Pages

Sunday, August 25, 2013

News photos

Doggone! 
Mee-ha, a pit bull mix, leaps to catch a ball in midair over a pool as part of the Marvelous Mutts traveling show at the Prince William County Fair in Manassas on Aug. 17. The show features rescued dogs and travels to fairs across the United States.

Are you a good listener?

How To Actually Be A Good Listener


By Laura McMullen for U.S. News
What's more frustrating than speaking without being heard? We've all been there: confiding in a friend as she paws at her phone; pitching an idea to a co-worker as he interrupts with his own; telling your mom about your day as her eyes glaze over -- apparently focusing on something else much, much more interesting than you.
These situations, in the moment, can be annoying and downright hurtful. But the fact that they happen often can't be too surprising. "There's a misconception that when we hear, we listen," says Pamela Cooper, vice president of the International Listening Association, "but listening is really hard work, and it takes a great deal of concentration." No wonder our friends and family and co-workers can be lousy at it. But what about you -- are you a good listener?
"Most people are very aware that other people don't listen, but they're not nearly as aware that they themselves don't listen," says Paul Donoghue, psychologist and co-author of "Are You Really Listening? Keys to Successful Communication" with Mary Siegel. So, "don't presume you're a good listener," he says.
Be brutally honest with yourself and think about your own listening (or not-listening) behavior. You may be that colleague or sibling or friend who never really listens and not even know it! See if you have any of these poor listening habits below, or better yet, thicken your skin and ask a friend.
Distracting yourself. 
Sending one little text message as your co-worker is talking sends an enormous message to her: You're not listening. And that hurts. Yes, perhaps you're hearing the other person, or you think you're getting the gist -- you're a multitasker after all! -- but are you really concentrating on what she said? Probably not. Focusing on a text message, or your Instagram feed, or that dog over there or the shopping list you need to make is telling the speaker that those things are more important than what she is saying -- Next habit: interrupting!
Interrupting. 
This bad habit is three things: Self explanatory, rude and a sign that you're not listening.
Topping the speaker's story. 
Imagine you're excitedly telling a friend about a Washington, D.C., vacation you're planning, when he decides to cut in: "I lived there for three years and have toured the National Mall a couple dozen times, and really prefer the Vietnam Memorial, though all the tourists typically opt for the Lincoln Memorial, which … " There's certainly nothing wrong with engaging in a conversation, but cutting into the speaker's story to talk about yourself is a sign you weren't digesting his or her message. With this "me too" habit, as Donoghue describes it, you're pretty much saying, "You bring me the ball, and I'll take it from you and start dribbling it," he says.
Problem finding.
Someone with this habit thinks, "I'm listening, but only enough to find a problem and fix it for you," Donoghue says. Sometimes this person is so skilled in the habit that he or she will find problems that aren't even there. "Oh, the trip to Washington is this month? Why would you go there in that summer humidity? And don't even think about cooling down in the air-conditioned museums, they're too crowded."
Becoming defensive.
If you're the topic of discussion, you might hear criticism that may or may not be there. And so we get defensive. "And when we're defending, we're not listening," Donoghue says.
Think about the last meeting, conversation or class you had. Did you display any of these habits above? Whether or not you did, know that everyone can improve his or her listening skills. And that's exactly what listening is: a monumentally important skill used in marriage, friendship, parenthood, management and just about every kind of relationship. Without listening skills, we're poor communicators, Cooper says, which is unfortunate, because she identifies communication as the "heartbeat of life." Think about the last miscommunication you had, or the last time something didn't go your way, Cooper suggests, and now think: How much of that had to do with not fully listening?
Maybe your listening skills just need a tune-up, or maybe they need an overhaul. Either way, like other skills, you need to work hard to improve your listening. "You don't just sit down and play Chopin," says Donoghue, "You have to play scales and practice, practice, practice."
Here's how to practice becoming a better listener:
Break those habits. 
Now that you're aware of poor listening habits, identify when you do them -- and stop. "Even if you're mid-sentence, catch yourself. 'Here I go again, giving advice," Donoghue says, or, "'Here I go again, telling my story instead of listening to yours.'" If you're really motivated to become a better listener, ask your friend to call you out when you're doing these habits.
SOLER up. 
Cooper teaches communication studies at the University of South Carolina in Beaufort. When she notices her students aren't listening, she tells them to "SOLER up:" Squarely face the speaker; Open up your posture by uncrossing the arms; Lean toward the speaker; Make eye contact; Be relaxed.
Paraphrase. 
Just like how good waiters repeat your order back to you, good listeners restate what they're hearing. While this repetition isn't necessary or efficient for every interaction ("I'm hearing that you think it's sunny out"), it's a useful tool for conversations in which messages could be mixed: "I'm hearing that you're upset I didn't go to your party," or "I'm hearing profits are up 4 percent, and you seem hopeful they'll continue rising."
Realize when you're not listening and fix it. 
No one is a perfect listener. If you find your attention has drifted and you weren't actively listening, be honest with whoever is talking. Communicate that yes, you're interested, but that you got a bit off track, so please repeat that last part.
Launch Slideshow

    Saturday, August 24, 2013

    Freedom of expression: images of vaginas!!!

    Are vulvas so obscene that we have to censor them?

    Our student newspaper was taken off the shelves for showing vulvas. But what is offensive about a body part that over half of the world have? 

    • Warning: uncensored image at the end of the article
    Honi Soit
    Honi Soit's censored cover - the issue was still pulled off shelves as the black bars were 'too transparent'. An uncensored version of the cover can be seen below. Photograph: Honi Soit. Photograph: Jennifer Yiu/Honi Soit
    Eighteen vulvas. All belong to women of Sydney University, and feature on the cover of Honi Soit, the university's student newspaper. We were told to cover them with ugly black bars before publishing. Why, even after complying with this, were the issues taken off the stands?
    We are tired of society giving us a myriad of things to feel about our own bodies. We are tired of having to attach anxiety to our vaginas. We are tired of vaginas being either artificially sexualised (porn) or stigmatised (censorship and airbrushing). We are tired of being pressured to be sexual, and then being shamed for being sexual. 
    The vaginas on the cover are not sexual. We are not always sexual. The vagina should and can be depicted in a non-sexual way – it’s just another body part. “Look at your hand, then look at your vagina,” said one participant in the project. “Can we really be so naïve to believe our vaginas the dirtiest, sexiest parts of our body?” 
    We refuse to manipulate our bodies to conform to your expectations of beauty. How often do you see an ungroomed vulva in an advertisement, a sex scene, or in a porno? Depictions of female genitalia in culture provide unrealistic images that most women are unable to live up to. “Beautiful vaginas are depicted as soft, hairless, and white. The reality is that my vagina is dark and hairy, and when it isn’t it is pinkish and prickly,” said one of the participants in the project. We believe that the fact that more than1,200 Australian women a year get labioplasty is a symptom of a serious problem. How can society both refuse to look at our body part, call it offensive, and then demand it look a certain way? 
    We want to feel normal; we don’t want to feel fearful when we have a first sexual encounter with a partner who may judge us because of our vaginas. That fear was replicated during the photo shoot. “Just before getting the picture taken the little voice in my head was doing the whole ‘why didn’t you landscape?’ thing,” said one participant. This sentiment was shared by most people in the project – they felt a pressure to present our vaginas to the world in a way that the audience would be "comfortable" with. But this cover is intended to reassure other women. Take comfort from the fact that everyone’s vagina is different, and normal.
    All the women on the cover have been unified through their experience, but so is every other person that is able to defeat any negative feelings they have towards their own or another vagina. As one participant put it: “When it comes down to it, my vagina is just another part of my body, which can be viewed in a number of different ways, but the majority of the time is completely neutral, just like my mouth or my hands. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is not my dirty secret.”
    It’s telling that the women who participated in the creation of this cover found the experience to be liberating. It’s because we need liberation. Just before we went to print, we were told that our cover was illegal, possibly criminal. But why? According to the Student Representative Council’s legal advice, this publication might be “obscene” or “indecent”, likely to cause offence to a “reasonable adult”. But what is offensive or obscene about a body part that over half of the Australian population have? Why can’t we talk about it – why can’t we see it? Why is that penises are scrawled in graffiti all around the world, but we can’t bear to look at vulvas?
    In 1993, the Honi Soit editors ran an uncensored photograph of a flaccid penis on the front cover, as a response to another university newspaper's decision to do the same. Neither newspaper received any complaints. Our cover was not a comment on nudity generally, but instead an exercise in female empowerment. 
    Even after complying, the paper was pulled off stands yesterday. Why? Due to a printing error, the black bars which we were made to use to hide the "offensive" parts and avoid prosecution came back from the printers ever so slightly transparent.
    Art exhibitions over the last few decades have attempted to break down the stigma attached to the vagina by bringing its realistic depiction into the public sphere, most recently in Redfern. But the audience must first choose to go to the exhibition. By distributing this cover about the university, we have given our audience no choice. Either accept vaginas as normal, non-threatening, and not disgusting, or explain why you can’t. 
    Censorship laws in Australia state that the publishing of "indecent articles" without classification is illegal. Indecent is supposed to be something that will "offend" a "reasonable person". If deemed indecent, items must be classified before publication. Pornography is classified, and deemed suitable for publication in places that only adults can access. Our publication risked being classified as more extreme than that, available only from behind a counter, something that should be hidden away from view, something that should be shamed.
    That in 2013, vulvas can still be considered something that should be shunned and hidden, or offensive, is absurd.
    Honit Soit
    Honi Soit's uncensored cover. Photograph: Jennifer Yiu/Honi Soit

    Friday, August 23, 2013

    American dream - Obama v Martin Luther King

    A dream deferred

    Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave voice to the hopes of an era. Some are yet to be realised
    Martin Luther King Jr during 'The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom'©Eyevine
    Martin Luther King shakes hands during the March on Washington in August 1963
    The March on Washington: Jobs, Freedom, and the Forgotten History of Civil Rights, by William P Jones, Norton, RRP$26.95/£20, 320 pages
    Bending Toward Justice: The Voting Rights Act and the Transformation of American Democracy, by Gary May, Basic Books, RRP$28.99, 336 pages
    The Speech: The Story Behind Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s Dream, by Gary Younge, Haymarket Books, RRP$19.95/Guardian Books, RRP£6.99, 204 pages

    In Philadelphia, where I grew up in the 1980s, there was a little-used underground tunnel between subway stations. Very suddenly, when I was 11 or 12, the tunnel became a cardboard city for homeless men. I remember the fluorescent lighting and the blue walls, the men on pallets, their belongings in garbage bags. I remember the smell of unwashed bodies and alcohol seeping through pores. My mother and I avoided this passage but if the weather was inclement, or we were in a great hurry ... Keep your head down, and walk fast, she would say. We’d scurry through, my mother shaking her head in disbelief at this new iteration of human suffering. Why didn’t anyone do anything?
    You will recall your first experience of injustice, your first encounter with something so profoundly wrong that it required immediate and total redress, and yet, unbelievably – it continued unchecked. It is the great fortune of the times in which we live that many of us born in the west after the great upheavals of the 20th century – the world wars and the Holocaust, the freedom movements of the 1960s and 1970s – have had relatively individualised experiences of injustice. We are accustomed to freedom, and have been spared the terrors of living under an unjust regime against which there is neither defence nor remedy.
    Fifty years ago, on August 28 1963, a quarter of a million people gathered in Washington to demand freedom from racial oppression and call for an end to the Jim Crow laws that sanctioned segregation in all aspects of public life in the American South. They came in chartered “freedom trains” and buses. From all across the country they came singing “We Shall Overcome” – some in hope, some in sorrow, all impressed with the gravity of the task at hand. As University of Wisconsin historian William P Jones explains in his incisive The March on Washington, ending segregation was just part of their mission; also central to the demonstration’s aims were economic disparity, chronic joblessness and poverty.
    Protests in Washington are now as common as sliced bread. Not so in 1963, when the notion was fresh and powerful. (One can’t help but wonder about the future of public demonstrations in the US where, notwithstanding the Occupy Wall Street movement, peaceful protest almost instantly becomes the stuff of television commercials, robbed of meaning and potency.) The March on Washington faced widespread criticism – even the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Urban League feared the backlash that could follow. President John F Kennedy met civil rights leaders to dissuade them, citing the potential for violence.
    The march’s director, A Philip Randolph, was no stranger to presidential apprehensions. A veteran anti-segregation crusader and trade unionist, he had organised a March on Washington during the second world war to force Franklin D Roosevelt to desegregate the military and end discrimination in the defence industry. Roosevelt capitulated on some, though not all, of Randolph’s demands and the protest was cancelled a week before it was to take place. Nonetheless, the seeds were planted and, 22 years later, Randolph’s great ambition had its day. Randolph and his deputy director, the peerless Bayard Rustin, marshalled the zeal and resources of countless activists around the nation. Groups such as the National Council of Negro Women signed on early and worked tirelessly, despite the rampant sexism that excluded them from leadership, and even acknowledgment, on the day of the march.
    Martin Luther King was the last of 10 speakers on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that August afternoon. His was the soaring “I Have a Dream” speech for which the march is most remembered, though King and the march itself are diminished by this narrow recollection – both were about a great deal more than dreams. Randolph, the first speaker, set the tone: “We are the advance guard of a massive moral revolution for jobs and freedom.” Blacks, he said, were “in the forefront of today’s movement for social and racial justice”. The more radical and wider-reaching goals of the March on Washington, Jones argues, have been obscured by its success with regard to the end of legal segregation. Real freedom, so boldly invoked by Randolph, is more complex and even harder won.
    The march was essential to the first of the movement’s triumphs, the Civil Rights Act signed into law on July 2 1964. Segregation and racial, ethnic and gender discrimination were now illegal but there remained another front: millions of black Americans were still deprived of the vote.
    Gary May’s excellent Bending Toward Justice takes as its subject the arduous journey of African-Americans to full suffrage. May, a professor of history at the University of Delaware, opens with the dismal situation in Selma, Alabama, where blacks comprised 57 per cent of the city’s population but less than 1 per cent were registered to vote. Alabama became the epicentre of the fight for voting rights, though the disenfranchisement of blacks was endemic all over the South. Would-be voters were subject to oral quizzes on state law, and to legal questions “so abstruse”, writes May, “that law professors would fail them”. In Mississippi, potential voters were asked to estimate the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. Those who managed to register were subject to harassment and physical violence at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan and other white vigilantes.
    Resistance to black suffrage grew even fiercer after the success of the March on Washington. White racists in Birmingham, Alabama, were so enraged that they bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church, killing four little girls. It is impossible to overstate the courage of the citizens involved in the struggle. In Selma, students picketed the courthouse carrying signs reading, “Let Our Parents Vote”. They were arrested and forced to run three miles out of town under the orders of segregationist bully Sheriff Jim Clark. When some of the youngsters could not keep up, they were shocked with cattle prods. Most of us have seen the grainy footage of voting rights marchers tear-gassed, clubbed and set upon by dogs on Bloody Sunday, one of the most brutal confrontations between peaceful protesters and the Alabama State Police. Images of Bloody Sunday turned the tide of public (and political) opinion, and the Voting Rights Act was signed into law five months later, on August 6 1965.
    Dangerously, the fight for the franchise is fading into the annals of history. Challenges to the Voting Rights Act have been frequent and vigorous. The most outrageous, and damaging, of these is the Supreme Court’s June decision to strike down the section of the act setting out the criteria used to decide which states must obtain federal pre-approval before making changes to voting laws. Since then Mississippi and Texas, both of which have a long history of voter discrimination, have announced plans to introduce changes that could significantly limit access to the polls for minorities, young people and low-income voters.
    Just after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Randolph warned of a “crisis of victory”. Had the movement done enough? Despite all the gains, many black Americans were still poor, and going to stay that way. King struggled with the same doubts in the years just before his assassination on April 4 1968.
    Gary Younge’s unequivocal The Speech quotes King in conversation with Rustin: “I worked to get these people the right to eat hamburgers, and now I’ve got to do something ... to help them get the money to buy them.” Younge, a British journalist based in the US, poses a salient, if difficult, question about King’s 1963 speech: why are its lofty images of racial harmony better remembered than its commentary on racial and economic justice? Younge writes: “America was more comfortable dreaming about racial conviviality than dealing with racism’s economic fall out and the redistributive policies needed to address it.”
    By 1968 King had become something of a pariah. His outspoken stance against the Vietnam war had alienated President Lyndon Johnson. J Edgar Hoover’s FBIcontinued to persecute him with wiretaps and discredit him with gossip. The civil rights coalition was splintering: after years of beatings and arrests, some activists had grown disillusioned with non-violence and integration. Conservative members of the coalition, including some in King’s own Southern Christian Leadership Conference, felt his anti-war position endangered recent victories.
    King’s notion of the movement’s goals underwent radical revision. He recognised the full extent of the moral mandate for continued action. The needs, and indeed rights, of the men and women with whom King had marched, prayed and been arrested had not been secured. In April 1967 King said: “For years I laboured with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of the South ... Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values.” This radicalised King is not the dreamer that exists in the public imagination. This King is uncomfortably close to the economic disparity and unequal distribution of power that remain at the heart of American society.
    Now that the US has elected – twice – a black president, one could well wonder why the March on Washington is still relevant. Younge provides a few reasons: de facto segregation in American schools; black child poverty nearly triple that of whites; black unemployment double that of whites. “These are problems which, while conditioned by Jim Crow, do not vanish upon its demise” – an ever-timely observation by Rustin, quoted by Younge. As a society we have conflated the end of legal segregation with the end of racism and inequality. We have achieved the former but allow the latter to go increasingly unchallenged.
    I cannot imagine that King, were he to walk that corridor of homeless men in the Philadelphia of my youth, would have felt his dream had been realised. I do not believe he could look at the current state of America’s prisons, or its schools, and feel his work was complete. Our drowning working class and the rising poverty across the nation continue to belie America’s promise. We have been gifted with his legacy. On this auspicious anniversary we must be reminded, to borrow King’s words, “of the fierce urgency of now”.

    The Vatican and the American sisters


    America's Catholic nuns

    Men are from Mars

    PROGRESSIVE and socially-engaged nuns, and bishops with a mandate to bring them into line, have promised to avoid name-calling and try harder to understand one another, but it will be a long hard road. That is about the only clear message to emerge from this month's gathering in Florida of the Leadership Conferenceof Women Religious (LCWR), which represents about 80% of America's Catholic sisters.

    It was an unusual sort of meeting. For much of the four-day assembly, around 800 sisters were joined by a tiny handful of men, including Archbishop Peter Sartain who has been put in charge of a Vatican initiative to reform the organization, guide it back into doctrinal orthodoxy and induce it to change the tone of its publications and public statements. His mandate follows a "doctrinal assessment" by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2011 which spoke of  "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith" which had allegedly entered the discourse of the American sisters.

    But it was the sisters, not the hierarch, who delivered to the world a report on the outcome of the two sides' deliberations. They said they they had enjoyed a "profound and honest sharing of views" and that "although we remain uncertain as to how our work with the bishop delegates will proceed, we maintain hope that continued conversations of this depth will lead to a resolution of this situation that maintains the integrity of the LCWR and is healthy for the whole church."

    Behind these careful and subtle words lies a disconnect in the ways that the estranged parties—the Vatican and the American sisters—see the situation. The Vatican's pronouncements have been couched in the language of a top-down, old-world hierarchy which expects its words to be enforced and obeyed. The LCWR derives its sense of legitimacy from the fact that its members were elected to leadership positions in 330 religious communities, many of them working at the coal-face of social problems like poverty, addiction or clandestine migration.

    And in an American context, sisters who "go the places the hierarchs can't go" on the margins of society enjoy far more public acceptance than a male episcopate which has been deeply tainted by child-abuse scandals. So it may not be humanly possible for male bishops to call women religious into line in a scolding way without further undermining their own authority.

    Another factor driving the two sides apart is that both are hurting financially. Among many religious orders, there is a high average age and an acute problem over how to offer sisters the barest minimum of security in their final years. But whether they rebel or conform, they won't get much help from the bishops. America's dioceses have never helped religious orders all that much, and these days, many have seen their funds drained by payouts to child abuse victims.

    Given that they are used to finding creative ways to survive, the female religious orders may well do better at coping with financial crisis than the church's male hierarchy does. All this makes it very hard for Archbishop Sartain to tell the sisters what to do.

    Al Jazeera the alternative?!

    Al Jazeera: a good kind of un-American
    August 22, 2013 3:10 pm
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/026cc87a-0a78-11e3-aeab-00144feabdc0.html

    Broadcaster’s US news channel provides a much-needed alternative view, writes Matthew Garrahan
    Microphone with the logo of Al Jazeera©AFP
    Iturned on my television the other night, flicked to the Al Jazeera America cable news channel, which launched this week, and for a few minutes thought I had been transported to another country.
    I saw an in-depth report on inhumane conditions at a prison in Louisiana, with people interviewed given plenty of time to explain their arguments. It was followed by a panel discussion on David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who was recently detained for nine hours by police at Heathrow airport. There were no interruptions by the host on Al Jazeera America. No one raised their voice, and differences of opinion were expressed with civility. There was none of the hysteria that has become de rigueur in US cable news, the lengthy reports were measured and calm, and there were barely any commercial breaks. It was shocking.

    Backed by the Qatari government, Al Jazeera has spent years trying to get a foothold in the world’s biggest media market. In January it paid $500m for Current TV – a liberal channel started by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, which had almost as many viewers as employees – and has transformed it into a 900-person operation with bureaux all over the world, promising a more internationalist take on the news than US viewers may be used to.
    If the first few nights are anything to go by, the channel has already differentiated itself from its rivals. CNN, the former ratings leader that has trailed in the wake of Fox News for several years, has become increasingly tabloid, with a bigger focus on human interest stories. The network, which rose to prominence for its reporting on the first Gulf war, recently sent a battalion of reporters to the Gulf of Mexico to provide relentless, rolling coverage of a cruise ship floating adrift after an engine fire. Aside from overflowing toilets and irate passengers, there was not much to report, and the ship was eventually towed back to land. CNN was widely mocked by the likes of Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, who said the network had “treated a stalled cruise ship like it was the Shackleton expedition”.
    CNN has tried various strategies and changes in tone to claw back ground against Fox News, which has proved there is a sizeable audience for news with a conservative slant.
    Fox’s slogan is “fair and balanced”, yet it often strikes a confrontational tone with guests. Consider a recent interview with Reza Aslan, an academic and professor of religious studies, who happens to be Muslim. The interviewer, apparently convinced Professor Aslan had an anti-Christian agenda, kept pressing him about why he had written a book about the life of Jesus. “It’s like a Democrat writing a book about Reagan,” the interviewer said, without a hint of irony.
    Despite this, or rather because of it, Fox’s formula is commercially successful. Chase Carey, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox, which owns the news channel, recently called it “a juggernaut” for the company (presumably because watching it for a sustained period is like being run over by a truck). The Fox effect can be measured in other ways. MSNBC, the voice of liberal cable news, has tried to mimic its rival from the other end of the political spectrum but has failed to replicate its ratings. Meanwhile, CNN will in September bring back its much maligned political debate show, Crossfire – a forum for Fox-style rage and political jousting – with a roster of argumentative hosts that includes failed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.
    So there would seem to be a gap in the market for Al Jazeera. This is particularly true on the west coast, which is neglected by CNN and Fox. This week, Al Jazeera aired live shows up to 10pm on the west coast; CNN stops its live transmission three hours earlier, while Fox stops two hours earlier, leaving viewers in Los Angeles and Seattle to watch evening repeats – a curious stance for channels that claim to be dedicated to news.
    But it will not be plain sailing for Al Jazeera. It has already run into opposition from Glenn Beck, a former Fox host, who left the network to start his own online news operation, The Blaze. Mr Beck said this week that Al Jazeera had “always been anti-American” and would peddle Islamist “propaganda”.
    I could not detect any Islamist propaganda in the news coverage I saw this week on the channel; it all seemed fairly anodyne to me. But then there is always the possibility that I missed it when I left the room to make a cup of tea.

    Thursday, August 22, 2013

    Making contacts v making friends!!!

    August 21, 2013 6:44 pm

    Hit puberty? Time to get LinkedIn


    It is no longer enough to stress over exams, you must have the right connections and outside interests
    General views of the LinkedIn logo.©Shaun Curry
    You are, it seems, never too young to be thinking of that next career move.LinkedIn is opening itself up to students as young as 13 or 14. That’s right, baby – if you’ve hit puberty, it’s time to start networking.
    This is the terrible tide heading towards existing LinkedIn users. The ranks of all the people you don’t know who are already trying to connect with you on LinkedIn are about to be swelled by Cynthia from year nine, who recently endorsed Harry Styles as “well fit”, and Darren, who has just dropped geography. John has added falsifying sick notes to his skill set; while those connected with Steve, who has just left junior high, will be pleased to know that he’s just blown away his thousandth cop on Grand Theft Auto.

    Except, of course, it won’t be like that because this would at least be normal. What LinkedIn is promising by opening its arms to the hormonal and acne-riddled ranks of the world’s teenagers is something utterly and miserably aberrant.
    For the careers site is about to become populated with the harassed spawn of the world’s tiger mums, urged on to acquire skills that can be added to their career page (does a cycling proficiency certificate count?) and researching and connecting with CEOs and execs who had the misfortune to have once gone to the same school. (How long will it be before even the most abiding affection for one’s old alma mater wilts under the deluge of connection requests?) While other adolescents are on Facebook and WhatsApp, planning their first sexual conquests, this cohort will be buffing up their CVs and recording their achievements at the Commerce Club. “Darling, have you done anything on LinkedIn today?” And, worse than that: “If you wouldn’t put it on LinkedIn, why are you doing it?”
    Banx cartoon
    We may no longer be sending children up chimneys but, in LinkedIn’s world view, they will spend their adolescence optimising their dexterity with the long-handled brush for the day when they might secure that first prized internship with a master sweep.
    That LinkedIn would target older students is understandable. The site’s marketing for the new service is very much aimed at students planning their college choices. It is launching university pages that, among other things, detail the career paths of alumni. Older schoolchildren may well be motivated enough to be seeking internships and burnishing the credentials that might set them apart from the wider mass. The fact that it will open the door at 13 or 14 does not mean it expects a flood of people that young.
    What is clear, however, is that LinkedIn is run by very smart people who do not take these decisions in a haphazard way. What is depressing is not just that LinkedIn thinks people as young as 13 will respond to the opportunity, but that it is probably right. One has only to think of the competitive parents at the school gate to imagine how this might snowball: “Your friend David’s already got his own LinkedIn page.” And there is value in building a CV. To you and me, he may have had a paper round, but on his profile page he’s already got a year’s experience in distribution.
    The hothousing of children, especially among the educated middle-class, is becoming ever more acute. As we look to a future where the best jobs are both more scarce and more fiercely competitive, anxious parents are ratcheting up the pressure. It is no longer enough to stress over entrance examinations, SATs and examination grades. Now there are the right kind of outside interests, voluntary work, early internships and anything that shows the motivation that might separate you from the crowd. And, by entrenching the power of networks, alumni and active parents, it will narrow rather than broaden the opportunities available to those foolish enough to have ill-connected relatives or attend unfashionable schools.
    It is not hard to foresee the outcome if the message – subliminal or otherwise – is that, though the cool kids may be on Facebook, the smart ones are on LinkedIn.
    Western societies may not be forcing children into the factories but the world of work is intruding on them at ever earlier ages. LinkedIn deals in the world of work – so the earlier that happens, the happier LinkedIn will be.
    But joining LinkedIn at 13 is taking a step towards that world where you worry about making contacts when you should still be in the business of making friends.

    Democracy v Hypocrisy: whistleblowers and public interest

    Glenn Greenwald on security and liberty

    'Sending a message': what the US and UK are attempting to do

    State-loyal journalists seem to believe in a duty to politely submit to bullying tactics from political officials
    Glenn Greenwald

    theguardian.com, Wednesday 21 August 2013 12.28 BST

    The remains of the hard disc and Macbook that held information leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian and was destroyed at the behest of the UK government.

    The remains of the hard disc and Macbook that held information leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian and was destroyed at the behest of the UK government. Photograph: Roger Tooth

    Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger on Monday night disclosed the remarkable news that UK authorities, several weeks ago, threatened the Guardian UK with prior restraint if they did not destroy all of their materials provided by Edward Snowden, and then sent agents to the basement of the paper's offices to oversee the physical destruction of hard drives. The Guardian has more details on that episode today, and MSNBC's Chris Hayesinterviewed the Guardian's editor-in-chief about it last night. As Rusbridger explains, this behavior was as inane as it was thuggish: since this is 2013, not 1958, destroying one set of a newspaper's documents doesn't destroy them all, and since the Guardian has multiple people around the world with copies, they achieved nothing but making themselves look incompetently oppressive.
    But conveying a thuggish message of intimidation is exactly what the UK and their superiors in the US national security state are attempting to accomplish with virtually everything they are now doing in this matter. On Monday night, Reuters' Mark Hosenball reported the following about the 9-hour detention of my partner under a terrorism law, all with the advanced knowledge of the White House:

    One US security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks."

    I want to make one primary point about that. On Monday, Reuters did the same thing to me as they did last month: namely, they again wildly distorted comments I made in an interview - speaking in Portuguese, at 5:00 am at the Rio airport, waiting for my partner to come home after finally being released - to manufacture the sensationalizing headline that I was "threatening" the UK government with "revenge" journalism. That wasn't remotely what I said or did, as I explained last night in a CNN interview (see Part 2).
    But vowing to report on the nefarious secret spying activities of a large government - which is what I did - is called "journalism", not "revenge". As the Washington Post headline to Andrea Peterson's column on Monday explained: "No, Glenn Greenwald didn't 'vow vengeance.' He said he was going to do his job." She added:
    "Greenwald's point seems to have been that he was determined not to be scared off by intimidation. Greenwald and the Guardian have already been publishing documents outlining surveillance programs in Britain, and Greenwald has long declared his intention to continue publishing documents. By doing so, Greenwald isn't taking 'vengeance.' He's just doing his job."
    But here's the most important point: the US and the UK governments go around the world threatening people all the time. It's their modus operandi. They imprison whistleblowers. They try to criminalize journalism. They threatened the Guardian with prior restraint and then forced the paper to physically smash their hard drives in a basement. They detained my partner under a terrorism law, repeatedly threatened to arrest him, and forced him to give them his passwords to all sorts of invasive personal information - behavior that even one of the authors of that terrorism law says is illegal, which the Committee for the Protection of Journalists said yesterday is just "the latest example in a disturbing record of official harassment of the Guardian over its coverage of the Snowden leaks", and which Human Rights Watch says was "intended to intimidate Greenwald and other journalists who report on surveillance abuses." And that's just their recent behavior with regard to press freedoms: it's to say nothing of all the invasions, bombings, renderings, torture and secrecy abuses for which that bullying, vengeful duo is responsible over the last decade.
    But the minute anyone refuses to meekly submit to that, or stands up to it, hordes of authoritarians - led by state-loyal journalists - immediately start objecting: how dare you raise your voice to the empire? How dare you not politely curtsey to the Queen and thank the UK government for what they have done. The US and UK governments are apparently entitled to run around and try to bully and intimidate anyone, including journalists - "to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian", as Reuters put it - but nobody is allowed to send a message back to them. That's a double standard that nobody should accept.
    If the goal of the UK in detaining my partner was - as it now claims - to protect the public from terrorism by taking documents they suspected he had (and why would they have suspected that?), that would have taken 9 minutes, not 9 hours. Identically, the UK knew full well that forcing the Guardian UK to destroy its hard drives would accomplish nothing in terms of stopping the reporting: as the Guardian told them, there are multiple other copies around the world. The sole purpose of all of that, manifestly, is to intimidate. As the ACLU of Massachusetts put it:

    The real vengeance we are seeing right now is not coming from Glenn Greenwald; it is coming from the state."

    But for state-loyal journalists, protesting thuggish and aggressive behavior from the state is out of the question. It's only when aggressive challenges come from those who are bringing transparency and accountability to the state do they get upset and take notice. As Digby wrote last night: "many elite journalists seem to be joining the government repression of the free press instead of being defiant and protecting their own prerogatives." That's because they believe in subservient journalism, not adversarial journalism. I only believe in the latter.

    Related matters

    The Wall Street Journal reported last night that NSA surveillance has a far greater reach than previously imagined - including 75% of domestic traffic - and included this excellent graphic with it about how that is done, taken in part from the Snowden materials we have been reporting.
    Here is David Miranda explaining to the BBC what it's like to be forced to turn over your passwords to security agents who have detained you under a terrorism law, so they can troll through your emails and Facebook account and Skype program while you are detained. Just watch that short video and judge for yourself.
    Finally, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow had an excellent commentary on Monday about all of this that really captures the heart of it all:
    Rachel Maddow on the David Miranda case.