I already wrote too much on Noah Smith's review of "Blank Space" and I understand that Claude is only assimilating many zeitgeist statements but another thought which I had re that post is that there are few new obvious artistic movements because younger people are looking for what went wrong in what was discarded from the past so any art that they make needs to have some usable tradition standing behind it. Even if this tradition is an invented tradition or has been tweaked to be more inclusive it is still a tradition--the idea is not that tradition is bad. "Indigenous" would not be one of the ultimate progressive words to conjure with if that was the case.
I should hold my tongue but in preparation for making "Million Dollar Arm" which is about two Indian cricket players who are converted into playing baseball Jon Hamm, who got the part because of his reputation as the biggest baseball fan among actors, was given a document about the rules of cricket and did not claim to have ever understood it. Congratulations on the win however.
But it would damage people's mental health to tell them via education respected by society that they have no tradition to be accountable to and they must have a story about how something felt in their bodies to claim authority.
Or so much is available from the past presented as if it was new that there is only a continuous now and there is enough equilibrium from enough data about what enough people like that incremental cultural change is possible but people who liked the old things still have to recognize them in what they are consuming now. (The Billboard Hot 100 is about to experience its yearly invasion of decades-old Christmas songs from streaming including 3 or 4 from the last decade)
I know - it goes against the grain. But Winston Churchill was never really a heroic figure for me. And Piers Morgan's supercilious demeanour and talking over the top of others he likes to browbeat always annoys me. In this case TC with frankly unique way of looking at the British entry to WWII really appealed to me. I am just back from a couple of months around the UK and Eire - looking at the "terrorism" unleashed on the people by Starmer and his goons by (mostly) elderly and infirm folk carted off for holding up placards in support of Palestine - by a totally politicised police force (one thinks of the S.A in Hitler's Germany of the 1930s or of Trump's I.C.E agents in the current US) and at the cost-of-living and housing crisis - as seriously bad as here under Albanese/Marles/Wong...Have I corralled all my upsets into that? Possibly not but you'll get the drift. Also I didn't realise you may have posted that clip as a kind of support for Piers?
Thanks – yes, I’m aghast at the absurd excesses of speech policing in the UK and the use of the terrorist legislation. For me it's everything I hate about politicians - their ability not just to do the wrong thing, but to do it in a way that is off the charts politically incompetent. It's obvious not just that Starmer shouldn't suppress speech on the scale he's attempting to, but can't. At least a Tory doesn't have that many votes to lose by it. But a Labour PM. Just extraordinarily incompetent.
But I’m not sure why that means I should support someone as creepy as Carlson who platforms neo-Nazis, and historians who want to tell us that Churchill was the villain in WWII not Hitler. I am rather fond of Churchill, though I appreciate his flaws, but it seems to me that Carson’s line of questioning against Morgan was outrageous. Have you watched the whole interview? I haven’t but I’ve watched enough little snippets to give me the creeps. On your comment on interrupting, at least from what I saw, Carlson interrupted Morgan constantly and Morgan typically didn’t interrupt.
On Morgan, I never took his nonsense on the Morning show that seriously, and I read most performances in our performative world against the grain. If he feels the need to carry on like a pork chop, well that’s the job. I wouldn’t like to do it, but he’s a journeyman. In any event, since he did his tantrum on the Morning show and left and has set up his program, he’s been much better than most mainstream media at having on divergent views and getting some sense talked. He knows quite a lot about the Middle East, has a better record than most on it (he was one of the few to dissent on Iraq II from the beginning). It’s that kind of thing that I rate.
But I only watch him if he pops up in my feed, which isn’t that often. But I actually find him less preoccupied with having particular in-house views than pretty much any commentator. He doesn’t cow tow to the Israel lobby which most of those in his position did for an unconscionably long time after the Gaza massacre began (or so it seems to me).
I already wrote too much on Noah Smith's review of "Blank Space" and I understand that Claude is only assimilating many zeitgeist statements but another thought which I had re that post is that there are few new obvious artistic movements because younger people are looking for what went wrong in what was discarded from the past so any art that they make needs to have some usable tradition standing behind it. Even if this tradition is an invented tradition or has been tweaked to be more inclusive it is still a tradition--the idea is not that tradition is bad. "Indigenous" would not be one of the ultimate progressive words to conjure with if that was the case.
I should hold my tongue but in preparation for making "Million Dollar Arm" which is about two Indian cricket players who are converted into playing baseball Jon Hamm, who got the part because of his reputation as the biggest baseball fan among actors, was given a document about the rules of cricket and did not claim to have ever understood it. Congratulations on the win however.
But it would damage people's mental health to tell them via education respected by society that they have no tradition to be accountable to and they must have a story about how something felt in their bodies to claim authority.
Or so much is available from the past presented as if it was new that there is only a continuous now and there is enough equilibrium from enough data about what enough people like that incremental cultural change is possible but people who liked the old things still have to recognize them in what they are consuming now. (The Billboard Hot 100 is about to experience its yearly invasion of decades-old Christmas songs from streaming including 3 or 4 from the last decade)
Ed Sheeran and Elton John's "Merry Christmas" is one of these that you might know
So much increasingly to like about Tucker Carlson - and the reverse re Piers Morgan
Really?
I know - it goes against the grain. But Winston Churchill was never really a heroic figure for me. And Piers Morgan's supercilious demeanour and talking over the top of others he likes to browbeat always annoys me. In this case TC with frankly unique way of looking at the British entry to WWII really appealed to me. I am just back from a couple of months around the UK and Eire - looking at the "terrorism" unleashed on the people by Starmer and his goons by (mostly) elderly and infirm folk carted off for holding up placards in support of Palestine - by a totally politicised police force (one thinks of the S.A in Hitler's Germany of the 1930s or of Trump's I.C.E agents in the current US) and at the cost-of-living and housing crisis - as seriously bad as here under Albanese/Marles/Wong...Have I corralled all my upsets into that? Possibly not but you'll get the drift. Also I didn't realise you may have posted that clip as a kind of support for Piers?
Thanks – yes, I’m aghast at the absurd excesses of speech policing in the UK and the use of the terrorist legislation. For me it's everything I hate about politicians - their ability not just to do the wrong thing, but to do it in a way that is off the charts politically incompetent. It's obvious not just that Starmer shouldn't suppress speech on the scale he's attempting to, but can't. At least a Tory doesn't have that many votes to lose by it. But a Labour PM. Just extraordinarily incompetent.
But I’m not sure why that means I should support someone as creepy as Carlson who platforms neo-Nazis, and historians who want to tell us that Churchill was the villain in WWII not Hitler. I am rather fond of Churchill, though I appreciate his flaws, but it seems to me that Carson’s line of questioning against Morgan was outrageous. Have you watched the whole interview? I haven’t but I’ve watched enough little snippets to give me the creeps. On your comment on interrupting, at least from what I saw, Carlson interrupted Morgan constantly and Morgan typically didn’t interrupt.
On Morgan, I never took his nonsense on the Morning show that seriously, and I read most performances in our performative world against the grain. If he feels the need to carry on like a pork chop, well that’s the job. I wouldn’t like to do it, but he’s a journeyman. In any event, since he did his tantrum on the Morning show and left and has set up his program, he’s been much better than most mainstream media at having on divergent views and getting some sense talked. He knows quite a lot about the Middle East, has a better record than most on it (he was one of the few to dissent on Iraq II from the beginning). It’s that kind of thing that I rate.
But I only watch him if he pops up in my feed, which isn’t that often. But I actually find him less preoccupied with having particular in-house views than pretty much any commentator. He doesn’t cow tow to the Israel lobby which most of those in his position did for an unconscionably long time after the Gaza massacre began (or so it seems to me).