluded from the debate about them inside America, and reduced to passive observers, Muslim-Americans are chagrined at the spectacle unfolding right before their eyes. Right-wing Republicans see no downside to demonizing the Muslims. It energizes their base, carries no political penalty, and forces the Democrats to defend a progressively unpopular minority.
Democratic defense of Muslim-Americans has not been stellar either, perhaps because they, too, secretly covet the bigot vote. Deprecators realize that Muslim-Americans, who number only 7 million, cannot retaliate electorally, making Muslim-baiting a win-win proposition.
Sarah Palin tweeted last July, imploring “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero. Other Republicans and some Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, attaching intellectual heft to an originally ignorant far-right-fringe viewpoint.
A “moderate” Muslim is being redefined as one who condemns on demand. Detractors are not interested in Muslim points of view; they want Muslim condemnation of Islam. For them, Islam-bashing is the new normal, the new acceptable form of racism. If any other ethnic or religious group was so maliciously mauled, the attackers would be branded incurable racists.
What astonishes Muslim-Americans is that those hurling imprecations at them on television, on the radio and in the blogosphere do not seem to care that Muslim-Americans are watching and listening. It’s as though Muslim-Americans are apparitions that do not really exist or have feelings. Muslims feel like screaming: “Hey, I am in the room. Stop backbiting!”
The virus incubated by right-wing bloggers Pam Geller and Robert Spencer has been spread so far and wide by Fox News that all of America is now infected with an anti-Muslim epidemic. It hurts Muslim-Americans to see their patriotism questioned, their faith defined, distorted and defiled beyond recognition by anti-Muslim bigots through blatant lies. It is un-American to attempt to sacrifice an entire America-loving community, already reeling under vicious attacks, at the altar of higher television ratings.
It was a battle of the bloggers last night on the Rick Moran Show. Called a political potpourri, it really was an hour-long battle between four very opinionated people. Jazz Shaw of the Hot Air Green Room,
Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com![]()
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
Written by Julius Rocas
There is an on-going debate amongst Filipino bloggers regarding the proposed formation of a ‘National Bloggers' Association'. It all started back in January 31 when blogger Janet Toral asked in a blog post ‘Are you in favor of a National Bloggers Association?‘ The purpose of the said organization shall be:
[to] interact with policy makers, both government and private groups, who are interested in crafting guidelines that will have an effect to the blogging community.
As soon as it was published, bloggers on both sides of the fence – those in favor and against the proposal have expressed their respective positions.
It is interesting to note that those who support the idea of forming a national bloggers' association do so with some reservations. Regnard Raquedan suggests that the idea should be refined into an organization of ‘professional' bloggers instead of representing all Filipino bloggers:
This group should not pursue bloggers who are blogging as a hobby and as a means of expression. And clearly, the group should present itself as a representative of the professional bloggers, not all bloggers in general. Making such a claim would be
I believe no one group can represent the Philippine blogosphere- it's akin to attempting to represent all those who can express themselves. But I believe that a group focused on one aspect of blogging, that is professional blogging or blogging with an agenda, can be helpful in legitimizing Philippine blogging as a practice.
Bjornson Bernales puts his faith on the idea that there's wisdom in setting up such an organization and hopes that along the way, things will get more refined and clear:
It is still immature for me to say about the structure of the Philippine Bloggers Association. But the one thing I am sure about is that I would like to be part of it.
I respect the views of other bloggers. And that makes the blogoshere colorful with different views and opinions, maintaining an equilibrium between the yin and yang.
But I still say yes to Philippine Bloggers Association. I dream of being a full-pledged Problogger. It is not because I am motivated of money and power. It is because I sense and aspire win-win situations in which bloggers have concerns about and are a part of.
Aileen Apolo took some time to read back on the history of earlier efforts of putting up a similar organization of bloggers in other countries – all of which had failed – and maintains a neutral stance:
So this proposal about a National Bloggers Association… I don't know, I think I'll stick to joining or participating in select projects/activities since any attempt in the past (this the the nth attempt) never really flourished. Besides organizations really work with just a handful of people moving (I've observed that with local professional orgs too), so its actually better sometimes to just have interest groups work with different projects to get more traction.
Well, it's a free country and everybody has a choice
![:)]()
On the other hand, bloggers who oppose the formation of national bloggers' association have come out to state their case.
Janitor Al takes the idea head on in a rather blunt and scathing manner:
It's stupid because its creation can potentially generate more of the same kinds of problems that it seeks to address. For instance, while it seeks to unify bloggers, it seems rather obvious that this idea has caused much division. Ironic? Perhaps. Stupid? I would say definitely.
…..
Personally, I also find the endeavor rather pompous. No. Not ambitious. Pompous. The assumption that they can bring the millions upon millions of bloggers to band together and agree on this reeks of arrogance.
Let's look at one particular example, the notion of representation. Given the status quo, while there may be some who might seem to represent bloggers in a bad light, the lot of us can easily say, “No. Those bloggers do not in any official manner represent me or any other blogger for that matter.” And in most cases, that will be the end of it. Enter now an actual “association” claiming to represent all of us bloggers. Given the ease by which most of traditional media still misunderstand the blogosphere, the danger here is that this “association” could very well be regarded by the mainstream as a de facto official representative. Who the hell gave them that right?
The Mommy Bloggers Club not only opposes the idea of a national bloggers' association because it would be adverse to blogging's inherently personal and independent nature, she puts forward a counter-proposal:
If we really want an organization to fight for our right, in terms of ethics, copy right issues and income, I would rather suggest having a Bloggers Cooperative, where one get to share ideas, skills, and income opportunities. We can have a fund for all bloggers in the country to share and invest. We can continue what we love doing, blogging, without being regulated but are progressive.
Ms Noemi Dado joins in this position and also offers an alternative:
While I do agree with a collective set of ethical standards for bloggers , I am not convinced on the establishment of a national blogging organization. Bloggers are so diverse and may not want to belong to one big group for one reason or another.
Before the establishment of an organization, a set of ethical standards should first be deliberated and agreed upon in a conference or summit, then the rest can follow.
With more and more bloggers starting to weigh in and take sides, the debate on the ‘national bloggers' association' is far from being over.
The Media Bloggers Association, of which I am a longterm member, has filed an amicus brief in Righthaven LLC v. Hyatt, one in a series of suits by a company which exists for the sole purpose of suing bloggers.
Righthaven is a Nevada LLC (hereinafter, “Righthaven”) with the most questionable of business models. It was formed by an attorney who, instead of simply representing copyright plaintiffs in justifiable cases, chose to create an entirely champertous enterprise out of unsound copyright claims. Its “business model” is to seek out unwitting and, perhaps, careless bloggers who have used portions of the Las Vegas Review Journal in online discussions. Once Righthaven finds these uses by conducting internet “sweeps,” it fallaciously “acquires” the rights to the articles in question, essentially as causes of action, solely for the purpose of filing a lawsuit.
The vast majority of the victims of this scheme are under the impression that by giving proper attribution to a source, they are within their rights to use such excerpts. Almost none of them could ever afford legal representation; flummoxed by the threat of a $ 150,000 potential statutory damage award – an amount that it can safely be said none of them could dream of satisfying – and lacking even a clue as to whom to turn to for advice, many will simply default.
Righthaven now seeks to turn a default into a windfall by asking this Court to grant it a constitutionally impermissible and outrageous award of at least $ 30,000 in statutory damages, ranging up to $ 150,000.00 in this matter, in addition to $ 1,850.00 in costs and attorney’s fees – all based on specious infringement claims for forgotten newspaper articles whose economic value is surely orders of magnitude below these astronomical sums.
While bloggers operate under Fair Use principles, there’s little doubt that some of us cross the line on occasion. Partly, that’s because the line is far from bright. Mostly, it’s because people mistakenly think everything on the Internet is in the public domain.
I’ve been blogging for a little over eight years now and have written 21,594 posts on OTB alone over that time. I’ve received less than a half dozen complaints about copyright claims, all of which were resolved amicably and speedily. (I was also erroneously included in a lawsuit involving a blog with which I’m only tangentially affiliated and had that dismissed — with the help of Ron Coleman.)
Having one’s copyrighted materials misappropriated is frustrating and, in some cases, actionable. But the remedy for a small website is almost always a DMCA takedown notice, not a lawsuit. But, as the MBA amicus alleges, Righthaven isn’t interested in protecting intellectual property rights but in scaring people into coughing up money.
The entire brief is below:
Media Bloggers Association Righthaven Amicus Brief
The Media Bloggers Association, of which I am a longterm member, has filed an amicus brief in Righthaven LLC v. Hyatt, one in a series of suits by a company which exists for the sole purpose of suing bloggers.
Righthaven is a Nevada LLC (hereinafter, “Righthaven”) with the most questionable of business models. It was formed by an attorney who, instead of simply representing copyright plaintiffs in justifiable cases, chose to create an entirely champertous enterprise out of unsound copyright claims. Its “business model” is to seek out unwitting and, perhaps, careless bloggers who have used portions of the Las Vegas Review Journal in online discussions. Once Righthaven finds these uses by conducting internet “sweeps,” it fallaciously “acquires” the rights to the articles in question, essentially as causes of action, solely for the purpose of filing a lawsuit.
The vast majority of the victims of this scheme are under the impression that by giving proper attribution to a source, they are within their rights to use such excerpts. Almost none of them could ever afford legal representation; flummoxed by the threat of a $ 150,000 potential statutory damage award – an amount that it can safely be said none of them could dream of satisfying – and lacking even a clue as to whom to turn to for advice, many will simply default.
Righthaven now seeks to turn a default into a windfall by asking this Court to grant it a constitutionally impermissible and outrageous award of at least $ 30,000 in statutory damages, ranging up to $ 150,000.00 in this matter, in addition to $ 1,850.00 in costs and attorney’s fees – all based on specious infringement claims for forgotten newspaper articles whose economic value is surely orders of magnitude below these astronomical sums.
While bloggers operate under Fair Use principles, there’s little doubt that some of us cross the line on occasion. Partly, that’s because the line is far from bright. Mostly, it’s because people mistakenly think everything on the Internet is in the public domain.
I’ve been blogging for a little over eight years now and have written 21,594 posts on OTB alone over that time. I’ve received less than a half dozen complaints about copyright claims, all of which were resolved amicably and speedily. (I was also erroneously included in a lawsuit involving a blog with which I’m only tangentially affiliated and had that dismissed — with the help of Ron Coleman.)
Having one’s copyrighted materials misappropriated is frustrating and, in some cases, actionable. But the remedy for a small website is almost always a DMCA takedown notice, not a lawsuit. But, as the MBA amicus alleges, Righthaven isn’t interested in protecting intellectual property rights but in scaring people into coughing up money.
The entire brief is below:
Media Bloggers Association Righthaven Amicus Brief
"We are caught up in the winds that blow every which way. And in the hullabaloo the thinking man is driven to ponder where he is being blown and to long desperately for some quiet place where he can reason undisturbed and take inventory. It may be that I exaggerate the need for occasional sanctuary, but I do not think so — at least speaking for myself, since it has always taken me longer than the average person to think things out," – explorer Richard E. Byrd from his book, Alone.
"We are caught up in the winds that blow every which way. And in the hullabaloo the thinking man is driven to ponder where he is being blown and to long desperately for some quiet place where he can reason undisturbed and take inventory. It may be that I exaggerate the need for occasional sanctuary, but I do not think so — at least speaking for myself, since it has always taken me longer than the average person to think things out," – explorer Richard E. Byrd from his book, Alone.
Fallout from the Rifqa Bary case.
American Thinker Blog
