Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Noam Chomsky, on the human drive to advance
MAN: But if we ever had a society with no wage incentive and no authority, where would the drive come to advance and grow?
Well, the drive to "advance"--I think you have to ask exactly what that means. If you mean a drive to produce more, well, who wants it? Is that necessarily the right thing to do? It's not obvious. In fact, in many areas it's probably the wrong thing to do--maybe it's a good thing that there wouldn't be the same drive to produce. People have to be driven to have certain wants in our system--why? Why not leave them alone so they can be happy, do other things?
Whatever "drive" there is ought to be internal. So take a look at kids: they're creative, they explore, they want to try new things. I mean, why does a kid start to walk? You take a one-year-old kid, he's crawling fine, he can get anywhere across the room he likes really fast, so fast his parents have to run after to keep him from knocking everything down--all of a sudden he gets up and starts walking. He's terrible at walking: he walks one step and he falls on his face, and if he wants to really get somewhere he's going to crawl. So why do kids start walking? Well, they just want to do new things, that's the way people are built. We're built to want to do new things, even if they're not efficient, even if they're harmful, even if you get hurt--and I don't think that ever stops.
People want to explore, we want to press our capacities to their limits, we want to appreciate what we can. But the joy of creation is something very few people get the opportunity to have in our society: artists get to have it, craftspeople have it, scientists. And if you've been lucky enough to have had that opportunity, you know it's quite an experience--and it doesn't have to be discovering Einstein's theory of relativity: anybody can have that pleasure, even by seeing what other people have done. For instance, if you read even a simple mathematical proof like Pythagorean Theorem, what you study in tenth grade, and you finally figure out what it's all about, that's exciting--"My God, I never understood that before." Okay, that's creativity, even though somebody else proved it two thousand years ago.
[...]
Well, I think people should be able to live in a society where they can exercise these kinds of internal drives and develop their capacities freely--instead of being forced into the narrow range of options that are available to most people in the world now. And by that, I mean not only options that are objectively available, but also options that are subjectively available--like, how are people allowed to think how are they able to think? Remember, there are all kinds of ways of thinking that are cut off from us in our society--not because we're incapable of them, but because various blockages have been developed and imposed to prevent people from thinking in those ways. That's what indoctrination is about in the first place, in fact--and I don't mean somebody giving you lectures: sitcoms on television, sports that you watch, every aspect of the culture implicitly involves an expression of what a "proper" life and a "proper" set of values are, and that's all indoctrination.
So I think what has to happen is, other portions have to be opened up to people--both subjectively, and in fact concretely: meaning you can do something about them without great suffering. And that's one of the main purposes of socialism, I think: to reach a point where people have the opportunity to decide freely for themselves what their needs are, and not just have the "choices" forced on them by some arbitrary system of power.
Well, the drive to "advance"--I think you have to ask exactly what that means. If you mean a drive to produce more, well, who wants it? Is that necessarily the right thing to do? It's not obvious. In fact, in many areas it's probably the wrong thing to do--maybe it's a good thing that there wouldn't be the same drive to produce. People have to be driven to have certain wants in our system--why? Why not leave them alone so they can be happy, do other things?
Whatever "drive" there is ought to be internal. So take a look at kids: they're creative, they explore, they want to try new things. I mean, why does a kid start to walk? You take a one-year-old kid, he's crawling fine, he can get anywhere across the room he likes really fast, so fast his parents have to run after to keep him from knocking everything down--all of a sudden he gets up and starts walking. He's terrible at walking: he walks one step and he falls on his face, and if he wants to really get somewhere he's going to crawl. So why do kids start walking? Well, they just want to do new things, that's the way people are built. We're built to want to do new things, even if they're not efficient, even if they're harmful, even if you get hurt--and I don't think that ever stops.
People want to explore, we want to press our capacities to their limits, we want to appreciate what we can. But the joy of creation is something very few people get the opportunity to have in our society: artists get to have it, craftspeople have it, scientists. And if you've been lucky enough to have had that opportunity, you know it's quite an experience--and it doesn't have to be discovering Einstein's theory of relativity: anybody can have that pleasure, even by seeing what other people have done. For instance, if you read even a simple mathematical proof like Pythagorean Theorem, what you study in tenth grade, and you finally figure out what it's all about, that's exciting--"My God, I never understood that before." Okay, that's creativity, even though somebody else proved it two thousand years ago.
[...]
Well, I think people should be able to live in a society where they can exercise these kinds of internal drives and develop their capacities freely--instead of being forced into the narrow range of options that are available to most people in the world now. And by that, I mean not only options that are objectively available, but also options that are subjectively available--like, how are people allowed to think how are they able to think? Remember, there are all kinds of ways of thinking that are cut off from us in our society--not because we're incapable of them, but because various blockages have been developed and imposed to prevent people from thinking in those ways. That's what indoctrination is about in the first place, in fact--and I don't mean somebody giving you lectures: sitcoms on television, sports that you watch, every aspect of the culture implicitly involves an expression of what a "proper" life and a "proper" set of values are, and that's all indoctrination.
So I think what has to happen is, other portions have to be opened up to people--both subjectively, and in fact concretely: meaning you can do something about them without great suffering. And that's one of the main purposes of socialism, I think: to reach a point where people have the opportunity to decide freely for themselves what their needs are, and not just have the "choices" forced on them by some arbitrary system of power.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Today I learned about the 1908 Springfield race riots
I mean, I always knew about it. But it was never taught to us, which is a shame. Lincoln lived here for around thirty years, and we're quick to latch onto that, but nobody seems to want to talk about the history we're ashamed of. I decided to do a little google research, because this is important, and I was bored.
At the turn of the century, Springfield had the highest percentage of black residents of any comparatively-sized city in Illinois. Springfield was a growing industrial center, and a lot of people were moving in. But jobs weren't being created fast enough, and the competition was fierce. In many cases, blacks were brought in as replacements for striking whites. Racial tension was fierce.
On Independence Day, 1908, a mining engineer named Clergy Ballard awoke in his bed to some strange noises in his home. He walked into his daughter's room to the sight of a man standing over her bed. The man fled, and Ballard gave chase. Ballard caught up to him, but the intruder had a razor, and cut his throat. Before he died, Ballard managed to identify his murderer as Joe James, a local black man with a history of minor crimes.
Clergy Ballard
Joe James
A crowd of whites found James sleeping on a bench, and beat him to within an inch of his life. The police stepped in, rescued James, and brought him to jail.
The next month, on August 14, the Illinois State Journal ran a story surrounding Mabel Hallam, a 21 year old wife of a well respected street car conductor. She claimed she was snatched up from her bed by George Richardson and raped. Richardson was a black caretaker who worked odd jobs around her neighborhood. The State Journal and other local papers did what they could to stoke fears about the black community as a whole.
Mabel Hallam
On the very day the story ran, a mob gathered outside Sangamon County Jail on the corner of 7th and Jefferson. They demanded that Joe James and George Richardson be handed over to them.
Sheriff Charles Werner saw that the situation was quickly getting out of hand, and he feared for the safety of his prisoners. He organized a distraction -- a fire alarm -- to divert the mob's attention. He then snuck James and Richardson out the back, into a car, onto a train, and off to Bloomington.
Sheriff Charles Werner
Sangamon County Jail, 1908
The same corner today. I drive past this all the time, and no, it's no longer a jail.
Werner announced that the crowd may as well disperse, because the men they wanted to lynch were no longer in the city. The mob was pissed. They didn't disperse. Inspired by ringleaders like Kate Howard, a local room house owner who was notorious for hating blacks, the mob made their way to a restaurant owned by Harry Loper. They'd received word that it had been Loper's car that the prisoners fled in. What they found when they got there was Loper standing in his doorway with a rifle. But he soon left out the back, and the mob proceeded to drink his booze, trash his restaurant, and torch his car.
Kate Howard
Loper's restaurant after the mob destroyed it
The remains of Loper's car
Authorities trying to quell the mob were overwhelmed, and the mayor was forced into hiding. Luckily for Springfield, the Governor happened to be in town, and he promptly called for the state militia. Meanwhile, the mob made its way towards a black commercial area called the Levee. They had moved past their initial goal of lynching a couple blacks, to expelling all blacks from the city.
The mob broke into a Jewish-owned pawn shop and stole guns and ammunition. They began chanting "Women desire protection and this seems the only way to get it!" After demolishing two or three city blocks in the Levee, they moved on towards a black residential area called the Badlands.
Along the way, they encountered a black barber named Scott Burton, who was already hated by Springfield for being married to a white woman. Upon seeing the mob making its way towards his barber shop, Barton decided to grab his shotgun to defend it. He stood in his doorway, and there was a brief standoff. Barton panicked, and fired buckshot straight into the crowd. The mob returned fire, killing him instantly. Barton's barber shop was burned, and his body was paraded through the streets. They eventually found a tree outside a saloon to hang him from, and riddled his body with bullets.
The lynching of Scott Burton
Once they reached the Badlands, they began burning houses, sparing those with a white handkerchief tied outside, indicating that a white family lived there. Firemen arrived, but the mob hindered their progress by blocking their way and cutting their hoses. An estimated 12,000 people showed up to watch the neighborhood burn. The mob was finally dispersed that night after the arrival of the state militia.
But the story, and the violence, isn't over yet. The next day, thousands of people were moving in and out of the city. Thousands of blacks fled. 5,000 National Guard troops arrived, along with tourists who read about what happened in the newspaper, who wanted to see the chaos for themselves.
Many blacks took shelter in the State Arsenal, and a new mob soon formed. When the National Guard blocked their path to the arsenal, the mob marched towards the home of William Donnegan. Various sources say Donnegan was either 76 or 84. He was elderly, and he never committed a crime in his life. He had been married to a white woman for 32 years. He was known to have been a friend of Abraham Lincoln, he mended his shoes. His throat was opened before being hung from a tree. He was still alive when Guard cut him down. He didn't live for much longer.
William Donnegan
40 homes and 24 businesses lay in ruins. Seven people are dead, two blacks and five whites. Nearly 80 individuals, including four police officers, were brought to trial for participating in the riot. Only one man was convicted of a crime. He was convicted of stealing a saber from a guard. The murderers went free. Kate Howard, the ringleader, killed herself before facing charges.
The riot was sparked by a lie. Mabel Hallam, the woman who accused George Richardson of raping her, admitted shortly afterwards that she made everything up in order to cover for an affair she was having.
This is important. This riot sparked the first civil rights organization in the history of the country -- the NAACP. That's right. The racism in my town -- in Lincoln's town -- sparked the NAACP. One thing people seem to forget is that the Civil War was not a war fought for the rights of African Americans. The North fought the Civil War to keep the country united. That was their primary concern, and to most Northerners, freeing the slaves was simply a byproduct. There were still many Union soldiers who were absolutely disgusted by slavery, and they did fight to end it. But their numbers and influence have been greatly exaggerated. Most of the North was just as racist as the South, and we should never forget that. The Springfield race riots occurred not even a generation after the Civil War ended, and that racism was still around everywhere you looked.
At the turn of the century, Springfield had the highest percentage of black residents of any comparatively-sized city in Illinois. Springfield was a growing industrial center, and a lot of people were moving in. But jobs weren't being created fast enough, and the competition was fierce. In many cases, blacks were brought in as replacements for striking whites. Racial tension was fierce.
On Independence Day, 1908, a mining engineer named Clergy Ballard awoke in his bed to some strange noises in his home. He walked into his daughter's room to the sight of a man standing over her bed. The man fled, and Ballard gave chase. Ballard caught up to him, but the intruder had a razor, and cut his throat. Before he died, Ballard managed to identify his murderer as Joe James, a local black man with a history of minor crimes.
A crowd of whites found James sleeping on a bench, and beat him to within an inch of his life. The police stepped in, rescued James, and brought him to jail.
The next month, on August 14, the Illinois State Journal ran a story surrounding Mabel Hallam, a 21 year old wife of a well respected street car conductor. She claimed she was snatched up from her bed by George Richardson and raped. Richardson was a black caretaker who worked odd jobs around her neighborhood. The State Journal and other local papers did what they could to stoke fears about the black community as a whole.
On the very day the story ran, a mob gathered outside Sangamon County Jail on the corner of 7th and Jefferson. They demanded that Joe James and George Richardson be handed over to them.
Sheriff Charles Werner saw that the situation was quickly getting out of hand, and he feared for the safety of his prisoners. He organized a distraction -- a fire alarm -- to divert the mob's attention. He then snuck James and Richardson out the back, into a car, onto a train, and off to Bloomington.
Werner announced that the crowd may as well disperse, because the men they wanted to lynch were no longer in the city. The mob was pissed. They didn't disperse. Inspired by ringleaders like Kate Howard, a local room house owner who was notorious for hating blacks, the mob made their way to a restaurant owned by Harry Loper. They'd received word that it had been Loper's car that the prisoners fled in. What they found when they got there was Loper standing in his doorway with a rifle. But he soon left out the back, and the mob proceeded to drink his booze, trash his restaurant, and torch his car.
Authorities trying to quell the mob were overwhelmed, and the mayor was forced into hiding. Luckily for Springfield, the Governor happened to be in town, and he promptly called for the state militia. Meanwhile, the mob made its way towards a black commercial area called the Levee. They had moved past their initial goal of lynching a couple blacks, to expelling all blacks from the city.
The mob broke into a Jewish-owned pawn shop and stole guns and ammunition. They began chanting "Women desire protection and this seems the only way to get it!" After demolishing two or three city blocks in the Levee, they moved on towards a black residential area called the Badlands.
Along the way, they encountered a black barber named Scott Burton, who was already hated by Springfield for being married to a white woman. Upon seeing the mob making its way towards his barber shop, Barton decided to grab his shotgun to defend it. He stood in his doorway, and there was a brief standoff. Barton panicked, and fired buckshot straight into the crowd. The mob returned fire, killing him instantly. Barton's barber shop was burned, and his body was paraded through the streets. They eventually found a tree outside a saloon to hang him from, and riddled his body with bullets.
Once they reached the Badlands, they began burning houses, sparing those with a white handkerchief tied outside, indicating that a white family lived there. Firemen arrived, but the mob hindered their progress by blocking their way and cutting their hoses. An estimated 12,000 people showed up to watch the neighborhood burn. The mob was finally dispersed that night after the arrival of the state militia.
But the story, and the violence, isn't over yet. The next day, thousands of people were moving in and out of the city. Thousands of blacks fled. 5,000 National Guard troops arrived, along with tourists who read about what happened in the newspaper, who wanted to see the chaos for themselves.
Many blacks took shelter in the State Arsenal, and a new mob soon formed. When the National Guard blocked their path to the arsenal, the mob marched towards the home of William Donnegan. Various sources say Donnegan was either 76 or 84. He was elderly, and he never committed a crime in his life. He had been married to a white woman for 32 years. He was known to have been a friend of Abraham Lincoln, he mended his shoes. His throat was opened before being hung from a tree. He was still alive when Guard cut him down. He didn't live for much longer.
40 homes and 24 businesses lay in ruins. Seven people are dead, two blacks and five whites. Nearly 80 individuals, including four police officers, were brought to trial for participating in the riot. Only one man was convicted of a crime. He was convicted of stealing a saber from a guard. The murderers went free. Kate Howard, the ringleader, killed herself before facing charges.
The riot was sparked by a lie. Mabel Hallam, the woman who accused George Richardson of raping her, admitted shortly afterwards that she made everything up in order to cover for an affair she was having.
This is important. This riot sparked the first civil rights organization in the history of the country -- the NAACP. That's right. The racism in my town -- in Lincoln's town -- sparked the NAACP. One thing people seem to forget is that the Civil War was not a war fought for the rights of African Americans. The North fought the Civil War to keep the country united. That was their primary concern, and to most Northerners, freeing the slaves was simply a byproduct. There were still many Union soldiers who were absolutely disgusted by slavery, and they did fight to end it. But their numbers and influence have been greatly exaggerated. Most of the North was just as racist as the South, and we should never forget that. The Springfield race riots occurred not even a generation after the Civil War ended, and that racism was still around everywhere you looked.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Bill O'Reilly uses the Oslo terrorist attacks to claim that there's a massive media conspiracy to undermine Christianity
Holy fuck, first Beck, and now O'Reilly? What is the right wing's obsession with saying incredibly stupid things about terrorist attacks? Nixon himself couldn't give a better example of Nixonian "establishment" paranoia.
Video here
1) No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy.
2) Logical fallacies are always wrong.
3) Bill O'Reilly used No True Scotsman.
C) Bill O'Reilly is wrong.
Out of all the fucking dumbshit things O'Reilly spewed out in this heap of garbage, this line pissed me off the most: "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder."
Hitler believed in Jesus. The Vatican supported Adolf Hitler. The Spaniards who came to America committed genocide out of a belief that Indians were literally the spawn of Satan. The Americans who spread west by murdering and displacing hundreds of thousands of Indians did so because the Christian God commanded them to (Manifest Destiny). The Ku Klux Klan lynches people in the name of God. The Inquisition tortured and killed thousands of people because they thought witchcraft was real. Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 people, most of whom were teenagers and children. There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot simultaneously be a mass murderer, and also believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the creator of the universe.
There's also one other thing I want to point out. Why is it that Christian terrorists are never "true Christians," but Muslim terrorists always represent their entire religion? Oh yeah. Because Bill O'Reilly is a fucking racist piece of shit.
Video here
"Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith. Also, Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman, not from any fact-finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way. So why is the angle being played up?You will never see a better example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. People often throw "No True Scotsman" around without fully understanding it, but this is just spot on. This is textbook dumbfuckery. Debunking this won't be hard:
Two reasons: First, the liberal media wants to make an equivalency between the actions of Breivik and the Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh, and al-Qaeda. The left wants you to believe that fundamentalist Christians are a threat, just like crazy jihadists are. In fact, in the New York Times today, an analysis piece says that some believe we have we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course, that's absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world. The Taliban, Iran, elements in Pakistan, use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad. Again, dishonest and insane.
The second reason the liberal media is pushing the Christian angle is, they don't like Christians very much, because we are too judgmental. Many Christians oppose abortion, gay marriage, and legalized narcotics--secular left causes. The media understands the opposition is often based on religion. So they want to diminish Christianity, and highlighting so-called Christian-based terror is a way to do that.
The primary threat to this world comes from Islamic terrorism. Iran is a major problem. If the country gets nuclear weapons, and is desperately trying to, does anyone doubt those weapons could be used? A Muslim in Pakistan exported nuclear technology to North Korea. And Muslim suicide bombers blow innocent people up almost every day. Yet once again the liberal media wants you to fear Christian terrorists. And going forward, when jihad is mentioned, you know Breivik and McVeigh will enter the conversation.
Sometimes I think the world's going mad. This Breivik guy is a loon, a mass murderer who apparently acted out of rank hatred. No government supported him, no self-proclaimed terror group like al-Qaeda paid his bills. Breivik is just another loser who caused tremendous horror by murdering innocent people. There is no equivalency to jihad, no worldwide Breivik movement. Just another violent, pathetic legacy stemming back to Cain.
1) No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy.
2) Logical fallacies are always wrong.
3) Bill O'Reilly used No True Scotsman.
C) Bill O'Reilly is wrong.
Out of all the fucking dumbshit things O'Reilly spewed out in this heap of garbage, this line pissed me off the most: "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder."
Hitler believed in Jesus. The Vatican supported Adolf Hitler. The Spaniards who came to America committed genocide out of a belief that Indians were literally the spawn of Satan. The Americans who spread west by murdering and displacing hundreds of thousands of Indians did so because the Christian God commanded them to (Manifest Destiny). The Ku Klux Klan lynches people in the name of God. The Inquisition tortured and killed thousands of people because they thought witchcraft was real. Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 people, most of whom were teenagers and children. There is absolutely no reason why someone cannot simultaneously be a mass murderer, and also believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the creator of the universe.
There's also one other thing I want to point out. Why is it that Christian terrorists are never "true Christians," but Muslim terrorists always represent their entire religion? Oh yeah. Because Bill O'Reilly is a fucking racist piece of shit.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Glenn Beck compares the children who were murdered in Oslo to the Hitler Youth
"Saturday I was following the news of the shooting in Norway and the explosion in Norway, which happened what on Friday…When we heard the explosion everybody was willing to say, it’s Muslim extremists, it’s Muslim extremists. I don’t think we made a comment on it because we didn’t know other than a bombing had happened, and as the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth or you know whatever. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing. But, anyway, so there’s this political camp and so crazy man goes and starts shooting kids."
Source
Funny, Beck didn't seem to mention his own summer camp for 8-12 year olds meant to teach children about "the principles of liberty, free markets, and limited government." You know what that sounds like to me? Hitler. Every child who goes to that summer camp is literally Adolf Hitler.
Aside from the whole 'Hitler Youth' thing, did the language Beck used jump out at anybody else? Breivik -- who is white, Christian, and right wing -- is not a terrorist. He's only a "crazy man." Fox News also refuses to associate him with terrorism, or even as a right winger. They called him a 'domestic extremist.' It's institutionalize racism, and it couldn't be more plain. Why don't they just call him what he is -- a Christian extremist. Beck used the words "Muslim extremist" candidly, what's changed? The terrorist himself isn't even ashamed of it. Breivik unabashedly describes himself as "the greatest defender of cultural-conservatism in Europe since 1950" and "the savior of Christianity" (I thought that was jesus lol).
You know, I've seen this popular idea among progressives that we shouldn't talk about far right political figures like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. The theory is that since the media pays attention to what the public is interested in, then not being interested in right wing dumbfucks will force the media to stop talking about them. If we ignore Beck, the media will ignore him too.
To me this idea just seems like a useless symbolic gesture. It gives us comfort thinking we hold power where we don't. Beck and Palin don't give a shit if progressives listen to them or not. They're not talking to us. They have a loyal audience who they know will never abandon them no matter what they say. Those are the sheep they're talking to. If anything, ignoring what Beck and Palin have to say puts the rest of us at a disadvantage. We would have no idea what the Republican base is thinking. And as the Republican party inches further and further towards fascism, it's more important than ever to understand the mindset they're in.
I mean, just think about this in a practical sense. I hate pop music. I think everyone who pays attention to fashion or pop culture is wasting their fucking lives. It's stupid. Since when has ignoring meaningless bullshit ever made it go away? I've ignored pop culture for my entire life, and Amy Winehouse's overdose still got more coverage than the Oslo terrorist attacks. My willful ignorance didn't do a thing. Everyone needs to realize that it is the media's job to guide our opinions -- not the other way around. If we want to change the way the media works, then it requires action, not willful ignorance. What got Beck off the air was an organized boycott of his advertisers. That's what these people pay attention to. That shit works. Even if I did choose to ignore Beck, how would they even fucking know? Do media elites read my blog? Ad revenue and profits are the only language these people understand, and until progressives realize that, everything we try to do to change this situation is just going to be useless circle jerking.
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!
This was four years ago, so it was obviously before Zinn's death early last year. He's the author of A People's History of the United States, which was the first time an established historian attempted to look at American history critically, through the eyes of those the government oppressed (slaves, minorities, workers, immigrants, women, Indians, etc.) I doubt I need to introduce Chomsky. This is an hour long. If you want to get inside my current head, you should probably watch these, because these two are my fucking heroes at the moment.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks left MSNBC after being called into an office, and told that "Washington" doesn't like his tone.
Source
I doubt anyone from the U.S. government is responsible for this, but it's still a little disconcerting. If you can't tell by some of the videos I've been posting, I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky recently (you can partially blame him for how leftist I'm getting). He talks a lot about this 'establishment' all across the media, which suppresses free press and does everything in its power to uphold the status quo. He believes most media outlets in the United States--whether we perceive them to be 'left wing' or 'right wing'-- answer to the interests of corporations, and indirectly, to the government. He actually cowrote a book about it, which I plan on reading after I get done with Understanding Power. What happened with Olbermann, and now Cenk, is not helping.
[...]
Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”
MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh.
In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Griffin denied Mr. Uygur’s accusations and sounded disappointed that he had decided not to accept the weekend position. “We never told Cenk what to say or what not to say,” Mr. Griffin said.
The “people in Washington,” he said, were MSNBC producers who were responsible for booking guests for the 6 p.m. hour, and some of them had said that Mr. Uygur’s aggressive body language and overall demeanor were making it harder to book guests. “The conversation was, ‘Hey, look, here’s how we can make it better’ — about physical things on the show,” Mr. Griffin said.
Mr. Uygur’s audience on “The Young Turks” Webcast, which is separate from MSNBC, is younger than the audience on cable television, Mr. Griffin added, suggesting that the two demographics require different manners of speaking. Mr. Uygur stood by his account, saying in an e-mail, “That conversation on that day was not about body language.”
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”
“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added.
I doubt anyone from the U.S. government is responsible for this, but it's still a little disconcerting. If you can't tell by some of the videos I've been posting, I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky recently (you can partially blame him for how leftist I'm getting). He talks a lot about this 'establishment' all across the media, which suppresses free press and does everything in its power to uphold the status quo. He believes most media outlets in the United States--whether we perceive them to be 'left wing' or 'right wing'-- answer to the interests of corporations, and indirectly, to the government. He actually cowrote a book about it, which I plan on reading after I get done with Understanding Power. What happened with Olbermann, and now Cenk, is not helping.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Favorite albums of 2011, so far
I did this for 2010, and somehow forgot Murder By Death's Good Morning Magpie. I'm doing this halfway through the year because there are a lot so far, and there will probably be even more by the time the year's done. M83 will have one out "soon", the Mars Volta is trying to get one out, and there are rumors that Rage Against The Machine is working on a new one too. So I'll probably do a second post at the end of the year if I remember. This has been an amazing year for post-rock. Or maybe I just only ever pay attention to post-rock anymore. I'll start out with the not-post-rock in case you don't care for it.
There's not a whole lot I can say about this. It's nothing but great mindless garage rock. The Kills have been around for a long time, but I've only known about them for maybe a year or so. They're really fucking good.
I read in an interview that the Hole Punch Generation has been together for five or six years, and they're only now releasing their first album because they wanted to get their sound perfected. And it shows. Their self-titled album is easily one of the best first releases from a band I've heard in a long time. Everybody needs to check this out. Their name "reflects mass-production processes and how these processes have affected art, culture, and identity."
The painting on the cover is "Destruction" by Thomas Cole, one of five paintings in a series called The Course of Empire, which I mentioned in yesterday's post. They're about the rise and fall of a civilization. Post-rock is great for having no lyrics because it can be interpreted wildly, but I think it's pretty obvious that the Allstar Project meant this album to focus on that theme. It's so epic, and so terribly sad.
EITS would easily make it in my top five favorite bands, so I was really excited for this release. And they didn't disappoint me. I'm pretty sure it's on par with The Earth is Not a Cold Dead Place, which is one of my favorite albums of all time. I think this is the best album of 2011 so far, and it will likely stay that way.
Tunnel Blanket takes getting used to. It's not like anything else TWDY has done (which is very stereotypical post-rock). I was iffy about it at first, but after a few listens something clicked, and now I think it's god damn genius. I realize most people probably won't agree. It's very ambient, bordering on drone. It's different, and the fans are mixed. It makes me want to think and not think at the same time. I don't know. It makes me feel a lot of things that I don't know the words for, and I can't really explain why I like it. I'm really getting into existentialism at the moment (lol), and it's basically becoming my go-to soundtrack whenever I struggle to read Jean Paul Sartre.
When people have heard of a post-rock band, it's usually either Mogwai or Godspeed. These guys have been around forever, and they've helped lead the way for the genre. This is Mogwai at their best, and I can't recommend it enough.
The Kills - Blood Pressures
There's not a whole lot I can say about this. It's nothing but great mindless garage rock. The Kills have been around for a long time, but I've only known about them for maybe a year or so. They're really fucking good.
The Hole Punch Generation
I read in an interview that the Hole Punch Generation has been together for five or six years, and they're only now releasing their first album because they wanted to get their sound perfected. And it shows. Their self-titled album is easily one of the best first releases from a band I've heard in a long time. Everybody needs to check this out. Their name "reflects mass-production processes and how these processes have affected art, culture, and identity."
The Hole Punch Generation - They're On To Me from Audiobulb on Vimeo.
Conversations by The Hole Punch Generation from The Hole Punch Generation on Vimeo.
The Allstar Project - Into The Ivory Tower
The painting on the cover is "Destruction" by Thomas Cole, one of five paintings in a series called The Course of Empire, which I mentioned in yesterday's post. They're about the rise and fall of a civilization. Post-rock is great for having no lyrics because it can be interpreted wildly, but I think it's pretty obvious that the Allstar Project meant this album to focus on that theme. It's so epic, and so terribly sad.
Explosions in the Sky - Take Care, Take Care, Take Care
EITS would easily make it in my top five favorite bands, so I was really excited for this release. And they didn't disappoint me. I'm pretty sure it's on par with The Earth is Not a Cold Dead Place, which is one of my favorite albums of all time. I think this is the best album of 2011 so far, and it will likely stay that way.
This Will Destroy You - Tunnel Blanket
Tunnel Blanket takes getting used to. It's not like anything else TWDY has done (which is very stereotypical post-rock). I was iffy about it at first, but after a few listens something clicked, and now I think it's god damn genius. I realize most people probably won't agree. It's very ambient, bordering on drone. It's different, and the fans are mixed. It makes me want to think and not think at the same time. I don't know. It makes me feel a lot of things that I don't know the words for, and I can't really explain why I like it. I'm really getting into existentialism at the moment (lol), and it's basically becoming my go-to soundtrack whenever I struggle to read Jean Paul Sartre.
Mogwai - Hardcore Will Never Die, But You Will
When people have heard of a post-rock band, it's usually either Mogwai or Godspeed. These guys have been around forever, and they've helped lead the way for the genre. This is Mogwai at their best, and I can't recommend it enough.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Course of Empire
I've changed a lot in the last few years, politically. Three or four years ago, I was politically moderate, and when Obama visited Springfield to announce his candidacy for president, I watched with cautious optimism. Then when I actually started paying attention, I found that I agreed with every word he said. I have Obama to thank for getting me off the fence and turning me on to true liberalism.
Fast forward a few years, and Barack Obama is continuing the Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. In many cases, he's surpassing them. I don't know about you guys, but I took that personally. I feel betrayed. This guy initially seemed like he was going to be that special kind of person who comes along once or twice in a generation to really shake things up. I don't know whether to believe he had always intended things to turn out this way, or if he just got bogged down by the system and he's unable to do anything about it. Both scenarios are horrifying to think about.
I really wish I could turn off my interest in world affairs sometimes. I'm so frustrated and tired. I used to experience a certain level of shock whenever I read a story about corrupt politician getting away, or one which explained how more of our civil liberties are being raped. Now I just accept it. It's inevitable at this point. There's nothing we can do about it. So why get worked up? The problem is the economic system America uses. It can all be traced back to money. Always. I'm not even sure if you can call this capitalism anymore. FDR said "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group."
And so, thanks to how much Obama disappointed me, I've just now recently experienced another major shift in my politics. Now convinced that the America's system does not work, I've began searching for alternatives. History has shown that communism is just as brutal and totalitarian as capitalism, so that leaves only one plausible option: socialism. I'm still not quite sure if I support socialism, but I do know that I oppose capitalism, so I've been reading about it and I'm giving it a chance. When we're kids, we're always told that we have to be nice to everybody. Treat others the way you would like to be treated. Share your things with your friends. We're taught that cooperation makes the world go 'round. Then as soon as we get out of grade school, everything shifts entirely, and it's not about cooperation anymore. It's about competition. Thinking back, I'm amazed I didn't even notice such a drastic change before now. I was into baseball and basketball and martial arts as a kid. I liked sports because they were fun. Then once we hit a certain age, they suddenly stopped being about having fun. You had to win no matter what. Crush the enemy. We were just kinda thrown into this one day, and we were expected to go along with it without asking questions. Some kids ate it up and thrived, while others were slower to catch on, but did eventually fall in line. And then there were the rest of us who just thought the whole atmosphere got really fucking dumb, and we didn't want to play anymore. It's not that the world itself coincidentally shifted from cooperation to competition the exact moment we happen hit puberty. It's just that adults, deep down inside, know full well that their system is nothing but brutality and injustice. So they have to do their best to shield us from it when we're kids, in order to give us the few short years of our lives when we can actually be happy.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the course of history, and where humanity is going. The United States is fucked, obviously. I am utterly convinced of this, and I will debate you until my ears bleed. America have no future other than stagnation and ignorance. Yesterday I ran across a five-painting series from the 19th century called The Course of Empire. The paintings depict the founding, rise, apex, downfall, and desolation of a fictional empire. The reason why empires always do this, I think, is that humans have this tendency to gather in large groups. We are apes, we're tribal, and I really don't think we're capable of building up empires that are supposed to include millions of people in it. People are too different. I'm starting to think the Articles of Confederation had it right -- a model similar to ancient Greece, made up of different city-states. But then you also got the whole "Peloponnesian War" thing. I don't know. Humanity is overrated, and we've never known what the hell we're doing.
Fast forward a few years, and Barack Obama is continuing the Bush-era attacks on civil liberties. In many cases, he's surpassing them. I don't know about you guys, but I took that personally. I feel betrayed. This guy initially seemed like he was going to be that special kind of person who comes along once or twice in a generation to really shake things up. I don't know whether to believe he had always intended things to turn out this way, or if he just got bogged down by the system and he's unable to do anything about it. Both scenarios are horrifying to think about.
I really wish I could turn off my interest in world affairs sometimes. I'm so frustrated and tired. I used to experience a certain level of shock whenever I read a story about corrupt politician getting away, or one which explained how more of our civil liberties are being raped. Now I just accept it. It's inevitable at this point. There's nothing we can do about it. So why get worked up? The problem is the economic system America uses. It can all be traced back to money. Always. I'm not even sure if you can call this capitalism anymore. FDR said "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group."
And so, thanks to how much Obama disappointed me, I've just now recently experienced another major shift in my politics. Now convinced that the America's system does not work, I've began searching for alternatives. History has shown that communism is just as brutal and totalitarian as capitalism, so that leaves only one plausible option: socialism. I'm still not quite sure if I support socialism, but I do know that I oppose capitalism, so I've been reading about it and I'm giving it a chance. When we're kids, we're always told that we have to be nice to everybody. Treat others the way you would like to be treated. Share your things with your friends. We're taught that cooperation makes the world go 'round. Then as soon as we get out of grade school, everything shifts entirely, and it's not about cooperation anymore. It's about competition. Thinking back, I'm amazed I didn't even notice such a drastic change before now. I was into baseball and basketball and martial arts as a kid. I liked sports because they were fun. Then once we hit a certain age, they suddenly stopped being about having fun. You had to win no matter what. Crush the enemy. We were just kinda thrown into this one day, and we were expected to go along with it without asking questions. Some kids ate it up and thrived, while others were slower to catch on, but did eventually fall in line. And then there were the rest of us who just thought the whole atmosphere got really fucking dumb, and we didn't want to play anymore. It's not that the world itself coincidentally shifted from cooperation to competition the exact moment we happen hit puberty. It's just that adults, deep down inside, know full well that their system is nothing but brutality and injustice. So they have to do their best to shield us from it when we're kids, in order to give us the few short years of our lives when we can actually be happy.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the course of history, and where humanity is going. The United States is fucked, obviously. I am utterly convinced of this, and I will debate you until my ears bleed. America have no future other than stagnation and ignorance. Yesterday I ran across a five-painting series from the 19th century called The Course of Empire. The paintings depict the founding, rise, apex, downfall, and desolation of a fictional empire. The reason why empires always do this, I think, is that humans have this tendency to gather in large groups. We are apes, we're tribal, and I really don't think we're capable of building up empires that are supposed to include millions of people in it. People are too different. I'm starting to think the Articles of Confederation had it right -- a model similar to ancient Greece, made up of different city-states. But then you also got the whole "Peloponnesian War" thing. I don't know. Humanity is overrated, and we've never known what the hell we're doing.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald talks about civil liberties under the Obama administration, at the 2011 Socialism Conference in Chicago
I was actually in Chicago last weekend when this was going on and I didn’t go. And I hung out with my socialist friend. It was a bit pricey though.
Civil liberties under Obama - Glenn Greenwald from International Socialist on Vimeo.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Sunday Youtube Post
Eli Pariser warns of the “filter bubbles” emerging on the internet that are keeping us from viewing the entire spectrum of ideas
Monday, July 4, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
