[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More Music, More Politics.
- Subject: Re: More Music, More Politics.
- From: rashrwd\!/mailserv.mta.ca (Glokkenshtein)
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 12:12:01 -0400
J. rocchi wrote:
>>> 5) Catano sez :"that the populist trend is not towards cynicism or
>>> to skepticism, but to a holehearted avoindance of political matters..."
>>> Well, I don't call that holehearted, I call it holeheaded. Saying you'll
>>> avoid politics is saying like you have a note that excuses you from
>>you've just proven my point. i said that most people don't think about
>>politics. most people tend to avoid political issues and discussion.
> Which, Michael, is why we're in trouble. Is it possible that we
>might get less contemptible politicians if we started showing less contempt
>for politics ?
That is a good point; we might get less contimptible politicians if we
showed less comtempt for politics, but the case can also be made that
coruption in politics is a continuing trend - they go hand in hand, and the
reason for that is that many people SEEK power and money, and politics is a
convenient way to do so. Someone on the net said that with great power
comes great responsibility. How many politicians in power do not use that
power responsibly? Why do they not? Why does it always seem that the
people are always being shafted by the "man?" People have been shafted for
so long they have every right to show contempt. Politics would not get such
intense criticism if only it would seek the furthering of the people instead
of itself, or even if it did not hold sway over the people in any
manipulative way. People are happiest when there is not someone breathing
over their shoulder. Think about the last time you were at work and you had
your supervisor watching your every move. It was not comfortable, was it?
Read the Tao te Ching, it will explain more than I can here.
>>look at the grammy's or any reader's poll from any mainstream magazine
>>and you'll see it - we, as a culture, are completely uninterested in
>>matters current and political.
> Which is phenomenally convenient for the people who do care about
>these realms, now isn't it ?
How does that fit into the argument? I don't understand what you mean.
>>> 6) The Revolution will not be televised. It won't be on Seven-inch
>>> either. The Revolution will not be formatted for Netscape 1.1, or available
>>> on CBC Realtime. But I think it's coming. And anyone who thinks that being
>>> "Apolitical" offers immunity is gonna find out how wrong they are.
>>> "Against The Grain"
>>this is the lamest thing i have ever heard in my life. i am sitting here
>>laughing my ass off, because this is so ridiculous on so many levels.
>>firstly, your silly ranting has all the potency of a stoned out grade 11
>>schmuck in a coffee house thinking about hoe the man is trying to keep
> While I'm not stoned out, or in grade 11, I take the accusation of
>"thinking" as a compliment... you might want to try it.
This is unnecessary "flaming," and serves only to strengthen Catano's
argument about grade 11. He has thought about what he posted, and backed up
his arguments well. I'm sorry, but you should practice what you preach. I'm
not discrediting you, all parties concerned have made valid points, but that
> secondly, we live in a media controlled world. of course the
>>revolution is going to be televised, and of sourse it is going to be
>>on-line, and it always has been and always will be on 7" record. if not,
>>where is it going to come from? is the revolution going to magically
>>spring forth from you ass? is it just going to spring up out f a puddle
>>somewhere? no, of course not! like james said, music is one of the few
>>unifying forces in a world that is increasingly isolating to the
>>individual, as is television and the internet. as we as individuals
>>become more and more different, our common activities become the great
>>meeting place for the sharing of ideas. trust me, the revolution, if and
>>when it happens, will come via the media.
> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Music as it is right now, for the most part,
>is a diversion.
Let's count the number of people looking for a diversion. Catano is right
once again. When one person finds out about the "revolution," he will tell
a friend, he will tell a friend, and he will post it to Sloannet. The whole
world will soon know about it.
It will have been transmitted via the media, no?
>>you've got to use the forces and channels that exist already in order to
>>make any lasting change. you've got to change things from the inside
>>out, instea of trying to tear everything apart from the outside, because
>>face it, if you can't get work from the inside, you'r never going to work
>>at all. trying to be a radical and hardcore and shit like that proves
>>nothing, and serves no purpose except to get you branded as a radical and
>>have no one pay any attention to you at all. all major forces of
>>political reform from mandela to ghandi have been indiviuals who worked
>>their way up inside of a system and changed from the inside.
> Like Neville Chamberlain, too ? Look, work within, fine, but
>There's significant things that have to be TORN DOWN. Hard.
Why can't things be torn down from the inside out? Sure, some things need
radical change, but like I posted before, why siege a castle and bash your
head against the walls when you could have someone on the inside open the
door for you. You claim the inside as yours, and destroy the walls, then
build your own. I repeat: which is easier?
Sorry for the length.