Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama and mass media


The Ad Campaign: An Obama Infomercial, Big, Glossy and Almost Unavoidable
By Jim Rutenberg

THE PROGRAM The program gave a new meaning to the word “infomercial” and, for that matter, to all notions of political advertising. Executed with high standards of cinematography, with help from the director of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Davis Guggenheim, the infomercial was part slickly produced reality program; part Lifetime biography; and part wonkish policy lecture with music that could have come from “The West Wing.”
Its imagery was acutely Middle American: suburban lawns, American flags, corn fields and factories. It was packed with swing state and Midwestern governors and senators who spoke in glowing terms of Mr. Obama; a brigadier general, now retired, vouched for his national security credentials.
At the heart of the program were the stories of four everyday families of different backgrounds who told stories of lost health care benefits, the necessities of food rationing and the need to hold more than one job. Mr. Obama told how his mother had to worry about whether the health care provider at her new job would cover her as she battled ovarian cancer. And he retold his background as the grandson of a man who fought in “Patton’s Army” and a grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line in World War II.
But for much of the program Mr. Obama stood before a presidential desk as he laid out his tax plans, health care plans and his approach to world affairs, saying that, as commander in chief, “I’ll renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression.”
In somewhat jarring fashion, the infomercial ended with Mr. Obama addressing an auditorium audience in Florida, live.
ANALYSIS As in his speech in Berlin and his stadium nomination speech last summer, Mr. Obama’s campaign was again practicing its brand of big-event politics with this infomercial: Taking over a huge chunk of the television dial in an effort to make a closing sale with an audience that was likely to be well into the millions. And like the gambits before it, the advertisement held risks just by definition of what it was: A giant financial outlay that made Mr. Obama almost unavoidable to television viewers who are by now weary from all these many months of politicking.
Because Mr. Obama is already running the most intensive and wide-ranging presidential advertising campaign in history, with electronic billboards for his candidacy showing up even in home video games, it raised the obvious question, “How much is too much?” With a heavy-handed style of filmmaking devised to pull at heart strings as Mr. Obama ticked through the commercial’s hard-luck stories, it risked seeming manipulative.
(Senator John McCain’s campaign wasted no time in issuing a statement that read: “As anyone who has bought anything from an infomercial knows, the sales-job is always better than the product. Buyer beware.”)
But at other times, the infomercial appeared to serve perhaps a safer, workmanlike purpose. With no attacks on Mr. McCain or his running mate, it was largely in keeping with Mr. Obama’s strategic imperative this year: Make voters comfortable with the idea of him in the Oval Office while at the same time presenting him as a candidate who can connect with everyday, middle-class voters struggling through the toughest economic times in generations.
It would seem a fool’s errand to score the success of the program immediately after it was shown. First impressions this year have at times proved to have short shelf lives, especially those shared in the news media.
The New York Times Politics Blog
READ MORE - Obama and mass media

environmental conservation is nonsense

READ MORE - environmental conservation is nonsense

Friday, October 24, 2008

Threat of Religious Freedom


By Rumadi
Religious freedom in Indonesia is now under serious threat. On one hand we see a strong wave of Islamization as manifested by the formalization of Islamic law in several regions. On the other, we have witnessed discriminatory acts against groups that practice religious forms of expression outside of the mainstream. The latter cases are a serious violation of human rights and threaten the very foundations of the nation.

The attack on the Ahmadiyah complex in Parung, Bogor, West Java, by a hard-line Islamic group represents a serious threat to religious freedoms in this country. This violence is not the first to be experienced by Ahmadiyah followers. Before that, Ahmadiyah followers in West Nusatenggara and Kuningan, West Java, also suffered similar experiences. Their mosques were attacked and they suffered violence, both physical and mental.

The attack on Ahmadiyah is the most recent example of a growing intolerance of anything judged to be outside orthodox Islam and it is unlikely to be the last. In fact if we view events in recent months, the attack was part of a series of bigoted acts sanctioned by clerics here that all had a similar root; the persecution of those it was ruled had committed blasphemy.

A few months ago the rock band Dewa suffered a similar chastisement. The group was accused of undermining a symbol God and spreading more wrongs through its lyrics.

Accusations of blasphemy were also directed at an Islamic group, the Ngaji Lelaku community, who used two languages (Arabic and Indonesian) in the sholat prayer. That group was based in Malang and was led by imam Yusman Roy.

Roy who was only trying to teach his followers a good way of praying was arrested and was charged with committing blasphemy. His use of the two languages in the sholat was considered a criminal act.

A few weeks after Roy was brought to jail, another case involving blasphemy accusations occurred in Probolinggo, East Java. This time it was the ideas coming from a drug counselor at the Cancer and Drugs Rehabilitation Center. Thousands of people ransacked the complex because of what had been written in a book aiming to help addicts, “From Darkness toward Brightness”. Foundation head Ardhi Hussain and some of his assistants were arrested and his foundation was closed.

His followers, including small children were evicted from their premises and are now virtual refugees. The children were also accused of blasphemy and shunned – this is how the “sins” of the parents are visited on the children.

Because incidents involving blasphemy accusations are frequently occurring, one can strongly suspect that they are not spontaneous or unlinked. There is a grand plan behind them and those who are drawing up the scenario have so far fired their arrows at clear targets. I strongly believe that progressive Islamic groups will be the next targets.

If progressive Islam is attacked, the religious freedoms that are guaranteed in the Constitution will again be seriously threatened. However, the government seems hesitant to protect these religious freedoms. This can be seen from the hands-off way the state has dealt with these cases. The government and the security forces did not prevent attacks against places used by groups accused of committing blasphemy; their lack of action serving as an implicit approval.

This reality is in contrast with article 28 (e) of the Constitution which states (1) every citizen has the right to hold religious beliefs and pray according these beliefs, choose their education and form of teaching, choose their job, choose their citizenship, live in this country, leave and return to the country; (2) every citizen has the right to hold personal beliefs and express their thoughts and attitudes according to what they believe is right.

The article is in line with article 22 of the human rights Law No. 39/1999 which states: (1) Every citizen has the right to practice a religion and perform prayers according to their religion and beliefs; (2) The state shall guarantee the freedom of the citizen to believe in a religion and to practice their beliefs.

Article 8 of the law states: “Protection, development, enforcement, and fulfillment of the rights are the obligation of the government.

Under the law the government can not escape responsibility of protecting and guarantying religious freedoms; not only the freedom to hold a religion but also the freedom to practice it.

Therefore, the government must act firmly against all those that transgress this principle, because the action is not only a criminal action but also is a violation of the Constitution.

By taking firm action the public will consider that government has a commitment to safeguarding the Constitution and human rights principles.

In all cases of violence against religious groups, there has been the involvement of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). MUI has acted as if it holds supreme authority over religious matters. Sadly, the government has seemed to follow the ruling of the MUI and acted as if it did not have any interest in the fatwa issued by MUI.

The government must follow the Constitution and protect religious freedoms and the freedoms of people to practice their beliefs. At the same time it must take action against all those who violate the Constitution. Religious organizations like MUI must also follow the Constitution. They must not act as if they are the sole authority on religious affairs. MUI must become an organization of ulema that does not act against the Constitution. ***

The Writer is Lecturer in Faculty of Islamic Law UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Researcher The Wahid Institute Jakarta.



© 2005, GusDur.Net, All Rights Reserved
READ MORE - Threat of Religious Freedom

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Forget oil, the new global crisis is food

Alia McMullen, Financial Post Published: Monday, January 07, 2008

A new crisis is emerging, a global food catastrophe that will reach further and be more crippling than anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in comparison to what is about to transpire, Donald Coxe, global portfolio strategist at BMO Financial Group said at the Empire Club's 14th annual investment outlook in Toronto on Thursday.

"It's not a matter of if, but when," he warned investors. "It's going to hit this year hard."

Mr. Coxe said the sharp rise in raw food prices in the past year will intensify in the next few years amid increased demand for meat and dairy products from the growing middle classes of countries such as China and India as well as heavy demand from the biofuels industry.

"The greatest challenge to the world is not US$100 oil; it's getting enough food so that the new middle class can eat the way our middle class does, and that means we've got to expand food output dramatically," he said.

The impact of tighter food supply is already evident in raw food prices, which have risen 22% in the past year.

Mr. Coxe said in an interview that this surge would begin to show in the prices of consumer foods in the next six months. Consumers already paid 6.5% more for food in the past year.

Wheat prices alone have risen 92% in the past year, and yesterday closed at US$9.45 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade.

At the centre of the imminent food catastrophe is corn - the main staple of the ethanol industry. The price of corn has risen about 44% over the past 15 months, closing at US$4.66 a bushel on the CBOT yesterday - its best finish since June 1996.

This not only impacts the price of food products made using grains, but also the price of meat, with feed prices for livestock also increasing.

"You're going to have real problems in countries that are food short, because we're already getting embargoes on food exports from countries, who were trying desperately to sell their stuff before, but now they're embargoing exports," he said, citing Russia and India as examples.

"Those who have food are going to have a big edge."

With 54% of the world's corn supply grown in America's mid-west, the U.S. is one of those countries with an edge.

But Mr. Coxe warned U.S. corn exports were in danger of seizing up in about three years if the country continues to subsidize ethanol production. Biofuels are expected to eat up about a third of America's grain harvest in 2007.

The amount of U.S. grain currently stored for following seasons was the lowest on record, relative to consumption, he said.

"You should be there for it fully-hedged by having access to those stocks that benefit from rising food prices."

He said there are about two dozen stocks in the world that are going to redefine the world's food supplies, and "those stocks will have a precious value as we move forward."

Mr. Coxe said crop yields around the world need to increase to something close to what is achieved in the state of Illinois, which produces over 200 corn bushes an acre compared with an average 30 bushes an acre in the rest of the world.

"That will be done with more fertilizer, with genetically modified seeds, and with advanced machinery and technology," he said.
READ MORE - Forget oil, the new global crisis is food