Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media. Show all posts

Monday, January 15, 2024

Brazen Political Censorship of Legendary Palestinian Artist by Indiana University Results in Cancellation Of Her First American Retrospective

Indiana University Cancels Major Exhibition of Palestinian Artist

Samia Halaby, an 87-year-old artist, has been outspoken in her support of Palestinians during the Israel-Gaza war.


PHOTO: “It is clearly my freedom of expression that is under question here,” said Samia Halaby, who earned her master’s degree at Indiana University. Credit: Shanti Knight


by Zachary Small
January 11, 2024
New York Times


The first American retrospective of Samia Halaby, regarded as one of the most important living Palestinian artists, was abruptly canceled by officials at Indiana University in recent weeks.

Dozens of her vibrant and abstract paintings were already at the school when Halaby, 87, said she received a call from the director of the university’s Eskenazi Museum of Art. The director informed her that employees had shared concern about her social media posts on the Israel-Gaza war, where she had expressed support for Palestinian causes and outrage at the violence in the Middle East, comparing the Israeli bombardment to a genocide.

Halaby later received a two-sentence note from the museum director, David Brenneman, officially canceling the show in Bloomington, Ind., without a clear explanation.

“I write to formally notify you that the Eskenazi Museum of Art will not host its planned exhibition of your work,” Brenneman wrote in the Dec. 20 letter, which was reviewed by The New York Times.

A few months earlier, Brenneman had applauded the artist’s “dynamic and innovative approach to art-making” in promotional materials, where he said the exhibition would demonstrate how universities “value artistic experimentation.”

The show’s cancellation is the latest example of the heavy scrutiny that artists and academics have faced since the war began in October. Magazine editors have been fired, artists have seen their work censored and university presidents have resigned under pressure.

“It is clearly my freedom of expression that is under question here,” said Halaby, who earned a master’s degree at Indiana University and later taught students there. She said concerns about her exhibition had been raised by a museum employee.

The retrospective, which was to open Feb. 10, had taken more than three years to organize in partnership with Michigan State University’s Broad Art Museum; agreements were already signed with grant-making foundations and museums that lent artworks to Indiana University from around the country. Halaby was also preparing to unveil a new digital artwork for the exhibition, in addition to previously unseen works like a 1989 painting called “Worldwide Intifadah.”


PHOTO: “Worldwide Intifadah (1989). Credit: Samia HalabySteven Bridges, director of the Broad Art Museum, said his institution was still planning to host the exhibition this year.


Steven Bridges, director of the Broad Art Museum, said his institution was still planning to host the exhibition this year.

A spokesman for Indiana University, Mark Bode, said in a statement on Wednesday that “academic leaders and campus officials canceled the exhibit due to concerns about guaranteeing the integrity of the exhibit for its duration.”

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Twitter and the Insidious Role of Institutional Racism and Exclusion in Social Media Companies in the United States


Twitter’s White-People Problem
Will the company become a leader in reforming its workforce, or a case study for how the tech industry’s relentless whiteness destroys innovation, too?
by Donovan X. Ramsey 
Twitter
January 6, 2016
The Nation


(Reuters / Kacper Pempel) 

DeRay McKesson joined Twitter in the spring of 2009 at the insistence of a friend who thought it would help him be more effective in his role as student government president at Bowdoin College. “She said that it was going to be the new wave of communicating with people,” says McKesson. His first tweet—like most of ours—was awkward, directed to a friend telling her she was “pretty great.”

Five years later, McKesson, with about 1,000 followers, was monitoring Twitter from his home in Minneapolis. He was rocked by the news of the killing of Mike Brown and outraged by the police force’s militarized response to protesters. He packed up his car and tweeted, “en route to Ferguson.”

Today, McKesson is a prominent activist in the Black Lives Matter movement, due in part to his adept use of Twitter to report live from the scene of protests and to communicate with media, his more than 272,000 followers, and even presidential candidates.

“I think Twitter is an incredible platform,” says McKesson. “I want to see it succeed.”

McKesson and other users of color have actually done quite a bit to help Twitter succeed. Over the past few years, the company has remained relevant thanks in part to Black Twitter, an informal network of black users whose interaction on the platform broke the news around Ferguson, has been credited with fueling the historic success of television shows like Scandal and Empire, and consistently injects jokes, grievances and issue campaigns from black America into mainstream media. Blacks and Latinos make up around 30 percent of Twitter’s active users, and a recent Pew poll found that both groups use the platform at higher rates than their white peers.

But while Twitter the platform is bustling with all types of racial diversity, Twitter the company is alarmingly white.

“The central issue is the tenacious myth that Silicon Valley and tech more broadly are perfect meritocracies.”

Twitter isn’t alone. Most of the biggest tech companies in Silicon Valley are overwhelmingly white and male. While blacks and Latinos comprise 28 percent of the US workforce, they make up just 6 percent of Twitter’s total US workforce and six percent of Facebook employees. The number drops to five percent at Google. The statistics are startling considering the increasingly important role the technology sector plays in the American economy. Tech firms employed nearly six percent of private sector workers in 2014 and the industry is responsible for a little more than seven percent of the US GDP.

When diversity activists began campaigning a few years ago for tech companies to disclose their employee demographics, the truth was revealed. What resulted was a lot of handwringing over the state of diversity in tech and some commitment from companies, including Twitter to do better. Sadly, few companies have moved the needle. But for Twitter, that failure could be its undoing. Worse, for would-be tech workers, if a company with Twitter’s user profile can’t get diversity right, there’s little hope for the sector overall.

When Leslie Miley left his job at Twitter last year, the company’s number of black employees fell by two percent. That’s because Miley, as Twitter’s only black engineering manager, was one of just 49 black members of the company’s nearly 3,000-person US team. 

On his way out, Miley made it clear that the tech company’s resistance to cultivating a more diverse workforce, one representative of the country and its users, was indeed a major factor in his decision to leave. He refused a non-disclosure agreement, along with a sizable severance package, so he could speak out on the tech giant’s internal struggles with racial diversity. In a November post to Medium, Miley detailed his efforts to convince Twitter higher-ups to hire more black engineers, and the pushback he received.

Miley says hiring-committee meetings became contentious when he advocated for candidates of color. According to Miley, he and other members of Twitter’s black employee group, Blackbirds, were also kept out of meetings between the company’s executives and diversity advocates like Jesse Jackson and former NAACP head Ben Jealous. A particularly low point of his time at Twitter, Miley wrote, was during a conversation regarding diversity with Alex Roetter, Twitter’s senior vice president of engineering, in which Roetter allegedly told him, “Diversity is important, but we can’t lower the bar.” Roetter has since publicly apologized for the comment.

“Not only were we as a company not doing things about diversity, but the employees who did want to take a more active role were denied the resources to actually make anything happen,” says Mark Luckie, another black Twitter employee. Luckie, who worked for three years at Twitter as the manager of the journalism and media department, says he witnessed virtually no executive buy-in for diversity initiatives.

“A lot of the diversity initiatives—community service, guest speakers—originated from within the employee resource groups,” Luckie says. “In some cases, there was executive support, but not many of the initiatives came from the top down. To me, that sends a message to the company that diversity isn’t a priority.”

“I’ve learned that a person’s personal conviction doesn’t always translate to how they lead a company.”

Miley argues that the company’s homogeneity is stunting its growth. Twitter has a reported 320 million active users in comparison to Facebook’s 1.5 billion and Instagram’s over 400 million, and user growth at Twitter has been growing slowly. As a result, the company’s value has dropped from $31.4 billion in 2013 to about $20 billion currently. To reverse the trend, experts say Twitter needs to either find more users or increase engagement by the users it has now.
“Twitter is an excellent case of finding product-market fit, then losing it,” says Miley. “Twitter found it because it served a purpose, and it’s lost it, I think, because it doesn’t have diversity in who’s building the product. You end up with groupthink, where everybody is from the same background, thinks they’re brilliant and have roughly the same ideas.”

Miley was a part of a diverse team at Twitter that he says proves his point. His first project as the engineering manager was to fix Twitter’s “mute” option, a feature that allows users to filter from their timelines unwanted tweets, such as the kind of harassment and personal attacks that many prominent women have experienced on the platform.
“Twitter released a version in the past that did not go over well. They were so badly received by critics and the public that they had to be rolled back. No one wanted to touch the project,” says Miley. So he pulled together a team from across the organization, including women and people of color. “Who better to build the feature than people who often experience abuse online?” he asks. The result was a new “mute” option that was roundly praised as a major step by Twitter to address bullying and abuse.

Research supports the argument that diversity drives innovation. In fact, a study by the Center for Talent Innovation published in the Harvard Business Review found that employees of firms with diversity are 45 percent more likely to report a growth in market share over the previous year and 70 percent more likely to report that the firm captured a new market. Ironically, a 2015 study published by the MIT Sloan School of Management also found that ideas submitted by Twitter users with more diverse Twitter networks rated higher than those of users with more homogeneous followings.

To be sure, Twitter has been engaged in a lot of conversation around diversity, and some modest action. The company released its workforce representation statistics in 2014 in a blog post aptly titled, “Building a Twitter we can be proud of.” The post, by former Twitter Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion Janet Van Huysse, outlined the company’s efforts, which included recruiting at historically black colleges and universities and partnering with organizations that promote diversity in tech. Van Huysse’s 2015 follow-up post added actual diversity goals: increase “underrepresented minorities” to 11 percent of their overall US workforce; nine percent in tech roles and 6 percent in leadership roles.

Twitter executives were all unavailable for comment. A press representative did, however, offer a statement. “We’re committed to making substantive progress in making Twitter more diverse and inclusive,” it reads. “This commitment includes the expansion of our inclusion and diversity programs, diversity recruiting, employee development, and resource group-led initiatives.”

Related Articles:

Increasing Diversity in Tech Will Take a Lot More Than Promises
Bryce Covert
Twitter’s Blocking Flub Might Have Been Prevented If the Company Weren’t Dominated by Men

But many believe that the best chance for a change at Twitter is a change of leadership, in particular the return of its co-founder Jack Dorsey, who recently came back to the company to take the helm as CEO after being fired in 2008. It’s rumored that Dorsey is planning to retool Twitter with a focus on diversity all the way up to its eight-member board of directors, which happens to include just one woman and one person of color but six white men, three of whom are named Peter. More than anything, it’s Dorsey’s individual commitment to racial equity that gives some hope. “In my conversations with Jack, he comes across as authentic and authentically interested in Twitter’s black users,” says Miley.

“I met Jack on West Florissant last fall,” says DeRay McKesson of encountering the Twitter co-founder during the Ferguson protests. “In all of the conversations I’ve had with him, it’s been clear to me that he both understands issues of racial equity and justice and that he’s committed to acting on these issues.”

In November, after Miley’s departure, McKesson was invited to Twitter by Blackbirds. He joined the group for a lunch meeting. “It felt like family,“ he says. “In many of my conversations,” he adds, “people expressed their struggle with how the company has done some things, mixed with their faith in Jack now that he’s returned.”

After lunch, McKesson sat down for a Q and A session with Dorsey, which the BlackBirds also organized.

“I can’t explain it. But when I hear Jack talk about the platform, about the core of Twitter, it reminds me of why I love Twitter so much,” McKesson says. “This is more than a tool to him, there’s a magic in his voice when he talks about it. And I know that sounds cheesy, but it’s real.”

Twitter parted ways with Janet Van Huysse, its VP of diversity, after six years. She’s been replaced by a white man.

Not everyone is sold, though. When asked about the potential for a more diverse Twitter under Dorsey, Luckie says, “Maybe.” “It’s a weak ‘maybe,’” he adds. “I’ve learned that a person’s personal conviction doesn’t always translate to how they lead a company. So, we’ll just have to wait and see if Jack will be the savior of diversity at Twitter.”

Freada Kapor Klein has been working for many decades to increase diversity in corporate America. As the founder of the Level Playing Field Institute, she’s consulted throughout the tech industry. She has given presentations at Twitter on the topic of hidden bias and even attended some of the meetings to which Miley says he and the Blackbirds weren’t invited. “Let me just say, having done three talks there, I never met Dick Costolo,” says Kapor Klein of Twitter’s recently departed CEO. “I’ve also presented at Square, and Jack Dorsey not only attended, but he sat through the whole thing, in the first row and asked questions,” she says. “From everything I’ve heard about Jack and experienced, I think he’ll have a different stance.”

That stance, she explains, has to be rooted in an understanding that the challenge of diversifying a workforce does not typically reside in candidates and employees of color, but in the bias of those in charge. “The central issue to the lack of diversity in tech is the tenacious myth that Silicon Valley and tech more broadly are perfect meritocracies,” says Kapor Klein. “The implication of that is that there’s something wrong with African Americans, Latinos, and women from all backgrounds, as opposed to there being something deeply biased about tech.”

The data suggest she’s right. There are plenty of qualified candidates of color, despite assumptions that hiring them would mean “lowering the bar.” Eighteen percent of all computer-science graduates in 2012 were black or Latino, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Further, 11 percent of all recipients of bachelor’s degrees in computer science or computer engineering from prestigious research universities are black or Latino, according to data from the Computing Research Association. Still, those groups constitute, on average, just 5 percent of technology workers in Silicon Valley.

Kapor Klein, for one, says she’s cautiously optimistic that big tech companies like Twitter will make much-needed changes, but believes that ultimately most of the progress in the industry will come from start-ups and smaller, scrappier companies.

One company that has taken an aggressive approach to diversity is Pandora Media, the folks behind the music streaming service. The Oakland-based company valued at $4 billion puts up slightly more representative racial diversity numbers than Twitter, but leads the tech industry in gender diversity with a near 50-50 split between male and female staff.

“My approach to diversity is about cultivating mindsets within the company wherein diversity can be seen as an opportunity to be a much better business,” says Lisa Lee, Pandora’s senior diversity manager. “We are working for diversity in the company, not just because it’s a nice-to-have thing, but because it’s a part of what we have to do as a business if we want our product to actually reach everyone.”

Without some drastic intervention, it seems diversity will remain just a buzzword at companies like Twitter. When it comes down to brass tacks, the reality is that in order to make any significant strides in increasing the racial diversity of its workforce, Twitter would have to spend money to grow the staff, with a focus on hiring people of color, or let some of its white employees go. Neither of those options seems likely at this point.

At the end of the year, Twitter parted ways with Janet Van Huysse, its VP of diversity, after six years with the company.* She’s been replaced by Jeffrey Siminoff, a white man.

Correction: A previous version of this story stated incorrectly that Janet Van Huysee had been VP of diversity for six years. Rather, that is the term she had been at Twitter.

Donovan X. Ramsey is a multimedia journalist whose work puts an emphasis on race and class. Donovan has written for The New York Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic and GQ, among other outlets. He's currently a Demos Emerging Voices Fellow.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

President Obama Soundly Defeats Mitt Romney And Is Re-elected To A Second Term; Five Women From the Democratic Party Are Elected To The Senate

Damon Winter/The New York Times
Americans voted to give President Obama a second chance to change Washington.

Damon Winter/The New York Times
President Obama, with his family, took the stage at McCormick Place in Chicago early Wednesday to speak at his victory party. 



All,


Once again just as they did in 2008 in soundly defeating the McCain/Palin ticket the breathtaking strategic, tactical, and highly disciplined organizational brilliance of Team Obama (especially the incredible campaign leadership of the 'Two Davids'--Axelrod and Plouffe--as well as that of their major organizing cohorts Jim Messina, and the always dynamic Stephanie Cutter) prevailed over the fiercely reactionary and billion dollar 'Super-Pac' fueled Romney and Ryan rightwing machine.  The winning combination of extraordinary political mobilization skills and creative mastery of social media linked to the historically unprecedented voter participation of Obama's vaunted national coalition of African Americans, Latinos, Women, Asian Americans and young people under 40 was a very convincing textbook example of how to effectively organize and motivate an emerging new national demographic coalition that in both stylistic and substantive terms opposes, repudiates, and categorically rejects the socially lethal doctrines of white supremacy and sexist patriarchy and misogyny that  thoroughly defines the Republican and Tea Party.

That said it is now essential that this same progressive coalition make absolutely certain and insist that the President fight and stand up to the rightwing bullies in Congress and not give in to their demagogic bluster and blackmail on every major issue facing us in the very near future.  Obama ran a GREAT campaign and seriously deserves all the kudos and hyperbolic praise he has received.  Hopefully this will remind him that to be a great leader he must have and be prepared  to  assert courage, integrity, determination, and conviction.   Only time will tell if he--and the rest of us--has what it takes to truly change the direction of this country...Stay tuned...

Kofi


Obama Wins New Term as Electoral Advantage Holds
By JEFF ZELENY and JIM RUTENBERG
November 6, 2012
New York Times
 
Barack Hussein Obama was re-elected president of the United States on Tuesday, overcoming powerful economic headwinds, a lock-step resistance to his agenda by Republicans in Congress and an unprecedented torrent of advertising as a divided nation voted to give him more time.

In defeating Mitt Romney, the president carried Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin, a near sweep of the battleground states, and was holding a narrow advantage in Florida. The path to victory for Mr. Romney narrowed as the night wore along, with Mr. Obama winning at least 303 electoral votes.

A cheer of jubilation sounded at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago when the television networks began projecting him as the winner at 11:20 p.m., even as the ballots were still being counted in many states where voters had waited in line well into the night. The victory was far narrower than his historic election four years ago, but it was no less dramatic.

“Tonight in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back,” Mr. Obama told his supporters early Wednesday. “We know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.”

Mr. Obama’s re-election extended his place in history, carrying the tenure of the nation’s first black president into a second term. His path followed a pattern that has been an arc to his political career: faltering when he seemed to be at his strongest — the period before his first debate with Mr. Romney — before he redoubled his efforts to lift himself and his supporters to victory.

The evening was not without the drama that has come to mark so many recent elections: For more than 90 minutes after the networks projected Mr. Obama as the winner, Mr. Romney held off calling him to concede. And as the president waited to declare victory in Chicago, Mr. Romney’s aides were prepared to head to the airport, suitcases packed, potentially to contest several close results.

But as it became increasingly clear that no amount of contesting would bring him victory, he called Mr. Obama to concede shortly before 1 a.m.

“I wish all of them well, but particularly the president, the first lady and their daughters,” Mr. Romney told his supporters in Boston. “This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation.”

Hispanics made up an important part of Mr. Obama’s winning coalition, preliminary exit poll data showed. And before the night was through, there were already recriminations from Republican moderates who said Mr. Romney had gone too far during the primaries in his statements against those here illegally, including his promise that his get-tough policies would cause some to “self-deport.”

Mr. Obama, 51, faces governing in a deeply divided country and a partisan-rich capital, where Republicans retained their majority in the House and Democrats kept their control of the Senate. His re-election offers him a second chance that will quickly be tested, given the rapidly escalating fiscal showdown.

For Mr. Obama, the result brings a ratification of his sweeping health care act, which Mr. Romney had vowed to repeal. The law will now continue on course toward nearly full implementation in 2014, promising to change significantly the way medical services are administrated nationwide.

Confident that the economy is finally on a true path toward stability, Mr. Obama and his aides have hinted that he would seek to tackle some of the grand but unrealized promises of his first campaign, including the sort of immigration overhaul that has eluded presidents of both parties for decades.

But he will be venturing back into a Congressional environment similar to that of his first term, with the Senate under the control of Democrats and the House under the control of Republicans, whose leaders have hinted that they will be no less likely to challenge him than they were during the last four years.

The state-by-state pursuit of 270 electoral votes was being closely tracked by both campaigns, with Mr. Romney winning North Carolina and Indiana, which Mr. Obama carried four years ago. But Mr. Obama won Michigan, the state where Mr. Romney was born, and Minnesota, a pair of states that Republican groups had spent millions trying to make competitive.

Americans delivered a final judgment on a long and bitter campaign that drew so many people to the polls that several key states extended voting for hours. In Virginia and Florida, long lines stretched from polling places, with the Obama campaign sending text messages to supporters in those areas, saying: “You can still vote.”

Neither party could predict how the outcome would affect the direction of the Republican Party. Moderates were hopeful it would lead the rank and file to realize that the party’s grass-roots conservatism that Mr. Romney pledged himself to during the primaries doomed him in the general election. Tea Party adherents have indicated that they will argue that he was damaged because of his move to middle ground during the general election.

As he delivered his brief concession speech early Wednesday, Mr. Romney did not directly address the challenges facing Republicans. His advisers said that his second failed quest for the White House would be his last, with his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, standing as one of the leaders of the party.

“We have given our all to this campaign,” said Mr. Romney, stoic and gracious in his remarks. “I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead this country in a different direction.”

The results were more a matter of voters giving Mr. Obama more time than a second chance. Through most of the year slight majorities of voters had told pollsters that they believed his policies would improve the economy if they could stay in place into the future.

Mr. Obama’s campaign team built its coalition the hard way, through intensive efforts to find and motivate supporters who had lost the ardor of four years ago and, Mr. Obama’s strategists feared, might not find their way to polls if left to their own devices.

Up against real enthusiasm for Mr. Romney — or, just as important, against Mr. Obama — among Republicans and many independents, their strategy of spending vast sums of money on their get-out-the-vote operation seemed vindicated on Tuesday.

As opinion surveys that followed the first debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama showed a tightening race, Mr. Obama’s team had insisted that its coalition was coming together as it hoped it would. In the end, it was not a bluff.

Even with Mr. Obama pulling off a new sweep of the highly contested battlegrounds from Nevada to New Hampshire, the result in each of the states was very narrow. The Romney campaign was taking its time early Wednesday to review the outcome and searching for any irregularities.

The top issue on the minds of voters was the economy, according to interviews, with three-quarters saying that economic conditions were not good or poor. But only 3 in 10 said things were getting worse, and 4 in 10 said the economy was improving.

Mr. Romney, who campaigned aggressively on his ability to turn around the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, was given a narrow edge when voters were asked which candidate was better equipped to handle the economy, the interviews found.

The electorate was split along partisan lines over a question that drove much of the campaign debate: whether it was Mr. Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, who bore the most responsibility for the nation’s continued economic challenges. About 4 in 10 independent voters said that Mr. Bush should be held responsible.

The president built a muscular campaign organization and used a strong financial advantage to hold off an array of forces that opposed his candidacy. The margin of his victory was smaller than in 2008 — he held an advantage of about 700,000 in the popular vote early Wednesday — but a strategic firewall in several battleground states protected his Electoral College majority.

As Mr. Romney gained steam and stature in the final weeks of the campaign, the Obama campaign put its hopes in perhaps one thing above all others: that the rebound in the auto industry after the president’s bailout package of 2009 would give him the winning edge in Ohio, a linchpin of his road to re-election.

Early interviews with voters showed that just over half of Ohio voters approved of the bailout, a result that was balanced by a less encouraging sign for the president: Some 4 in 10 said they or someone in their household had lost a job over the last four years.

He defeated Mr. Romney 52 percent to 47 percent in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, but only because of the number of votes he banked in the month leading up to Election Day.

Mr. Obama won despite losing some of his 2008 margins among his key constituencies, including among younger voters, blacks and Jewish voters, yet he appeared to increase his share among Hispanics and Asians. Early exit poll results showed Latinos representing about 1 in 10 voters nationwide, and voting for Mr. Obama in greater numbers than four years ago, making a difference in several states, including Colorado and Florida.

He held on to female voters, according to preliminary exit polls conducted by Edison Research, but he struggled even more among white men than he did four years ago.

Mr. Romney’s coalition included disproportionate support from whites, men, older people, high-income voters, evangelicals, those from suburban and rural counties, and those who call themselves adherents of the Tea Party — a group that had resisted him through the primaries but had fully embraced him by Election Day.

The Republican Party seemed destined for a new round of self-reflection over how it approaches Hispanics going forward, a fast-growing portion of the voting population that senior party strategists had sought to woo before a strain of intense activism against illegal immigration took hold within the Republican grass roots.

It was the first presidential election since the 2010 Supreme Court decision loosening restrictions on political spending, and the first in which both major-party candidates opted out of the campaign matching system that imposes spending limits in return for federal financing. And the overall cost of the campaign rose accordingly, with all candidates for federal office, their parties and their supportive “super PACs” spending more than $6 billion combined.

The results Tuesday were certain to be parsed for days to determine just what effect the spending had, and who would be more irate at the answer — the donors who spent millions of dollars of their own money for a certain outcome, or those who found a barrage of negative advertising to be major factors in their defeats.

While the campaign often seemed small and petty, with Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama intensely quarreling and bickering, the contest was actually rooted in big and consequential decisions, with the role of the federal government squarely at the center of the debate.

Though Mr. Obama’s health care law galvanized his most ardent opposition, and continually drew low ratings in polls as a whole, interviews with voters found that nearly half wanted to see it kept intact or expanded, a quarter wanted to see it repealed entirely and another quarter said they wanted portions of it repealed.

In Chicago, as crowds waited for Mr. Obama to deliver his speech, his supporters erupted into a roar of relief and elation. Car horns honked from the street as people chanted the president’s name.

“I feel like it’s a repudiation of everything the Republicans said in the campaign,” said Jasmyne Walker, 31, who jumped up and down on the edge of a stone planter in a downtown plaza. “Everybody said that if he lost it would be buyer’s remorse — that we were high on hope in 2008. This says we’re on the right track. I feel like this confirms that.”



Michael Cooper contributed reporting.
by Howard Fineman
11/07/2012
Huffington Post


NEW YORK -- President Barack Obama did not just win reelection tonight. His victory signaled the irreversible triumph of a new, 21st-century America: multiracial, multi-ethnic, global in outlook and moving beyond centuries of racial, sexual, marital and religious tradition.

Obama, the mixed-race son of Hawaii by way of Kansas, Indonesia, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, won reelection in good part because he not only embodied but spoke to that New America, as did the Democratic Party he leads. His victorious coalition spoke for and about him: a good share of the white vote (about 45 percent in Ohio, for example); 70 percent or so of the Latino vote across the country, according to experts; 96 percent of the African-American vote; and large proportions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

The Republican Party, by contrast, has been reduced to a rump parliament of Caucasian traditionalism: white, married, church-going -- to oversimplify only slightly. "It's a catastrophe," said GOP strategist Steve Schmidt. "This is, this will have to be, the last time that the Republican Party tries to win this way."

The GOP chose as its standard-bearer Mitt Romney, whose own Mormon Church until recent decades discriminated officially against blacks. His campaign made little serious effort to reach out to Hispanics voters, and Romney hurt himself by taking far-right positions on immigration during the GOP primaries. He made no effort whatsoever in the black community.

Obama reached out not only racially and ethnically, but in terms of lifestyle. Analysts made fun of, and Republicans derided, his campaign's focus on discrete demographic and social slices of the electorate, including gays and lesbians. But the message was one about the future, not the American past.

U.S. Census numbers tell the story. In the first decade of the new millennium, the Asian-American population rose 43.3 percent, the African-American population 12.3 percent, the Latino community 43 percent -- and the white population just 5.7 percent.

To be sure, the president won because of his stand on the issues -- health care reform, Wall Street regulation, the auto industry bailout, among others. But his victory is something more: a sense that we are all in this together as a society, no matter who we are or how we live our lives.

I saw this new America at the heart of the Obama reelection effort, in their campaign offices. In one office in Virgina, for example, the local campaign manager was Pakistani-American, the volunteers were of every race and background, the people heading out to handle the signup drive were Hispanic, and the event they were working on was a concert by Bruce Springsteen.
Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren
(Photo: Josh Reynolds, AP)
Democrats keep control of U.S. Senate
by Susan Davis
USA TODAY


Democrats are going to maintain their hold on the U.S. Senate.

3:05AM EST November 7, 2012 - Democrats will maintain control of the U.S. Senate after their candidates picked up Republican-held seats in Indiana, Maine and Massachusetts, leaving the GOP no path to a takeover with the remaining competitive races that remain undecided.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., offered a concillatory tone and called for compromise as Congress faces a daunting series of fiscal challenges in the months ahead.

"Democrats and Republicans must come together, and show that we are up to the challenge," Reid said. "This is no time for excuses. This is no time for putting things off until later. We can achieve big things when we work together."

It is the second election cycle in a row in which Republicans were favored to make gains because they were defending fewer seats, only to see their chances diminish because of missteps by their own candidates.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the party needs to take some time to process the impact of Tuesday's results.

"It's clear that with our losses in the Presidential race, and a number of key Senate races, we have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party," Cornyn said. "While some will want to blame one wing of the party over the other, the reality is candidates from all corners of our GOP lost tonight. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."

In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock failed to recover from a late controversy over his remarks at a debate that pregnancy resulting from rape is "God's will" in explaining his opposition to abortion rights. Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly was declared the winner by a narrow margin in a victory that delivered a fatal blow to lingering GOP hopes for a takeover.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock failed to recover from a late controversy over his remarks on abortion rights.(Photo: Michael Conroy, AP)

Harvard University professor and former Obama administration official Elizabeth Warren handily defeated GOP Sen. Scott Brown in one of the highest-profile races of the 2012 cycle, and the most costly in the state's history. Her victory was critical to Democrats' efforts to maintain control and hailed by liberal activists who supported her campaign.

In Maine, former Gov. Angus King sailed to victory despite the GOP's best efforts to make it a competitive race. King ran as an independent and has not said which party he intends to caucus with, but he is widely expected to sit with Democrats in the chamber. To that end, King criticized GOP strategist Karl Rove in his victory speech for directing super PAC money into Maine in an effort to defeat King. "I hope that man never comes to Maine," King said.

An early duo of Democratic re-election victories came in Ohio for Sen. Sherrod Brown and in Florida for Sen. BIll Nelson, thwarting long-shot GOP efforts for pick-ups in those states. Recent Democratic concerns about Connecticut quickly evaporated after Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy handily defeated former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, who spent nearly $100 million of her own fortune for a Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
Sen. Sherrod Brown thwarted a long-shot GOP effort to pick up Ohio.(Photo: Tony Dejak, AP)

In Missouri, Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who was targeted heavily by Republicans, pulled out a convincing win against Republican Rep. Todd Akin, whose campaign foundered after he claimed that women who were victims of rape had a biological defense against becoming pregnant.

Former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine defeated Republican former governor and senator George Allen in the hotly contested Virginia race, maintaining the party's hold on the seat. Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin defeated former GOP Gov. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin and made history: She is the first openly gay person elected to the U.S. Senate.

Republicans scored a rare victory in Nebraska, where Republican Deb Fischer defeated former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who was seeking a comeback. Fischer's victory was a GOP pick-up because the seat is currently held by retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. GOP Rep. Jeff Flake also handily won in Arizona against Democrat Richard Carmona. Texas also elected Republican Ted Cruz, a popular candidate among Tea Party activists.

In Nevada, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley held a narrow lead over GOP Sen. Dean Heller, another potential Democratic pick-up, but the race remained tight. Republicans were also eyeing a potential pick-up in North Dakota, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp held a narrow lead over GOP Rep. Rick Berg in a state Republican Mitt Romney won easily.

If either Berkley or Heitkamp secures a victory, 2012 would make history for sending a new record of non-incumbent freshman women senators to the Senate. The record was set in 1996 when four new women were sent to the Senate. Four women have already won including Baldwin, Fischer, Warren and Democrat Mazie Hirono in Hawaii.

Montana was too close to call in a race pitting incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester against GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg in a state Romney carried comfortably.

There were 33 Senate seats up for re-election, 23 Democrats and 10 Republicans, and most incumbents were favored to win handily. Five Republican senators and 17 Democratic senators faced no real re-election threat. With Republicans maintaining control of the U.S. House, Congress will be divided by near-identical margins next year.

All,

Elizabeth is a REAL progressive and a very strong, independent, and effective leader.  She is now also the best and most accomplished grassroots activist and public intellectual in the U.S. Senate...

Kofi


Elizabeth Warren Election Results: 
Consumer Advocate Unseats Scott Brown
11/07/2012


Elizabeth Warren defeated Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) Tuesday in the race for U.S. Senate, NBC News and CBS News projected.

The Harvard Law professor and consumer advocate had narrowly been favored in recent days, as polls showed her with a slight lead over the incumbent senator.

Warren was the intellectual godmother of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was its first head. She was denied a permanent appointment due to objections from congressional Republicans and from within the Treasury Department.

From the beginning, the Massachusetts Senate race attracted national attention. Brown, who opposed Obamacare, won election to the Senate in a 2010 special election at the height of the health care reform debate following the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) Warren's impassioned advocacy for economic fairness caused liberals to rally around their candidacy. Democrats were eager to reclaim the seat that Kennedy held for over four decades.

As a result, Warren became one of the top Senate fund-raisers of all time, surpassing Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate run. Brown was also successful in fundraising, having a significant war chest from his 2010 run.

The race was neck-and-neck for most of the race, but Warren pulled away narrowly after her speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. In September.

Warren stressed that the race was about control of the Senate, and tied Brown to the national GOP. Brown distanced himself from other Senate candidates like Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana. In the end, Warren had an easier lift as a Democrat in a deep blue state, and Brown's moderate image only carried him so far.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The Revolution is Dependent on the People--Not the Media

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/opinion/06rich.html?src=me&ref=general

All,

As always my man Frank Rich is right on time and right on target with an intelligent and insightful analysis of what is really happening in the world and why. It's called Journalism folks (or at least it used to be)...

Kofi


February 5, 2011

Wallflowers at the Revolution
By FRANK RICH
New York Times

A month ago most Americans could not have picked Hosni Mubarak out of a police lineup. American foreign policy, even in Afghanistan, was all but invisible throughout the 2010 election season. Foreign aid is the only federal budget line that a clear-cut majority of Americans says should be cut. And so now — as the world’s most unstable neighborhood explodes before our eyes — does anyone seriously believe that most Americans are up to speed? Our government may be scrambling, but that’s nothing compared to its constituents. After a near-decade of fighting wars in the Arab world, we can still barely distinguish Sunni from Shia.

The live feed from Egypt is riveting. We can’t get enough of revolution video — even if, some nights, Middle West blizzards take precedence over Middle East battles on the networks’ evening news. But more often than not we have little or no context for what we’re watching. That’s the legacy of years of self-censored, superficial, provincial and at times Islamophobic coverage of the Arab world in a large swath of American news media. Even now we’re more likely to hear speculation about how many cents per gallon the day’s events might cost at the pump than to get an intimate look at the demonstrators’ lives.

Perhaps the most revealing window into America’s media-fed isolation from this crisis — small an example as it may seem — is the default assumption that the Egyptian uprising, like every other paroxysm in the region since the Green Revolution in Iran 18 months ago, must be powered by the twin American-born phenomena of Twitter and Facebook. Television news — at once threatened by the power of the Internet and fearful of appearing unhip — can’t get enough of this cliché.

Three days after riot police first used tear gas and water hoses to chase away crowds in Tahrir Square, CNN’s new prime-time headliner, Piers Morgan, declared that “the use of social media” was “the most fascinating aspect of this whole revolution.” On MSNBC that same night, Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed a teacher who had spent a year at the American school in Cairo. “They are all on Facebook,” she said of her former fifth-grade students. The fact that a sampling of fifth graders in the American school might be unrepresentative of, and wholly irrelevant to, the events unfolding in the streets of Cairo never entered the equation.

The social networking hype eventually had to subside for a simple reason: The Egyptian government pulled the plug on its four main Internet providers and yet the revolution only got stronger. “Let’s get a reality check here,” said Jim Clancy, a CNN International anchor, who broke through the bloviation on Jan. 29 by noting that the biggest demonstrations to date occurred on a day when the Internet was down. “There wasn’t any Twitter. There wasn’t any Facebook,” he said. No less exasperated was another knowledgeable on-the-scene journalist, Richard Engel, who set the record straight on MSNBC in a satellite hook-up with Rachel Maddow. “This didn’t have anything to do with Twitter and Facebook,” he said. “This had to do with people’s dignity, people’s pride. People are not able to feed their families.”

No one would deny that social media do play a role in organizing, publicizing and empowering participants in political movements in the Middle East and elsewhere. But as Malcolm Gladwell wrote on The New Yorker’s Web site last week, “surely the least interesting fact” about the Egyptian protesters is that some of them “may (or may not) have at one point or another employed some of the tools of the new media to communicate with one another.” What’s important is “why they were driven to do it in the first place” — starting with the issues of human dignity and crushing poverty that Engel was trying to shove back to center stage.

Among cyber-intellectuals in America, a fascinating debate has broken out about whether social media can do as much harm as good in totalitarian states like Egypt. In his fiercely argued new book, “The Net Delusion,” Evgeny Morozov, a young scholar who was born in Belarus, challenges the conventional wisdom of what he calls “cyber-utopianism.” Among other mischievous facts, he reports that there were only 19,235 registered Twitter accounts in Iran (0.027 percent of the population) on the eve of what many American pundits rebranded its “Twitter Revolution.” More damning, Morozov also demonstrates how the digital tools so useful to citizens in a free society can be co-opted by tech-savvy dictators, police states and garden-variety autocrats to spread propaganda and to track (and arrest) conveniently networked dissidents, from Iran to Venezuela. Hugo Chávez first vilified Twitter as a “conspiracy,” but now has 1.2 million followers imbibing his self-sanctifying Tweets.

This provocative debate isn’t even being acknowledged in most American coverage of the Internet’s role in the current uprisings. The talking-head invocations of Twitter and Facebook instead take the form of implicit, simplistic Western chauvinism. How fabulous that two great American digital innovations can rescue the downtrodden, unwashed masses. That is indeed impressive if no one points out that, even in the case of the young and relatively wired populace of Egypt, only some 20 percent of those masses have Internet access.

That we often don’t know as much about the people in these countries as we do about their Tweets is a testament to the cutbacks in foreign coverage at many news organizations — and perhaps also to our own desire to escape a war zone that has for so long sapped American energy, resources and patience. We see the Middle East on television only when it flares up and then generally in medium or long shot. But there actually is an English-language cable channel — Al Jazeera English — that blankets the region with bureaus and that could have been illuminating Arab life and politics for American audiences since 2006, when it was established as an editorially separate sister channel to its Qatar-based namesake.

Al Jazeera English, run by a 35-year veteran of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, is routinely available in Israel and Canada. It provided coverage of the 2009 Gaza war and this year’s Tunisian revolt when no other television networks would or could. Yet in America, it can be found only in Washington, D.C., and on small cable systems in Ohio and Vermont. None of the biggest American cable and satellite companies — Comcast, DirecTV and Time Warner — offer it.

The noxious domestic political atmosphere fostering this near-blackout is obvious to all. It was made vivid last week when Bill O’Reilly of Fox News went on a tear about how Al Jazeera English is “anti-American.” This is the same “We report, you decide” Fox News that last week broke away from Cairo just as the confrontations turned violent so that viewers could watch Rupert Murdoch promote his new tablet news product at a publicity event at the Guggenheim Museum in New York.

Unable to watch Al Jazeera English, and ravenous for comprehensive and sophisticated 24/7 television coverage of the Middle East otherwise unavailable on television, millions of Americans last week tracked down the network’s Internet stream on their computers. Such was the work-around required by the censorship practiced by America’s corporate gatekeepers. You’d almost think these news-starved Americans were Iron Curtain citizens clandestinely trying to pull in the jammed Voice of America signal in the 1950s — or Egyptians desperately seeking Al Jazeera after Mubarak disrupted its signal last week.

The consequence of a decade’s worth of indiscriminate demonization of Arabs in America — and of the low quotient of comprehensive adult news coverage that might have helped counter it — is the steady rise in Islamophobia. The “Ground Zero” mosque melee has given way to battles over mosques as far removed from Lower Manhattan as California. Soon to come is a national witch hunt — Congressional hearings called by Representative Peter King of New York — into the “radicalization of the American Muslim community.” Given the disconnect between America and the Arab world, it’s no wonder that Americans are invested in the fights for freedom in Egypt and its neighboring dictatorships only up to a point. We’ve been inculcated to assume that whoever comes out on top is ipso facto a jihadist.

This week brings the release of Donald Rumsfeld’s memoir. The eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq is to follow. As we took in last week’s fiery video from Cairo — mesmerizing and yet populated by mostly anonymous extras we don’t understand and don’t know — it was hard not to flash back to those glory days of “Shock and Awe.” Those bombardments too were spectacular to watch from a safe distance — no Iraqi faces, voices or bodies cluttered up the shots. We lulled ourselves into believing that democracy and other good things were soon to come. It took months, even years, for us to learn the hard way that in truth we really had no idea what was going on.