Alberta, May-June 2006
16
ALTERNATIVA Latinoamericana
ENGLISH SECTION
EDITORIAL:
By Nora Fernández
Stephen Colbert:
New American Hero
When Colbert turned up the heat
on Washington's elite, he revealed the
big split between those basking in
power and those fighting for change.
Virtually overnight, Stephen
Colbert became a hero to countless
Americans, following his April 30
performance at the White House
Correspondents' Association dinner.
Since then, millions of people
have either watched the video or read
the transcript of his skewering of both
the president and the press corps, and
have discussed it avidly. Tens of
thousands of people have gone to the
website ThankYouStephenColbert.com
and written letters of appreciation. Talk
about water-cooler chatter; the event
crashed internet servers across the
land. It truly was one of those moments
of media shock and delight.
And then, an odd but revealing
thing happened. Some of the chattering
class commentators, mainstream
media writers and columnists, and
Democratic officials didn't get it: Not
very funny, rude, not respectful of the
president, and so on. Are they kidding?
How could they not understand they
were witnessing one of the bravest,
most subversive performances in
memory, which thrilled and gave hope
to untold viewers and readers, and will
be a huge marker when people look
back on the Bush era?
Colbert's speech had a huge
impact for two reasons: First, he spoke
truth to power right to the face of the
president, in front of the entire news
media. No one could miss, sidestep or
deny it. It wasn't a scene from a movie,
book or talk show -- it was live. It gave
me goose bumps. Colbert's
performance shamed every Democrat or
columnist who has been too afraid, too
timid, or just too worried about losing
his or her own power and access to go
out on a limb and tell the truth that this
administration is a disaster beyond our
wildest nightmares. Bush/Cheney/
Rumsfeld/Rove have gotten away with
murder ... and worse. And many of the
people in that room that night who
squirmed in their seats -- it was in part
because of the internal indictment they
were feeling for not doing what they
should have done, countless times,
long before. Maybe now they will do the
right thing; I won't be holding my breath.
The second reason Colbert made
such a huge splash is the rapid
advance of video on the web. Almost
overnight, the media world has
irrevocably changed as video is
increasingly becoming as important as
print and still images on the web.
When, in a matter of hours, dozens of
websites can post or link to a video and
get the word out about a spectacular
event, the role of the gatekeepers and
the corporate media shrinks big-time.
And it doesn't matter if the networks or
CNN or Fox decides that they don't
want you to see it -- they can't stop it.
The press leaks
The press coverage of the Colbert
performance was illuminating, as
reported by the popular blog,
democratic underground:
"Expect nothing less from the
cowardly American media. This
demonstrates powerfully the ability of
the media to choose the news, and to
decide when and how to shield Bush
from negative publicity. Sins of
omission can be just as bad as sins of
commission.
"The AP's first stab at it, as well
as Reuters and the Chicago Tribune,
tell us everything we need to know: In
these reports, Colbert's performance is
sidestepped and marginalized, while
President Bush is depicted as
lighthearted, humble and witty."
Salon's Joan Walsh points out,
"Colbert's deadly performance did more
than reveal, with devastating clarity,
how Bush's well-oiled myth machine
works. It exposed the mainstream
press' pathetic collusion with an
administration that has treated it -- and
the truth -- with contempt from the
moment it took office. Intimidated,
coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the
press corps that for years dutifully
repeated Bush talking points was
stunned and horrified when someone
dared to reveal that the media emperor
had no clothes. Colbert refused to play
his dutiful, toothless part in the White
House correspondents' dinner -- an
incestuous, backslapping ritual that
should be retired. For that, he had to be
marginalized. Voilà: `He wasn't funny.'"
On the Democratic political front,
as John Aravosis wrote on
AmericaBlog, House Minority Whip
Steny Hoyer, D-Md., actually stepped
up to defend President Bush, saying,
according to The Hill:
"I thought some of it was funny,
but I think it got a little rough ... He is
the president of the United States, and
he deserves some respect....I'm
certainly not a defender of the
administration," Hoyer reassured
stunned observers, but Colbert "crossed
the line" with many jokes that were "in
bad taste."
Criticizing Colbert for being rude
would be pretty funny if it weren't so
depressing. Rude? Since when has
politics in this administration used the
Marquis of Queensbury rules? Is Dick
Cheney sweet and accommodating?
When, in their march to power, has the
right wing had good manners -- about
abortion or gay marriage, or in the push
for invading Iraq? Sure, mention
decorum and one thinks immediately of
Karl Rove, of Pat Robertson calling for
the assassination of Hugo Chavez, of
Jerry Falwell blaming America's bad
morals for 9/11.
The fact is, Stephen Colbert is at
the acme of rising independent voices
-- in the blogosphere, on the internet,
in publishing and independent
filmmaking -- who are being aggressive
and playing hardball the way the right
does. And guess what? The
establishment is getting nervous.
In a smaller way, but showing
similar guts, Cindy Sheehan spoke
truth by traveling to Texas and
demanding that the president explain,
please, just what "noble cause" her son
died for. Ray McGovern did it recently
when he publicly challenged Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Atlanta,
and so did Harry Taylor, the man who
confronted George W. Bush at a town
meeting in North Carolina.
Perhaps the most important
lesson we have learned from the
divisions laid bare by Stephen Colbert is
that the big split isn't so much between
Democrats and Republicans or between
the media and the people and events
they cover, but rather between the
powerful and the angry, between those
basking in power and those fighting for
change. The kiss-ass media, the
revolving-door congressmen, the
sycophant lobbyists and congressional
staffers, the greedy media consultants
-- all are dependent on and addicted to
the trappings of power, whether it's their
next book, TV appearance, consulting
contract, ride on Air Force One or
junket to play golf at St. Andrews.
Stephen Colbert turned the heat
up on them all: ... let's review the rules.
Here's how it works: The president
makes the decisions; he's the decider.
The press secretary announces those
decisions, and you people, the press,
type those decisions down. Make,
announce, check. Just put `em through
a spell check and go home. Get to
know your family again. Make love to
your wife. Write that novel you got
kickin' around in your head. You know,
the one about the intrepid Washington
reporter with the courage to stand up to
the administration? You know: fiction!
It's getting hotter in the kitchen,
and some of those who have the most
to hide are getting closer to a
meltdown.
Don Hazen(Ext. AlterNet)
In Canada, Dr. J. Fraser Mustard
has contributed greatly to increase our
awareness and understanding of the
importance of early child development.
His focus is the brain and the crucial
time from conception to age three,
when important neural connections are
being made. The brain is the master
organ that controls the main functions
of all mammals ( 2006, Early Child
Development and Experience-based
Brain Development: The Scientific
Underpinnings of the Importance of
Early Child Development in a
Globalized World).
His argument is that not only
genetics but experience in early life
play a crucial role in the development of
neurons and their connections, in gene
expression, and in the formation of
biological pathways that affect behavior
and health and control our intellectual,
emotional, physical and psychological
responses to stimuli.
Timing is crucial because of
"critical or sensitive periods" for
development, in particular for sensing
systems like vision, sound and touch.
Clearly, in some parts of the brain
plasticity is limited and the process of
"wiring" or "sculpting" of the brain is
most intensive in early childhood, the
effect of experience is greatest then.
We know that quality of early
child experiences affects learning in the
school system and in general, and
behavior and vulnerability for physical
and mental health problems in
adulthood. The connection to health is
such that it is increasingly obvious that
investing in the early years will improve
equity in health throughout life.
Living standard and
socioeconomic gradient
Much research shows that an
adequate living standard and a more
egalitarian society is good for people's
physical and mental health; it also
shows that we can affect quality of life
the most by investing in children from
conception to age three. Longitudinal
studies from Sweden show that children
brought up in poor early childhood
environments (neglected or abused)
have increased risk for physical and
mental health problems in adulthood.
The risk of cardiovascular problems for
adults who experienced adverse early
childhoods is seven to one -they are
seven times more likely to have
cardiovascular problems. The risk for
depression is even larger, ten to one.
The socioeconomic gradient of
health is an observed reality; the social
environment "gets under the skin" to
affect health, learning, behavior and the
competence of populations. Data from
the US shows that socioeconomic
gradients of health can be detected as
early as by age three and they become
steeper with age.
Genetic vulnerability
and the environment
Attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) has shown to be a
product of interaction between genetic
vulnerability and the environment -
pregnancy and delivery complications,
prematurity, and a dysfunctional family
environment. Studying brain
development and function in relation to
neglect, physical or sexual abuse and
family violence, Martin Teicher found
that severe stress leaves indelible
effects on brain structure and function
in childhood, that in adult life appear as
depression, anxiety, aggression,
impulsiveness, delinquency,
hyperactivity or substance abuse.
Early Years research
Early child and brain development
has a marked effect on language and
literacy in later stages of development.
In assessing literacy in developed
countries and in Latin America, it was
found that Latin American countries like
Chile performed less well than
developed ones like Canada, Sweden,
and Netherlands. Only Cuba's
performance in literacy in children was
exceptionally better than in other Latin
American countries, consistent with
Cuba's investment, for the past 30
years, in early child development.
In all the population-based studies
of health, behaviour and literacy, the
outcome measures are a gradient,
when plotted against the socio-
economic status of the population
studied. In Canada 40 per cent of the
population in lower socio-economic
groups perform poorly in both health
and literacy.
Most disquieting, in terms of the
effects of deprivation in early childhood
development, is data emerging from
studies of Rumanian orphans adopted
by British families. The children who
spend more than eight months in an
orphanage had lower IQ's, and these
differences continued throughout life.
Longitudinal studies of birth
cohorts provided evidence of how
conditions of early life affect health and
development over the life course. In
Britain, Wadsworth concluded that bad
conditions can set risks for physical
and mental health problems in
adulthood. Power found that brain and
biological pathways developed in early
life influence adult disease. In New
Zealand, Poulton found that
socioeconomic circumstances for early
child development have long lasting
negative influence on adult health.
On the positive side, an entire
body of evidence shows that, universally
available, high quality center-based
early child development programs raise
the competence and quality of life for all
sectors of society. Research made in
Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland
showed that their adult population have
high performance and fairly flat
socioeconomic gradients; the same
was observed in Cuban studies: good
early child development programs work.
Early intervention
and beyond
We have enough information in
favor of universally available early child
development programs that ensure
children have access to rich early life
experiences. In their proposal "Success
by Ten," Ludwig and Sawhill argue in
favor of early intervention (in Mustard,
2006). They say: we intervene early, we
intervene often and we intervene
effectively.
The case has been extensively
made in favor of ensuring a better
standard of living for children and better
education and access for their
caregivers, often mothers. We know
more egalitarian societies help ensure
longer, healthier lives for people. We
also know long term strategies are
needed to overcome poverty. We know
that poverty is one of the worse crimes
perpetrated against children, their
parents, and society in general.
Investing in people is the only sensible
path: it favors resiliency and prevents
much unneeded human pain.
Knowing what we know, why are
we not working towards putting children
and people first? Well, it seems unlikely
that Prime Minister Harper, so eager to
pay parents a token amount in place of
proper childcare, would focus on a more
expensive, inclusive, longer term
strategy and he may certainly not favor
a greater role for the state. We need
government with vision, leadership and
courage to lead the way into the future,
into a more egalitarian society, one that
provides opportunities for children
regardless of where they are situated in
the hierarchy; then, maybe, we can get
rid of our money-hierarchy and give birth
to a new Man.
With all the advances made in human knowledge, why do ignorance and
close mindedness dominate much of our public discourse? Thomas Tritton
The answer: the Children