By MARC McDONALD
MSNBC host Ed Schultz has been suspended for a week after he called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut." The episode has caused a huge uproar in both the mainstream media, as well as the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio. Ingraham herself has waded into the controversy by accusing Schultz of "misogyny."
But how many people recall back in 2005 when Glenn Beck called Cindy Sheehan a "slut"? Don't feel bad if you don't remember this. Unlike the uproar over Schultz's remark, the mainstream media snoozed when Beck called Sheehan a "slut." And of course, Ingraham was silent about her good buddy Beck's remark back in 2005.
Beck faced absolutely no punishment or reprimand for his 2005 remark. Indeed, this episode is completely forgotten today. Since then, Beck has gone on to enjoy an astonishingly lucrative career. For example, in 2009 alone, he pulled down a cool $32 million, mostly from his vast radio and publishing empire.
The moral of this story, of course, is this: if you're a Republican, you can pretty much say anything you want these days (including using violent rhetoric against Democratic politicians). But if you're a Democrat, you've got to be very careful and watch what you say---or you will be immediately punished, as Schultz found out.
It's all just another sad example of the double standard that exists in public political discourse in this country.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Newt Gingrich Borrows Chapter From Reagan's Racist Playbook
By MARC McDONALD
Like his hero, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich has become a master of using subtle racist messaging techniques to rally support on the campaign trail.
And like Rush Limbaugh, Gingrich has learned to skillfully dance around the "N" word and other racist language, without actually using overt racist language. At the same time, Gingrich uses race-baiting language that would warm the heart of any KKK member. Recall when Gingrich made his bizarre claim that President Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview?
But nowhere is this racist appeal more potent than when Republicans imply that the government is "taking hard-working white people's money and handing it out to lazy black people." Like attacks on affirmative action, this is a proven technique that rallies deluded white working-class voters to the party of billionaires in election after election.
Of course, Reagan was hardly the first racist Republican politician. But he was the first to realize that using racism to appeal to bigoted white voters works best if it is subtle.
In 1976, Reagan gave a presidential campaign speech in which he attacked a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side. Reagan never explicitly said that this "welfare queen" was black. But then, again, he didn't need to. His speech skillfully got that message across to white voters.
And it proved to be a powerful message. Many Republican voters continue to believe to this day the twisted fantasy that there are millions of lazy blacks who live all their lives off welfare. (Never mind the fact that nobody lives off welfare indefinitely, thanks to Bill Clinton's 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act," which gutted the welfare system).
Of course, tens of millions of Republican voters don't grasp this reality, any more than they grasp the reality of Global Warming or evolution.
Like Reagan, Gingrich has learned that there is no better way to rally "Conservative" white voters than subtle race-baiting propaganda techniques. He has begun attacking Obama as "the food stamp president."
True, Gingrich didn't specify that the food stamp recipients were black. But he didn't need to, any more than Reagan needed to when, in 1976, he talked about a "strapping young buck" using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store.
Of course, like Limbaugh, Gingrich vehemently denies that he is a racist. And indeed, his despicable racist techniques do raise a question: just what does it mean to be called a "racist" in 21st century America? As far as I can tell, you're not really considered a racist unless you're stupid enough to use the "N" word near a tape recorder.
And even then, it's debatable as to whether that would really hurt your career these days. Mel Gibson, for example, continues to make movies and earn multi-million-dollar paychecks. And former L.A. cop Mark Fuhrman has enjoyed a nice lucrative career, between writing books and hosting radio programs.
In today's America, if one dons a white hood and joins the KKK, they're considered racist.
And yet the subtle racist techniques employed by the likes of Gingrich, Reagan and Limbaugh are actually just as contemptible as anything that goes on at a Klan rally. In fact, I give the KKK credit for one thing: they're at least upfront and honest about their racism. The likes of Gingrich and Limbaugh are nothing more than race-baiting cowards.
Like his hero, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich has become a master of using subtle racist messaging techniques to rally support on the campaign trail.
And like Rush Limbaugh, Gingrich has learned to skillfully dance around the "N" word and other racist language, without actually using overt racist language. At the same time, Gingrich uses race-baiting language that would warm the heart of any KKK member. Recall when Gingrich made his bizarre claim that President Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview?
But nowhere is this racist appeal more potent than when Republicans imply that the government is "taking hard-working white people's money and handing it out to lazy black people." Like attacks on affirmative action, this is a proven technique that rallies deluded white working-class voters to the party of billionaires in election after election.
Of course, Reagan was hardly the first racist Republican politician. But he was the first to realize that using racism to appeal to bigoted white voters works best if it is subtle.
In 1976, Reagan gave a presidential campaign speech in which he attacked a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side. Reagan never explicitly said that this "welfare queen" was black. But then, again, he didn't need to. His speech skillfully got that message across to white voters.
And it proved to be a powerful message. Many Republican voters continue to believe to this day the twisted fantasy that there are millions of lazy blacks who live all their lives off welfare. (Never mind the fact that nobody lives off welfare indefinitely, thanks to Bill Clinton's 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act," which gutted the welfare system).
Of course, tens of millions of Republican voters don't grasp this reality, any more than they grasp the reality of Global Warming or evolution.
Like Reagan, Gingrich has learned that there is no better way to rally "Conservative" white voters than subtle race-baiting propaganda techniques. He has begun attacking Obama as "the food stamp president."
True, Gingrich didn't specify that the food stamp recipients were black. But he didn't need to, any more than Reagan needed to when, in 1976, he talked about a "strapping young buck" using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store.
Of course, like Limbaugh, Gingrich vehemently denies that he is a racist. And indeed, his despicable racist techniques do raise a question: just what does it mean to be called a "racist" in 21st century America? As far as I can tell, you're not really considered a racist unless you're stupid enough to use the "N" word near a tape recorder.
And even then, it's debatable as to whether that would really hurt your career these days. Mel Gibson, for example, continues to make movies and earn multi-million-dollar paychecks. And former L.A. cop Mark Fuhrman has enjoyed a nice lucrative career, between writing books and hosting radio programs.
In today's America, if one dons a white hood and joins the KKK, they're considered racist.
And yet the subtle racist techniques employed by the likes of Gingrich, Reagan and Limbaugh are actually just as contemptible as anything that goes on at a Klan rally. In fact, I give the KKK credit for one thing: they're at least upfront and honest about their racism. The likes of Gingrich and Limbaugh are nothing more than race-baiting cowards.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Mike Malloy: A Beacon Of Truth Against The Flying-Monkey Right
By MARC McDONALD
With his fury and righteous anger, Mike Malloy is a bit like right-wing talkers such as Michael Savage and Mark Levin.
Except Malloy is a progressive.
And he doesn't tell lies.
And he is well-informed.
And he tells the truth (unlike the right-wing talk radio hate-spewers).
Actually, come to think of it, Malloy is nothing like fascist nutbag sleazeballs like Levin and Savage. But he does get angry. And Malloy's rage has been a beacon of truth and sanity for many of us since the darkest years of the Bush era.
Malloy continues to speak Truth To Power today (even though he's had a devil of a time finding a permanent home on the radio dial).
First he was unceremoniously booted by Air America (which left a big black mark on that network in the eyes of many of us progressives). Then he lost his subsequent gig, when the progressive network Nova M folded.
In the spirit of "if you wanna get something done, you've got to do it yourself," Malloy bravely set up shop on his own a couple of years ago and is now self-syndicated.
I suppose some timid listeners will find Malloy too abrasive. But I think Malloy's hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners style is exactly what we need to counter the likes of Limbaugh and Levin. It's time we Democrats grew a pair. It's time we started fighting fire with fire. And last, but not least, it's time we started getting angry. Why, I've always wondered, is it that the Right-Wing talkers are the ones who're always angry. We on the Left have a lot more to be angry about, for Chrissakes!
And if you're a progressive, please consider signing up and supporting Malloy's program, which currently exists solely through the subscriptions of its listeners. It only costs 25 cents a day. I call that a great investment to keep Malloy on the air, spreading the truth that you will never hear elsewhere (certainly not in the corporate mainstream media).
With his fury and righteous anger, Mike Malloy is a bit like right-wing talkers such as Michael Savage and Mark Levin.
Except Malloy is a progressive.
And he doesn't tell lies.
And he is well-informed.
And he tells the truth (unlike the right-wing talk radio hate-spewers).
Actually, come to think of it, Malloy is nothing like fascist nutbag sleazeballs like Levin and Savage. But he does get angry. And Malloy's rage has been a beacon of truth and sanity for many of us since the darkest years of the Bush era.
Malloy continues to speak Truth To Power today (even though he's had a devil of a time finding a permanent home on the radio dial).
First he was unceremoniously booted by Air America (which left a big black mark on that network in the eyes of many of us progressives). Then he lost his subsequent gig, when the progressive network Nova M folded.
In the spirit of "if you wanna get something done, you've got to do it yourself," Malloy bravely set up shop on his own a couple of years ago and is now self-syndicated.
I suppose some timid listeners will find Malloy too abrasive. But I think Malloy's hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners style is exactly what we need to counter the likes of Limbaugh and Levin. It's time we Democrats grew a pair. It's time we started fighting fire with fire. And last, but not least, it's time we started getting angry. Why, I've always wondered, is it that the Right-Wing talkers are the ones who're always angry. We on the Left have a lot more to be angry about, for Chrissakes!
And if you're a progressive, please consider signing up and supporting Malloy's program, which currently exists solely through the subscriptions of its listeners. It only costs 25 cents a day. I call that a great investment to keep Malloy on the air, spreading the truth that you will never hear elsewhere (certainly not in the corporate mainstream media).
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
America Finally Got Bin Laden, But Along The Way, We Lost Our Soul
By MARC McDONALD
I was unable to bring myself to join in the recent jubilant celebration over the death of Osama bin Laden. Nearly a decade after 9/11, I can't help but think that America is a nation that has lost its soul. Once, we were the good guys in the world. Now, we're not.
It's hard to fathom how much America has changed since 9/11. We've inflicted an enormous amount of senseless damage on other nations---far more damage than we ourselves suffered on that terrible day.
Yes, "we" finally got Bin Laden. We shot dead an unarmed man. A man who was never even charged with anything, much less tried or convicted. In fact, the FBI, in its "Most Wanted" list, never even mentioned the 9/11 attacks in its entry for Bin Laden.
Bin Laden was clearly no angel. But once upon a time in this country, we considered people innocent until proven guilty. And Bin Laden is hardly the only person America has killed in recent years, without any sort of charges or trial. It's now become routine for the U.S. to fire drone missile attacks in remote Pakistan, killing people we believe are "terrorists."
And just who says these people are terrorists? The CIA?
We all know what a stellar track record the CIA has for accurate information. After all, these are the incompetents who were completely blindsided by the 9/11 attacks, the most deadly terror attacks ever launched against any nation. The CIA also signed off on George W. Bush's case for war on Iraq.
It seems to me that, for all the hundreds of billions of dollars we've lavished on the likes of the CIA, this agency has been bumbling and incompetent for many years. I'm unclear what we've gotten back for all the billions we've spent on the CIA. Certainly not national security.
I can't help but think that the CIA has been symbolic in many ways of how much America has changed since 9/11.
Once, it was unthinkable that the U.S. would officially embrace torture as a means of policy. Now, it's routine. What's worse is that, an increasingly bloodthirsty public, fueled by HateWing radio and Fox News, now supports it.
Before 9/11, the Constitution was held with reverence. Maybe it wasn't always followed to the letter, but it was still regarded as the bedrock of our democracy.
Today, after eight years of Bush, the Constitution lies in shreds. Between blatantly illegal warrantless wiretaps, waterboarding, and the "Patriot" Act, it's clear that this nation simply no longer holds the Constitution in high regard. Of course, things are better under Obama, but the damage remains.
Yes, the U.S. finally took out Bin Laden. But how many innocent people did we murder along the way? Since 9/11, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistani civilian men, women and children have died violent deaths at America's hands for no good reason.
With the death of Bin Laden, Americans proclaim that "Justice Has Been Served."
But what about justice for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghanistanis, slaughtered with American Predator drones, Tomahawks, and Hellfire missiles?
Watching the jubilant crowds celebrating Bin Laden's death frankly left me with a queasy feeling. Something, I thought, just didn't seem right. In fact, I've increasingly felt this way ever since 9/11. America is today a vastly changed place. It's no longer the America that I grew up with.
Once upon a time, the random execution of civilians without trial was something that other nations did----usually corrupt dictatorships. Torture was something that only occurred in places like Stalin's Gulags. Warrantless wiretaps only took place in totalitarian states, far away from America. Unprovoked warfare was something only other nations like Hitler's Germany engaged in.
But 9/11 changed all that.
We Americans could have responded to 9/11 like we've always done during crises in our nation's history. We could have shown the world that American democracy and respect for the rule of law is always stronger than any crisis.
But instead, America took a darker path after 9/11. In many ways, we became the bad guys.
So, yes, we did finally kill Bin Laden. But somewhere along the way, in the decade after 9/11, America lost its soul.
Update:In the piece above, I wrote: "America finally got Bin Laden, but along the way, we lost our soul."
Two days later, Michael Moore was being interviewed by CNN's Piers Morgan. Moore talked about the death of bin Laden and said, "We've lost something of our soul." In the interview, he made many of the same points I did in the article above.
Interesting. Clearly, Moore and I think alike.
I was unable to bring myself to join in the recent jubilant celebration over the death of Osama bin Laden. Nearly a decade after 9/11, I can't help but think that America is a nation that has lost its soul. Once, we were the good guys in the world. Now, we're not.
It's hard to fathom how much America has changed since 9/11. We've inflicted an enormous amount of senseless damage on other nations---far more damage than we ourselves suffered on that terrible day.
Yes, "we" finally got Bin Laden. We shot dead an unarmed man. A man who was never even charged with anything, much less tried or convicted. In fact, the FBI, in its "Most Wanted" list, never even mentioned the 9/11 attacks in its entry for Bin Laden.
Bin Laden was clearly no angel. But once upon a time in this country, we considered people innocent until proven guilty. And Bin Laden is hardly the only person America has killed in recent years, without any sort of charges or trial. It's now become routine for the U.S. to fire drone missile attacks in remote Pakistan, killing people we believe are "terrorists."
And just who says these people are terrorists? The CIA?
We all know what a stellar track record the CIA has for accurate information. After all, these are the incompetents who were completely blindsided by the 9/11 attacks, the most deadly terror attacks ever launched against any nation. The CIA also signed off on George W. Bush's case for war on Iraq.
It seems to me that, for all the hundreds of billions of dollars we've lavished on the likes of the CIA, this agency has been bumbling and incompetent for many years. I'm unclear what we've gotten back for all the billions we've spent on the CIA. Certainly not national security.
I can't help but think that the CIA has been symbolic in many ways of how much America has changed since 9/11.
Once, it was unthinkable that the U.S. would officially embrace torture as a means of policy. Now, it's routine. What's worse is that, an increasingly bloodthirsty public, fueled by HateWing radio and Fox News, now supports it.
Before 9/11, the Constitution was held with reverence. Maybe it wasn't always followed to the letter, but it was still regarded as the bedrock of our democracy.
Today, after eight years of Bush, the Constitution lies in shreds. Between blatantly illegal warrantless wiretaps, waterboarding, and the "Patriot" Act, it's clear that this nation simply no longer holds the Constitution in high regard. Of course, things are better under Obama, but the damage remains.
Yes, the U.S. finally took out Bin Laden. But how many innocent people did we murder along the way? Since 9/11, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistani civilian men, women and children have died violent deaths at America's hands for no good reason.
With the death of Bin Laden, Americans proclaim that "Justice Has Been Served."
But what about justice for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghanistanis, slaughtered with American Predator drones, Tomahawks, and Hellfire missiles?
Watching the jubilant crowds celebrating Bin Laden's death frankly left me with a queasy feeling. Something, I thought, just didn't seem right. In fact, I've increasingly felt this way ever since 9/11. America is today a vastly changed place. It's no longer the America that I grew up with.
Once upon a time, the random execution of civilians without trial was something that other nations did----usually corrupt dictatorships. Torture was something that only occurred in places like Stalin's Gulags. Warrantless wiretaps only took place in totalitarian states, far away from America. Unprovoked warfare was something only other nations like Hitler's Germany engaged in.
But 9/11 changed all that.
We Americans could have responded to 9/11 like we've always done during crises in our nation's history. We could have shown the world that American democracy and respect for the rule of law is always stronger than any crisis.
But instead, America took a darker path after 9/11. In many ways, we became the bad guys.
So, yes, we did finally kill Bin Laden. But somewhere along the way, in the decade after 9/11, America lost its soul.
Update:In the piece above, I wrote: "America finally got Bin Laden, but along the way, we lost our soul."
Two days later, Michael Moore was being interviewed by CNN's Piers Morgan. Moore talked about the death of bin Laden and said, "We've lost something of our soul." In the interview, he made many of the same points I did in the article above.
Interesting. Clearly, Moore and I think alike.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Obama's Birth Certificate Release Won't Change Birthers' Minds
By MARC McDONALD
Conventional wisdom has it that President Obama's recent decision to release the long-form version of his birth certificate will finally silence the birther crowd. After all, these are the same people who've been clamoring for years for Obama to release the long-form certificate.
However, conventional wisdom in this case is wrong. It assumes that the birthers are reasonable people, who think logically and aren't blinded by irrational hatred.
Have you ever tried to argue with a birther? If so, you'll know that these aren't reasonable people. They simply can't be reached. They suffer from what Bill Maher has described as a "cone of silence" that acts as a shield to prevent factual info from entering their brains.
These people harbor a white-hot, intense hatred for Obama. They don't care about the facts. Rush and Fox News have told them that Obama is the source of all their woes. The fact that these people are racists just intensifies their hatred of our nation's first African-American president. You'd sooner persuade a KKK member to donate to the NAACP.
I don't expect the birther controversy to go away. Fox News and HateWing radio are already spinning the story to sow doubts. Last week, Fox News ran an analysis by an "expert," who concluded that the recently released long-form certificate shows signs of being Photoshopped.
If you need any more evidence that the birther conspiracy story is alive and well, consider this: Jerome Corsi's upcoming book, Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President already ranks 44th on Amazon.com's Top Bestsellers list. The book is scheduled for release on May 17. No doubt, it will sell truckloads, fueled by the hatemongers on wingnut radio.
Birthers are like all wingnuts in that they exist in their own information bubble. They never get viewpoints outside of those presented by the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News. While the birther "controversy" has been a complete non-issue for non-wingnuts for years, it's still an article of faith among the HateWing radio/Fox News crowd.
These are the same people who fiercely reject the idea that Global Warming is real (while the rest of the world as long accepted it as the documented science that it is). In fact, these are the same people who continue to believe that Bill Clinton was somehow connected to the "murder" of Vince Foster.
Foster died 18 years ago. Yet right-wing kooks continue to sow doubts about his death. I expect the birther "controversy" will continue at least as long.
Conventional wisdom has it that President Obama's recent decision to release the long-form version of his birth certificate will finally silence the birther crowd. After all, these are the same people who've been clamoring for years for Obama to release the long-form certificate.
However, conventional wisdom in this case is wrong. It assumes that the birthers are reasonable people, who think logically and aren't blinded by irrational hatred.
Have you ever tried to argue with a birther? If so, you'll know that these aren't reasonable people. They simply can't be reached. They suffer from what Bill Maher has described as a "cone of silence" that acts as a shield to prevent factual info from entering their brains.
These people harbor a white-hot, intense hatred for Obama. They don't care about the facts. Rush and Fox News have told them that Obama is the source of all their woes. The fact that these people are racists just intensifies their hatred of our nation's first African-American president. You'd sooner persuade a KKK member to donate to the NAACP.
I don't expect the birther controversy to go away. Fox News and HateWing radio are already spinning the story to sow doubts. Last week, Fox News ran an analysis by an "expert," who concluded that the recently released long-form certificate shows signs of being Photoshopped.
If you need any more evidence that the birther conspiracy story is alive and well, consider this: Jerome Corsi's upcoming book, Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President already ranks 44th on Amazon.com's Top Bestsellers list. The book is scheduled for release on May 17. No doubt, it will sell truckloads, fueled by the hatemongers on wingnut radio.
Birthers are like all wingnuts in that they exist in their own information bubble. They never get viewpoints outside of those presented by the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News. While the birther "controversy" has been a complete non-issue for non-wingnuts for years, it's still an article of faith among the HateWing radio/Fox News crowd.
These are the same people who fiercely reject the idea that Global Warming is real (while the rest of the world as long accepted it as the documented science that it is). In fact, these are the same people who continue to believe that Bill Clinton was somehow connected to the "murder" of Vince Foster.
Foster died 18 years ago. Yet right-wing kooks continue to sow doubts about his death. I expect the birther "controversy" will continue at least as long.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Progressive Music Classics. The Dead Kennedys' "Kill The Poor"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Has any First World nation ever had more contempt for the poor than America does today?
Hating the poor has become as American as apple pie. Particularly since the Reagan era, we Americans have been taught from an early age that the poor deserve no sympathy. For a "Christian" nation, we seem to be clueless about Christ himself had to say on the subject.
What's bizarre is that many Americans, particularly the Rush Limbaugh crowd, are under this delusion that the poor are actually treated well in this country.
Supposedly, there are all these lavish, generous welfare programs out there to take care of all the poor. In fact, we Americans supposedly have such expensive programs for the poor that this is the real cause of our nation's titanic deficits.
No, not George W. Bush's $3 trillion war crime in Iraq. Not the insane mega-trillion-dollar cesspool of graft, corruption and fraud that is laughably known as "Defense Spending." Not Bush's trillion-dollar tax giveaway to the crooks on Wall Street.
No, the real reason America is going broke is that we're just too damn generous to the poor. The welfare states of Sweden, France and Germany have nothing on us.
Of course, there's only one problem.
All these supposedly lavish government welfare programs for the poor simply don't exist. Don't believe me? Ask a poor person sometime just how much he's raking in from the government. Odds are, he'll laugh in your face.
If the poor were really raking it in from lavish welfare programs, then they wouldn't be poor, would they? And the reality is that the ranks of the poor are growing rapidly in America. The current trend started under George W. Bush, (particularly after the economy essentially collapsed in 2008).
The fact is, until you've experienced true poverty yourself in America, you probably have little idea of just how much utter contempt this government has for people at the bottom of the economic ladder.
In fact, because of regressive taxes (like sales and gas tax), not only are the poor butt-f*cked daily in America, but they pay more of their income into taxes than "successful" rich people like Paris Hilton and Rush Limbaugh.
People like Limbaugh remind me of the likes of Marie "Let Them Eat Cake" Antoinette. Although the quote is apocryphal, it's clear the rich and royal leech classes in France thought everything was fine and dandy in the late 18th century. I'd suspect they were so out of touch with the peasant class that the fury of the French Revolution took them by surprise.
Despite today's widening income inequality in America, I'd suspect a lot of the rich and powerful in this country give little thought to the growing ranks of poor. And they have little idea of the coming People's Revolution that will likely result someday.
After all, history has shown time and time again what happens when the rich gorge themselves while the peasants starve. It happened in England in the 1300s. It happened in France in the 1700s. It happened in Russia in 1917.
Don't think it can happen here? If so, you're kidding yourself. After all, America was born in a revolution.
Among the rich, there are a few astute observers (like Warren Buffett) who realize the current situation in unsustainable.
When Buffett argues that rich people like him aren't paying their fair share of taxes, I'd suspect it's not because he's a big fan of paying taxes. Rather, he's an astute money man and financial genius who realizes that if America goes broke and the nation's social fabric is ripped to shreds, then the rich are going to suffer with the rest of us.
But for now, the rich in America are living the high life. And they're doing it in large part with our tax dollars (see Bush's trillion-dollar bailout of the crooks on Wall Street).
America's rich have nothing but contempt for the poor. And, thanks to their stooges like Limbaugh, they've even managed to convince a sizeable (and gullible) portion of the American people to hate poor people as well.
In this brilliant song (the lead-off track on their 1980 album, Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables), San Francisco punks the Dead Kennedys take this argument to its logical conclusion: since we Americans despise the poor so much in America, let's just kill them all.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Has any First World nation ever had more contempt for the poor than America does today?
Hating the poor has become as American as apple pie. Particularly since the Reagan era, we Americans have been taught from an early age that the poor deserve no sympathy. For a "Christian" nation, we seem to be clueless about Christ himself had to say on the subject.
What's bizarre is that many Americans, particularly the Rush Limbaugh crowd, are under this delusion that the poor are actually treated well in this country.
Supposedly, there are all these lavish, generous welfare programs out there to take care of all the poor. In fact, we Americans supposedly have such expensive programs for the poor that this is the real cause of our nation's titanic deficits.
No, not George W. Bush's $3 trillion war crime in Iraq. Not the insane mega-trillion-dollar cesspool of graft, corruption and fraud that is laughably known as "Defense Spending." Not Bush's trillion-dollar tax giveaway to the crooks on Wall Street.
No, the real reason America is going broke is that we're just too damn generous to the poor. The welfare states of Sweden, France and Germany have nothing on us.
Of course, there's only one problem.
All these supposedly lavish government welfare programs for the poor simply don't exist. Don't believe me? Ask a poor person sometime just how much he's raking in from the government. Odds are, he'll laugh in your face.
If the poor were really raking it in from lavish welfare programs, then they wouldn't be poor, would they? And the reality is that the ranks of the poor are growing rapidly in America. The current trend started under George W. Bush, (particularly after the economy essentially collapsed in 2008).
The fact is, until you've experienced true poverty yourself in America, you probably have little idea of just how much utter contempt this government has for people at the bottom of the economic ladder.
In fact, because of regressive taxes (like sales and gas tax), not only are the poor butt-f*cked daily in America, but they pay more of their income into taxes than "successful" rich people like Paris Hilton and Rush Limbaugh.
People like Limbaugh remind me of the likes of Marie "Let Them Eat Cake" Antoinette. Although the quote is apocryphal, it's clear the rich and royal leech classes in France thought everything was fine and dandy in the late 18th century. I'd suspect they were so out of touch with the peasant class that the fury of the French Revolution took them by surprise.
Despite today's widening income inequality in America, I'd suspect a lot of the rich and powerful in this country give little thought to the growing ranks of poor. And they have little idea of the coming People's Revolution that will likely result someday.
After all, history has shown time and time again what happens when the rich gorge themselves while the peasants starve. It happened in England in the 1300s. It happened in France in the 1700s. It happened in Russia in 1917.
Don't think it can happen here? If so, you're kidding yourself. After all, America was born in a revolution.
Among the rich, there are a few astute observers (like Warren Buffett) who realize the current situation in unsustainable.
When Buffett argues that rich people like him aren't paying their fair share of taxes, I'd suspect it's not because he's a big fan of paying taxes. Rather, he's an astute money man and financial genius who realizes that if America goes broke and the nation's social fabric is ripped to shreds, then the rich are going to suffer with the rest of us.
But for now, the rich in America are living the high life. And they're doing it in large part with our tax dollars (see Bush's trillion-dollar bailout of the crooks on Wall Street).
America's rich have nothing but contempt for the poor. And, thanks to their stooges like Limbaugh, they've even managed to convince a sizeable (and gullible) portion of the American people to hate poor people as well.
In this brilliant song (the lead-off track on their 1980 album, Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables), San Francisco punks the Dead Kennedys take this argument to its logical conclusion: since we Americans despise the poor so much in America, let's just kill them all.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Today's Music Selection: Japan's Masterful Psychedelic Band, The Mops
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
With the ongoing horrific crisis in Japan, that nation has been on my mind quite a bit lately. And as I've tried to steer my thoughts toward a less-depressing topic, I got to thinking about Japan's amazing popular music scene, which has long been virtually (and unfairly) ignored in the West.
As we Americans never tire of reminding ourselves, the U.S. has the world's dominant culture, in everything from cinema to music to literature. We export "culture" to every corner of the earth.
It's a shame, though, that it's not a two-way exchange with the rest of the world. By and large, Americans remain completely ignorant about the cultures of other nations. In fact, when it comes to popular music, Americans these days are completely clueless about music outside of the U.S. (Indeed, the only other country that we've ever paid any attention to, pop music-wise, is Britain).
This is a shame. Not only does this state of affairs leave Americans hopelessly ignorant about the rest of the world, we're also missing out on some incredible music.
Japan's popular music scene is, for my money, one of the most interesting and dynamic on earth. Maybe not necessarily the J-Pop teenybopper music, which clogs up the charts there. In Japan, as is the case with other nations, the really interesting stuff is what's going on underground.
The brilliant British musician and author, Julian Cope has been one of the very few Westerners to document this music scene and bring it to the attention of the West. His 2009 book, Japrocksampler: How the Post-War Japanese Blew Their Minds on Rock 'n' Roll conclusively demonstrated (at least for me) that Japan is easily the equal of the U.S. and Britain when it comes to popular music creativity.
The artists Cope writes about may be unfamiliar to many in the West, but they are well worth checking out. They include the heavy early 70s rockers, Flower Travellin' Band, the trippy and mystical Far East Family Band and the legendary Taj Mahal Travellers. For my money, the greatest of them all is the mysterious and radical Les Rallizes Denudes, whose scorching and defiantly anti-commercial sound makes the Velvet Underground seem tame by comparison.
But since I'm bummed out these days by Japan's terrible tragedy, I thought I'd serve up a uplifting tune by The Mops, one of Japan's best 1960s psychedelic bands. These guys are definitely one of the great garage bands---they equal the likes of Stateside groups like the 13th Floor Elevators. Their song, "I Am Just a Mops" (sic) was, as a YouTube commenter noted, "the reason the fuzz pedals were invented."
.
By MARC McDONALD
With the ongoing horrific crisis in Japan, that nation has been on my mind quite a bit lately. And as I've tried to steer my thoughts toward a less-depressing topic, I got to thinking about Japan's amazing popular music scene, which has long been virtually (and unfairly) ignored in the West.
As we Americans never tire of reminding ourselves, the U.S. has the world's dominant culture, in everything from cinema to music to literature. We export "culture" to every corner of the earth.
It's a shame, though, that it's not a two-way exchange with the rest of the world. By and large, Americans remain completely ignorant about the cultures of other nations. In fact, when it comes to popular music, Americans these days are completely clueless about music outside of the U.S. (Indeed, the only other country that we've ever paid any attention to, pop music-wise, is Britain).
This is a shame. Not only does this state of affairs leave Americans hopelessly ignorant about the rest of the world, we're also missing out on some incredible music.
Japan's popular music scene is, for my money, one of the most interesting and dynamic on earth. Maybe not necessarily the J-Pop teenybopper music, which clogs up the charts there. In Japan, as is the case with other nations, the really interesting stuff is what's going on underground.
The brilliant British musician and author, Julian Cope has been one of the very few Westerners to document this music scene and bring it to the attention of the West. His 2009 book, Japrocksampler: How the Post-War Japanese Blew Their Minds on Rock 'n' Roll conclusively demonstrated (at least for me) that Japan is easily the equal of the U.S. and Britain when it comes to popular music creativity.
The artists Cope writes about may be unfamiliar to many in the West, but they are well worth checking out. They include the heavy early 70s rockers, Flower Travellin' Band, the trippy and mystical Far East Family Band and the legendary Taj Mahal Travellers. For my money, the greatest of them all is the mysterious and radical Les Rallizes Denudes, whose scorching and defiantly anti-commercial sound makes the Velvet Underground seem tame by comparison.
But since I'm bummed out these days by Japan's terrible tragedy, I thought I'd serve up a uplifting tune by The Mops, one of Japan's best 1960s psychedelic bands. These guys are definitely one of the great garage bands---they equal the likes of Stateside groups like the 13th Floor Elevators. Their song, "I Am Just a Mops" (sic) was, as a YouTube commenter noted, "the reason the fuzz pedals were invented."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
How Unions Make a Nation Competitive
.
By MARC McDONALD
Note: welcome to readers of CrooksAndLiars.com.
Like Rodney Dangerfield, unions in America have long struggled to gain respect, especially since 1980. I've long been amazed at all the workers I've talked to over the years who are reluctant to support the union movement.
"Maybe unions were needed back in the 19th century era of Robber Barons," union foes argue. "But these days, unions are a dinosaur. They're no longer needed."
I've heard variants of the above argument repeatedly over the years, from both Republicans and even some Democrats. Of course, it makes no sense. It's like saying, "We already have Free Speech in America, so we no longer need the First Amendment."
Indeed, unions tend to get blamed for all kinds of ills facing present-day America. After all, wasn't it "greedy, overpaid" union members that resulted in America losing its manufacturing base?
That seems to be the Conventional Wisdom these days.
But there's only one problem. It's not only bullsh*t---it's the total opposite of the truth.
Unions, in fact, help make a nation more competitive.
Don't believe me?
Take a look at two of the most heavily unionized nations in the world: Germany and Japan. Both nations are thriving and have jobless rates far below the U.S. rate. Both nations still have large manufacturing sectors, which are heavily unionized. And both nations are exporting more than ever---even to low-wage nations like China. (Japan, for example, is one of the few nations on earth that has enjoyed a trade surplus with China much of the time in recent years).
In short, Germany and Japan are the polar opposite of the U.S. these days. While the U.S. continues to rack up record trade deficits, both Japan and Germany enjoy vast trade surpluses.
Not only are Germany and Japan heavily unionized, both nations have strong pro-worker laws that back up their labor movements. In both nations, for example, it's virtually impossible to fire full-time workers. Mass layoffs are very rare in both nations.
Every worker in Germany enjoys a minimum of six weeks' paid vacation per year. In fact the average is two months. And even in Japan these days, employees work fewer hours on average than Americans (who work the longest hours of any developed nation).
According to the International Labor Organization, "Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers."
Americans, in fact, are the most overworked people in the First World.
We're the only industrialized nation without a national paid parental leave benefit. We're the only nation without a legally mandated annual leave. We're the only First World nation with no required paid sick days.
All of this, of course, is due to the fact that organized labor in the U.S. is much weaker than other industrialized nations. In fact, unions having been going downhill since Ronald Reagan declared war on them in the 1980s.
But getting back to the original point of this article. One might ask: what does all this have to do with America's competitiveness?
A lot, actually.
It's clear that unions haven't been a hindrance to the economies of nations like Japan and Germany. In fact, it's clear that organized labor has been a key part of both those nations' success in growing their high-tech manufacturing export powerhouse economies.
If this sounds counterintuitive, consider the following question. Why has the U.S. consistently had a difficult time competing in high-tech manufacturing in recent decades? It's clear that a good part of the reason is that (unlike their counterparts in Germany and Japan), U.S. corporations have long been short-sighted.
While German and Japanese corporations typically plan decades ahead, U.S. corporations look no further ahead than the next fiscal quarter. In short, U.S. corporations have sacrificed their long-term health in return for short-term profit.
Which raises a question: why, exactly, have German and Japanese corporations consistently always planned way ahead? For example, why are both nations now working hard on industries of the future---industries that may take decades to reap financial rewards (think high-speed trains, advanced wind power, solar power and other green technologies).
The answer to this question is the fact that both nations have strong unions and pro-worker laws.
The fact that it is very difficult to fire workers in both nations seems like a recipe for economic decline. The reality is the total opposite. Japanese and German corporations plan very far ahead because they are forced to.
When it is extremely difficult to lay off staff, corporations find that they must take a very long-term view. It isn't sufficient (as is the case with U.S. corporations) to simply plan ahead for the next fiscal quarter. Instead, Japanese and German corporations must plan ahead at least a decade. And the lack of mass layoffs in both nations---which helps social harmony---is a bonus of the system.
Another advantage that unions bring the Japanese and Germans is the very fact that they work to bring generous benefits and pay to workers in those nations. When workers enjoy 6 weeks paid vacation, as the Germans do, you tend to have a workforce that isn't chronically burned out.
If you've ever driven a top-of-the-line Porsche, an Audi, a BMW, or a Mercedes, you know that the Germans make some of the highest quality products on earth. You don't get high-quality, top-of-the-line manufactured products when your nation's workforce is burned out (as most American workers are these days).
Another advantage: workforce stability, which encourages corporations to spend heavily on worker training. (U.S. corporations spend much less on training workers than Japanese and German corporations do).
True, the Japanese have a reputation for being an overworked people. But this is (at least compared to overworked American employees) an increasingly outdated stereotype. As I mentioned previously, Japanese workers these days actually work less hours than do Americans. And the laws preventing layoffs in Japan are even stronger than those in Germany.
In short, one could say that strong unions have the effect of "disciplining" corporations into taking the long-term view. Since organized labor in the U.S. is very weak, American corporations are under little pressure to look far ahead. Hence the short-sighted U.S. CEOs who only work to ensure that the next fiscal quarter is as profitable as possible.
Such short-sightedness has long been a disaster for U.S. industry. For example, Detroit's short-sighted policies have transformed U.S. automakers from a formerly world-beating industry into one that is currently only a pale shadow of its former self. Detroit's short-sightedness for example, was a disaster in the 1970s when U.S. automakers were cranking out gas-guzzling monsters that rapidly fell out of favor with consumers after the 1973 oil shocks. Detroit never really recovered.
True, there are other factors behind the strong high-tech manufacturing prowess of Germany and Japan. These include strong secondary public education, patient capital, and smart industrial and trade policies. But it's clear that unions and strong pro-labor laws play a key role, as well.
By MARC McDONALD
Note: welcome to readers of CrooksAndLiars.com.
Like Rodney Dangerfield, unions in America have long struggled to gain respect, especially since 1980. I've long been amazed at all the workers I've talked to over the years who are reluctant to support the union movement.
"Maybe unions were needed back in the 19th century era of Robber Barons," union foes argue. "But these days, unions are a dinosaur. They're no longer needed."
I've heard variants of the above argument repeatedly over the years, from both Republicans and even some Democrats. Of course, it makes no sense. It's like saying, "We already have Free Speech in America, so we no longer need the First Amendment."
Indeed, unions tend to get blamed for all kinds of ills facing present-day America. After all, wasn't it "greedy, overpaid" union members that resulted in America losing its manufacturing base?
That seems to be the Conventional Wisdom these days.
But there's only one problem. It's not only bullsh*t---it's the total opposite of the truth.
Unions, in fact, help make a nation more competitive.
Don't believe me?
Take a look at two of the most heavily unionized nations in the world: Germany and Japan. Both nations are thriving and have jobless rates far below the U.S. rate. Both nations still have large manufacturing sectors, which are heavily unionized. And both nations are exporting more than ever---even to low-wage nations like China. (Japan, for example, is one of the few nations on earth that has enjoyed a trade surplus with China much of the time in recent years).
In short, Germany and Japan are the polar opposite of the U.S. these days. While the U.S. continues to rack up record trade deficits, both Japan and Germany enjoy vast trade surpluses.
Not only are Germany and Japan heavily unionized, both nations have strong pro-worker laws that back up their labor movements. In both nations, for example, it's virtually impossible to fire full-time workers. Mass layoffs are very rare in both nations.
Every worker in Germany enjoys a minimum of six weeks' paid vacation per year. In fact the average is two months. And even in Japan these days, employees work fewer hours on average than Americans (who work the longest hours of any developed nation).
According to the International Labor Organization, "Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers."
Americans, in fact, are the most overworked people in the First World.
We're the only industrialized nation without a national paid parental leave benefit. We're the only nation without a legally mandated annual leave. We're the only First World nation with no required paid sick days.
All of this, of course, is due to the fact that organized labor in the U.S. is much weaker than other industrialized nations. In fact, unions having been going downhill since Ronald Reagan declared war on them in the 1980s.
But getting back to the original point of this article. One might ask: what does all this have to do with America's competitiveness?
A lot, actually.
It's clear that unions haven't been a hindrance to the economies of nations like Japan and Germany. In fact, it's clear that organized labor has been a key part of both those nations' success in growing their high-tech manufacturing export powerhouse economies.
If this sounds counterintuitive, consider the following question. Why has the U.S. consistently had a difficult time competing in high-tech manufacturing in recent decades? It's clear that a good part of the reason is that (unlike their counterparts in Germany and Japan), U.S. corporations have long been short-sighted.
While German and Japanese corporations typically plan decades ahead, U.S. corporations look no further ahead than the next fiscal quarter. In short, U.S. corporations have sacrificed their long-term health in return for short-term profit.
Which raises a question: why, exactly, have German and Japanese corporations consistently always planned way ahead? For example, why are both nations now working hard on industries of the future---industries that may take decades to reap financial rewards (think high-speed trains, advanced wind power, solar power and other green technologies).
The answer to this question is the fact that both nations have strong unions and pro-worker laws.
The fact that it is very difficult to fire workers in both nations seems like a recipe for economic decline. The reality is the total opposite. Japanese and German corporations plan very far ahead because they are forced to.
When it is extremely difficult to lay off staff, corporations find that they must take a very long-term view. It isn't sufficient (as is the case with U.S. corporations) to simply plan ahead for the next fiscal quarter. Instead, Japanese and German corporations must plan ahead at least a decade. And the lack of mass layoffs in both nations---which helps social harmony---is a bonus of the system.
Another advantage that unions bring the Japanese and Germans is the very fact that they work to bring generous benefits and pay to workers in those nations. When workers enjoy 6 weeks paid vacation, as the Germans do, you tend to have a workforce that isn't chronically burned out.
If you've ever driven a top-of-the-line Porsche, an Audi, a BMW, or a Mercedes, you know that the Germans make some of the highest quality products on earth. You don't get high-quality, top-of-the-line manufactured products when your nation's workforce is burned out (as most American workers are these days).
Another advantage: workforce stability, which encourages corporations to spend heavily on worker training. (U.S. corporations spend much less on training workers than Japanese and German corporations do).
True, the Japanese have a reputation for being an overworked people. But this is (at least compared to overworked American employees) an increasingly outdated stereotype. As I mentioned previously, Japanese workers these days actually work less hours than do Americans. And the laws preventing layoffs in Japan are even stronger than those in Germany.
In short, one could say that strong unions have the effect of "disciplining" corporations into taking the long-term view. Since organized labor in the U.S. is very weak, American corporations are under little pressure to look far ahead. Hence the short-sighted U.S. CEOs who only work to ensure that the next fiscal quarter is as profitable as possible.
Such short-sightedness has long been a disaster for U.S. industry. For example, Detroit's short-sighted policies have transformed U.S. automakers from a formerly world-beating industry into one that is currently only a pale shadow of its former self. Detroit's short-sightedness for example, was a disaster in the 1970s when U.S. automakers were cranking out gas-guzzling monsters that rapidly fell out of favor with consumers after the 1973 oil shocks. Detroit never really recovered.
True, there are other factors behind the strong high-tech manufacturing prowess of Germany and Japan. These include strong secondary public education, patient capital, and smart industrial and trade policies. But it's clear that unions and strong pro-labor laws play a key role, as well.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Oscars Got It Right: "The King's Speech" Towers Over "The Social Network"
By MARC McDONALD
With the Oscars upon us, I thought I'd do a review of a film that many people thought would capture the Best Picture award, The Social Network.
I simply don't understand the hype about this film and I can't comprehend how it could be considered one of the year's best.
In a nutshell, The Social Network about a bunch of privileged, pampered Harvard kids who are ruthless and who crush anyone who gets their way. Along the way, they create a company that exists solely to collect as much personal data as it can get its grubby hands on---and then turn around and sell that data off to the highest corporate bidder.
For this, Facebook gets praised as a era-defining phenomenon that is supposedly out to invent a wonderful new online world by creating this vast social network.
To which I say: hogwash. The World Wide Web itself is actually the real great social network. In the end, Facebook really adds nothing to the online experience. Some might argue that a Facebook page is easier to set up than a Web site. But this is false. Anyone can easily set up a Web site for free, with only a few clicks these days---and in doing so, you have freedom from the grubby clutches of Facebook.
The problem with Facebook is that it goes against the open nature of the Web that made the latter so successful. Facebook rejects being a part of the Web. Indeed, it wants to replace the Web. Facebook stakes its claim in an isolated community that's hermetically sealed off from the Web. Facebook basically wants to control everything (including all your personal data). And not for lofty idealistic reasons, but simply to rake in billions of dollars.
The Social Network is idealizing and over-hyping a company that has been basically extremely overrated by the gullible mainstream media. Even revenue-wise, I'd say Facebook is overrated---I'm not at all convinced that its multi-billion dollar valuations are going to stand the test of time (any more than companies that had ridiculous valuations during the 2001 Dot Com meltdown). And even as a work of fiction, The Social Network utterly fails.
Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't get into a film that has no appealing characters. Nobody in this film has a heart. Nobody seems to care about anyone else but themselves. I couldn't really relate to anyone in the movie. They're all a bunch of privileged, elitist kids who believe they are geniuses who tower over the rest of us. In reality, the only way they're "superior" to the rest of us is that they have bigger trust funds (or trust funds at all, for that matter).
Maybe some people enjoy two hours of watching egotistical jerks, scheming about how they're going to control our online lives (and sell our personal data off to the highest bidder). But the characters left me ice cold, as did the story.
Incidentally, I know a thing or two about creating successful Web properties myself. I'm a Dot Com entrepreneur who has built a number of popular Web sites. And for me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true in depicting the grueling, hard work that it takes to build a popular Web site.
For one thing, no one in this film ever seems to break a sweat. Success for the characters seems to come effortlessly. The film does a poor job of depicting the brutal, marathon, 20-hour days that one must put in to build a popular Web site. When I built my sites, I didn't spend loads of time (as the characters in this movie do) at fancy bars and nightclubs, sipping $20 martinis. The reality is a lot less glamorous.
In truth, to find success on the Web, you must spend endless hours hunched over a computer monitor, doing tedious, often repetitive work, trying to find the spark that will make your site a success. (Oh, and unlike the privileged, pampered site creators in this movie, most popular Web site builders, including myself, also worked at full-time day jobs as we built our Web sites). Life wasn't an endless series of parties, as it appears to be for the characters in this film.
For me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true. It's an overrated film about an overrated company.
Personally, I'm glad that The King's Speech took Best Picture over The Social Network. I'm not an Anglophile (and I haven't been since Tony Blair sucked up to George W. Bush) and I really don't give a f*ck about the British monarchy. But The King's Speech at least had real, flawed, human, flesh-and-blood characters with a heart (unlike the sterile, narcissistic people who populate The Social Network).
With the Oscars upon us, I thought I'd do a review of a film that many people thought would capture the Best Picture award, The Social Network.
I simply don't understand the hype about this film and I can't comprehend how it could be considered one of the year's best.
In a nutshell, The Social Network about a bunch of privileged, pampered Harvard kids who are ruthless and who crush anyone who gets their way. Along the way, they create a company that exists solely to collect as much personal data as it can get its grubby hands on---and then turn around and sell that data off to the highest corporate bidder.
For this, Facebook gets praised as a era-defining phenomenon that is supposedly out to invent a wonderful new online world by creating this vast social network.
To which I say: hogwash. The World Wide Web itself is actually the real great social network. In the end, Facebook really adds nothing to the online experience. Some might argue that a Facebook page is easier to set up than a Web site. But this is false. Anyone can easily set up a Web site for free, with only a few clicks these days---and in doing so, you have freedom from the grubby clutches of Facebook.
The problem with Facebook is that it goes against the open nature of the Web that made the latter so successful. Facebook rejects being a part of the Web. Indeed, it wants to replace the Web. Facebook stakes its claim in an isolated community that's hermetically sealed off from the Web. Facebook basically wants to control everything (including all your personal data). And not for lofty idealistic reasons, but simply to rake in billions of dollars.
The Social Network is idealizing and over-hyping a company that has been basically extremely overrated by the gullible mainstream media. Even revenue-wise, I'd say Facebook is overrated---I'm not at all convinced that its multi-billion dollar valuations are going to stand the test of time (any more than companies that had ridiculous valuations during the 2001 Dot Com meltdown). And even as a work of fiction, The Social Network utterly fails.
Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't get into a film that has no appealing characters. Nobody in this film has a heart. Nobody seems to care about anyone else but themselves. I couldn't really relate to anyone in the movie. They're all a bunch of privileged, elitist kids who believe they are geniuses who tower over the rest of us. In reality, the only way they're "superior" to the rest of us is that they have bigger trust funds (or trust funds at all, for that matter).
Maybe some people enjoy two hours of watching egotistical jerks, scheming about how they're going to control our online lives (and sell our personal data off to the highest bidder). But the characters left me ice cold, as did the story.
Incidentally, I know a thing or two about creating successful Web properties myself. I'm a Dot Com entrepreneur who has built a number of popular Web sites. And for me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true in depicting the grueling, hard work that it takes to build a popular Web site.
For one thing, no one in this film ever seems to break a sweat. Success for the characters seems to come effortlessly. The film does a poor job of depicting the brutal, marathon, 20-hour days that one must put in to build a popular Web site. When I built my sites, I didn't spend loads of time (as the characters in this movie do) at fancy bars and nightclubs, sipping $20 martinis. The reality is a lot less glamorous.
In truth, to find success on the Web, you must spend endless hours hunched over a computer monitor, doing tedious, often repetitive work, trying to find the spark that will make your site a success. (Oh, and unlike the privileged, pampered site creators in this movie, most popular Web site builders, including myself, also worked at full-time day jobs as we built our Web sites). Life wasn't an endless series of parties, as it appears to be for the characters in this film.
For me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true. It's an overrated film about an overrated company.
Personally, I'm glad that The King's Speech took Best Picture over The Social Network. I'm not an Anglophile (and I haven't been since Tony Blair sucked up to George W. Bush) and I really don't give a f*ck about the British monarchy. But The King's Speech at least had real, flawed, human, flesh-and-blood characters with a heart (unlike the sterile, narcissistic people who populate The Social Network).
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Sarah Palin Reveals Hypocrisy In Wisconsin Union Debate
By MARC McDONALD
Perhaps it was inevitable, but Sarah Palin has finally waded into the Wisconsin union controversy. But her comments have only revealed her ignorance and hypocrisy on the union debate.
As she has constantly pointed out, Palin's family has long had union connections. Her husband, Todd, was a long-time United Steelworkers union member, enjoying a nice salary and generous union benefits. (For example, Todd Palin earned $102,716 in 2006, working for BP, as a union member).
Clearly, the Palin family has long enjoyed the benefits of union membership. But instead of doing anything to help unions in return, all Palin has done is try to exploit her family's union ties in an effort to boost her political standing with union members.
In short, Palin has cynically used organized labor as nothing more than a prop (just as George W. Bush often used the military as a prop, in publicity photos, to further his own career).
On Friday, Palin waded into the Wisconsin union debate, with a typically ignorant and ill-informed Facebook post. In her post, Palin managed to simultaneously try to polish her labor credentials, even as she blasted the Wisconsin public employee union and urged its members to break away from their leadership.
In other words, while sucking up to the union members (even repeatedly addressing them as "brothers and sisters") Palin secretly pulled out a knife and stuck it in the back of the union workers. She must think these people are really stupid.
Union members must "sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin wrote.
Ho, hum.
Palin is nothing is not predictable in her comments. And she's also dishonest. Her buddies like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never address union members as "brothers and sisters." At least Limbaugh and Hannity are being honest in their open contempt for organized labor.
Palin tries to have it both ways. Her husband enjoyed a nice, well-paid union job. She then uses this fact to try to bolster her cred with union members. And then, at the same time, she embraces the extreme far-right policies of today's GOP: a party that has a pathological hatred of unions and seeks to abolish them completely.
In 2008, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard got so sick of Palin's hypocrisy on unions that he blasted her "worker-savaging positions" in a statement and called upon her to stop using her husband's union membership as a "prop."
Indeed, Palin's 2008 running mate, John McCain, has had a long history of extreme hostility toward unions. In 2007, he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, for example. In 1994, he also voted against a bill protecting discrimination against workers who go on strike.
But for all her professed love of her union "brothers and sisters," Palin apparently believes they're so stupid that they'd support a fire-breathing, far-right extremist like her.
And it's easy for Palin to ask that the Wisconsin union members accept "sacrifices" and tighten their belts. After all, this is a woman who has made an enormous fortune since she quit as Alaska's governor. In a mere 9 months after she quit, Palin raked in an incredible $12 million.
Yet she insists that the Wisconsin union members need to "sacrifice."
Perhaps it was inevitable, but Sarah Palin has finally waded into the Wisconsin union controversy. But her comments have only revealed her ignorance and hypocrisy on the union debate.
As she has constantly pointed out, Palin's family has long had union connections. Her husband, Todd, was a long-time United Steelworkers union member, enjoying a nice salary and generous union benefits. (For example, Todd Palin earned $102,716 in 2006, working for BP, as a union member).
Clearly, the Palin family has long enjoyed the benefits of union membership. But instead of doing anything to help unions in return, all Palin has done is try to exploit her family's union ties in an effort to boost her political standing with union members.
In short, Palin has cynically used organized labor as nothing more than a prop (just as George W. Bush often used the military as a prop, in publicity photos, to further his own career).
On Friday, Palin waded into the Wisconsin union debate, with a typically ignorant and ill-informed Facebook post. In her post, Palin managed to simultaneously try to polish her labor credentials, even as she blasted the Wisconsin public employee union and urged its members to break away from their leadership.
In other words, while sucking up to the union members (even repeatedly addressing them as "brothers and sisters") Palin secretly pulled out a knife and stuck it in the back of the union workers. She must think these people are really stupid.
Union members must "sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin wrote.
Ho, hum.
Palin is nothing is not predictable in her comments. And she's also dishonest. Her buddies like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never address union members as "brothers and sisters." At least Limbaugh and Hannity are being honest in their open contempt for organized labor.
Palin tries to have it both ways. Her husband enjoyed a nice, well-paid union job. She then uses this fact to try to bolster her cred with union members. And then, at the same time, she embraces the extreme far-right policies of today's GOP: a party that has a pathological hatred of unions and seeks to abolish them completely.
In 2008, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard got so sick of Palin's hypocrisy on unions that he blasted her "worker-savaging positions" in a statement and called upon her to stop using her husband's union membership as a "prop."
Indeed, Palin's 2008 running mate, John McCain, has had a long history of extreme hostility toward unions. In 2007, he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, for example. In 1994, he also voted against a bill protecting discrimination against workers who go on strike.
But for all her professed love of her union "brothers and sisters," Palin apparently believes they're so stupid that they'd support a fire-breathing, far-right extremist like her.
And it's easy for Palin to ask that the Wisconsin union members accept "sacrifices" and tighten their belts. After all, this is a woman who has made an enormous fortune since she quit as Alaska's governor. In a mere 9 months after she quit, Palin raked in an incredible $12 million.
Yet she insists that the Wisconsin union members need to "sacrifice."
Friday, February 18, 2011
Music To Resist Union Bashing: "Fight the Power"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
These days, the GOP is finally implementing the agenda that they've planned all along: to completely and totally crush organized labor in the U.S. They won't be satisfied until they've abolished every union in the country once and for all. It's all-out war on the working class.
I'm not sure that Public Enemy's classic, "Fight the Power" has anything to do with unions or organizing. But I do know that it's an extraordinarily angry (but understandably so) anthem from the Golden Age of Hip-Hop, recorded before that genre turned into a apathetic, predictable celebration of all things "bling-bling" and narcissism. It's a call to street action: which is precisely what we need now. Facebook petitions will only get you so far.
Back in the day, Public Enemy's righteous angry raps took on the Powers That Be, which made the band dangerous in a way that corporate sell-outs like Eminem can only dream of.
"Fight the Power," featured here with the brilliant opening credits to Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, kicked off one of the best films of the 1980s.
With the GOP cracking down on the working class, it's now time to get angry. Unless we all take to the streets and Fight The Power, we will eventually have no rights at all (except the right to starve to death as the economic serfs of fascist corporate America).
.
By MARC McDONALD
These days, the GOP is finally implementing the agenda that they've planned all along: to completely and totally crush organized labor in the U.S. They won't be satisfied until they've abolished every union in the country once and for all. It's all-out war on the working class.
I'm not sure that Public Enemy's classic, "Fight the Power" has anything to do with unions or organizing. But I do know that it's an extraordinarily angry (but understandably so) anthem from the Golden Age of Hip-Hop, recorded before that genre turned into a apathetic, predictable celebration of all things "bling-bling" and narcissism. It's a call to street action: which is precisely what we need now. Facebook petitions will only get you so far.
Back in the day, Public Enemy's righteous angry raps took on the Powers That Be, which made the band dangerous in a way that corporate sell-outs like Eminem can only dream of.
"Fight the Power," featured here with the brilliant opening credits to Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, kicked off one of the best films of the 1980s.
With the GOP cracking down on the working class, it's now time to get angry. Unless we all take to the streets and Fight The Power, we will eventually have no rights at all (except the right to starve to death as the economic serfs of fascist corporate America).
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wisconsin Workers, Remember: "There Is Power In A Union"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
As the workers in Wisconsin stand up for their rights, I thought I'd serve up some classic labor music that has inspired me over the years. Although many of us can't be in Wisconsin at the moment, we're definitely with the workers there (and everywhere) in spirit.
In 1986, Britain's Billy Bragg served up his take on the traditional worker's anthem in this track from his classic album, Talking with the Taxman About Poetry.
I saw Bragg in concert back in 1986 at a small club on Greenville Avenue in Dallas. It was a no-frills show: just one man and his guitar--but Bragg held the audience spellbound. It was a welcome tonic for us workers back during the dark, gloomy days of the Reagan era.
There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hands of a worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a union
Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses' way, sir
The union forever, defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union
Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws can not defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackies out to cheat us?
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union
The union forever defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
As the workers in Wisconsin stand up for their rights, I thought I'd serve up some classic labor music that has inspired me over the years. Although many of us can't be in Wisconsin at the moment, we're definitely with the workers there (and everywhere) in spirit.
In 1986, Britain's Billy Bragg served up his take on the traditional worker's anthem in this track from his classic album, Talking with the Taxman About Poetry.
I saw Bragg in concert back in 1986 at a small club on Greenville Avenue in Dallas. It was a no-frills show: just one man and his guitar--but Bragg held the audience spellbound. It was a welcome tonic for us workers back during the dark, gloomy days of the Reagan era.
There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hands of a worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a union
Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses' way, sir
The union forever, defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union
Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws can not defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackies out to cheat us?
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union
The union forever defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
