De VPRO van Schrurs 2

Mijn vriend en collega Wim Brands schrijft op zijn weblog:

'Over Bob Dylan bestaan veel misverstanden. Die misverstanden ontstaan vaak omdat de zogenaamde kenners het werk van de man in een grijpbaar format wensen en hem dientengevolge proberen te reduceren tot een begrijpelijke kleine database. Van kunst hebben deze mensen niks begrepen. Het zal je toch maar gebeuren: heb je geprobeerd een kunstwerk te maken waarin je kunt verdwijnen, willen ze je weer tevoorschijn toveren. NPS-collega Paul Harvey vertelde een mooie anecdote over Dylan die in dit verband interessant is, de anecdote laat zich ook zo omtoveren tot een gedicht.
Bob Dylan
Geef me m’n hoed, zei hij. Welke, vroeg z’n medemuzikant, je hebt er twaalf. De hoed die ik wil dragen.'

Ik reageerde op Wim's stukje en kreeg meteen deze reactie:

1
stan van houcke: Je reactie moet nog worden goedgekeurd. april 18th, 2007 at 07:45

Deze reactie moest worden goedgekeurd:

'kijk wim, de zaak is deze:
‘”There must be some way out of here”, said the joker to the thief “There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief Businessmen they drink my wine, plowman dig my earth, None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”‘
voor de rest is het een fluitje van een cent'

Ik reageerde onmiddellijk maar kreeg opnieuw als reactie:

2
stan van houcke: Je reactie moet nog worden goedgekeurd. april 18th, 2007 at 07:47

Ik had dit geschreven: ‘je reactie moet nog worden goedgekeurd’??? wim hoe nu? er valt niets goed te keuren in de literatuur. er is alleen maar! mijn god, waar gaat de wereld heen?

Zie: http://brandsblogt.radio6.nl/2007/04/13/bob-dylan/#respond

Heb ik verdorie 20 jaar lang bij de VPRO iedereen die wat te zeggen meende te hebben, zonder censuur vooraf aan het woord gelaten en dan nu dit. Ik heb amper mijn hielen gelicht of de VPRO pleegt censuur vooraf. En nota bene op een weblog over literatuur!!! Zijn ze helemaal van de pot gerukt. Waar is de libertaire geest van de VPRO gebleven?

Door wie moet mijn reactie worden goedgekeurd? Door God? Door het presidium? Door de cultuurkamer? Door de Partij? Door de secretaris-generaal van het Centraal Comite? Door de VPRO-baas Schrurs? Doen ze dat bij de VPRO in onderling overleg of is er 1 censor die bepaalt of u mijn reactie al dan niet mag lezen? Moet iedereen door de censuur heen of moeten alleen ex-medewerkers een examen afleggen? Wat zijn de criteria die gehanteerd worden door de censor dan wel censoren? Kijken ze of de reacties geen geheime boodschappen bevatten? Of ze de regels van de Homeland Security niet overtreden? Of de gangbare normen en waarden van het neoliberalisme niet worden geschonden? Of ze niet aanstootgevend voor het volk zijn? Kan er over de criteria gediscussieerd worden? Zo ja, door wie precies? Is achteraf beroep mogelijk tegen de beslissing? Je wordt duizelig van al die vragen!

Wim doe het raam open en laat wat frisse lucht binnen, want je weet:

‘”There must be some way out of here”, said the joker to the thief

“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief

Businessmen they drink my wine, plowman dig my earth,

None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”‘

Wim, het is All along the Watchtower

Watchtower!!!

Luister naar de klassieken!

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,

"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.

But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,

So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view

While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl,

Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.

Als je het nu nog niet begrijpt, is alles zinloos geworden. Geef me verdomme 'de hoed die ik wil dragen.' Per slot van rekening: 'you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Vooral die linker van de two riders is een gemene schooier. Linker, daar komt het woord link vandaan, van linkmiegel, en politiek links, weet je wel. Later meer over het interessante verschil tussen jouw linker en rechter oog. Alvast een tipje van de sluier: je rechter oog is wijzer dan je linker oog. Kijk nog maar eens goed.

Bij mij is het net andersom zoals je op bijgevoegd prentje kunt zien. Gek he?

Noam Chomsky 17

'In Rare Joint Interview, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on Iraq,
Vietnam, Activism and History

In a Democracy Now! special from Boston, two of the city's leading
dissidents, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, sit down for a rare joint
interview. Noam Chomsky began teaching linguistics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge over 50 years ago.
He is the author of dozens of books on linguistics and U.S. foreign
policy. Howard Zinn is one of the country's most widely-read
historians. His classic work “A People's History of the United
States’ has sold over 1.5 million copies and it has altered how many
teach the nation's history. Chomsky and Zinn discuss Vietnam,
activism, history, Israel-Palestine, and Iraq, which Chomsky calls
"one of the worst catastrophes in military and political
history." [rush transcript included]

We are broadcasting today from Boston. It is Patriots Day here in
Massachusetts – a state holiday to mark the start of the
Revolutionary War. In a Democracy Now! special we are joined today by
two of the city's leading dissidents, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
Noam Chomsky began teaching linguistics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge over 50 years ago. He is the
author of dozens of books on linguistics and U.S. foreign policy. His
most recent book is titled “Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the
Assault on Democracy.”
Howard Zinn is one of the country's most widely-read historians. He
taught political science at Boston University from 1964 to 1988. His
classic work “A People's History of the United States” has sold over
1.5 million copies and it has altered how many teach the nation's
history. Howard Zinn's latest book is “A Power Governments Cannot
Suppress.” Today an hour with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky in a rare
joint interview.

Noam Chomsky. Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He is the author of dozens of books on
linguistics and U.S. foreign policy. His latest book is "Failed
States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."


Howard Zinn. Professor emeritus at Boston University. His classic
work "A People's History of the United States" has sold over 1.5
million copies. His latest book is "A Power Governments Cannot
Suppress."'

Lees verder: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/16/1338223

Het Neoliberale Geloof 28

'Trouble in Squanderville.

By Mike Whitney

Two years ago, anyone who wrote about the housing bubble was dismissed as a conspiracy nut. Now hardly a day goes by that the headlines aren’t splattered with the details of the massive meltdown in the real estate market.
What changed? The facts are essentially the same today as they were back then. In fact, the “Economist”--as well as many independent journalists--had already shown that the Fed’s low interest rates had inflated the biggest equity bubble in history which could potentially bring down the entire economy.
Now, all of a sudden, the media is acting as if the problem sprouted up overnight?
Why?
The notion that the media was unaware of what was going on is ridiculous. The business pages in America’s newspapers are written by some of the country’s “best and brightest”; most of them have MBAs which they earned at our finest universities.
Is it possible that they were oblivious to the trillions of dollars that were funneled into the real estate market to unqualified loan applicants? Or that they didn’t know that the rising prices had no relation GDP, increases in wages or productivity.
Is it possible that some of our best educated business prognosticators don’t understand the effects of low interest rates or the speculative bubbles they naturally create?
It’s simply not possible----the effects of interest rates are the first thing that one learns in Econ 101.
The real problem is that the media obfuscates information that conflicts with the interests of management or their constituents. Their main goal is to promote consumer spending regardless of its effects on the nation’s economy. In this case, they managed to hide an $11 trillion economy-busting bubble and nudge us ever-closer towards catastrophe. That takes a pretty talented public relations team. In fact, we've probably underestimated how powerful and persuasive the corporate propaganda-system really is.
While housing prices rose at 10% to 20% per year, the American people were duped into believing that such huge leaps were just part of the normal business cycle---just supply and demand. They never dreamed that the surge in prices was engineered at the Federal Reserve through artificially low interest rates. Everyone believed that things were just hunky-dory---that it was springtime in “the land of the free and the home of the chronically indebted”. Those who disagreed were derided as doomsayers or lunatics.'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17543.htm

De Bush Bende 53

'Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell.

The Party of Brownshirts
By Paul Craig Roberts

Neoconservatives have turned the Republican Party into a Brownshirt Party.
Look at the evidence. While real patriots flee the party, the remaining supporters cling to power by asserting dictatorial dominance for President Bush. The Republican Attorney General denies that the US Constitution provides habeas corpus protection to American citizens. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential campaign, believe the president has the power to imprison US citizens indefinitely without warrants or trials. The “conservative” Federalist Society favors concentrating more power in the executive. Neoconservative ideologues claim the right to impose American hegemony over all others--especially over Muslims.
All of these Republican tyrants and budding tyrants claim to be protecting liberty and democracy.
Polls show that the percentage of Americans who tilt Republican has declined to 35 percent. Republican recruits are refusing to run for Congress. Ken Mehlman, until recently the party’s chairman, says many voters have lost confidence in Republicans. To win back people’s confidence, Mehlman says the party will have to become less reliant on white males and expand its support among Hispanics and blacks.
Decency and intelligence have departed Republican ranks. The party’s shrunken base consists of ignorant and fearful people who believe Muslim jihadists are going to murder them in their beds, rapture evangelicals who believe that war in the Middle East is the prelude to their being wafted up to heaven, the military-security complex reveling in power and fortune, and resentful and frustrated people who can freely vent their anger and hate on “terrorists.”
This collection of fear, delusion, greed, and resentment comprises the 30 percent of Americans who constitute Bush’s base. The Republican Party has made itself so unattractive that Democrats believe that it is now possible for a woman or a black to win the presidency.'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17541.htm

De Bush Bende 52

Rolling Stone bericht:

'Cheney's Nemesis
For forty years, Seymour Hersh has been America’s leading investigative reporter. His latest scoop? The White House’s secret plan to bomb Iran
By Matt Taibbi

On May 29th, 1975, an aide to then-White House chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld sat down with a yellow legal pad and in careful longhand sketched out a list of possible responses to a damaging investigative report in The New York Times. "Problem," the aide wrote. "Unauthorized disclosure of classified national security information by Sy Hersh and the NYT." He then laid out five options, ranging from the most ominous (an FBI investigation of the newspaper and a grand jury indictment) to the least offensive ("Discuss informally with NYT" and "Do nothing"). Number three on the list, however, read, "Search warrant: to go after Hersh papers in his apt."
The note's author? A viper-mean Beltway apparatchik named Dick Cheney, who was making his name doing damage control for the Republican White House after the Watergate disaster. Coming so soon after Nixon was burned at the public stake for similar targeting of political enemies, the Cheney memo was proof that the next generation of GOP leaders had emerged from the Watergate scandal regretting only one thing: getting caught.
This year, an almost identical note in Cheney's same tight-looped, anal script appeared as a key piece of evidence in the trial of another powerful White House aide, Scooter Libby. The vice president's handwritten ruminations on how best to dispose of an Iraq War critic named Joe Wilson are an eerie reminder of how little has changed in America in the past three decades. Then as now, we have been dragged into a bloody massacre in the Third World, paying the bill for the operation with the souls and bodies of the next generation of our young people. It is the same old story, and many of the same people are once again in charge.
But some of the same people are on the other side, too. In the same week that Libby was convicted in a Washington courthouse, Seymour Hersh outlined the White House's secret plans for a possible invasion of Iran in The New Yorker. As amazing as it is that Cheney is still walking among us, a living link to our dark Nixonian past, it's even more amazing that Hersh is still the biggest pain in his ass, publishing accounts of conversations that seemingly only a person hiding in the veep's desk drawer would be privy to. "The access I have -- I'm inside," Hersh says proudly. "I'm there, even when he's talking to people in confidence."
America's pre-eminent investigative reporter of the last half-century, Hersh broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and was on hand, nearly four decades later, when we found ourselves staring back at the same sick face in the mirror after Abu Ghraib. At age seventy, he clearly still loves his job. During a wide-ranging interview at his cramped Washington office, Hersh could scarcely sit still, bouncing around the room like a kindergartner to dig up old articles, passages from obscure books and papers buried in his multitudinous boxes of files. A hopeless information junkie, he is permanently aroused by the idea that corruption and invisible power are always waiting to be uncovered by the next phone call. Somewhere out there, They are still hiding the story from Us -- and that still pisses Hersh off.
During the Watergate years, you devoted a great deal of time to Henry Kissinger. If you were going to write a book about this administration, is Dick Cheney the figure you would focus on?Absolutely. If there's a Kissinger person today, it's Cheney. But what I say about Kissinger is: Would that we had a Kissinger now! If we did, we'd know that the madness of going into Iraq would have been explained by something -- maybe a clandestine deal for oil -- that would make some kind of sense. Kissinger always had some back-channel agenda. But in the case of Bush and this war, what you see is what you get. We buy much of our fuel from the Middle East, and yet we're at war with the Middle East. It doesn't make sense.'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17542.htm Of:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14010621/
national_affairs_cheneys_nemesis_seymour_hersh_
reveals_white_houses_secret_plan_to_bomb_iran/print

Het Zionisme

'About anti-Semitism

Contributed by Tom
By Nahida

People talk with liberty about Muslim extremists, and Christian fundamentalists; but they stop short of uttering the forbidden word “Jewish extremists”

We as people who desire justice, and long for peace; and we as human race can never achieve equality without applying the same criteria and standards for ALL ; and that should also include any other ideology, not only religious one, but also we must acknowledge that there are secular extremists, and atheists fundamentalists, Marxist extremists… etc.
The other important point that should be recognized is the way the holocaust was "hijacked" by the Zionists, and became almost like an exclusive Jewish property, which we all know is not a true presentation of history or the truth of WW2.
Not only that it became exclusively Jewish , but there is an aura of holiness and sacredness that surrounds the whole subject, and shrouded it with reverence.
This can lead to some serious problematic issues; as it might appear to a non-Jewish observer as favouritism: “Jewish people get a special treatment, as they insist on demanding that the world must acknowledge their suffering as being unique, sacred, and special".
All humanity had suffered through history, recent, past, and ancient times.
No one could claim that the suffering of one group is more special, unique, or sacred than the suffering of others.
If Jewish people keep insisting that the world must see their suffering as "special", "unique" and "above the suffering of all others", It can only confirm the views of some people who perceive the Jewish people view themselves as "special", "unique" or "chosen". You see , my dear friend; people could freely criticise and disapprove of Islam and the Muslims, and that is their right.
People could pass judgment on Christianity and Christians without fear of any allegation, and that is their right. People could freely disapprove of Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists… etc, and that is their right. But if you try to voice the faintest criticism of Jewish people or Judaism you are in deep deep trouble. The label "anti-Semitic" would haunt you forever.'

Lees verder: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/1190/58/

Wijsheid 15

The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

="The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their 'vital interests' are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the 'sanctity' of human life, or the conscience' of the civilized world." : James Baldwin - From chapter one of "The Devil Finds Work" (orig. pub. 1976)

="My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest shall have the same opportunities as the strongest...no country in the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak... Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism...true democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below, by the people of every village." : Gandhi