Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Baseball protest....

Page: 1 2(3)

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:26 / 29.04.03

Moderator hat: Capitalist Piglet, if you have no intention of replying to the points raised by alas and others, can I ask that you at least refrain from engaging in thread-rot? As for Haus' last post, I've moved for it to be deleted as suggested...

13:26 / 29.04.03

Yup, although from an English perspective who would like to see similar overhere but who supports such "over there"

Capitalist Piglet

13:41 / 29.04.03

It's all relative as far as I can see. We could debate all day what is left and what is right. But for any lefty or righty, there will always be someone or some ideal that is more left or more right (or more north or south if you believe that the political spectrum is more like a compass, as I do). I guess I didn't really have much of a point in showing where Hollywood falls in the politcal spectrum/compass, other than to show it. People in America are generally more conservative than our counterparts over in Europe, though that doesn't mean there aren't points we could agree on. I don't have anything else to add, I guess.

14:06 / 29.04.03

...conservative corporations do not actually like free markets. What they like are "sure things," e.g., government giveaways that benefit only a tiny, economic elite (Halliburton, and Bechtel, most recently; Enron, before that). Taking advantage of those giveaways, however, is not seen as being dependent on "big government" or as the government interfering with the free enterprise system;

Exactly. I've been referring to this as "Corporate Socialism" for the past year or so. I'll readily admit a somewhat basic understanding of economics (which may or may not be terribly flawed due to the American public school system) but what's going on in this country seems to fly in the face of everything I believe capitalism to be. Any suggestions for economics texts or resources that have no agenda nor esouse any particular system?

16:15 / 29.04.03

Any suggestions for economics texts or resources that have no agenda nor esouse any particular system?

There's no such thing.

Capitalist Piglet

16:39 / 29.04.03

Are you in college? If so, I would consider taking some economics courses. You may have to wade through your teacher's veiws (and I am sure you are smart enough to know what is fact and what is opinion), but it will give you a better understanding of some of the fundamental laws of economics. As far as books goes, I can't think of any off the top of my head (besides the obvious Smith and Marx texts). If I get a chance, I'll find some for you.

09:12 / 30.04.03

alas, you're a better person than me. And I'm going to follow your lead and try and be a better person myself.

And I should trust something from a Green Party website because???

Well, why not? Do you trust the other sources of information you look at? I'm not saying take it as gospel, but maybe don't dismiss it out of the park completely.

I don't think this subject will ever be agreed upon.
Quite possibly. And I think that's pretty cool. We can discuss why we disagree with one another and challenge one another's beliefs. Up for it?

Most of you who have posted seem to be, or have admitted to being, very very left wing, making it difficult to objectively analyze the politics of conservative America.

And if we go by this logic, do you think it's possible for you to objectively analyze "liberal America"?

Anyway, to use the "everyone I know, including republicans thinks such-and-such" doesn't hold much weight since "everyone I know" is not always going to be a representative sample of the group you are trying to define.

Hey, I agree with you. And that's why I chose that example. I used that particular example to try and illustrate the fact that you do not speak for All of Middle America. You don't even speak for all of conservative America. YOU are the one who made such statements as:

most US residents don't have much use for the commentaries of Sarandon

Once again, do you live here? I would hold a resident's opinion on this matter higher than a non-resident's, simply because they may have first-hand accounts.

And I don't think experiences as an American and in America are necessarily representative of How America Feels About X. They are only what you've experienced and seen, and you can comment on that but you can't forget that that is a small representative sample and the U.S. is a big place with lots of different viewpoints. My experience as a white girl growing up in a nice upper-middle-class suburban neighborhood in Chicago gives me a very different view of what America is like than I would have if I were growing up in Flint Michigan, or in L.A., or in Alabama. All I'm trying to demonstrate really is that you are not the voice of All Americans.

15:24 / 30.04.03

There are many Americas—perhaps as many as there are Americans. The individualism at the core of American identity cuts both ways.

There is nothing unAmerican about dissent: in fact I would argue that there is nothing more American than dissent—dissent in action, not just in theory. That is: it's easy in the abstract to tout the Constitution's guaranteed freedom of speech—but when somebody actually exercises that right, it's bound to make someone else uncomfortable.

Capitalist Piglet

16:02 / 30.04.03

I don't claim to or think that I speak for anyone other than myself. I apologize if I came across that way. I also do not feel that dissent is un-American. I DO feel people should be responsible with what they say or do while in the act of dissent (and agreement, as well). Puke-ins and caricaturing the president as a monkey doesn't really do much to help your cause, and neither does saying that Bush was ordained by God and to get the hell out the country if you don't agree with him.

16:12 / 30.04.03

Well, that's what happens when yopu open the doors to free speech: you've gotta take the bitter with the better, as my sainted mamma often sez.

Capitalist Piglet

17:04 / 30.04.03

Well, then people shouldn't get their panties in a wad when they are criticized for their poor choice of words/actions.

20:58 / 30.04.03

Capitalist piglet sez
I also do not feel that dissent is un-American. I DO feel people should be responsible with what they say or do while in the act of dissent

Interesting. The real question is what is meant there by "responsibe".

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:03 / 30.04.03

So, what you are saying is that it is a question of taste - puke-ins (really? Gosh...) are in bad taste. If Martin Sheen actually did walk around Hollywood gagged and carrying a cross, then that was incredibly tacky.

However, there is an old saying that you cannot account for taste, and I'd wager that you can't find it covered by the first amendment either.

So, if Tim robbins and Susan Sarandon had been throwing up over the White House lawn for the previous week, then it might make sense to disinvite them, or failing that to establish beforehand that they had not had lunch. However, would it not then be the case that a fellow who rescinded their invitations not on the grounds of how they might behave, but of how they had expressed themselves, and claimed that in doing so he was acting patriotically (and thus presumably in the spirit of the Constitution and its amendments) would be open to accusations of behaving in a manner decidedly without class?

06:21 / 01.05.03

caricaturing the president as a monkey doesn't really do much to help your cause

I've been trying to get that point across to various correspondents for two years now. It's dumb. When people were hollering about Slick Willy and his sleazy blowjob, we on the "left" (as if that label had any relevance) sneered at the cheap desperation of it. Why is it cricket now?

But note, Piglet, that you're not going to see much of that sort of thing here. A little bit, but not much.

06:31 / 01.05.03

Satire is of little social value, then?

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:22 / 01.05.03

Without wishing to get all "I've been saying this for yearrrrrs" - I've also always felt that making Bush's alleged lack of intellect the *primary* focus of satire or criticism is at best misguided. (At worst, it makes people think of Bush merely as a buffoon, when in truth he and his administration are a lot scarier and less funny than that.)

Satire has a place and a purpose, and there's an argument that monkey jokes aren't the most effective way to achieve that purpose. Talk about the policies or the ideology, because God knows that's objectionable enough, and that's the kind of stuff that won't be mentioned in the mainstream media otherwise.

On which note, how much does alas rule? Very much.

08:23 / 01.05.03

Puke-ins and caricaturing the president as a monkey doesn't really do much to help your cause, and neither does saying that Bush was ordained by God and to get the hell out the country if you don't agree with him.

Oh my GOD, cp, we AGREE!!! Yikes! Apacolypse soon to follow, I'm sure! That said, although I agree that neither of the above described actions do much good in furthering the support of either group, do those groups not have a right to do such things? Of course they do. I may not agree with what you have to say - I may not even RESPECT *you* (this is collective "you," not "You, CP" btw) for saying it, but I do respect YOUR right to say it.

Freedom of speech, fortunately or unfortunately cuts both ways. You and I may agree that staging a puke-in or designating Bush The Ordained One of God might be going a little too far. But our views are unfortunately subjective. And what happens when you want to shut up Ralph Nader and I want to shut up Rush Limbaugh? That's why, I think, we need to allow everyone to speak, whether we agree with what they're saying or not. The beauty of freedom of speech is that after said moron (in our subjective view) is done speaking, we can then shout, "Hey! Guess what? You're a moron!" and possibly explain why we think so, because we too have freedom to say what we like.

I DO feel people should be responsible with what they say or do while in the act of dissent (and agreement, as well).

Yes I agree again, but as sleaze said, who defines responsibility? Again, it's subjective. Some may think Sarandon and Robbins have been irresponsible in what they've said over the war. I may think W was irresponsible in calling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." I could certainly argue that the latter statement put more American lives in potential jeopardy than the statements of Sarandon and Co. and is thus more irresponsible than the other. But another person could easily argue that Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, through their actions, have "damaged the morale of the troops," thus putting more concrete lives at risk and thus more irresponsible.

So we see, it's subjective. And who decides, in terms of speech, what is responsible, and what isn't?

Capitalist Piglet

17:40 / 01.05.03

I think you guys are misunderstanding me (or maybe you do and you are referring to other people's comments). Believe me, I fully support the right to free speech because I know that denial of speech can go in any direction. I am NOT advocating censorship or that anyone does not have the right to say what they want. The debate, I guess, is whether the Hall of Fame was practicing it's own free speech or whether it was an unconstitutional form of censorship. I lean towards the former. IMO, I would have let them speak. If they said something that pissed people off, they would be the ones in trouble. By preventing them from speaking, the Hall of Fame now looks like the idiot. But hey, that's their right. I am also not saying that irresponsible speech should be banned. What I am saying is that everyone has the right to speak, and everyone has the right to refuse to listen to someone else.

at the scarwash

03:36 / 02.05.03

Well, I think that the real question is about baseball, a sport that is (for better or worse) a part of the soul of America. I know plenny a pinko commie leftist fags that love baseball. The Hall of Fame is a private concern. But if we are going to grant it status as a body that can canonize players, movies, writers, whatever, it should choose honorees in a non partisan manner. That is, if we are going to grant the Hall of Fame an almost religious status when it comes to baseball, it should represent the entire spectrum of Americans that care about the sport.

15:05 / 02.05.03

Just a thought..........does freedom of speech allow you to transmit subliminal advertising though a PA system? Or is speech only entitled to freedom when people can actually tell what you are saying?

Just a thought..........

16:31 / 02.05.03

The Supreme Court has been pretty firm about protected speech being "non-coercive" in the past.

Of course, then the question becomes what "coersion" is, and if it could extend to things like advertising.

Off the subject for a minute, there's very little science backing up the actual usefulness of subliminal advertising - it doesn't appear to work, and the much-cited study with the popcorn sales in movie theaters apparently was a hoax.

But even if it did work, it probably wouldn't count as protected speech.

Capitalist Piglet

17:25 / 02.05.03

Well if it was subliminal, how could they know it was there?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

20:56 / 03.05.03

Meanwhile, so no-one is in any doubt about who said what Celiberal handily lists every unpatriotic thought anyone in Hollywood has ever had.

at the scarwash

21:10 / 03.05.03

Oy, Jesus, why do people have to show me things like that? That's worse than a copy of the National Review. What ever happened to respectable conservatism?

13:57 / 16.05.03

the constitutional left is nonexistent. but twas ever thus.

it's depressing to hear piglet brag the erosion of civil liberties as a some sort of politicla triumph.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page: 1 2(3)