What the American media ignored

Al Jazeera English: America's own Taliban

This is a great article outing the Christian extremist right, particularly in light of the recent events in Norway (fueled by a Christian extremist).  With the exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, the American media (left or right) does not do much (or any) criticizing of Christian movements or religious institutions in the country.  Granted, a majority of the country is Christian in some form or another, there are so many different forms that when they're broken down, all the views come out drastically different.  However, it is that idea of Christianity being the status quo that I believe shields it from a lot of necessary criticism.


Bill O'Reilly recently made even more headlines by criticizing the media for calling Anders Behring-Breivik, the admitted killer, a Christian.  O'Reilly claims that because he is a Christian and he believes that no Christian could do this, therefore Breivik cannot be a Christian.  However, this is the same man that equates all Muslims as terrorists, although a vast majority of them could say the same things (and in cases, have) about Osama bin Laden and other extremist Islamic terrorists.  What really gets me is O'Reilly's claim that '"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,"' apparently having completely forgotten the Crusades and other so-called 'holy wars' committed in the name of God, the domestic Christian terrorist Timothy McVeigh (of the Oklahoma City bombings), or the massacre in Srebrenica, committed by Orthodox Serbs (who are Christian).

Al Jazeera's article goes beyond all of this, and does an interesting comparison of the American Christian extremists to the Taliban.  The article is well-worth the read, making the main point that like the Taliban, these Christian groups are also highly intolerant of anyone except themselves.  More importantly, it draws our attention to the involvement of many high-name Republican politicians in these groups, and the extent to which their intolerance goes.

The western media tends to ignore much of the well-known politicians' religious idiosyncrasies, except of course when they deviate from the WASP mainstream (i.e., freaking out over JFK's Catholicism, freaking out over thinking that Obama is Muslim, freaking out over Mitt Romney's Mormonism).  Despite what Bill O'Reilly says, Christian extremists exist and can also commit terrorist acts of mass murder.  We must be attentive to sympathetic views in those that seek to lead our country, and curb terrorism in all forms without discrimination.

Citing tweets

CNN: Hugh Hefner: Crystal Harris lied about our sex life

I think this is the first time I've seen an article's citations/links consist mostly of tweets.  I guess this is what we're heading towards...

Our priorities are a bit messed up

Ever since I joined Twitter, I find myself getting more and more news from there.  I subscribe to Al Jazeera, the UN, other political organizations and NGOs, and 'randoms' (i.e. people/organizations not associated with news and/or politics).  Needless to say, information travels fast on there.

I first found out about the attacks in Norway via Twitter, with Neil Gaiman commenting that #Oslo and #Norway seemed to not be news in the US.  Curious, I went to CNN to find out more (and I'm still trying to keep up with all the news there).  Both columns on the front page, which I would conflate to the 'above the fold' section of a broadsheet newspaper, were full of stories on the Oslo attacks, with live feeds, videos, iReports, and staff-produced articles.

Today, also on Twitter (because that's what I find myself doing with my near-unemployed life), I find out that Amy Winehouse died.  For New York at least, the trends are all about her and other celebrities that died young, including the disturbing hashtag #27club (apparently lots of celebrities died at 27).  Norway is still trending, but it's 9th on the list of 10 top trends for the region and the only one about yesterday's tragedy.  CNN also is following this.  Their left-side, smaller column is still full of information about Norway.  The large, front-and-center column, however, is all about Amy Winehouse.  The newspulse, which shows the top stories, lists stories about her as being #1 and #3 (moving up from the #4 spot that it was at no less than 10 minutes ago).  The main article is listed as 'Breaking News.'

Time for me to get a little insensitive here (as some people will think).  Amy Winehouse was a world-famous, talented singer with a loooooooooooooong history of drug problems.  Pretty much every story about her career has always talked about her drug problems, and quite honestly, most stories about her weren't about her career (3 guesses what they were actually about).  It is sad that she died; she held a lot of promise.  But considering her lifestyle, it is not exactly 'breaking news' that she died.  Someone who continues to abuse their body like that for years with no signs of wanting help is going to die much sooner rather than later.  This is like being shocked that Steve Irwin was killed by a dangerous animal (although granted, I was shocked it wasn't by crocodile).  When you live a certain lifestyle, the consequences are pretty much set in stone.  You expect these things to happen.

In contrast, there was a real tragedy in Norway.  The death toll from the two attacks already stands at 92, with 85 of them being from an attack at a youth camp.  While details are still coming in, this already stands as a deeply violent and tragic event that may have implications in the current global culture of terror.  The same article states the suspect may be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist fighting against a multicultural society.  Studying this event can help us rethink the concept of terror and terrorism in an ever-changing world, and also, particularly in the US, think about our own country's right-wing violent fundamentalist groups that could pose a serious threat to the nation in coming years.

But no.  What's more important than shaping the global discourse on terrorism is a dead celebrity whose death was wholly expected.  Sad, yes, but nobody can say they were truly surprised by this.  When will we get out of this sick fascination with the famous and their self-destructive tendencies and start paying attention to the things that can actually have a real impact on our own lives?  We need to get our priorities straight, and also learn to leave people alone (because I'm pretty sure there's a lesson to be learned about paparazzi-hounding in the Winehouse story).  It's all tragic and serious, but it's important.  Americans can't be content to ignore the rest of the world, because whether we like it or not, we've already seen the rest of the world is coming to us.

They mean well, but....

Care2: Bigger AT&T = Less Choice, Higher Prices!

Somehow along the way, I got subscribed to updates from a petition site, Care2.  This latest one is against AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile, which I find silly for a multitude of reasons.  At the very least, T-Mobile phones are now using AT&T cell phone towers (which explains why when I was camping this week all of us on Verizon had crap service but everyone on AT&T and T-Mobile could actually get reception), which is good news for T-Mobile customers.

While the petition states such issues such as AT&T poised to be the largest cell phone company with this acquisition and forcing higher rates of service on (former) T-Mobile customers, the e-mail sheds a bit of a different light such as less competition (implying that AT&T is heading towards monopoly):

A merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would give AT&T control of more American's cell phones than any other company, allowing them to more easily take out the rest of the competition.

Competition between companies creates innovation in new products, better service and lower rates. Without it, American consumers would be at the whim of the corporation in charge.

As consumers, we have to stand up to giants like AT&T. T-Mobile already charges less than AT&T and T-Mobile customers will see a major hike in prices if the merger is allowed to go through.

Yes, these are valid issues in some respect.  However, let me outline the reasons why I don't think there needs to be a petition at all.

1.  "...The FCC is seriously considering allowing AT&T to swallow competitor T-Mobile, and control more Americans' cell phones than any other company."
   Yes, AT&T will most likely gain the largest market share with the acquisition, according to 2010 data.  For the first 3 months of 2010, Verizon held 31.1%, AT&T had 25.2%, and T-Mobile held around 12% of the market share.*  Combining AT&T and T-Mobile with these numbers gives them 37.2% of the market share, a 6% increase over Verizon.
   
   However, a lot has happened in the cell phone world since 2010.  One of the main things that can potentially have an impact on AT&T's market share is the recent (February 10, 2011) release of the iPhone on Verizon.**  Considering AT&T's notoriously horrible service that even this petition cites, this has the great potential to cause many people to migrate services, as many iPhone supporters signed AT&T contracts simply because they were the only carrier that the iPhone was available on.  Soon after the iPhone came out on Verizon, some friends ran a small test of the carriers, looking at 3G and call connection speed.  Verizon won both times.
   
   I feel that The Oatmeal best summed up this in his 'State of the Web' comic from Winter 2010.  (Seriously, go check it out).  With much better service, how many iPhone devotees will continue to stay with AT&T?***
   
2. "A merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would give AT&T control of more American's [sic] cell phones than any other company, allowing them to more easily take out the rest of the competition."
   
   Citing the percentages above, when the next largest company after the merger only controls 6% less of the market share than you do, not including the fact that neither control over (or even close to) 50% of the market share, I think this is a bit of a scare tactic.  After the merger, there will be AT&T, but there will also still be Verizon, Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Metro PCS, and a number of other companies that still have a solid number of customers.  If Verizon and AT&T merged, that would be a huge issue as they would control nearly 70% of the market share.  However, as both companies are operating strongly I don't see that as even a remote possibility.  The only thing I think anyone would be in danger of is a two-company system in which Verizon and AT&T buy up all the remaining companies and just compete between themselves.
   
   Even on this, another point has to be taken into consideration.  Both AT&T and Verizon have eliminated their unlimited data plans, along with a host of other carriers.  For people not grandfathered in on their contracts with an unlimited plan, I can foresee them moving to one of the other, smaller carriers that still provides that service.  This has the opportunity to create more diverse competition, not less of it.
   
3.  "T-Mobile already charges less than AT&T and T-Mobile customers will see a major hike in prices if the merger is allowed to go through."
   This has the potential to be a valid point.  AT&T, once the acquisition is finalized, will control all contracts and will most likely do away with any low pricing that T-Mobile currently offers.  However, T-Mobile has already stated that even after the acquisition is finalized, their customers will be allowed to finish out their contracts with no price increases.****  As I have stated before, after that, customers that are unsatisfied have the option to switch carriers.  While T-Mobile is relatively inexpensive compared to AT&T, so are other companies.

Yes, there are some potential negatives to come out of this merger.  T-Mobile customers may have a rate increase after their contracts expire, and AT&T's service in most aspects pretty much sucks.  However, the beauty of the free market (which I think will be one of the few times I use that phrase) is that if customers don't like something, they can make a statement with their money.  Don't like AT&T?  Move to one of the countless other mobile phone carriers in the country, and take your money elsewhere.  It may be a pain to search for that perfect cell phone company, but I seriously doubt that this acquisition is the harbinger of doom that the Care2 people seem to be implying it is.

*PPCGeeks: Wireless Market Share by Carrier & Devices; May 7, 2010.
**Fox News: Verizon Finally Unveils iPhone; January 11, 2011.
***Full disclaimer: I am totally devoted to Verizon, having been a customer since approximately middle school.  I have also heard a lot of AT&T customers complain about their service.  It's kind of how I am with Hewlett-Packard vs. Dell (hint: never buy a Dell!).
****T-Mobile: Q&A: More Information About AT&T Acquisition of T-Mobile USA; March 20, 2011.