Hey there,
Just got out of "South of the Border" by Oliver Stone and I have to say that while it wasn't really bad it wasn't nearly as good as I imagined it to be. I stood as a kind of mediocrity, somewhere in the middle. The film is Stone's attempt to chart the movement to the left that South America has been engaged in since Hugo Chavez defeated the coup attempt in 2002. To do this he
It always amazes me, being familiar with the history of political thought, when conservative book companies put out book after book about conservative social values and then complement them by a few fawning books about the free market. The reason for this is that conservatism, as originally established, was anti-free market. The folks who held this position weren't holding it out of any special
Just in general. Came upon a reference to him in a Salon article talking about the Civil Rights Movement, that said that Van Jones was probably closer to the original people involved than anything Beck put out, then went looking up stuff about him. The charge of 'Communist', while technically right, turns out to be something very different than what was implied. This from Wiki's cite of STORM, ,
Is that despite all the focus in the United States on it, most countries out there that have recently developed have done so under state sponsored programs. We can praise that idea of the lone entrepreneur all we like, but the reality remains that the motor of economic development has recently been collective action.
By simply saying that folks at places like the Huffington Post aren't really progressives, not in any meaningful sense anyways. I've been going back and forth on this, reading things on the Huffington Post and elsewhere, in the more widely known news outlets that are associated with being progressive, like shows on MSNBC, and thinking that they were pretty hackneyed, lightweight, and often very
Bias happens all the time, but the right wing media has taken the idea of it out of the realm of social bias and instead made it into a concept where if a person has expressed support for any sort of ideology--that is, if they've said that they're liberal--that nothing they say can be taken seriously as objective arguments. They evade the question of whether or not the person is actually right by
I think that, contrary to popular belief, these two aren't completely dependent on each other, but can exist in a sort of pure form on their own. A society can let folks do whatever they want as individuals, and yet be so constructed that the economic system is highly unequal and stratified, distorted by class. A society can on the other hand be perfectly just in terms of economics and economic
Here. Hard to see how this is any different from something similar happening in the Old South between a white woman and a mixed race man.
Here. Hard to see how this is any different from something similar happening in the Old South between a white woman and a mixed race man.
It's a vital question. There are a lot of reasons to dislike parts of what the Enlightenment has bequeathed to us, but it also brought us ideas of democracy and liberty. The thing is, in the universe of folks who take issue with the Enlightenment there aren't just Progressives and folks who have studied post-colonial theory, there are also right wing people associated with a current of thought