It List: Monday 9/24/07
Other than the normal Cool Out at the Cavern and Bad Azz Jazz at Amsterdam, don't see much happening today unless you're interested in checking out critically acclaimed hardcore band Modern Life is War at Red Blood Club.
Expect some locally oriented content this week.
And honestly, can you believe the way various political figures and candidates are reacting to the appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University? Are we at a point in this society where we can't even HEAR the opinions of someone else? What happened to the concepts of intellectual and academic freedom? And why are our presidential candidates required to respond to the lowest common denominator in this country every time something even the least bit offensive to ANYONE occurs (such as the Moveon.org ad for example)? Can most adults not distinguish between agreeing with someone and simply providing them a forum to speak? The Iranian government is probably one of the last in the world that I would support, but for fuck's sake, I can at least tolerate knowing that it's leader is speaking to a group of people in my country. I hope you guys can too.
Expect some locally oriented content this week.
And honestly, can you believe the way various political figures and candidates are reacting to the appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University? Are we at a point in this society where we can't even HEAR the opinions of someone else? What happened to the concepts of intellectual and academic freedom? And why are our presidential candidates required to respond to the lowest common denominator in this country every time something even the least bit offensive to ANYONE occurs (such as the Moveon.org ad for example)? Can most adults not distinguish between agreeing with someone and simply providing them a forum to speak? The Iranian government is probably one of the last in the world that I would support, but for fuck's sake, I can at least tolerate knowing that it's leader is speaking to a group of people in my country. I hope you guys can too.
posted by stonedranger at 4:20 PM
44 Comments:
so is it or isnt it meg white?
it's not. why would she be fucking a guy in a dorm room?
see also: her teeth vs. girl in the tape's teeth.
Stoned Ranger must be an enemy combatant or something. Fuckin' trrrorist..
I wish it was her, man I would love to see me same naked Meg.
WHAT about Meg White?
megs always seemed a bit skinnier to me too
Must resist temptation to google "Meg White sex tape" at work.
best quote..."In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it."
I am DJ'ing at Cool Out tonight. Stop by and say hi.
-Wanz
For the record.
I am doing a funk and soul set.
dude. totally not her. That girl is wearing one of those necklaces of her first initial, it is a "D". Plus, why would meg white do some chubby dude in his dorm room?
Not that I google image searched it but this other person I know did.
Most of the members of our government are afraid that we will find out that they aren't telling the truth when dissenting opinions are given. This is a good example as well as any sort of war or 9/11 truth protest.
Come on. Seriously.
Ryan Thomas Becker
@ Wreck Room
FREE!
Ahmadinejad rocks!
Obviously I don't agree with everything he says, but his demeanor is pretty hilarious, and there way more truth in about 3/4 of what he says than anybody wants to hear ... that's why they're so bent out of shape about it.
Why are we arresting an Iranian diplomat in Iraq who was invited over by the Iraqi govt that we supposedly support?
BECAUSE it is our moral duty as gay-bashing white Americans to make sure there is ALWAYS conflict in the region ... and of course to "protect our friends" with our lives and our dollars (i.e., the lives & dollars of the poor and gullible moral majority)
--END OF RANT--
also, Om played too long. There. Lots of controversy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
actually this sums it up.
i don't understand why the guy was denied permission to go to ground zero, or why he had to ask in the first place. how about, "yes mr. ahmadinejad, you can go to ground zero, because in our country we have you can pretty much go wherever the hell you want provided you don't bother anybody else--that's one of the freedoms we keep talking about. we won't really plan on having any big welcoming event on your behalf at ground zero, but yes in our country we have public sidewalks that you are free to walk on, and some of them do go right by ground zero. and if you do happen to walk on our sidewalks, please don't flip out at the sight of female flesh."
A free exchange of open ideas is everything this country should stand for. Photo opportunities for political purposes are not. Should the next US President be allowed to visit Abu Ghraib to demonstrate our "sensitivity" for the abuses incurred there? Most likely the answer would be no- Iraqis would find that highly objectionable. And this is not saying Abu Ghraib is in any way the equivalent of 9/11. It is good to see some part of our country for once take the high road but I am disappointed that he was not more vigorously questioned. As I am about our own government. Outside of the oil interests, the root cause of all these problems is the Palestinian problem. For those interested, check this out.
www.palestineremembered.com
But the president of Iran was NOT responsible for 9/11, while the president of the United States IS responsible for Abu Ghraib. Big difference.
And you know what-- I actually went to the palestineremembered link and took a look. It seems interesting (although hardly objective in many spots) and I'd like to read some of it some time.
However, the minute I clicked over and saw the subject matter mixed with (what I presume) is arabic characters, my initial reaction was to freak out a little-- am I on some Homeland Security database now? It's pretty sad that such a thought even entered my mind.
Palestine IS the root of all the problems.. because you know who keeps Palestine down.. everyone in the Mideast.. except Israel.. Israel wants out more then anybody.. but nobody outside of Palestine in the Mideast wants Israel out of Palestine.. so instead of sending Palestine food.. money.. services.. they send them weapons.. causing an endless loop..
Stonedranger,
8:06 here. Good point on responsibility. That's why I tried to open up the thought to the larger issue of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. Ultimately that is why I believe he was denied a public opportunity at ground zero.
8:40
If Israel wanted out, why did they allow/encourage settlements on proposed Palestinian lands? I'm not saying Israel doesn't want an end to the conflict, just that this is a curious way to go about getting it. And our own government foolishly tried to limit aid to Palestine until Hamas took over the Gaza region. When Iran stepped in to fill the void, our "diplomats" changed their tune and decided to support the current government.
I dont support anyone who supports terrrists. I think our freedoms should be reserved for those who support freedom and dont want to wipe out Jewish people and Israel and whatnot. I'm not going to willingly let someone who wishes me harm into MY house, thats just stupid.
Israel has spent the past 2 years trying to get out.. and for the past 2 years the rest of the Mideast has been sending more, and more weapons to Palestine.. the Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the american military-industrial complex need this conflict to continue..
they need people spreading propaganda that Palestine is bullied by Israel.. they don't want people to know that isralies work next to palestines, and arabs.. they want a division where people look down on either israel or palestine..
www.palestineremembered.com is equivalent of the neo-cons pushing war in iraq for the validation of spreading democracy.. it is not our job to spread freedom/democracy.. it is our job to be open to ideas.. be open to trade of goods/ideas.. and not judge either side in a conflict that does not concern us.
"But the president of Iran was NOT responsible for 9/11, while the president of the United States IS responsible for Abu Ghraib. Big difference."
in fact there is much evidence that points to our president being responsible for 9/11. building seven.
You're right, the "conflict machine, Inc." needs the continued existance of a Zionist apartheid state in the middle east, and they've done a bang-up job of fueling the extremist minority there (nothing but sizable group of self-righteous pigheads, similar to what we have here,except waaay more "entitled") through lo so many years, ironically by demonizing other racially or religiously intolerant extremist minorities along the way, ones who happen to be less white.
And, Mr. 10:44: "I think our freedoms should be reserved for those who support freedom and don't want to wipe out Arab people and Palestine and whatnot."
Billions and Billions per year can't possibly be wrong ...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3415479,00.html
1044--
Thanks for your comment. Let me point out two things:
1. Iran actually provides us with a good example of how tenuous the definition of the word "terrorist" really is. Do you know who is considered a "terrorist" in Iran? Pro Western students, intellectuals and activists who attempt to organize against the current authoritarian theocratic government. The U.S. provides tactical and political support to these groups, and has done so for a while. The Mullahs refer to these people as "terrorists" because they are non-government entities acting out, sometimes violently, against a sovereign nation state. Sounds like a group of people our government would also label as "terrorists" if only they were on the other side of the political spectrum. A similar example is the Kurd movement against Saddam in Iraq immediately following the first Gulf War, acting with the half assed support of the CIA. South American and Southeast Asia also provide countless examples of the U.S. supporting groups that clearly fit the convenient and shifty definition of "terrorist" that is currently accepted by most on the right.
2. If we are hostile to Ahmadinejad, don't we play right into his hands? If he is censored here, can't he just turn around and say "you see, the Americans don't care about freedom, they only care about themselves?" I think the most noble thing that we as a society can do is to let him come here and speak, and then shoot him down with solid, logical arguments rather censorship or force. If we don't permit him to express his views, no matter how offensive, are we not just acting out in the very same manner that we find so offensive when it is done in closed, authoritarian socities?
"Can most adults not distinguish between agreeing with someone and simply providing them a forum to speak? The Iranian government is probably one of the last in the world that I would support, but for fuck's sake, I can at least tolerate knowing that it's leader is speaking to a group of people in my country. I hope you guys can too."
Agreed, SR, but unfortunately, many adults cannot distinguish their beliefs from their belief in the freedom. I know that you know this and you were asking the question rhetorically, but letting the leader of the country next on our government's shit list to speak is obviously asking for trouble, or attention, or maybe they're truly doing it out of the depths of their hearts. "Let's let them explain themselves through their leader!" the Columbia student body replies. *The college staff member who secured the invitation high-fives the college president and his staff, as this will surely secure Columbia's place as the premier school for open dialog
and tolerance, knowing the future media blitz and controversy.*
But when every new day brings on a new headline about something Iran is supposedly doing regarding nuclear technology, whether it be for energy purposes or not, the "adults" of this country piss their pants a bit. I wanted to hear what the man had to say too, but really, what were the protesting people expecting? That he would come here, reveal all of Iran's plans for destroying the US and Western civilization, recruit some feeble minded college students and bring the US down? Get real.
So the man is ignorant enough to believe that homosexuals don't exist in Iran. Oh, ha ha ha. What a fool, we say. Parents here don't believe their kids are gay, even after their kids reveal it to them. It's proud denial. He believes things in his country are under control in the same way Bush does here. No Homosexuality = Mission Accomplished. It's all governmental showboating. People are suprised at Ahmadinejad's thoughts on the Holocoust and 9-11, but we could all discover a thousand other American conspiracy theorists sniffing in the same direction. It's garbage, and it's boring that it's an issue.
If Columbia's president did simply invite the Iranian president to chastise him and show his student body that he could academically challenge a world leader, then fucking shame on him. He's exactly the reason that that region supposively hates us. Remember diplomatic relations? Tolerance? The Melting Pot? All that shit your institutions have been feeding us for years? I still believe in it. I guess our learn'd elders have forgotten.
"You're right, the "conflict machine, Inc." needs the continued existance of a Zionist apartheid state in the middle east,"
they need the continued "appearance" of a Zionist apartheid state..
israel is not an apartheid state.. most countries are founded on the principle of 'zionism'.. in the sense they believe they have a god damn right to be there.. even though no one has the right to be anywhere..
And, oh yeah, fake Meg White and shit. I like how, even though this blog started out with political commentary, it flowed for quite a bit with constant Meg White talk and melded into political commentary again. Isn't it amazing that, because of our pop culture fascination, we can tell the difference between Meg White's teeth, and a girl that's just getting fucked on camera's teeth? Isn't subtle social commentary beautiful? Even though our blog masters start out with thought provoking current events, us posters jump straight to whether Meg White would get banged in a dorm room or not. Of course she might. Jack White can't carry her forever. Zing!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, back to the video! Where is it?!
gorilla vs. bear.com. Shelling out spy-ware since 2007.
so, stonedranger, I have a question. Is there an idea that is so ridiculous or offensive that it doesn't deserve the prominence of a university stage?
My own view is ...wait, I'm not sure. Perhaps one of the factors is the speaker. Here the man is in fact a head of state. The fact is that he is a tyrant. He stands for repugnant ideas. (I happen to think so does President Bush)Iran continues to be a human rights abuser. (I also agree with others that the US is also, look at Gitmo.)One of the costs of our recent policies is that our protests today about Myanmar appear hypocritical because of our own abuses. (This is btw a huge story, monks risking their lives to protest a brutal regime)
It's one thing to talk about censorship, it's quite another to say a University should lend it's prominence to someone that stands against the ideals of that institution.
that said, I would have voted to permit Ahmadinejad to speak, and I would have been on front with a sign protesting not his presence, but his policies.
What do you think?
"israel is not an apartheid state.."
Sadly, this isn't true. Or at the very least is completely and thoroughly and depressingly debatable.
Did you hear about the Palestinian band that played the WSJR awards?
"most countries are founded on the principle of 'zionism'.. in the sense they believe they have a god damn right to be there.. even though no one has the right to be anywhere"
Yes, it's just like the U.S. and the Native American and Manifest Destiny .... does that mean it should be condoned in any way?
Providing someone a forum to speak does not mean you have to allow a tyrant to walk freely amoung us as if to demonstrate how free and democratic we are. There are things such as television and the internet that someone can broadcast from that will reach just as wide an audience.
This is not that complicated. "Can I come to your country and speak to your people?" "NO." "Why not?" "BECAUSE YOU WANT TO CONVERT THEM OR KILL THEM ALL, DUMMY."
End of conversation.
Bill,
I see what you're getting at, and there are certain ridiculous people with certain ridiculous ideas that probably shouldn't be given a forum at a place like Columbia because they just aren't important enough to warrant attention from such an institution. However, I would say that a head of state from a state that happens to be part of what our president calls the "axis of evil," not to mention Time Magazine's "Man of the Year," is probably important enough to be given a forum at a place like Columbia as long as a free exchange of ideas are permitted.
And as far as the "censorship" issue, I probably should have been more clear. I realize of course that not allowing him to speak at Columbia would in no way amount to official censorship, but what I was referring to was the desire of our country as a whole to censor his views on a massive cultural level. What bothered me wasn't the people who were vocally opposed to his view points, but rather those who suggested that he not be allowed to express them at all.
I think Columbia had very good reason to permit him to speak and I'm glad they did. They weren't under any obligation to do so, but I think it demonstrates a basic regard for academic and intellectual freedom, and I'm pleased that those concepts mean something to someone, and I just didn't understand the "outrage" from the political establishment of both parties or the people protesting his very presence in New York.
well said SR. I think by allowing him to speak, the ridiculousness of his views was transparent.
We in this country take for granted the freedoms denied the people of Iran. People there go to prison and have been tortured/executed for actions we take for granted. When I marched against the invasion of Iraq, I had no fear of jail. (I think all my traffic tickets were paid at the time.) With all of our many flaws as a country, that's something to be proud of.
Finally, you should pay attention to those monks in Burma. What they are doing in defying the military government is something we should find awe inspiring. They are risking their lives for freedom, as we sit here at our desks.
10:43: That was my point.
Ohh- sorry. That went strait over my head. Haha.
Stonedranger you are right, you just dont understand.
Anyone hear about this thing going on this Saturday?
http://www.myspace.com/thenewcode2007
I heard about it from someone in Oklahoma. I find it strange that I found out about it from someone in another state.
Here's the transcript of the speech:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10336.htm
Just wanted to provide that in case there are any questions about what was actually said.
that didnt work
Post a Comment
<< Home