Jeremy Scahill talks about the rise of private military contractors, and how this might look for the world. The first half of his talk is mostly about Obama's challenges, while the second half's about privatization, with some deviations.
http://www.zmag.org/zaudio/2894
On DN. The Chomsky segment begins at min. 29:00. How Obama movement is illusory populist movement; Obama's appointments / Clinton presidency No. 2; more. Click here.
(The first half hour is Part 2 of Amy Goodman's interview with scurrilous terrorist Bill Ayers.)
i've been reading about the Providence, RI, underground art/music scene this weekend because of my new found interest in john dwyer of the coachwhips, pink and brown, and his most recent work with thee oh sees. it seems as though much of the most innovative and daring work in the late 90s came from a collective, now disbanded, that dwyer was a member of called Fort Thunder. pictures of the old Fort Thunder, which is now a parking lot, are here >> http://fortthunder.02909.com/gallery-00.html
an excellent short essay (with a few typos) on art, culture, commercialization of art from a former Fort Thunderer here >> http://mudboymusic.com/wunderground.htmlThe problem lies in the fact that institutions devoted to preserving and promoting documents tend to think in terms of a legacy of objects. They see their work as part of a long chain of objects, and what counts to them is things with faces attached- not events or experiences. Their world is the world of paintings, and books; manifestos and letters of intent; things to be hung up, shelved, counted, sorted and named. They draw a circle around some, and not others- giving labels where perhaps none belong- and in doing so eliminate everything contradictory, ephemeral, and fragile.from a 2006 nytimes article about a retrospective on the providence scene >>
Their imposed coherence can never do justice to something that is in fact unlimited, wild and unpredictable- something indefinitely growing and changing.
Something dangerous. This is a thing called culture- moments and shared experiences for the "us" who are watching, listening and making.
Another product of the Providence/RISD scene is Ryan Trecartin, a recent graduate of the school whose brilliant senior-year film, “A Family Finds Entertainment,” may be the apotheosis of Fort Thunder’s collage-cartoon aesthetic. It was screened at the 2006 Whitney Biennial on a small monitor near the elevator and was not widely noticed.below is the first of five youtube videos of a family finds entertainment. i think it's pretty awesome.
On Vietnam and activism today.
dn2008-1114-1
Part 1. Part 2 will "Ayer" on Monday.
Friedman admits he's fat: http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/the-end-of-the-experts/
Times retracts 5 years of reporting: http://www.nytimes-se.com/
this left me with an awful feeling, but upon further reflection it makes me feel good to know that rationale well meaning people outnumber the asshole quotient.
From a 2006 CounterPunch article on Emanuel:
What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph . . .:
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"
"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5.Sphere: Related Content
i am very interested to see the distribution in age and internet access among people who continue to believe lies about barack obama's citizenship, religion, ethnicity, affiliations, etc. i think that the existence of this group is not only a reflection of the multitude of derisive viewpoints presented online, but, more so, that some of those who end up believing lies about obama do not have the presence of mind, or perhaps the basic ability, to critically evaluate what they take in via internet media. (it reminds me of david st. hubbins in 'spinal tap' when he says, "i believe virtually everything i read.") too many people simply believe what they read online at face value, and i think this is correlated with age and internet access, to some degree. for others, the lies are just a convenient way to repackage racist sentiment or other prejudices, so those beliefs would arise regardless of being exposed to some sort of online attack.
it's remarkable what the two-party system has led to... to be a "stereotypical", or perhaps "ideal", democrat or republican a person has to have such an incredibly narrow viewpoint on myriad topics. (in my mind and in the minds of innumerable republicans, sarah palin is an "ideal" republican as far as her espoused ideology.) considering the impact of social entropy, we're only going to have more issues, more policies to consider, more problems to address, resulting in a larger variety of distinct opinions over time. how can we expect one of two parties' ideologies or its representatives to satisfy the ever-diversifying viewpoints of the electorate? it's not necessarily as if a voter would agree with republicans on 30% of the issues, and democrats on the other 70%; rather, it's more likely that some percentage of their opinion set will not be reflected by any candidate. right now, we have one more mainstream political party than a communist country -- how can we expect to have our viewpoints fully expressed in a political election process that stifles diversity of opinion?
i'm going to see naomi klein speak this friday on her latest book, "the shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism"... should be a great talk.
