Posts by Monica Mehta

Monica Mehta is an associate editor at AlterNet.

The worst lesson to learn
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 25, 2005 at 11:59 AM.

This may be my last blog post for awhile on AlterNet, as my summer stint has concluded and I'm off to other ventures.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration continues to saddle the country with many of the same problems it did when I started here. They're still on the verge of instating a Supreme Court that will make abortion illegal. They're still contributing to the erosion of the environment through scientifically unsound, pro-corporate policies. They're still mouthpieces of the religious right, shepharding its presence into our secular government and schools. They're still allowing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to die. And for the third day in a row, the president is still stubbornly refusing to budge on his shameful premise: that the war in Iraq was justified.

The war on terror is right here, at home: if all this isn't terrifying, then I don't know what is.

Next month, my cousin will go back to Iraq to fight for this illegal war. He already served a year there, the worst of his life, in which he had to drive unguarded humvees through the roads of Baghdad. His family immigrated from India only a few years ago; today, he serves in the U.S. military, placing his life and faith in the leaders of this country. And his mother must wonder how she thought coming to this country would give her son a better life.

This is what I have learned most from my time here: We are Americans, but we are not all served by America. We are no longer "protected" by our leaders; they now purposefully put us in harm's way. And we are not represented by our leaders. They have stopped listening to us, and now doggedly follow only the voices they choose to hear.

This administration does not speak for all of us: I hope the rest of the world remembers that, when the day of reckoning comes.

Pat Robertson unleashed
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 23, 2005 at 2:29 PM.

Pat Robertson has allied himself with Osama bin Laden and other extreme radical religious leaders with his statements on executing the president of Venezuela.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

…

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

His words are no different from those of fundamentalist clerics who call on Muslims to kill George Bush. The Christian Right should act swiftly to distance itself from his hate speech and discredit him as its spokesman.

A New Kind of Celebrity Journalism
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 22, 2005 at 11:46 AM.

Sean Penn is writing a series of foreign dispatches for The San Francisco Chronicle, again.

The first time he served as foreign correspondent for the paper, his three-part series on Iraq -- which included a photo slideshow, mostly of him -- was the source of many annoyed letters from readers, like this one from Merle Divens: "Just want you to know that no one gives a damn what Sean Penn thinks or does. He only makes films filled with violence. Who made him a journalist anyway? What are his credentials to do anything? What is his education?"

This time, he's in Iran, where's he's making such observations as the following:

Iran is not an unsophisticated country. These are not unrefined people.

His articles are also often focused on himself, instead of on the country.

I noticed that many Iranians were freely smoking cigarettes in line, certainly no signs prohibiting it, and immediately joined them. I was quickly singled out by a uniformed customs agent who instructed me to put out my cigarette. Only me. Not the Iranian passengers.

But that’s the point of the pieces: Let’s see what happens when a well-known Hollywood actor goes to an enemy land! The result is rather chaotic: a video on the Chronicle site shows him being beseiged by photographers during a museum visit.

Maybe his pieces will get people who wouldn't otherwise read an article on Iran to learn something about the country. Some readers may get a kick out of having an Oscar-winning celeb double as a journalist.

What do you think? Should Sean Penn stick to acting, or should we give celebrities the room to stretch their creative muscles and try reporting, even on serious topics like American-Iranian relations?

POTUS' Summer Book List
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 18, 2005 at 3:30 PM.

What's George W. reading when he's not clearing brush and avoiding Cindy Sheehan?

According to CNN,

The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History. John Barry tells the story of the virus that killed more than 50 million people worldwide in 1918 and argues that the U.S. government ignored the wartime crisis and created conditions that allowed it to thrive.

Salt: A World History." This best seller by Mark Kurlansky tells the history of salt and how this rock found in nearly every kitchen shaped the world.

"Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar." Apparently a perk of the presidency is getting advance copies of anticipated biographies such as this. The book by celebrated Russian playwright Edvard Radzinsky doesn't go on sale until October.

Seems to me he could be putting his book-larnin' time to a lot more use. Here's my recommended alternate reading list for the president.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. A firsthand view of the workforce's bottom rung.

The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas L. Friedman. The New World is exciting, but if the U.S. doesn't keep up, it's going to be trampled. Also a close analysis of the economic and political roots of global Islamism.

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Equal wages for all, a community of women…what's not to love?

At the very least, Mr. Bush, it's good to know thine enemies. Oh, one more...

Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life by Spencer Johnson. Because it's never too early to start preparing for the 2008 election.

Any other book recommendations, dear readers?

The most useless warning sign in the world
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 17, 2005 at 11:17 AM.

Walking into the parking garage of my apartment building this morning, I became aware of a huge sign posted at the entrance:

"Warning: This area contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm."

It turns out this sign is the result of Proposition 65, passed in 1986, which in part prohibits workplaces from knowingly or intentionally exposing individuals to dangerous chemicals without giving advance warning. The thinking goes that businesses are letting individuals know they may be risking their own or their babies' lives by entering a certain area.

But there's no further information as to which chemicals the area contains, in what amount, and how harmful those chemicals are. In other words, is it unsafe to spend a few minutes in that area every day, or do you basically have to lick the wall to get exposed to the chemicals?

So basically, instead of being forced to clean up these areas, businesses got away with placing the burden of safety on people who choose to enter that area. But what's the alternative? Are pregnant women in my building not supposed to use the parking garage? There's no easy overnight street parking nearby, so how are they supposed to avoid the garage if they have a car?

Also, the proposition was originally intended for employees who spent long amounts of times in buildings with these chemicals. But again, what's the alternative? Find another job? There's no addendum that says companies have to help employees find other jobs in non-toxic buildings. So what is the real point of these signs? What good do they really do?

The proposition wasn't completely useless: It required companies to place similar warnings on products, including alcoholic beverages. But products are easily avoidable, and have simple alternatives: Places of residence or work don't. Hey, but there's one benefit to this law: Businesses saved thousands through its passage. All they had to do was have the area tested and then post up a little sign. The larger price is the health and safety of millions of people, including pregnant women and their fetuses, but who cares about that, right?

Framing the corporate debate
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 16, 2005 at 4:20 PM.

There's been a lot of talk among Democrats about "framing" dialogue and language, and not allowing the administration's hacks to dictate the terms of national debate. Here's a new way to eschew the establishment: Avoid corporate buzzwords. You may think you're down with progressive business lingo, but not if you're using any of the terms cited in Anne Fisher's Fortune column on "business buzzwords that make you gag," sent in by readers. Among the culprits:

Keep me posted or I'll keep you posted. Notes one astute reader, "These are usually conversation-enders indicating that no further information will be exchanged."

Radar screen, as in, "I'd like to get on your radar screen for a meeting next week." Asks Oliver, "What are we, air traffic controllers?"

"Isn't this cool?" Heard at "any Microsoft presentation of any new software," one reader notes. "Is it a rhetorical question, or do these people have a very limited vocabulary?"

A challenge or an issue, when what the speaker really means is a problem.

Touch base, as in "Let's touch base on this tomorrow." Says Bill G.: "I don't want to touch anyone's base. It sounds as if it would lead to a sexual harassment lawsuit."

No-brainer. Suggests Mitch, "Maybe we could redefine this to mean a person who says it."

My least favorite: "I'll be out-of-pocket." Thanks for the sentiment, but you were never in my pocket to begin with. Got that straight?

Most Liberal City in the U.S.? Not Berkeley!
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 15, 2005 at 12:03 PM.

Contrary to what you may think, Berkeley is not the most liberal city in the country. Nor is San Francisco, or even New York.

That label is reserved for Detroit, Michigan, according to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Bay Area Center for Voting Research that examined voting patterns in the 2004 presidential election. Included in the study were 237 cities with populations over 100,000.

The rest of the top five most liberal cities were as follows: Gary, IN; Berkeley, CA; Washington, D.C.; and Oakland, CA.

New York ranked all the way down at No. 21. The Bay Area is the most liberal region in America, with 11 cities ending up on the list of the most liberal cities in the country.

Provo, Utah and Lubbock, Texas were the two most conservative cities in the country, according to the study. The mayor of Provo said its ranking as the most conservative city was owing to the fact that 75% of the city's residents are Mormon.

Of course, President Bush's home state of Texas has three of the five most conservative cities: Lubbock, Abilene and Plano. Arizona, Florida, and Southern California cities also figured prominently among the list of most conservative cities.

Not surprisingly, race played a major role in political ideologies. "As the most conservative city in America, Provo is overwhelmingly white and solidly middle class," said director Jason Alderman. "This is in stark contrast to Detroit, which is impoverished, black and the most liberal."

Al-Jazeera International: coming to a TV near you
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 11, 2005 at 1:02 PM.

Looks like another veteran journalist is signing up with al-Jazeera. This time it's British broadcasting bigwig David Frost. The station is hiring media types from the U.S. and the U.K. for the launch of of its global channel, al-Jazeera International, next year.

It will be a good thing for Westerners to be able to see what al-Jazeera broadcasts, since it's often from an Arab-insider view (though execs insist, ""We have no domestic agenda and no political bias. Our coverage will be fearless, provocative, and the most informed on what's happening on the ground in the world's hot spots"). A news channel that often gains access to sites of recent attacks within wartorn areas could provide the footage Western networks can't get, and can't broadcast even if they did.

Maybe if Tom, Dick and Harry saw the actual bodies of Iraqi civilians killed in an attack, they might start realizing this isn't what liberation should look like. Heck, they might start even seeing "those people" as human. Let's hope the global al-Jazeera lives up to its promise.

Jagger backpedals on slamming Bush
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 10, 2005 at 5:45 PM.

Mick Jagger is denying that a song on his upcoming album, called "Sweet Neo Con," refers to George W.

"It is not really aimed at anyone," Jagger said on the entertainment news show "Extra." "It's not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn't be called 'Sweet Neo Con' if it was."

But what about the lyrics?

The song is from the new album, "A Bigger Bang," set for release Sept. 6. There is no mention of Bush or Iraq. But it does refer to military contractor Halliburton, which was formerly run by Vice President Cheney and has been awarded key Iraq contracts, and the rising price of gasoline.

"How come you're so wrong? My sweet neo-con, where's the money gone, in the Pentagon," goes one refrain.

The song also includes the line: "It's liberty for all, democracy's our style, unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial."

Jagger claimed the song is "certainly very critical of certain policies of the administration, but so what! Lots of people are critical."

Oh yeah? Then who are these lyrics supposed to refer to:

"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite.

You call yourself a patriot. Well I think you are full of s**t!"

Could his butt-covering statement have anything to do with the fact that the Rolling Stones are teaming up with the National Football League and ABC to promote "Monday Night Football"? Methinks I smell an attempted last-minute save....

Me, Unplugged
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 8, 2005 at 2:10 PM.

I spent three full days away from the computer this weekend -- the longest stretch in a long time. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I didn't look at any screens at all. No television, either.

Instead, I listened to Jon Stewart's America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction -- a greatly entertaining audiobook for a long car trip. Stewart himself narrates (he starts the intro with, "Welcome, non-readers") with occasional help by his fellow Daily Show gang. One would think the audiotape wouldn't be as good as the book, with its amusing graphics, including a board game which follows a presidential term (one of the pointers reads, "Optimistic press release on economy ineffective. Spin again"). But one would be wrong.

It's nice being read to once in awhile, and to have the freedom to form your own images in your head instead of being fed them from a screen. Have you tried it lately?

Bush shows he gives a damn...again
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 4, 2005 at 11:21 AM.

Aah, it's August again, and once again, our President has decided to take another trip to his Texas ranch to ride his bicycle, pick up twigs, and chop cedar. And what better time to take a vacation? His right-hand man has been implicated in a CIA leak, our closest ally has undergone two terrorist attacks in the past month, 17 soldiers have just been killed in the last week in Iraq... nah, there's no reason whatsoever for him to stick around and do his job! So while millions of Americans continue to sweat and toil in the August heat, our dear President will be taking nearly five weeks away from the office -- his longest leave yet from the White House and the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years. That means he'll have spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at the ranch -- a record amount: No president will have spent as much time away from the White House as Bush has. Well, at least we can be assured that he's in touch with the working man's plight. Thanks, Prez, for showing us all in such concrete terms that you're so dedicated to your job.

A Fine Fatwa
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 3, 2005 at 8:10 AM.

Over the past two weeks, about 150 muslim organizations have endorsed a fatwa against all acts of terrorism and religious extremism, calling such acts "un-Islamic."

"Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives," says the religious edict, issued by a group of Muslim scholars. "Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram -- or forbidden -- and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.'"

This is a positive step that should be applauded by President Bush and his administration. Such a public statement on the part of the government would send the message that Muslims in America are Americans, not some disassociated group that represents the international face of terrorism. It would also acknowledge that American Muslims are not as segregated as European Muslims. Rather, they are part of the multicultural fabric of our society -- one that holds together despite its many small rips.

Violence against women: On a screen near you
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 2, 2005 at 2:15 PM.

This week's Entertainment Weekly has an article about a disturbing new trend in network television: graphic depictions of violence against women.

A woman thrashes in a cage, layers of duct tape blinding her, a rag gagging her, as her faceless captor's male hands grab her fingers to clip her bloodied nails. Another is chained up in her basement in a dog collar, courtesy of her husband. Still another lies paralyzed by venomous spider bites as a masked figure rapes her.

All three are victims of an increasingly violent and disturbing serial killer: TV's procedural drama. The white-hot genre reinvented by "Law & Order" and further popularized by "CSI" has birthed a trio of new fall shows -- "Criminal Minds" and "Close to Home" on CBS and "Killer Instinct" on Fox -- featuring plots that reach distressing levels of brutality against women. ''I haven't seen pure gruesomeness like this on TV before,'' says Jeffrey Sconce, an associate professor in Northwestern University's radio, TV, and film department, who viewed fall pilots for Entertainment Weekly.

EW says the trend may have been indirectly brought on by the Janet Jackson nipple incident:

What's behind the surge in female abuse? Much as we hate to bring up that whole Janet Jackson incident, Sconce thinks her little nipple infraction played a part. ''Since the American broadcasting system has more restrictions against sexuality, you can get away more with amplifying violence than you can with amplifying sexuality. It results in this weird sadistic element. Putting women in these sexual situations is a backdoor way of getting more flesh in.''

I can't believe TV producers actually think this is the kind of stuff women (or men, for that matter) want to watch. But they'll keep putting it on if enough people watch it. The solution? Complain. If you see gratuitous violence against women on your TV show, write an email to the producers and tell them you hate it. And change the channel: Nothing gets across to a TV exec like lower ratings.

Rick Santorum revisited
Posted by Monica Mehta on August 1, 2005 at 11:18 AM.

For those of you left itching for more after Jon Stewart's much-disparaged interview with Senator Rick Santorum last week, George Stephanopoulos may be your salve. Yesterday on ABC's "This Week," he took Santorum to task on a number of issues: abortion, stem-cell research, his reported aspirations for the presidency, and my favorite back-and-forth, radical feminists. As one viewer put it, "George sure made it clear to viewers that Santorum had no clue what he is talking about."

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about something else in the book, radical feminists. A second quote from the book, you say, "Respect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders' war on the traditional family and radical feminism's mysogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect."

Let's get specific here. Name one or two of these radical feminists who are on this crusade.

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, you know, you have -- you go back to, what's her name, well, Gloria Steinem, but I'm trying to remember -- I can't remember the woman's name. It's terrible. Anyway ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it's kind of an important point. Because you paint this broad brush: radical feminists, village elders. Name one.

SANTORUM: There's lots of -- no, there's lot's of -- well, Gloria Steinem. There's one. I mean, there's lots of writings out there ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: She's been on a crusade against stay-at-home moms?

SANTORUM: There's lots of writings out there, and there is an opinion by the elite in this country across academia, across the media, that stay-at-home motherhood is not adequately affirmed and respected by our society.

SANTORUM: And if you don't believe that, get a panel of stay-at-home moms here on your show, and you ask them whether they feel affirmed by society, whether they feel affirmed by the culture.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Listen, I can go home. My wife Wendy both works and stays at home at various times. And sometimes, when she's not working, you know, she gets upset, but it's not some message that's being driven by ...

SANTORUM: Isn't it?

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... specific people.

SANTORUM: Isn't it a message for us? I mean, where does this come from? Does this come from the ether?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm asking you. Where are these radical feminists?

SANTORUM: It comes from an elite culture, dictated, again, from academia, dictated, again, from the Hollywood culture and the news media, that says, the only thing that's affirming, the only thing that really counts is what you do at work.

And that goes for men and women. And it's wrong. It's wrong to tell that to fathers. It's wrong to tell that to mothers. And we need to value mothers and fathers spending time with their children much more than we do in America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hillary Clinton wrote much the same in her book, It Takes a Village. Do you believe she's a radical feminist?

SANTORUM: Yes, I do. I mean, read her work and what she's done on children's rights. I mean, that's radical. I mean, you're talking about giving children the same -- that children have rights equal to adults. I mean, that is not a nurturing atmosphere of mothers and fathers taking responsibility for shaping the moral vision of their children. She doesn't agree with that, at least if you look at her earlier writings.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Have you talked to her about your book?

SANTORUM: We've had conversations in passing about it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tell us about them.

SANTORUM: Oh, just, you know, pass in the hallway, you know, she made a comment to me about that it takes a village, and I responded, no, it really does take a family.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no serious debate?

SANTORUM: No serious debate. I'd love to have a serious debate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You may have drawn her out now, calling her a radical feminist.

Check out the whole interview here.

Bagpipe Dreams
Posted by Monica Mehta on July 28, 2005 at 3:19 PM.

And now, a light in the fog. After almost four decades of carrying out bloody assassinations and bombings, the Irish Republican Army announced that it was permanently abandoning military operations. It ordered all units to cease terrorist activity immediately and pledged to pursue its aims through politics.

Call me naive, but I immediately started dreaming about a future in which, one day, we would hear a similar statement from Al-Qaeda -- ordering all its cells to cease armed activity and pledging to pursue its goals of a Muslim world free of western intervention through political means. I know, it sounds impossible, but twenty years ago, an I.R.A. disarmament would have as well.

One of the reasons for the I.R.A. shift was Irish and Irish-American Catholics' growing distaste of violence in the wake of 9/11. Perhaps moderate and progressive Muslims might also, one day, lead a mindshift in the Muslim world that shunned suicide bombings and no longer viewed them as honorable. Muslim youth would stop being recruited by terrorist organizations, wealthy patrons would cease cash flows, and the bloody era of terrorism would draw to a close.

The sad difference is that the I.R.A. was a gentler terrorist organization than Al-Qaeda. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, though over 3,000 people were killed in their attacks,

”There was an old terrorism analysts' phrase that the IRA wanted to have a lot of people watching but not a lot of people dead," says Dana Allin, a security expert with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. While there is no question that mass casualties are the goal of the new breed of Islamist terrorism shaking Britain, he says, "this old-style terrorism was always about negotiable questions." ...Mr. Allin notes that "the new terrorism is distinguished by a different order of ideology and threat. It doesn't seem to be negotiable."

Still, if Muslims like Irshad Manji and Asra Nomani gain a stronger voice, peace among western and Muslim nations may be more than just a dream. Maybe these are the actual freedom fighters we should be supporting.