Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites

See UPDATE, appended.
------------------

FOXNews.com - Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites

The relevant quotes:

You're unlikely to find CDs by groups like Skrewdriver and Brutal Attack sold alongside the latest hits from Rihanna and the Jonas Brothers at your local retailer.

But the white-power punk bands' ballads are just a click away online.
...
But there is a market for it — which leads to the question of whether online music retailers should screen what they sell, or if it should be up to the buyer to decide what's suitable.
...
"If you're going to be able to carry that hard-core Marxist stuff, what is the problem with someone saying, 'White pride, worldwide?'" Schoep asked.
...
Nora Flanagan, a spokeswoman for the activist group Turn It Down, which lobbies against objectionable music, said the companies have every right — and a social obligation — to remove the songs from being sold on their sites.
...
"It's absolutely their right to sell it," she said, "but it could be their choice not to — if they wanted to take a stand on it."
...
Chris Kennedy, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, said the term censorship is "thrown around" too loosely.

"Censorship should only be applied when the government tries to censor someone," he said. "Otherwise, we're just talking about the choices that entrepreneurs and businesses make in a free society. When companies decide they're not going to accept their product, that's not censorship — that's just choices that they make."

First off, the last bit from the gentleman from the Cato Institute, reminds me of what I said back in April, 2007 about Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market. It isn't censorship or a violation of anyone's free speech rights, unless it is done by a government entity. When a tv or radio station fires a member of their on air talent, or a music outlet chooses not to carry a particular group's music, no one is being censored--even if they do so because they object to something the on air person or musical group said. When the government comes in and arrests the on air talent for something s/he said, or confiscates the group's recordings because of lyrical content, THAT'S censorship.

I think online & brick & mortar music retailers ought to consider screening their offerings for content. I also think that if you believe they've mishandled an artist--either by offering the music when you think they should not, or by removing an artist you think should be available--you need to speak up, and be willing to shop elsewhere if they consistently don't see it your way. I've always been a big fan of shopping your values, and believe that when a lot of individuals are willing to write companies and buy products that in some way reflect the values of the society they want to live in, things can change.

The only thing that worries me is that music retailers will play it safe, and controversial music of any kind will be harder to find. While I agree with retailers removing Neo-Nazi white power music, I'd be quite sad if humorless Christianists were to scare them away from offering Monty Python's The Life of Brian, or the right complained about "commie folk singers" like Pete Seeger or something. Were things to really go bad, we could end up with nothing but a steady diet of the most vanilla pop stars, and if the Victorian era prudes had their way, even they would lose any hint of sexual appeal.

I have high hopes however, that there are enough heathens, Stalinist nihilists, and perverts--but not enough black/white/brown/??? racists [changed from "neo-Nazis" at UPDATE]--to curtail sales of the truly dangerous music being sold, but leave a little spice... But we should watch it, just in case...
--------
UPDATE: While a little odd, my first commenter -anonymous- makes a good point. It isn't only white power music that's racist or otherwise objectionable, even to me. If thug rap or socialist folk or Christian/anti-Christian music offends you, by all means speak up and refuse to do business with those outlets that continue to sell that offensive crap (whatever you determine "that offensive crap" to be).

Bill O'Reilly: The Remix

I'm sure by now you've seen the Bill O'Reilly insane rant over his not being able to understand his own teleprompter...

But have you seen the parodies & remixes?:





I particularly dig the music video...

John Gibson: Heartless scumbag (with audio)

Fox News' John Gibson calls Jon Stewart a phony after mocking his post-9/11 return to air comments and show of emotion. What kind of a heartless bastard does one have to be to make fun of another person's grief? I never had much respect for this guy in the first place... ...but now I have even less. Follow the link for the audio...

read more | digg story

Here's a link to a video of the original show opening, September 20, 2001. Have tissues handy (unless you're more the heartless Gibson type...)



I suggest watching the video, particularly if you've never seen it. (I hadn't, until tonight.) The transcript doesn't do it justice:

September 20, 2001

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Show. We are back. This is our first show since the tragedy in New York City and there is really no other way to start the show then to ask you at home the question that we asked the audience here tonight and that we’ve asked everybody we know here in New York since September 11, and that is, "Are you okay?" And we pray that you are and that your family is.

I'm sorry to do this to you. It's another entertainment show beginning with an overwrought speech of a shaken host--and television is nothing if not redundant. So I apologize for that. Its something that, unfortunately, we do for ourselves so that we can drain whatever abscess is in our hearts and move on to the business of making you laugh, which we haven’t been able to do very effectively lately. Everyone has checked in already. I know we are late. I’m sure we are getting in just under the wire before the cast of Survivor offers their insight into what to do in these situations. They said to get back to work. There were no jobs open for a man in the fetal position under his desk crying. . . which I gladly would have taken. So I come back here and tonight’s show is not obviously a regular show. We looked through the vault and found some clips that we think will make you smile, which is really what’s necessary, I think, right about now.

A lot of folks have asked me, "What are you going to do when you get back? What are you going to say? I mean, jeez, what a terrible thing to have to do." And you know, I don’t see it as a burden at all. I see it as a privilege. I see it as a privilege and everyone here does. The show in general we feel like is a privilege. Even the idea that we can sit in the back of the country and make wise cracks. . . which is really what we do. We sit in the back and throw spitballs--but never forgetting that it is a luxury in this country that allows us to do that. That is, a country that allows for open satire, and I know that sounds basic and it sounds like it goes without saying. But that’s really what this whole situation is about. It’s the difference between closed and open. The difference between free and. . . burdened. And we don’t take that for granted here, by any stretch of the imagination. And our show has changed. I don’t doubt that. And what it has become I don’t know. "Subliminible" is not a punchline anymore. Someday it will become that again, Lord willing it will become that again, because it means that we have ridden out the storm.

The main reason that I wanted to speak tonight is not to tell you what the show is going to be, not to tell you about all the incredibly brave people that are here in New York and in Washington and around the country, but we’ve had an unenduring pain, an unendurable pain and I just. . . I just wanted to tell you why I grieve--but why I don’t despair. (choking back tears) I’m sorry. . . (chuckles slightly) luckily we can edit this. . . (beats lightly on his desk, collects himself).

One of my first memories was of Martin Luther King being shot. I was five and if you wonder if this feeling will pass. . . (choked up). . . When I was five and he was shot, this is what I remember about it. I was in school in Trenton and they turned the lights off and we got to sit under our desks. . . and that was really cool. And they gave us cottage cheese, which was a cold lunch because there were riots, but we didn’t know that. We just thought, "My God! We get to sit under our desks and eat cottage cheese!" And that’s what I remember about it. And that was a tremendous test of this country's fabric and this country has had many tests before that and after that.

The reason I don’t despair is that. . . this attack happened. It's not a dream. But the aftermath of it, the recovery, is a dream realized. And that is Martin Luther King's dream.

Whatever barriers we put up are gone. Even if it's just momentary. We are judging people by not the color of their skin, but the content of their character. (pause) You know, all this talk about "These guys are criminal masterminds. They got together and their extraordinary guile and their wit and their skill. . ." It's all a lie. Any fool can blow something up. Any fool can destroy. But to see these guys, these firefighters and these policemen and people from all over the country, literally with buckets, rebuilding. . . that’s extraordinary. And that's why we have already won. . . they can't. . . it's light. It's democracy. They can't shut that down.

They live in chaos. And chaos, it can't sustain itself--it never could. It's too easy and it's too unsatisfying. The view. . . from my apartment. . . (choking up) was the World Trade Center. . .

Now it's gone. They attacked it. This symbol of. . . of American ingenuity and strength. . . and labor and imagination and commerce and it's gone. But you know what the view is now? The Statue of Liberty. . . the view from the south of Manhattan is the Statue of Liberty. . .

You can’t beat that. . .

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part 1

In the beginning was Bill O'Reilly, and he was bad. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. (If I'm not mistaken, that's one "bad" for every segment Bill O'Reilly has done on Shawn Hornbeck to date. It's close, anyway...) If you are unfamiliar with the story, or are interested in finding more bits I've written about Billo's treatment of Shawn, follow them links & don't skimp on the "comments" sections...

Then one morning whilst doing a search, I came across WorldNetDaily: In defense of Bill O'Reilly, by ILANA MERCER. While I generally wouldn't bother reading anyone who writes for WorldNetDaily, I was interested in reading the first, and as yet only, person write, speak, or otherwise communicate in support of the thoughts Falafel Bill offered about Shawn Hornbeck on tv & radio. (To my knowledge, rumors of an interpretive dance in support of O'Reilly are unfounded.) As you may've guessed--particularly if you read Ms. Mercer's piece--I did not find myself agreeing with much of anything she offered in her defense of Bill. And, noting that she also had a blog on which she'd posted portions of the Worldnet article, I set out to offer another side.

Noting the rules,

Barely A Blog is private property. Posts are published at the discretion of the proprietor. The forum is moderated and missives edited for style and taste. Please keep comments concise (200 words, at most), run a spell check, and try as best as possible to be grammatical.

and knowing that what I wanted to say might not pass muster, I offered a very quick "test post." I said,

May you never be a victim.
But if you are, may you find more compassion in others than you possess in yourself.

Please seek spiritual guidance and reclaim your heart.

To my utter surprise, it appeared on the blog a few hours later. On it Ilana had added the following, in brackets & bold print that clearly identified it from my own,

[How do you know i have not been a victim? Yes, ass-uming again…]

I was perplexed. Curious, I replied

I “ass-umed” nothing. My wish for you never to be a victim addressed your future. I made no statement about your past, either way. For the record, I hope you never WERE a victim, either, but I’ve no way of knowing.

And seeing as how we’ve never spoken before, I also wonder why you claimed I was “ass-uming again”.

(Nitpicky, I know, but as a writer, I would hope you appreciate the need for careful wording in order to convey specific meaning.)

Thank you for posting my first comment (& hopefully this one, as well.) I am generally suspicious of blogs who edit for content prior to allowing a comment to appear. It often ends up that only those who’s comments are complimentary ever see the light of day, manufacturing a false impression that there is little or no dissent with the official blog position. I find that a coward’s way of winning an argument. I hope to find you feel the same.

When this comment appeared, it contained the following comment, as regards my "ass-uming" questions.

[I was referring to the general habit of assuming or asserting with no prior knowledge, which is a habit I encounter in many interlocutors these days. I am in the process of updating this blog post with a comment I hope you will ponder and address. So please check back]

To my thank you, she replied:

[Sure.]

So far, so good. In the meantime, comments were showing up from other readers. As I read them, it became all too clear I was not amongst friends... ...or sane persons. I note here that Ilana added none of her own bold, bracketed "words of wisdom" to either of these posts. One is left to assume she read 'em, approved of their content (& whatever else she looks for prior to permitting others to speak on her blog) and sent 'em on through... Two excerpts, from two different contributors (Same blog as before.):

Shawn’s life is what many children no doubt dream about - sort of like “Treasure Island” - going off on a ship and just playing games day and night.
===============
I’m amazed that O’Reilly had taken this position. This is a man who agrees with the likes of Susan Estrich and Wendy Murphy that young men under age 18 are too young and innocent to consent to or knowingly initiate sex with adult females, describes such affairs as “rape” and “child molestation,” and believes the “victims” are “traumatized.”

Raise your hand if you're a little frightened.
Me, too.

My third offering to Ms. Mercer's blog:

Wow…
Reading through the comments posted thus far… I’m almost at a loss for words.
“Treasure Island”?!? “…going off on a ship & playing games day and night”?
Am I misreading Michael’s comment, or is he advocating in favor of some kinda NAMBLA offshoot for women, where having sex with boys isn’t a crime, but a loving and beautiful act for all involved?

Forgive me for being a little bewildered, but the thinking expressed here is very new to me.
Are children just tiny adults to you folks? Are they just as capable of making decisions as you and I, intellectually or emotionally? Is there even any such thing as emotional development, or is that just more psychological claptrap? Should the actions of children be judged by adult standards, or are children… well… children? Is any psychological condition legitimate, or is it all–if you’ll forgive the expression–crazy talk?

And Ilana... Might it be fair to suggest that it wasn't me "ass-uming" anything in our first encounter, but you...?

I intend to get more involved with specific portions of both the original piece and the update, but fear that to begin in this comment box will put me over the posted word count.

This post also appeared, but Ilana chose to remove the line suggesting that she had made the assumption. (Too snarky? Too accurate? Perhaps we'll never know... I sent her an e-mail wondering why, but there has been no reply.)

But added comment? You bet there was... Ilana said:

[Thanks for your contribution. Indignant huffing and puffing does nothing to discredit opposing views—and almost always conceals straw arguments. I have never said children are, developmentally, miniature adults. They are not. But neither are they amebas. To follow your determinism, one might as well not impart any direction or moral instruction to a child, because he is incapable of so much as calling home if lost. My perspective arises from a non-deterministic view of human beings. You might want to read up a bit also on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—the real deal, not the version the public has been brainwashed by. Thanks. —ILANA]

I shall end here, and resume this exciting adventure in a post in the near future. (Taking no chances on the possibility that some other topic may strike, and occupy the "next post." For the record, I have no other family or friends expecting a baby, so I think it'll be safe to assume part two will be next, but... 8>)

Moderation is for monks... ...and cowards.

It's happened again. This time two whole comments offered to Ilana Mercer's Barely A Blog disappeared after being submitted. (At this moment, two others are awaiting her approval. I can only hope they will make it through the process, and as written.)

As I said before, I think that many of the folks who feel the need to vet other's contributions to their blogs, yahoo/google/??? groups, & whatever else, turn out to be cowards. They want to spout their opinions, but prefer not to have to defend them. Those submissions that parrot the owner's views appear, and those that present an opposing view either lose salient points, or vanish into the internet aether, never to be seen. (Experience has taught me to keep copies, especially when dealing with moderated blogs. I'm not a speedy writer--I think I'm too critical of my own words, & thus spend way too much time rejiggering sentences & paragraphs--and to have all that time & toil just disappear because some disagreeable soul doesn't want to be contradicted on his/her blog really pisses me off.)

It's not as though a blog/group owner cannot delete off-topic or commercial posts or those that would likely offend the sensibilities of their readers, after the fact. (Blogs written for young children or God-fearing church folk chock full of "motherfuckin' bad language", ads for tampons, or death metal concert reviews don't fly with much of anyone. By contrast, blogs written for death metal heads have no need of the sermons of God-fearing church folk or the nursery rhymes of children. If there's a blog audience anywhere in need of tampon ads, I am thankfully unfamiliar with it.) My point is, there is little reason to moderate before the fact, as one can do so as problems arise. To treat everyone as though they are going to offend (or be off-topic, or post advertising) until they prove otherwise, doesn't fit in with my ideas of innocence & guilt, and makes me wonder a bit about the moderator. All this said, moderating for advertising, off-topic posting, & bad language is far preferable to moderating for intellectual content, as Ms. Mercer and others do.

I believe there's no reason for me to submit to Ms. Mercer's version of my posts, particularly when I have my own all-too-seldom-used blog. Should she choose to grace us with her presence, her posts will be welcome, and appear as written, even if she chooses to explain in detail just how far up my ass she believes I ought to shove the broomstick. Should she post a coupon good for 50% off her favorite brand of napkins, however, I can't promise I'll allow it to stay on my blog (though it will appear, initially)... A fella's got to have some standards...

So, beginning with my next post, and for as long as it takes, I will offer the saga of my one man odyssey into the classical liberal world of Ilana Mercer, focusing on her daring defense of Bill O'Reilly , and all that followed. Nothing will be held back, and all are welcome to join in and comment.

Book Revue & Bias

One of the best independent bookstores on Long Island has just lost my business...

A few years ago, I began to notice that they hosted more rightwing authors than leftwing ones. At first, I thought it was a fluke... Perhaps no liberal author wrote a book the same month Bernie Goldberg released Bias...
Maybe Jim Hightower wasn't doing a book tour for Theives in High Places...
But gradually, I came to realize that month after month, there were more rightwing authors showing up at Book Revue than those from the left.

So, about a year ago, I sent them an e-mail letting them know I'd noticed this trend, and requesting that they do something to set my mind at ease... Have more authors from across the social & political spectrum (preferable) or host less from the right. In short, show me that this wasn't intentional...

I got no response to my e-mail. Not only didn't they respond directly, nothing changed as regards the authors doing the appearances. Hannity has had a signing for every one of his books, and also shows up to help sell the books of others he supports, like Goldberg, above. O'Reilly. E.D. Hill. Pat Buchanan. And the final straw, at least for me, Ann Coulter (again, with Hannity, who even did a live broadcast from my formally beloved bookstore.)

So, with sadness in my heart, I bid farewell to my bookstore, by sending them this email last night:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In honor of yet another appearance by Fox News (Hannity, together with Ann Coulter, this time), I hereby revoke my patronage of your establishment.

I was a resident of Huntington from 1969 through 1996, and spent many hours and a good chunk of money in your store in the late 70s & throughout the 80s. One of my good friends, Jeff B, was an employee of yours. I worked in Chartiers, right behind your building. (I also spent a lot of time in Oscars, but preferred your store.) In the last few years, I've occasionally driven in from Mastic to shop in your store (it is among the best independent bookshops on Long Island, and my politics urges me to spend my money in line with my values--including my disdain for the big boxes that're slowly destroying our local main street businesses.) I even have a frequent buyer card, even though I don't spend nearly the time or money in your shop that I used to.

It was that history, along with your selection & status as an independent, that allowed me to forgive your seeming penchant for hosting right-wing authors a good deal more often than similarly prominent authors from the left. Hannity (HOW many times can this guy appear?), O'Reilly, ED Hill, The Bias guy, Pat Buchanan... ...and the list goes on, I'm sure... (I'm going from memory...)

In a similar period, you've had Amy Goodman, & (perhaps) Al Franken. I'm sure I'm missing a liberal or two from the last 5 years, but the number has got to be half that of conservative appearances in the same period.

The final straw was Ann Coulter. She is trash, and I will not continue to support any person or entity that gives her (& the Fauxes) a platform to spew that kind of bile. There are other independent bookstores that are more in line with my personal, political and social beliefs, and thus have earned my patronage. I will always value the books & the memories I have because of Book Revue, but I cannot continue to give money to an institution that allows the likes of Coulter & these creeps from the Murdoch/Moonie media to spew their harmful, hateful views, and then fails to present authors from the other side to rebut them.


W. James Casper

Mastic, NY 11950
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------