Progressive Music Classics. "Corner Soul" by The Clash

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

Few albums have ever been more highly anticipated than Sandinista! the 1980 release by The Clash. The band's previous album, London Calling had been a all-conquering masterpiece that had music writers, particularly in the U.S., swooning.

I recall how, in 1979, The Clash was hailed by many music writers as "the only band that matters." For a brief time, at least, The Clash were clearly the best band in the world.

But when Sandinista! landed in the record shops, a mere four days after John Lennon's murder, it left many fans and writers baffled. Anyone who was expecting a sequel to London Calling was likely disappointed. The massive, triple-album Sandinista! frankly seemed bloated and full of a lot of strange music that had many people scratching their heads in confusion.

At the time, I recall there was two divergent opinions about Sandinista! in the U.S. and the U.K.

Music writers in Britain had failed to embrace London Calling as enthusiastically as their enraptured U.S. counterparts had. And upon first listen, Sandinista! seemed to confirm their worst suspicions about the band.

In Britain, the band was seen as having "sold out" to punk principles. The very fact that Sandinista! was a triple album worked against it. It seemed to embrace many of the bloated excesses of the 1970s progressive rock of ELP, Jethro Tull, and Yes. It was that very sort of thing that punk had rebelled against in the first place in Britain.

I still recall the scathing review in Britain's top music paper, New Musical Express. that savaged Sandinista! as inferior and "ridiculously self-indulgent."

However, in the U.S., it was a different story. Rolling Stone hailed Sandinista! as a five-star masterpiece.

Three decades later, we can look back and ask the question: which side of the Atlantic was right? Was Sandinista! indeed a failure and a "ridiculously self-indulgent" record? Or was it a five-star masterpiece?

The answer: both sides were right. Sandinista! was "ridiculously self-indulgent." It was also a masterpiece.

Whether you love Sandinista! or hate it, one thing The Clash could never be accused of is selling out. This was a massive record, full of strange, exotic, and often baffling sounds--but with absolutely no considerations made for commercial appeal.

Additionally, The Clash, in order to give value for money to their fans, had insisted on selling the three-record set for the price of a single record. Amazingly, the band agreed to let their record company take the price difference out of their own pockets.

Between the fiercely anti-commercial nature of the record, and The Clash's insistence on "value for money" for their fans, Sandinista! represented a sort of idealism that simply doesn't exist in today's music scene. After all, most of today's musicians don't have much ambition beyond simply selling as much product as possible.

But despite the band's good intentions, Sandinista! was a commercial flop for The Clash. And the initial hostile reviews in England meant that the band couldn't even win favor among the powerful music press for their idealism.

Band leader Joe Strummer had poured his heart into the creation of Sandinista!. But what did it bring him? Nothing but hostile reviews and financial insecurity. The latter was made plain at the time, when Strummer and his girlfriend were turned down for a house loan. Nearing the age of 30, Strummer was beginning to get weary of his nomadic existence of living in squats, tiny flats, and borrowed apartments.

Three decades later, Sandinista! is still an often baffling, sometimes infuriating listen. But if you give it a chance, it's one of the most fascinating albums ever released. Strummer is at the top of his game with his intriguing lyrics, which for my money rival anything Dylan ever wrote.

Sandinista! addresses a head-spinning variety of topics that have rarely been heard in a rock context: Third World rebellions and wars. The corrupt and decadent leadership that has sold out countries like Britain and America. Out-of-control multi-national corporations raping and pillaging the planet.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The fact is, in today's world, Sandinista! is as relevant as ever. CIA goons are still prowling the planet. And corporate mercenaries are still raping and pillaging the Third World.

Upon first listen, the songs on Sandinista! often seem ragged around the edges. There is an "unfinished" quality to the record. It's almost as if the band was furiously working to crank out songs at light-speed while the inspiration was still hot.

At the time, Sandinista! production was criticized as "sloppy." But with the hindsight of years, it's clear that the often low-fi, ragged production perfectly suited the music. Indeed, a dose of Sandinista! is a perfect antidote to anyone who is sick to death of today's glossy, over-produced, sterile pop music.

Over the course of its 36 tracks, Sandinista! races from topic to topic and musical genre to musical genre.

One minute, the band is playing a bizarre form of dub. The next, they're doing a twisted take on gospel. The next, they're doing an unlike cover song by jazz pianist Mose Allison. The next, they're doing straight-ahead classic Clash rock. The experience of listening to Sandinista! is somewhat akin to listening to a wandering radio dial randomly tuning into various intriguing parts of the Third World. Only a band as talented and visionary as The Clash could have ever pulled this off.

The song "Corner Soul" (featured in the video above) has long been a favorite of mine from the album. It's a strange little song that conjures up the image of some sinister goings-on in a Third World nation, where rebels are battling an unknown enemy.

But who are they fighting? CIA-funded goons? A corrupt right-wing dictatorship? Mercenaries funded by Exxon Mobil or the United Fruit Company?

Who knows? But the fact is, battles like this have been raging in the Third World for decades now (often funded with U.S. tax dollars).

Strummer is wise enough not to turn the song into a hectoring rant against First World imperialism. Rather than spoon-feeding us a leftist rant, Strummer (as he so often does) keeps things ambiguous and leaves it up to our imaginations as to exactly what is going on.

"Is the music calling for a river of blood?" Strummer sings in a bizarre, distorted production that is as surreal as anything ever cranked out by Lee "Scratch" Perry's legendary Black Ark studio.

There has never been another record made like Sandinista!. It was an album that engaged the real world (unlike the apolitical pap that comprises today's music). Sandinista! challenged us. And it got us to thinking about what was being done in our name by CIA goons and corporate mercenaries across the Third World.

As a risk-taking record with heart and soul, Sandinista! is the sort of record that today's cowardly, corporate-whore music artists simply don't make anymore.

How the GOP's Disinformation Campaign Could Tarnish Obamacare

BY MARC McDONALD

Like many progressives, I've never been a big fan of the Affordable Care Act. After all, in many ways, it's really nothing more than a warmed-up revision of the Heritage Foundation/GOP health care proposal from the 1990s.

However, given the awful state of the current bloated, inefficient U.S. health care system, Obamacare is bound to be an improvement (if only because it's impossible for the system to be much worse than it is now).

And if Obamacare improves access to health care for millions of Americans, it will pose a big problem to the GOP in elections for years to come.

The GOP, of course, is aware of this. And as a result, we can expect the GOP to step up its ongoing disinformation campaign against Obamacare.

You've got to give Republicans credit for one thing: the GOP does a masterful job of spreading disinformation. We saw this in 2003 with the torrent of lies that got the U.S. into the Iraq War fiasco. We also saw this with the Swift Boat lies that helped sink John Kerry's 2004 campaign. We continue to see it with the "Birther" nonsense.

To this day, millions of Americans continue to believe that Obama was born in Kenya and that Saddam attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

The Great GOP Noise Machine excels at spreading lies and disinformation. And it's clear that as Obamacare's full implementation date approaches, we'll see the GOP's lies and propaganda rise to a fever pitch.

I believe this could be devastatingly effective in tarnishing the Affordable Care Act, even if Obamacare turns out to be a success.

The problem is, the current health care system is a terrible mess. Many people are deeply unhappy with it. And now, any time anyone has any problems whatsoever with their health care, Obamacare will become a handy catch-all scapegoat.

A recent incident made me realize the obstacles Obamacare faces in countering the GOP disinformation war.

An elderly woman I know recently visited a hospital here in Texas. She had a routine checkup. There were no problems and everything went well.

However, she said she was upset and angry.

"As I was getting ready to leave the hospital, some agents from Obamacare came and started asking me questions," she told me.

"Agents from Obamacare?" I asked.

"Yeah, they were agents from Obamacare. They wanted to ask me questions. I told them to shove it and I immediately left the hospital."

I was curious. What was she talking about? Granted, this was someone who was a hard-core, Obama-hating Republican. Day after day, she marinated her brain in the toxic stew of Fox News/Drudge/talk radio filth. As is the case with other Tea Baggers, nothing she said ever surprised me.

But agents from Obamacare? That had me wondering.

I wound up calling the hospital in question. It turns out that the hospital had hired a survey company to ask patients a few questions about the quality of their care.

Somehow, in the mind of this Limbaugh-listening woman, this survey company had morphed into sinister "Agents from Obamacare."

How could such amazing disinformation come about? It shouldn't really be surprising. After all, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin railed in 2009 on about Obamacare's "death panels." And Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently urged a repeal of Obamacare "before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens."

I'm get the feeling that the "agents from Obamacare" incident could just the tip of an iceberg.

I was further reminded of this during a recent visit to my insurance agent to discuss my health-care plan. My insurance company is one of the largest companies in America. With Obamacare's full implementation nearing, I had a few basic questions about its impact on my current health-care plan.

Incredibly, my insurance agent knew nothing about Obamacare's impact on my policy. He was unable to answer any questions I had. Instead, he quickly steered the conversation to a Rush Limbaugh-like attack on Obamacare and on Obama himself.

"It's a mess," he said. "Mitch McConnell was right when he said Obamacare is a failure."

I thought about asking my insurance agent how he knew the Affordable Care Act was a "failure" if he knew nothing about it. But I let it pass.

Later, with a few clicks on the Web, I was able to quickly get answers to my Obamacare question. But still, it irked me that my insurance agent had made zero effort to educate himself about Obamacare's impact on his customers' health-care plans. Whatever his political views were (and it was obvious he was a Limbaugh Dittohead) he owed it to his customers to inform himself about the law.

These two incidents give a glimpse into what Obamacare is up against. I'm sure similar incidents like this are playing out millions of times a day across the country.

As the Affordable Care Act comes into force, anyone who ever has had any complaint at all about their health care will tend to instinctively blame Obamacare. And (as the "agents of Obamacare" incident shows) even people who don't have any problems with their health care coverage will still find reasons to attack Obamacare.

The whole thing could become a public relations nightmare for Obama and the Democrats.

After all, the woman who told me about "Obamacare agents" herself actually had no complaints about her health care coverage. She was, after all, covered by Medicare. Although after talking to her, I realized that she (like many Tea Party types) had no idea that Medicare is a government program.

Sigh. So much ignorance, so little time.

The problem is, a lot of Americans simply aren't very bright. Blame it on our abysmal public schools. Blame it on our terrible news media. But whatever the reason, the fact is, tens of millions of America are likely to blame Obamacare for anything and everything (even if they benefit from its provisions).

In the battle of public opinion, Obamacare still faces a steep uphill battle. Thanks to GOP lies and disinformation, a lot of Americans could well be convinced that Obamacare is a bad thing, even if the program succeeds.

Obamacare should be a signature victory for President Obama and the Democrats to rally voters in future elections. But, instead, it could well be a millstone around the necks of the Democrats for years to come.

Such is life in 21st century America: a nation in decline, where tens of millions of Americans are profoundly misinformed---and where the GOP does its utmost to ensure that people remain ignorant.

Why Today's "Stealth" Bigots Are Worse Than Old-School Racists

By MARC McDONALD

In a perfect society, there would be no bigots and no racism. Of course, America will never be mistaken for a perfect society. And despite our national delusion that we've become a "colorblind" society that has moved beyond racism, the truth is more complex.

In some ways, it's actually harder to fight racism these days in America than it was, say, 30 years ago. For one thing, a lot of people (particularly Republicans) deny that racism even exists today. In fact, most of these people insist that white people are the "victims" of racism.

In the old days, foes of racism had clear-cut targets and goals. Fighting for African-Americans to be able to vote in the Deep South of the 1960s was no picnic---but at least it was a concrete, clear-cut goal to work toward.

But these days, the fight against racism is more complex. It's more difficult to fight racism when vast numbers of white Americans deny that it even exists these days.

The fact that shockingly high numbers of African-Americans are locked up in prison? Nope, there's no racism in today's America.

The fact that African-Americans still are much more likely to live in poverty than white Americans? Nope, there's no racism in today's America.

The firestorm of (idiotic) controversy about President Obama's birth certificate? Nope, there's no racism in today's America.

Back in the old days, bigots were at least upfront and honest about their racism. I recall during my younger years growing up in the small towns of Texas, I knew many "old school" bigots. These people had no problem with openly using the "N" word. They openly expressed their contempt for "n*ggers."

I recall a sad scene that I witnessed in 1983 in Fort Worth, Texas, while I was working as a truck driver. While I was unloading a truck, a fellow employee was talking to his two children, "instructing" them about the "ways of the world."

"N*ggers don't work in this country," he said. "They all sit around collecting welfare. Come welfare day once a week, they all jump into their Cadillacs and drive up to the welfare office. Never forget, kids, n*ggers are the real problem in this country."

It was sad to see this middle-aged bigot poisoning the minds of his young kids.

But sometimes, I actually prefer old-school bigots like that to today's new breed of "stealth" bigots. You've got to give credit to the old-school bigots: at least they were honest and upfront about their racism. After all, we do (allegedly) live in a "free" society. If people want to be racist, that's their right.

Then there are the "stealth" bigots, who are becoming increasingly common in today's America.

You've met these "stealth" bigots yourself. They're full of quietly simmering hostility toward minorities. They routinely listen to Rush Limbaugh's racist spewings. They're the ones who're always forwarding to you unsolicited right-wing mass emails (which often feature shockingly bigoted and racist content). And yet, they always get angry and indignant if you suggest that they're racist in any way.

I once had an acquaintance who routinely raged about how minorities were "ruining" America. He routinely spewed the "N" word in private, but took care to avoid saying it in public. And he fiercely denied being a racist in any way.

Once, I was arguing with him about why America was facing financial ruin. I pointed out to him that a good part of the reason for America going broke is our ruinous wars, like Vietnam and Iraq, which cost America trillions.

But my acquaintance was having none of it. "The reason we're going broke is because of welfare going to nigglets in places like Detroit," he said.

I pointed out to him that this was not only wrong, but racist. "You do realize that the word "n*gger" is racist, don't you?" I said.

"I didn't say n*gger," he responded with a straight face. "I said nigglet."

So it goes when dealing with today's "stealth" bigots. Of course, these people have mastered their craft of "stealth" bigotry at the knee of their heroes like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of the bigoted right-wing media.

Limbaugh, of course, is the master of "stealth" bigotry. This is a guy who has made an art form of skillfully dancing around the "N" word.

Limbaugh has never actually used the "N" word on his show. But he very carefully packs as much racist content into each program by skillfully using code words and "dog whistle" phrases, while pushing all the right emotional hot buttons of white working class males who are angry with their declining standards of living and eager to find a scapegoat.

Limbaugh is hardly alone in his stealth bigotry. You hear a lot of this same sort of subtle racism across the entire sewer hole of 24-hour U.S. right-wing talk radio. You also hear it on the likes of Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere. Spend some time at some of these right-wing sites and you quickly come to the realization that racism is as bad today as it's been in decades in America.

The likes of Limbaugh and Fox News show how in some ways its more difficult today to fight racism than it was years ago. After all, back in the 1970s, racist bigots often simply shared their views by word of mouth. Back then, they didn't have their own 24-hour news channels and national talk radio networks to spread their filth.

I have nothing but contempt for these new-school "stealth" bigots. If you're going to be a racist bigot in America, go ahead and put on the white sheet and openly use the "N" word. Be honest and upfront about your bigotry. But please, please, don't dance around the "N" word and pollute your mind with Limbaugh and Fox News and use words like "n*gglet" and then claim with a straight face that you're not a racist bigot.

Progressive Music Classics. "The Unacceptable Face of Freedom" by Test Dept.

.

.
BY MARC McDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

Margaret Thatcher's declaration of war against labor unions in the 1980s kicked off a vicious attack on working-class people that ripped the nation's social fabric. British society never really recovered from the ravages of Thatcherism.

Like Ronald Reagan, Thatcher used the power of the state to force a radical, extreme form of bare-knuckled "Chicago School" economics on the nation. In both countries, the Top One Percent made out like bandits, but the middle class was ravaged.

Since the 1980s, Britain has come to resemble the U.S. in many ways. Like the U.S., Britain has seen the decline of its middle class. Britain has also experienced increasingly mediocre, under-funded social services and declining standards in public schools. Like the U.S. since 1980, Britain has become more and more a deeply undemocratic society that is increasingly ruled by an oligarchy and by multi-national corporations.

One of the sectors of British society that really felt the full force of Thatcherism early on was the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). Thatcher sent in the police to brutally attack union members. The mainstream media in the Anglo-American world applauded (apparently forgetting that one of the first groups that Hitler targeted when he came to power was trade unions).

If the sound of the anger and fury of Thatcher's attack on working-class people could be put to music, it might well sound like The Unacceptable Face of Freedom by British band Test Dept.

Test Dept. was one of a wave of U.K. bands that mobilized to fight Thatcherism in any way they could. The band performed benefits for coal miners in Wales. Part of this effort resulted in the stirring 1985 album, Shoulder to Shoulder which Test Dept. recorded in collaboration with a choir made up of striking miners.

The Unacceptable Face of Freedom, recorded the following year, does a good job of capturing the transformation of British society in a prophetic manner. Like Reagan in the U.S., Thatcher worked hard to try to convince the U.K. public that society should no longer serve ordinary people and that Britain was now going to be a greedy, soulless society where the motto was "Screw everyone else, I've got mine."

A eerie passage in "F*ckhead," the opening track of Unacceptable Face sums this up nicely, when a crazed voice shouts out, "It's mine! It's mine! It's mine!" Thatcher and her goons couldn't have said it better.

The ironic aspect of the legacy of Reagan and Thatcher was that, over the long term, the two leaders unwittingly sowed the seeds for capitalism's demise as I noted in this 2012 piece. The two leaders, in embracing the radical and extremist agenda of the Chicago School, never seemed to grasp that when the middle class dies, it will eventually take capitalism down with it.

Under Reagan and Thatcher, the union members of PATCO and the NUM took it on the chin. They were like the canaries in the coal mine. In the decades since, the middle class as a whole in both nations has been increasingly decimated.

How Rush Limbaugh Damaged The GOP Brand

By MARC McDONALD

When Rush Limbaugh first began spewing his daily dose of bigotry, lies and GOP propaganda back in the mid-80s, Republican leaders rejoiced. In Limbaugh, the GOP had a powerful spokesman who managed to persuade working-class white men to vote against their own interests.

In Limbaugh, the GOP also had a powerful political weapon. In the 1990s, they needed to tarnish President Clinton's reputation. And Limbaugh was on the case, sliming Clinton on everything from Vince Foster to Whitewater. No facts or truth was required, just smears.

Limbaugh's success spawned an entire industry of like-minded right-wing talk radio propagandists, each more extreme and outrageous than their predecessors. They proceeded to take over the AM radio dial. Then Fox News appeared, as well as the likes of Drudge and other right-wing Web sites.

Limbaugh, however, remained the King of GOP Propaganda. And millions of ditto-head listeners across the nation lapped up everything he dished out.

Throughout the 1990s, Limbaugh appeared to be an invaluable asset to the GOP.

But it was all a mirage. In reality, Limbaugh was a growing problem for the Republican Party. And today, he's become a serious liability that continues to damage the GOP brand.

The first signs that Limbaugh was poison for the GOP occurred during the administration of George W. Bush. Of course, Bush was a disaster for the GOP. Which made things decidedly awkward for Limbaugh, the de facto spokesman of the GOP.

With Bush, Limbaugh had two options. The first was that he could criticize Bush and retain whatever few shreds of credibility he had left. The second was that he could support Bush.

Limbaugh, of course, chose to continue backing Bush. In desperation, Limbaugh continued to cling to the faint hope that the long train wreck that was the Bush presidency would eventually turn itself around and that Bush's approval ratings would halt their long descent. Of course, that never happened.

Bush never regained favor with the public. And since he blindly supported Bush to the very end, Limbaugh lost whatever credibility he had left.

Since the 2008 election, Limbaugh has relentlessly pounded away at President Obama every day. But Limbaugh's attacks on Obama are increasingly toothless and impotent and often reach the point of self-parody.

Today, Limbaugh has become a clown and a laughingstock to the general public. Sure, the shrinking numbers of ditto-heads continue to lap it all up. But nobody else takes seriously anything that Limbaugh says.

In short, Limbaugh is no longer converting anyone to the GOP's cause these days. And his once-powerful ability to spread GOP propaganda has been greatly weakened.

Even Limbaugh's once-formidable smear tactic skills have all but vanished. Over the years, Limbaugh has promoted so many discredited smears that nobody takes him seriously any more, outside of the ditto-head base.

Today's Limbaugh has become a pathetic shell of his former self. But for the GOP, it actually gets much worse. The fact is, these days, Limbaugh has become a major liability for the party.

This became evident around the time of the Sandra Fluke controversy. For years, Limbaugh had possessed a special talent to use sexist, racist speech and somehow not pay a serious price for it. But all that came crashing down when Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Unlike previous Limbaugh controversies, the Fluke case didn't simply go away after a couple of news cycles. The controversy dragged on and on for months. It wounded Limbaugh deeply and led to a massive exodus of advertisers.

Of course, the Fluke case didn't merely damage Limbaugh. It damaged the GOP brand. After all, Limbaugh has been GOP's most powerful and high-profile voice for over two decades. Try as they might, GOP leaders were unable to effectively distance the Republican Party from Limbaugh's remarks.

It was one thing for Limbaugh to alienate African-Americans with his racist comments. It was quite another to alienate women (who, of course, make up a majority of U.S. voters).

I suspect that around the time of the Fluke controversy, the GOP's party leaders began to realize that they had a big, big problem on their hands with Limbaugh.

And it's a problem that's not going to go away. For all the talk about Republicans trying to become more mainstream, the fact is, Limbaugh today is as extremist and offensive as he's ever been. What's more, there's now an entire army of radical right-wing talk show hosts on the radio dial, along with the likes of Fox News and Drudge.

The right-wing propaganda apparatus shows absolutely no sign of moderating its extremist views. Listen to today's talk radio and you'll find hosts like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, who are even more extremist and crazy than Limbaugh.

Besides damaging the GOP brand, the likes of Limbaugh and his talk radio clones are also a powerful force in pushing today's GOP to maintain its hardline, extremist positions. If any individual GOP politician dares to step out of line, he or she can expect torrents of abuse from the likes of Limbaugh.

I suspect today's Republican leaders realize that, in Limbaugh and his ilk, the party has created a Frankenstein that is doing far more damage to the GOP than it ever did to the Democrats.

It's hard for me to conceive of how the GOP will ever solve this mess. Even if they ever somehow persuade Limbaugh to tone down his extremist hate speech, a dozen other right-wing talk hosts will immediately step up to fill his shoes.

Indeed, I suspect Limbaugh realizes this dilemma himself. He likely knows that, if he tones down his radical views, he'll lose his audience to the other right-wing talk radio sharks who are circling in the water. On the other hand, surely even Limbaugh has grasped the fact that his extremism has severely damaged his beloved GOP in recent years.

Progressive Music Classics. "Everything That Rises Must Converge" by Shriekback

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.

The late, great Bill Hicks once lamented the decline of intellectualism in the U.S. This dumbing-down of America, he noted, started around the time Ronald Reagan was first elected. Hicks also savaged the pop music of the Reagan era and the increasing tendency of music stars to sell out to the highest corporate bidder (i.e. Madonna shilling for Pepsi, George Michael shilling for Coke).

"What kind of Reagan wet dream do we live in today?" Hicks once asked, in slamming the gutless, money-grubbing pop stars who sold out in the 1980s.

One wonders what Hicks would have thought about today's pop performers. After all, the situation is now far worse than it ever was back in the 1980s. Not only do today's pop stars have no problems whatsoever whoring themselves out to corporate America---but "selling out" rarely even generates much negative publicity these days. At least the likes of Madonna and George Michaels had Hicks around to condemn them back in the 1980s. Today, nobody seems to care.

And if all this wasn't bad enough, today's pop scene is as banal as it has ever been, thanks to the corrosive effect of the likes of Simon Cowell and the whole "American Idol" conveyor belt of soulless mediocrity that clogs up today's airwaves.

Despite Hicks' contempt for much of the music of the 1980s, I get the feeling that he might have liked a band like Britain's Shriekback. Not only did Shriekback never sell out, but their heady, intoxicating music was full of thought-provoking challenging ideas.

One of my favorite Shriekback songs is "Everything That Rises Must Converge" from the band's fine 1985 album, Oil and Gold. The album features phenomenal playing from bassist Dave Allen (whose skills powered the Marxist funk of his previous band, The Gang of Four).

"Everything That Rises Must Converge" is inspired by the 1965 short story of author Flannery O'Connor that addresses the racism of the 1960s in the American South. (O'Connor, in turn, was inspired by French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who, as Wikipedia notes, described "evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in the unification of consciousness.")

In recent times, Teilhard's ideas have been expanded upon by futurist Ray Kurzweil, who wrote the 2005 bestseller, The Singularity Is Near.

"Everything That Rises Must Converge" makes for a powerful, thought-provoking Shriekback song of the type that is sorely lacking in today's dumbed-down music scene. Today's music artists don't seem to have much to say beyond: "Be an obedient worker and a good little consumer, and don't question authority."

Incidentally, Shriekback are still an active band to this day. Their 2010 album, Life in the Loading Bay offers some of the finest music of their career.

Guns Only Give Americans The Illusion Of Freedom

By MARC McDONALD

Fact: America has by far the fewest restrictions on guns of any First World nation (as well as most of the rest of the world).

Fact: With over 2.3 million people locked up in prison, America has the biggest prison population and the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth.

What's wrong with this picture?

Gun advocates often claim that guns play a crucial role in giving Americans freedom.

But the fact is, guns only give Americans the illusion of freedom.

America today is a nation is that is awash in guns. There are an astonishing 300 million guns now in circulation in America. But that didn't prevent our nation from turning increasingly into an oligarchy over the past three decades.

Does an abundance of readily available guns really give Americans "freedom"? I'm sure the very thought amuses America's oligarchy. After all, we saw who really controls our government in 2008, when George W. Bush bailed out the crooks on Wall Street with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

The true owners of America (the top .1 percent) hijacked democracy in America a long time ago. Today's U.S. government is nothing more than a concierge service to the Rich & Powerful. "Our" government no longer really serves the interests of ordinary Americans. It only serves the interests of the top ultra-wealthy elites.

The fact is, real democracy died long ago in America--and guns did nothing to prevent it from happening.

In reality, the oligarchy that controls the real levers of power in America isn't afraid of guns.

What the oligarchs are afraid of is an informed populace. They're afraid of high-quality public schools. They're afraid of organized labor. They're afraid of publicly financed elections. They're afraid of the repeal of Citizens United and the return of the Fairness Doctrine. In short, they're afraid of real democracy.

The true owners of America are afraid of any change in the law that is going to end the whole gravy train that has enriched them at the expense of the rest of us over the past three decades.

And they're sure as hell aren't afraid of a bunch of NRA types running around with pistols and shotguns.

Could the latter ever really protect America against a tyrannical government? It's absurd to think so.

Let's face it: pistols and shotguns aren't going to get the job done. Small arms will be no match against a professional military that has Predator Drones, aircraft carriers, Navy SEALs, nuclear submarines, stealth bombers, spy satellites, Abrams tanks and nuclear missiles.

However, as I mentioned, gun rights do serve a purpose in America: to fool the masses into thinking that we enjoy a lot more freedom than we really do.

You want real freedom? Try a place like Europe, where you'll find loads of freedoms that most Americans don't enjoy. In Europe, you'll find legal dope, legal gay marriage, legal euthanasia, strong workers' rights, 6 weeks annual vacations, the right to join a union without being fired, good public schools, unlimited speed limits on the autobahn, etc. etc.

Frankly, I think today's Europeans are more free in many ways than Americans are. This is reflected by the fact that Europe's prison population is tiny, compared to the astonishing 2.3 million Americans behind bars.

What's more is that in Europe, the continent's national governments by and large still serve the interests of ordinary people. They have to. Ordinary workers are informed on the issues in Europe. Either the politicians do right by them, or the people will take to the streets to demand their rights.

True, present day Europe has its share of problems (although I think many of these problems are exaggerated by the U.S. corporate media). Having traveled there recently, I've come to realize that Europe is more prosperous than many Americans realize.

The national governments of Europe may not be perfect. But overall, they at least make an attempt to serve the interests of ordinary working people. By contrast, in today's America, "our" government has nothing but contempt for working people.

Oh, and in much of Europe, you can buy a gun. Sure, you might have to fill out some forms first. You might have to deal with some red tape. And you'll have to demonstrate that you're not mentally ill. But yes: gun ownership is possible in many European nations. Which once again raises the issue of how "free" Americans really are, compared to their European counterparts.

For America's ruling oligarchy, easily available guns play a valuable role in maintaining the illusion of freedom. As the ruling oligarchy continues to hijack our democracy and loot our treasury, it really has little to fear from a population that is armed (but largely ignorant of the issues).

After all, the Rush Limbaugh crowd is never going to grasp the fact that the oligarchy is to blame for their declining standard of living. No, thanks to Rush, the dittoheads will just blame their woes on African-Americans, gays, poor people, illegal immigrants, and all the other usual scapegoats.

For America's oligarchy, easily available guns also have another useful function. They help keep the population fearful. Fear and ignorance are powerful tools in repressing America's working class.

America's easily available guns make for one other nice bonus for the Rich & Powerful.

Let's say that in the future a truly independent politician who is hostile to the oligarchy somehow manages, against all odds, to get into the White House.

Thanks to America's easily available guns, it wouldn't be hard for the oligarchy to get rid of such a troublesome politician. They could always turn around and blame a "lone nut" assassin. (They've done it before, after all). And they could always claim, "Well, it's so easy to buy a gun in America, the assassin had no problems buying his gun. It's just the price we Americans pay for living in a free nation."

Do guns really bring Americans freedom? I would argue that the opposite is true.

True freedom doesn't really come from guns. It comes from an informed, educated, politically active working class that isn't afraid to stand up for its rights. That is what the oligarchy that rules America is really scared of.

"Django Unchained" Continues Hollywood's Sad, Shameful Legacy of Dealing With Slavery Era

By MARC McDONALD

The critical adulation that greets every new movie by Quentin Tarantino is a sad commentary on our culture. Tarantino is an overrated hack who does nothing more than rip off ideas from vastly superior directors from Europe and Asia. He then waters down these ideas and re-works them into movies that are infinitely inferior to the originals.

Tarantino is hailed as a "daring" and "radical" filmmaker, when in fact his slick, commercial movies are about as daring and radical as a cup of Starbucks coffee.

Django Unchained, the latest Tarantino film, is receiving universally rave reviews, as well as big box office numbers. It has also drawn controversy (which no doubt has boosted the film's box office---as controversy always helps shift product).

I haven't seen Django Unchained and I have no intention of doing so. So why do I already detest this movie and urge my fellow progressives to boycott the film?

It's because I believe that the American film industry really has no business making mere "entertainment" movies about the slavery era.

Hell, America has never even honestly confronted this horrific chapter in our history. In fact, we are still in many ways a racist society. (The incredibly vicious right-wing attacks on President Obama over the past few years merely confirm how racist a nation America is to this day). We can try to pretend we've moved beyond racism as a nation---but we're really just fooling ourselves.

I believe most African-Americans will understand what I'm talking about. But many (if not most) white people won't---which serves to prove my point.

Django Unchained has drawn outrage from a number of notable African-Americans, including director Spike Lee.

"American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western," Lee recently Tweeted. "It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them."

Lee was right. Slavery was a Holocaust. It was one of the greatest crimes in history.

Millions of Africans died during the years of slavery. And the slaves who didn't die suffered a fate that was actually worse than death.

They were locked up in chains. They were forced to work long grueling hours for no pay at the barrel of a gun. They were beaten. They were tortured. They were raped. They were bought and sold like cattle.

Slavery was a horrific crime against humanity. And it was a colossal crime that white America has never honestly confronted.

Germany killed six million Jews during World War II. But at least that nation has made an effort to try to atone at least a little bit for its crimes. Germany has paid billions of dollars in reparations over the decades. The country has also passed strict laws to try to ensure that the nation never forgets its crime. (For example, denial of the Holocaust is illegal in today's Germany).

But America has never atoned in any way for slavery. It has never paid reparations. Indeed, America continued to oppress African-Americans long after slavery ended. America brutally oppressed black people via Jim Crow laws, as well as lynchings, and it treated them like second class citizens for many decades. Black people couldn't even vote in the Deep South, all the way up until the 1960s.

Indeed, Jim Crow still exists in today's America in some ways. The huge numbers of largely low-income black men who are serving long, harsh punishments in prison for nickel-dime petty drug crimes is evidence of that.

What's particularly nauseating about today's America is that so many white people continue to be racist, but deny it.

You've met these people yourself. They include your right-wing brother-in-law who rails against "lazy blacks collecting welfare" while you're trying to enjoy your Thanksgiving meal. These are the people who bizarrely believe white people are somehow the victims of racism these days. They also believe that no black person was ever mistreated in America after 1865.

I know a number of these people. They all listen to Rush Limbaugh's racist spewings. And yet they deny that Rush is racist in any way. Indeed, these are people who privately and routinely use the "N" word (and then publicly declare that they're not racist).

I have nothing but contempt for such people. In fact, I actually have more respect for old-school bigots who were at least upfront about their racism. I'd actually prefer a racist who is at least honest enough to openly use the "N" word and express his hatred for black people. I'll take a bigot like that any day over a typical Limbaugh listener who carefully dances around the "N" word and then denies his racism.

Slavery was a horrific crime. It is not something that America should be using as a topic for mere entertainment in another of Tarantino's overrated films.

It's a sad commentary on just how abysmal the art of cinema is these days that a mediocrity like Tarantino gets the time of day.

And yet critics line up to kiss Tarantino's ass. They over-analyze and over-intellectualize his films. They read a great deal of Deep Meaning into his movies.

But Tarantino doesn't deserve such critical devotion.

For example, consider all the critical commentary and analysis that has been prompted by Tarantino's heavy usage of the "N" word in all of his movies.

Actually, there's no mystery to Tarantino's love of the "N" word. It's nothing more than a crutch to prop up his overrated, weak scripts. The fact is, the "F" word no longer packs a punch, because of over-usage. But the "N" word still does pack a punch. It's still "controversial."

Anyone who thinks there's any Deeper Meaning to Tarantino's heavy usage of the "N" word is kidding themselves.

Critics also constantly praise Tarantino for being a "daring" and "risk-taking" director. But this is nonsense. There is absolutely nothing daring and risk-taking about Tarantino. True risk-taking directors don't enjoy movies that have blockbuster worldwide box office of over $300 million (like Tarantino's last film, Inglourious Basterds did).

Speaking of Inglourious Basterds, that film revealed just how full of crap those who champion Tarantino as a risky, daring director are.

If Tarantino were really a brave director wanting to make a war movie, he would have tackled the Iraq War. That whole evil, rotten enterprise would have been a perfect target for any director who wanted to make an edgy, risky film.

In taking on the Iraq War, Tarantino could have poked a finger in the eye of the whole jingoistic Fox News/NeoCon crowd who cheered the nation into war and who ferociously attacked anyone who dared question their beloved Commander-in-Chief. (We saw a glimpse of the latter when the Dixie Chicks made what was actually a very mild criticism of George W. Bush and received an avalanche of NeoCon hatred and death threats as a result).

Yes, the Iraq War would have been a logical target for any U.S. film director who wanted to make an edgy, brave, risky statement.

So which war did Tarantino target in his movie? World War II.

Yawn.

Like there haven't already been enough films about World War II.

Of course, with Django Unchained, Tarantino is simply following in the footsteps of other Hollywood directors who have a shameful track record of films set in the slavery era.

After all, Hollywood has almost always been dishonest and cowardly when approaching the subject of slavery.

Take, for example, the very first Hollywood feature film ever made: D.W. Griffith's sad, shameful The Birth of a Nation. This was an outrageously racist film that depicted African American men as stupid and as extremely sexually aggressive towards white women. The film also glorified the Ku Klux Klan.

Hollywood's other big blockbuster set in the slavery era, Gone With the Wind, was hardly much better. This was a film that glamorized the old Deep South. Slaves were shown happily singing, laughing, dancing and enjoying a colorful agrarian lifestyle. It was a grotesque distortion of the realities of slavery.

In reducing the horrors of slavery to mere entertainment, Tarantino is carrying on a sad tradition for Hollywood (and indeed American society in general) in refusing to honestly confront America's own Holocaust. It would be impossible to imagine, say, Germany making a similar film about the Jewish Holocaust.

I can hear the Tarantino defenders already, though. "But it's just entertainment!" they'll say.

The problem is that slavery is simply too horrific a crime to be the topic of a movie made for mere entertainment (particularly coming from a white film director). White America has never honestly confronted this horrific crime.

If Hollywood is to ever properly tackle the slavery era, it needs to do so with a respectful, dignified Schindler's List type film (preferably made by an African-American director). What we don't need is an profane, cartoonish, overrated Tarantino ripoff of a Sergio Leone film.

Check Out the "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2012"

By MARC McDONALD

My February 9, 2012 article, "How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism," was featured in Vagabond Scholar's "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2012." If you haven't already, be sure to check out this roundup, which offers a lot of great articles from many of the Web's top progressive blogs. And also, be sure to check out Vagabond Scholar itself, which is one of our favorite Liberal blogs. Here's to a great 2013 for all progressive bloggers everywhere.

Great GOP Moments: Craig T. Nelson Sums Up Today's Republican Mindset in One Sentence

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

A few years ago, actor Craig T. Nelson was being interviewed by creepy GOP nutcase Glenn Beck and he made a comment that was widely ridiculed (see video above).

"I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No." Nelson said.

Nelson was praising the virtues of America's "capitalistic" society. Many commentators pointed out the contradiction of Nelson's praise of a dog-eat-dog capitalist system and his admission of collecting welfare while bizarrely claiming that nobody had ever helped him out.

What many of these commentators missed though was that there really wasn't any contradiction in Nelson's comments---at least in the minds of today's Republicans.

I've talked to many Republicans over the years. The vast majority of them claim to be hard-core capitalists, who support a vicious dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, Ayn Rand/wet dream type society. In a nutshell, they all are strongly in favor of shutting down all government programs with the exception of the Pentagon.

Oh, and almost without exception, all of these Republicans themselves have benefited handsomely from various government programs. They've always been the first in line to claim their food stamps, jobless benefits, Medicare, and various other government programs. In fact, many of them actually work for the government. They pull down lavish taxpayer-funded paychecks and enjoy amazing benefits and pensions that are light years beyond anything that any private sector employee gets.

The latter type of Republican is well represented by the likes of extreme Far-Right radio talker Mark Levin. Levin worked as a highly paid government employee for years, pulling down a huge taxpayer-funded salary back in the 1980s. Today, this hypocritical asswipe advocates shutting down everything in the government, except for the Pentagon. (It's nice to see Levin supporting the military now, considering that this chickenhawk never served).

Actually, there's no contradiction here, at least in the minds of the Republicans themselves.

Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives and they ferociously oppose the government helping anyone out. But that only applies to other people. Certainly not themselves.

If many of the Republicans I talk to could remake Medicare to only benefit themselves and nobody else, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

The fact is, the Republicans I've talked to are in favor of lavish, generous government spending---as long as ALL the money goes directly into their pockets---and theirs alone.

The Republicans only throw a hissy fit if anybody else is benefiting from any government program.

The fact is, Nelson's comments neatly sum up the modern GOP mindset.

NRA's Absurd Scapegoating of Violent Movies, Video Games Doesn't Hold Up to Scrutiny

By MARC McDONALD

For five days after the horrific bloodbath at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the National Rifle Association went eerily silent. They slithered under a rock and nobody heard a peep from them until Friday. The cowards even temporarily took down their Facebook page.

Finally, the NRA's head ghoul Wayne LaPierre spoke up. And in his idiotic, error-filled statement, LaPierre fell back on the one of the gun lobby's oldest scapegoating tactics. He blamed Hollywood for its violent movies, as well as video game makers. He called them "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people."

Like all the NRA's claims, though, this one doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

As film director Oliver Stone noted, Hollywood movies are viewed all over the world. And violent video games are played worldwide.

If one takes a look at Japan's culture and society, one begins to realize how idiotic LaPierre's argument is.

After all, a large percentage of the world's most popular (and violent) video games originate in Japan. So does the often hyper-violent content of Japanese manga comic books and anime cartoons. Some of the later are so blood-soaked and violent, they could never be marketed in the U.S.

Japan also has a robust film industry. And as a long-time fan of Japanese cinema, I can safely say that many of the most violent movies ever made are from Japan. A good example is the ultra-violent movie Tokyo Gore Police from 2008.

Tokyo Gore Police may well be the most violent film ever made. A jaw-dropping, astonishingly blood-soaked and hyper-violent movie, Tokyo Gore Police makes the films of controversial "bad boy" director Quentin Tarantino look tame by comparison.

In fact, as fans of Asian horror/thriller/slasher films know, many of Tarantino's films are nothing more than watered down pale imitations of the best of Asian "extreme" cinema. Tarantino rips off many of his ideas from the best of Japanese cinema and waters it all down for an American audience that, in most cases, has never been exposed to the real deal. (Films like Tokyo Gore Police, as well as the hyper-violent Japanese masterpiece Battle Royale from 2000 sadly, rarely even get a U.S. theatrical release).

Despite its sometimes hyper-violent cinema and video game industry, Japan has astonishingly little real-world violent gun crime. For example, in the year 2006, there were a grand total of two gun murders in all of Japan.

Two.

In fact, most years, gun murders in Japan range from around 10 to 20. (This, in a nation of over 126 million people). When the number hit 22 in 2007, it caused a lot of national hand-wringing about the "soaring" gun murder rate. To put that into context, though, during that same year, there were 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Of course, Japan does have strong gun regulations. Unlike in the U.S., in Japan, violent and mentally ill people can't just waltz into their local Wal-Mart and buy all the guns they want. Japan even screens potential gun buyers to make sure they're not crazy (gasp! what a radical idea!).

The bottom line is that LaPierre's claim that the problem is violent movies and not sensible gun laws ignores what's going on in the real world.

Thanks, NRA Cowards, For The Connecticut Bloodbath

BY MARC McDONALD



Thanks, NRA, for fighting any meaningful regulations that could help keep guns out of the hands of the violent and mentally ill. Thanks to you, guns can be bought in America as easily as a loaf of bread.

We also appreciate your work on ferociously opposing the Brady Bill (which Ronald Reagan, by the way, supported). Rest assured, though, despite your crazy, paranoid fantasies, NO meaningful action will be taken on guns in the aftermath of this latest horrible bloodbath.

Thanks to you, dozens, if not hundreds of more children will be brutally slaughtered in the decades to come.

The NRA truly is a cowardly organization. For example, they cowered under a rock and waited nearly five days to offer any kind of response to the Connecticut bloodbath. How chickensh*t is that? If they had the courage of their convictions, they would have spoken up sooner.

If you're sick of the slaughter, consider boycotting the companies that are affiliated with the NRA.

And consider signing this petition which aims to pressure the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns.

How easy is it to get a gun in today's America? Consider this (as noted by columnist William Rivers Pitt):

"Facts: Colorado, Oregon and Wisconsin allow guns on college campuses. Mississippi likewise allows guns on college campuses, as well as in secondary schools, polling places, churches, passenger terminals at airports, and bars. Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and Ohio also allow guns in bars. You can shoot a gun in Missouri when you're drunk, and as long as it's considered to be in "self-defense," you're within your rights. In Vermont, you can sell a pistol to a 16-year old kid. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, Tennessee and Alaska have all passed laws saying that guns made in-state are not subject to federal regulations. The Florida "Stand Your Ground" law has gotten a lot of attention after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, but 24 other states besides Florida have enacted similar laws.

A violent felon in Minnesota can regain their gun ownership rights if they successfully petition the court about having "good cause." In Ohio, a violent felon can retain their gun rights if they prove to a court that they have led a "law-abiding life." You can get your guns back in Georgia and Nebraska even if you've committed manslaughter and armed robbery, and in Montana, your guns will be returned to you if you didn't use a gun when you committed your crime. That seems to fly in the face of the old saw that says, "If you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns."