@WKB

True, but when the Columbine school shooting was perpetrated, conservatives were quick to point the finger at Marilyn Manson's lyrics. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying that Fox deserves all of the blame here either.

I do think though, that the people pumping that kind of rhetoric onto the airwaves deserve SOME responsibility for atrocities like this. Allow me to compare the Woodstock of 1970 to the Woodstock of '99 for an example.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1970 Woodstock (billed as "3 days of Peace and Music") resulted in reports like this:

"The New York Times covered the prelude to the festival and the move from Wallkill to Bethel.[13] Barnard Collier, who reported from the event for the Times, asserts that he was pressured by on-duty editors at the paper to write a misleadingly negative article about the event. According to Collier, this led to acrimonious discussions and his threat to refuse to write the article until the paper's executive editor, James Reston, agreed to let him write the article as he saw fit. The eventual article dealt with issues of traffic jams and minor lawbreaking, but went on to emphasize cooperation, generosity, and the good nature of the festival goers.

When the festival was over, Collier wrote another article about the exodus of fans from the festival site and the lack of violence at the event. The chief medical officer for the event and several local residents were quoted as praising the festival goers."

--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1999 version of the event (featuring bands like Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and the Red Hot Chili Peppers who are all, dare I say, a bit angrier [lyrically speaking] than the likes of Arlo Guthrie or Joan Baez) is painted in a much different color:

"Some crowd violence and looting was reported during the Saturday night performance by Limp Bizkit, including a rendition of the song "Break Stuff". Reviewers of the concert criticized Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst as "irresponsible" for encouraging the crowd to destructive behavior.

Violence escalated the next night during the final hours of the concert as Red Hot Chili Peppers performed. A group of peace promoters led by an independent group called Pax had distributed candles to those stopping at their booth during the day, intending them for a candlelight vigil to be held during the Red Hot Chili Peppers' performance of the song "Under the Bridge". During the band's set, the crowd began to light the candles, some also using them to start bonfires. The hundreds of empty plastic water bottles that littered the lawn/dance area were used as fuel for the fire.

After the Red Hot Chili Peppers were finished with their main set, the audience was informed about "a bit of a problem." An audio tower caught fire, and the fire department was called in to extinguish it.

Back onstage for an encore, the Chili Peppers' lead singer Anthony Kiedis remarked how amazing the fires looked from the stage, comparing them to a scene in the film Apocalypse Now.[12] The band proceeded to play "Sir Psycho Sexy", followed by their rendition of Jimi Hendrix's "Fire". Kiedis later stated in his autobiography, Scar Tissue that Jimi Hendrix's sister had asked the Chili Peppers to play "Fire" in honor of Jimi and his performance at the original Woodstock festival, and that they were not playing it to encourage the crowd.

Many large bonfires were burning high before the band left the stage for the last time. Participants danced in circles around the fires. Looking for more fuel, some tore off panels of plywood from the supposedly inviolable security perimeter fence. ATMs were tipped over and broken into, trailers full of merchandise and equipment were forced open and burglarized, and abandoned vendor booths were turned over, and set afire.[13]

MTV, which had been providing live coverage, removed its entire crew. MTV host Kurt Loder described the scene in the July 27, 1999 issue of USA Today:

"It was dangerous to be around. The whole scene was scary. There were just waves of hatred bouncing around the place, (...) It was clear we had to get out of there.... It was like a concentration camp. To get in, you get frisked to make sure you're not bringing in any water or food that would prevent you from buying from their outrageously priced booths. You wallow around in garbage and human waste. There was a palpable mood of anger."

After some time, a large force of New York State Troopers, local police, and various other law enforcement arrived. Most had crowd control gear and proceeded to form a riot-line that flushed the crowd to the northwest, away from the stage located at the eastern end of the airfield. Few of the crowd offered strong resistance and they dispersed quickly back toward the campground and out the main entrance."

>>>>>>See also, this poignant response from a person in the crowd: http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/17/woodstock-legacy/ (crowdmember comments @ 2:20)

----------------------------------------

Now now easy there big fella, before you start telling me about how correlation does not imply causation consider this: an article recently published by the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that:

"Childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression was associated, by itself, with moderate to large effects on measures of dissociation, limbic irritability, depression, and anger-hostility." Furthermore, "Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence was associated with extraordinarily large adverse effects, particularly on dissociation. This finding is consonant with studies that suggest that emotional abuse may be a more important precursor of dissociation than is sexual abuse."
See: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/6/993

Maybe not the best example I could have found but I've already spent WAY too much time on this post. The point is, WORDS carry a lot of power. Even if the pundits (right OR left) never came out and said it, the implication of violence was certainly there at times.

I KNOW Fox has lead the charge of fear mongering in the name of ratings but anyone else who subscribed to that level of attack should share some of the blame as well. Again, not saying that they should take all or even a lot of the blame, but they should be responsible for the violent laced rhetoric they spout.

I say STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS and we'll see less violence against PEOPLE and (hopefully) more enthralling arguments where the IDEAS are being attacked (which I'm all for) :-)

p.s. sry for the huge post but i was on a roll

My after comment explained what type of respect I was talking about.

“Respect in America” meant that women have lost respect in American society. American culture, not self respect or such... And that meant both men and women, in America, have less respect for the penis-less sex (;)

Respect was given to women, and in other cultures is still alive and well. However, it should be noted that respect and equality are two different beasts. Joan of Arc is a hero highly regarded by men for her valor--but she was far from equal in most men's eyes when she lived. The Virgin Mary, another figure--but see if she could vote or own property. Queen Cleo--a better example of equality and respect, but still comes up short, etc. The good housewife, respected... if not controlled.

The problem, in my opinion, is that we equate freedom and equality with good. Neither are good, just perspectives. Freedom and equality bring much---but they are cold, hard tools.

It used to be that nations fought nations for the sole purpose of women and their virtue. Slight a noble’s wife and die... Nowadays, men just replace women, and run their nations anyways.

But to answer an unspoken question--I think both sexes lost respect in this commercialistic world. Consume, buy, consume, repeat until death. Big tits, no brains... = wealth... Funny part is, this has always been a male concept for the most part, but now women have a vivacious appetite for this greed too.. Sad...

>> ^peggedbea:
respect in what sense? respect of society in general? respect of men? self respect? respect from other women?
i disagree that "respect" has always been the general attitude directed at women. >> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.
I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...
>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Too smooth. And his mouth moves really unnaturally. Welcome to Uncanny Valley - population: 1 Jeff Bridges.


Sorry make that population: 2 Joan Rivers
Jeff Bridges

...simply...yeah

*quality


Singer reminds me of a cross between Tracy Chapman and Joan Jett.

Thank you very much. I understand the reticence. It is such that there is come music I wish to have represented on the Sift to which there is either no video or, if there is, is renditionally inferior. I'm glad you enjoyed the song and thank you very much for the link. I saved the page and am listening to the song for the fourth time. It is another one of my favorites of hers and has been too long unheard.

Frankly, there are a number of the vids that I have submitted for which I expected few if any votes but were voted for out of the kindness and generosity of fellow Sifters. I hope at least some if not all that voted for them found enjoyment and or interest in them. That has been, is, and will be my primary motivation for my submissions on the Sift.

Happy Sifting. I look forward to seeing you around.

Namaste.
In reply to this comment by nanrod:
Upvote even tho its not a real vid. My favourite of her's is Down to Zero which has been previously sifted, but another non live version is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brp8Va8XVQw

life is a bullshit symphony you get forced into performing in, and along the way your music coincides with other fucktards music. Those fucktards, as well and the original problem of being forced. really make shit, shitty.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
So life's a...swirley?

If I may, my friend...there is a book recommended to me and read by me almost 40 years ago you might enjoy. It is an hilarious and bitingly intelligent work by a Richard Farina, who was Mimi Baez's husband and Joan Baez's brother in law, named Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me. The protagonist is one Gnosis Papadapolis.

BTW, it goes well with beer and whatnot.

>> ^BoneRemake:

spiraling
circling
gravity fed
freefall
first class ticket
peanuts please

>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^Stormsinger:
-Where- do I know this song from? I'll bet it was a cartoon, but damned if I can think of which one.

Check the Wiki page here, it's been in a lot of things.
Promote for Jan


That was the first or second place I looked. Sadly, it doesn't list specific cartoons...nor does any other reference I can find. That just seems like something that -somebody- on the internet should have assembled: a list of opera songs and the cartoons they appeared in. Ah well...

I can almost see the cartoon...it had fairies frolicking in the woods. Sliding down leaves and vaulting off the ends to do dives into "swimming pools" like some bromeliads. I'm thinking something way older than loony tunes, maybe from around the 30s or 40s.

Thank you SO much for posting this... I think it is an absolute travesty that Dame Joan's passing got like no news coverage on CNN, while human garbage like the Kardashians make it to the front page.

Excellent find btw... Hadn't seen this particular performance, only heard it.

The statistics are such that you even share at least a few atoms with almost any historical figure you can think of. Not Elvis, too recent. Not enough time to spread around. But you all probably share a few atoms with say, Joan of Arc, a T-Rex and even, dare I say... Mr. Christ?

It could be the Virgin Mary, she is worshiped. It could be Mother Teresa, she is revered.

Joan of Arc... Of course all of these women are put down and held back as sluts... After all, they were not the head of households, nor the top of the food chain... I mean, being a Patron Saint of France must have been so degrading--such a lowly place... (Of course, politics led to her later execution, but then doesn't it always?)

Also, Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in eternal punishment. And they are Christian. They think that is beyond god's wrath. Of course they are a peaceful Christian and as such an exception to most religions... And their Dogma, as such and for countless other reasons of peaceful intent, is not very well liked.

So yeah, it has to be the gloom-and-doom that attracts people. But wait? Isn't that true for politics? I mean, that is what the Republican part is based on! Hold, isn't that true for the Entertainment? I mean, who actually paid attention to sex-ed class documentaries? But switch to Titanic and BOOBIES!

Just sayin...

From wikipedia: ...when Blackmail was remade with sound, Ondra's thick accent was considered unacceptable, so her dialogue was recorded by actress Joan Barry

>> ^messenger:

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:
It's about power.
A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.
Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.
Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


I know it's conceited of me, but i somehow feel proud that this isn't true in my case..

For example, none of the women you listed as funny do i find funny. There's several over here that i've seen on QI and HIGNFY and mock the week that i've found very funny, and they're also really hot imo. True i can name more funny men than funny women, but i suspect that's not my fault specifically.

Maybe this says something about me feeling more comfortable with a woman in charge? Ahem..

Edit: Oh yeah, and i'm a straight male. Just thought i'd mention that for teh analysis.

>> ^messenger:

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


Except... Sarah Silverman, Wanda Sykes, and a slew of ones I can think of here in Australia, but you wouldn't know over there...

I think it just comes down to them being funny... There really aren't anywhere near as many good female comedians as male, but also think about your circle of friends and the 'funny ones'... I bet they're almost always male.

And, as said on this clip, a lot of women do the shtick about 'being a woman'... compared to GOOD comedians who have no 'topic' to their comedy, but range over everything.

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:

It's about power.

A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.

Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein

Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist and author, whose primary fields of research are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust. A graduate of Binghamton University, he received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and, most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.

Finkelstein is credited by Avi Shlaim, Adam Shatz, Noam Chomsky and others with exposing Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial as a "fraud" and "a monumental hoax". Amidst considerable public debate, Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, and placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year. Among the controversial aspects of this decision were attempts by Alan Dershowitz, a notable opponent of Finkelstein's, to derail Finkelstein's tenure bid.[1] On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms.[2][3] An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, and asserted that outside influence played no role in their decision. The statement also praised Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."[4]