proudreader

Virus In Shoes, 26, Homme, AustralieDernière visite : mai 2011

43444 écoutes depuis le 20 août 2008

191 coups de cœur | 121 messages | 1 playlist | 206 shouts

  • Ajouter à mes amis
  • Envoyer un message
  • Laisser un shout

Votre compatibilité musicale avec proudreader est Inconnue

Obtenez votre profil musical

Shoutbox

Ajouter un commentaire. Ouvrir une session Last.fm ou S'inscrire.
  • cannonsshoot

    Bill Hicks was the best there ever was!

    19 mai 2011 Répondre
  • kurker

    Holy crap! I found the Oracle!!!

    31 mars 2011 Répondre
  • Alrin

    Likewise, dude. Loving the variety on display. Propagandhi and Bad Religion alongside Thelonious Monk and Miles Davis. Avail and Hot Water Music alongside Tom Waits and Johnny Cash. Way cool.

    9 oct. 2009 Répondre
  • XxAssadoxX

    thanks man! be welcome there whatever you want

    23 août 2009 Répondre
  • damagedolly

    oh wait nevermind, you like atmosphere :)

    10 août 2009 Répondre
  • damagedolly

    oh thanks. nothing much.. just messing around on irc a lot lately.. i like your variety... though i don't see any hiphop ;p

    10 août 2009 Répondre
  • romeoromeog

    Greetings to you comrade and great library. ¡No pasarán!

    10 août 2009 Répondre
  • Daddygreenjeans

    fuck yea man wintersleep is the shit. Yea doug is hilarious i met him in vegas would love to see his show.

    11 jui. 2009 Répondre
  • kellanos

    thank ya thank ya!

    10 jui. 2009 Répondre
  • chanticorae

    back at you.

    8 jui. 2009 Répondre
  • Daddygreenjeans

    who is that as your avatar

    1 jui. 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    And I know the Israel/Palestine situation is just one of many instances of abuses of power committed by Western states. I never denied that or said anything that might be portrayed as singling out this issue as the one area where there is an imbalance. I even talked about how the US media won't dare portray its country as a tyrannical, barbarian force that supports anti-democratic forces in countries such as Nicaragua or Vietnam. Anyway, I apologise if I ended up sounding like a dogmatic prick, or anything of the sort. That was honestly not my intention. You sound like a very human guy to me and my impression hasn't changed. I commend you for your intrinsic curiosity about world affairs, and I hope you continue to research these things for yourself rather than give much credence to my own thoughts.

    20 juin 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    While I don't believe there is a conspiring Zionist hegemony tightly controlling the US media, it's impossible to deny that pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC have an influence. The dialogue on the major networks and on the Hill is clearly one-sided, as is evidenced by their pussy-footing around the issue whenever it comes up, and the Democrats in power are largely influenced by their rhetoric (search YouTube for vp Joe Biden saying "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. I'm a Zionist"). My views apropos of Israel/Palestine are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial. I too support a two-state settlement along the pre-1967 borders, something overwhelmingly advocated by international consensus (by all but the US & Israel). I also never meant to imply that you weren't aware of the abuses of civil rights taking place in the Occupied Territories, as you're clearly well-informed about a lot of these issues.

    20 juin 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    Well, I certainly didn't mean to come off as antagonistic. We are more congenial in our interests than conversely, however I do feel the need to try to depict what I've learned where it seems appropriate. Maybe it's wrong or some of my own impressions don't have much foundation, but I do try to think things through. I can only speak from observation, after all. I definitely did not accuse you from solely extracting your news from US cable, I simply questioned the validity of placing too much faith in Rachel Maddow and others of her ilk.

    20 juin 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    >_> I truly apologise for spamming your shoutbox, my friend, but just one final example I want to show in order to illustrate my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0R-_dzOR9w - here is a clip from Hardball on MSNBC, hosted by Chris Matthews (a well-known centre-left host) - a journalist called Reza Aslan comes on the show to discuss Iran's supposed ambition for nuclear weapons. Notice how he crosses a line: he points out that Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at Tehran to fire when ready, and Matthews, realising that Aslan has deviated from the rigidly controlled dialogue that is permitted when discussing these matters, reacts critically and in disbelief, accusing him of "doubletalk" and what have you. It's a perfect example of how issues on this liberal network are so tightly constrained and ideologically skewed. See if he's ever invited onto that show again. Hah.

    19 juin 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    And, as you brought it up, Democracy Now! is an excellent example. If you're looking for an audacious, radically independent news journalist/compere - Amy Goodman is indeed it. The work she does is simply outstanding, unparalleled, and incredibly consistent. Rachel has *nothing* on her. She is simply part of their game. Although as you correctly point out, DN reaches a far smaller audience as it's not available in most basic cable packages. But just look at their coverage of Israel/Palestine, as well as having ultra right-wing anti civil rights apologists such as Martin Indyk or Alan Dershowitz on their show, they also allow their antithetical and (in my view) far more impartial counterparts, Normal Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Richard Falk on to assess the humanitarian and political situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories. They allow the truth to manifest itself through healthy and vigorous debate between opposing views, allowing the viewer to make up their own mind.

    19 juin 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    there are far narrower constraints on what can & can't be said than on Fixed News and the conservative talk radio shows. How else do you think they're able to get away with saying completely unconscionable things ad nauseam? MSNBC & NPR (and even CNN) tolerate absolutely no criticism of Israel or the portrayal of the US as a tyrannical imperialist nation that inflicts terror and supports brutal right-wing regimes on the level of the Communists. Maddow is so limited in what she can say - and that often leads to inaccuracies on her part. I'm just so fed up of tedious partisan hackery on both sides - she's guilty of playing a part in this, and Olbermann/Ed Schulz(pretty much a "liberal" Rush) are even worse. They almost stoop to their level by going on about Rush Limbaugh all the time as if he ever intended to be a serious political analyst. I would go so far as to say that censorship is so much more prevalent in the liberal media outlets than conversely.

    19 juin 2009 Répondre
  • bashiechan

    I'm certainly glad you have a passionate intellectual curiosity which drives you to learn more about the world and the diversity (or lack thereof) of political theory which drives policy and government. It's certainly evident in the tenacious way you conduct yourself and are willing to go up against people who might passionately disagree with you. But I think I have a slightly different perspective on Rachel Maddow (and MSNBC and the liberal media in general) than you do because I'm currently stationed here in the states and am able to analyse these various outlets in context. I don't mean to be po-faced or derogatory about that, as obviously you have access to these things too, but unless in Australia you can get access to US cable channels, I wouldn't be wrong in assuming you watch Rachel via the video casts on the main website. Yes? Outlets such as MSNBC and NPR (National Public Radio in case you don't know) are far more ideologically driven than their right-wing counterparts so

    19 juin 2009 Répondre
  • mydreammyanchor

    well our bill of rights is just for show. in reality, it's a list of several privileges that can and will be taken away whenever those privileges are used to threaten the government's status quo. It's used to make us feel better, so we say "look, we have rights." And i think less religious morons will eventually lead to the acceptance of homosexual marriage

    18 juin 2009 Répondre
  • mydreammyanchor

    yeah, i don't think it could be worse than the US though.

    18 juin 2009 Répondre
  • Voir les 206 shouts

À propos de moi











































Groupes (54)

Voir plus