stip wrote:
that's a fair point. Important issues, but certainly ground they've covered before. Maybe the point is that these problems transcended this particular moment, or are larger than the United States (beyond the United State's complicity in their continuation)
Seriously, no offense, but I hope we’re not getting blinded a little by Ed’s stardom here. These three issues bombs, oil and guns are problems, but without a doubt not the only issues the world is facing. And since we’ve seen a video on these issues before, it seems umm – recycled. I’d argue in the grand scheme – when this video was made, they without a doubt weren’t the top three. I said it before, I’ll say it again, the economy is another and it’s probably the chief concern globally right now. So, where’s that “transcended” issue here? I mean, a lot of folks really believe/ed the war in Iraq was for oil. If you do or do not describe to that belief, you certainly can see that economic issues (lack of resources) can spur war. Persistent youth unemployment is perhaps one of the biggest triggers I can imagine, for example. That’s ironically missing here.
stip wrote:
by all means describe the powerful two-three second image in your head that should have been included in the video.
I’ll name a few: a shot of “clear” money printing with a shot of bankers would be good, a shot of a price jumping from one thing to the next would be fine, a shot of vaults could be another. It’s not too hard to think of. How about a shot of jobless in lines? Ask yourself - why were these issues, particularly the jobless aspect, excluded? It’s a pretty obvious answer.
stip wrote:
all stuff that predates bush, continued through bush, and has lasted into Obama. None of those things remind me of Bush in particular. There are tons of iconic images from that period that could have been used if the goal was to try and pin this on Bush. It really seems like you're reaching pretty far with this.
Of course it predates Bush. The reason it reminds me of Bush isn’t because is because it’s the exact same issues Ed (and Dems) complained about when Bush was around. It’s like he lives in 2005, except it’s 2013 and there’s a ton of new issues to discuss. We just went through the largest downturn since the Great Depression. We’ve been held afloat by government stimulus, yet now government’s are going broke – look at the EU - PIIGS. Look at Japan’s Debt/GDP. Look at ours. It’s a complete mess.
stip wrote:
the drone thing could have worked, but its absence does not necessarily mean anything significant.
You can say it doesn’t mean anything significant “from your perspective”… I’ll say, drones are more involved than the style of bombings showed in the vid. From my perspective, which is equal in value to yours --- you’re wrong…. it is significant. Maybe they forgot, maybe they don't know what drones are, or maybe it means they don’t want to bring in elements that could look bad for the person sitting in office.... who's um... using drones.
stip wrote:
I can't even follow you like 3 inches down this road. War and environmental collapse have not disappeared from the standard talking points of the left. You know what, I take that back. There is some continuity with the Republican platform circa 2004, because the people on the left that Eddie reads (or has mentioned in the past at any rate) continue to pound this point home and attach blame to Obama instead of Bush. In 2009 people may have hesitated to make that case. He owns it now.
War has largely disappeared as standard talking points from the left, I disagree. Otherwise, I think we’d be hearing a lot more about the on-going war abroad. Also, environment has somewhat been less in focus too (partially because of cooling temps) but also because many of those who would bring it up feel that they shouldn’t be critical of their guy (who they think may help “a bit” more than the alternative). Your definition of left, and mine, are probably different. I think of moderately left of center as still left. You seem to think of left as in Zinn or something. I believe those in the media who are left of center, in general, cool down on issues that could look bad for their guy. This happens right of center too, when their guy is in. I think people like this, aren’t standing up for what they believe in and/or doing their job. To me – Ed’s now in this camp.
stip wrote:
Your case for this is, to my eyes, way to thin for this to be credible. If he releases an album with a bunch of political songs and talks extensively about politics on the 2013 tour and somehow manages to dance around critiques of the current administration you'll have a much firmer leg to stand on.
I don’t think we even need to wait for the album or tour. I think this song’s video gave me the ability to predict what will happen because it presented an opportunity for the band to speak on these issues, but they decided to recycle old material. You can say I need to wait all you want. This was their chance… and I will simply respond, he played an intimate fundraiser for the guy. He’s writing songs where he could have invested only 5% of the total video’s time to show a visual of something that would implicate his “policy choices”, but he’s not. He didn’t say a word via the first two shows and in three new songs also that would insinuate anything other than the fundraiser support he’s had in the past. Moreover, in six years, he has not said a bad word about the guy’s policies. In total, I say the answers already here. Maybe... just maybe... you don’t like what the answer is.... or better yet, maybe you do. It's not that big of a deal either way. I'm just pointing out my view here.
stip wrote:
this seems pretty strawmanish to me
It’s not even slightly strawmanish. You honestly think that people outside the beltway who are heavy, heavy partisans, are NEVER so partisan that they yield to party opinions ABOUT SPECIFIC ISSUES rather than their individualized left or right’ish “informed” opinions. Let me clarify better, there’s some people out there that put political party’s thoughts before their own rational opinions (whether they be far left, left, center, right or far right opinions). Those people are flat out ignorant. And please, don’t start with the whole, ‘well their doing that to get their guy in BS’ – first, I’m not talking about during election season. Second, even if I was, their one vote doesn’t matter that much AND I’m not even talking about changing votes. I’m talking about standing up for what you believe in and criticizing people’s “POLICIES” even you vote for them or would vote for in the future. I’m talking about an issue, one platform, one area… not the aggregate of all of those which decide whom you vote for. Ed could still be an Obama supporter and talk about the shittiness of unemployment or drones or the survellienace state.
Right now, I’m borderline thinking Ed’s turning into one of these types who is starting to reveal his shiny new, red, D pom-poms before our eyes. That cheerleader stuff scares me because it reeks of stupidity and I once respected this guy’s intelligence.
stip wrote:
let me clarify that. Eddie is partisan insofar as he hates republicans. He's been taking shots at them since Even Flow. I do not think Eddie is a partisan democrat. He is ideologically liberal, which means you're often stuck supporting democrats in general elections as the lesser of two evils. You seem to imagine Eddie as a party stalwart trying to score a vote to the 2016 nominating convention. To get from fundraising for Obama to there requires a leap that is not justifiable based on anything you've argued here
I actually think you’re probably right about hate. But, anyone who hates an entire broad sect of people is ignorant and probably a bigot. Maybe disliking a policy here. More policies there. Maybe disagreeing about most. But, hate?
To me, quite frankly, Ed’s a very well-written, lucky guy who is a musician. I don’t think Ed is a critical thinker at all. I don’t think Ed really knows what it’s like to be straight-up middle class either. He has no clue how taxes really affect you when you have kids and are working for a relatively low paying job. He has no clue how a jump in food prices can affect someone who's real income is stagnant or declining. I know for sure, he won’t ever know this because he's well off now. Sure, he was poor (when young), but now he’s rich and has been since his mid-20s. He never had the time inbetween, where many live in forever. Ed has his own history. I see Ed morphing into a leftist version of what he sees in Christian Republicans who watch Hannity.
I do not think Ed is hoping for someone in particular for 2016, instead I think he was woo’d by one guy – Obama. I think he was convinced about the importance of voting in Democrats in order to get “a little” of what he wants and felt bad for his Nader support. I think Ed’s hatred of Bush was an immature way of trying to get people to forget he supported Nader. I think Ed’s largely a follower of others and is scared of getting picked on again by his liberal friends – like he did after Bush won. Yet, prior to that election, he was a Nader supporter, where he voted to change the principal. Now, he votes for “a little”. My thing is – that’s fine. What I think is lacking is the soap box now. Where’s the anger? It died with Bush? Really? Now, he needs to stay hush on the deeper issues. I find this, hypocritical. He once stood up and preached about being a free thinker and against parties in general, now he’s doing the opposite. And don’t get me started in all the other ways, him and PJ have been hypocritical over the years.
I’ve always respected him and PJ, although disagreed here or there, because he/they had convictions. I now think it’s a little tainted with the desire to support one guy and his agenda, which honestly, I don’t see as radically different “in policy” from his predecessor. I don’t like that, regardless of who the guy is.
