Eminem VOTE Music Video - DPChallenge Forums

10/26/2004 07:18:44 PM · #1

I wonder if, like the Dixie Chicks, he'll be met with protests:

//boss.streamos.com/qtime/interscope/eminem/encore/video/mosh-rev/300_mosh-rev.mov

Keep in mind that he's merely reminding his fans to PLEASE VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2ND -- nothing terribly revolutionary about that, right? And, yes, please vote!

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 19:20:28.

MadMordegon

10/26/2004 10:02:31 PM · #2

Awesome video; right on.

Though its not airing on MTV nor will the mtv.com site air the video in its entirery.

riotspyne

Nikon D80

10/26/2004 10:10:05 PM · #3

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.

Russell2566

10/26/2004 10:12:24 PM · #4

Originally posted by bdobe:

I wonder if, like the Dixie Chicks, he'll be met with protests:

Is this only reserved for the left? Rumor has it, free speech goes beyond what you aggree with.

10/26/2004 10:20:27 PM · #5

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by bdobe:
I wonder if, like the Dixie Chicks, he'll be met with protests:

Is this only reserved for the left? Rumor has it, free speech goes beyond what you aggree with.

For once we agree -- free speech is exactly that, and it's meant to allow a forum for dissent; which is precisely what's been missing from the public discourse for far too long, as far as I'm concerned.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/27/2004 02:01:56 PM · #6

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by bdobe:
I wonder if, like the Dixie Chicks, he'll be met with protests:

Is this only reserved for the left? Rumor has it, free speech goes beyond what you aggree with.

For once we agree -- free speech is exactly that, and it's meant to allow a forum for dissent; which is precisely what's been missing from the public discourse for far too long, as far as I'm concerned.

When and where have you been denied a forum for dissent? More generally, what major public forum has denied any point of view with at least a minimal base of support a fair hearing? If there are so many voices being silenced, then how are you aware of them all?

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

10/27/2004 02:58:27 PM · #7

Originally posted by ScottK:

I wasn't merely commenting on my experience, I was referring to the national "public discourse". Note that major news outlets have published editorials essentially making the point that, after 9/11, many of them felt that they had less latitude to express dissenting view points on the Iraq war, and other Bush policies. Of course, much of this was "self imposed" censorship; however, such phenomenon was made possible by the tactics used by the Bush administration, and his supporters, to quell the opposition. For example, since the horrible attacks on 9/11, the administration -- and its supporters -- would routinely paint critics as "un-patriotic", "un-American", as terrorists sympathizers, etc. Why, just look at the personal signature that some DPC members are using: 10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anyone but Bush. Hmmm, I wonder where he got that ridiculous and misguided idea. Again, it's because of such tactics by the Bush administration and its supporters, that rational, educated and thoughtful dissenting opinions were not widely aired before the run up to war in Iraq, the exuberant Bush tax-giveaways, and other ill conceived policies by this administration.

As for how it is that am "aware" of the dissenting notions that I referred to; well, I work hard to expose myself to a balance diet of information. For example, I routinely seek international news outlets, read several news paper articles online, listen to NPR, attend lectures on the subjects that interest me -- just recently I attended a Paul Krugman lecture at UCLA, if you have a chance, I highly recommend that you attend his lecture and read his column. Anyhow, my point is that I seek out information, and don't limit my news diet to network or the cable news; because, as far as I'm concerned, they misinform more than they inform. Of course, it helps that I'm a news and political junky with easy access to major universities in town.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

10/27/2004 03:12:52 PM · #8

That video lasted about 10 seconds before I couldn't stand listening to it.
Nothing personal, just have no use for noise.

MadMordegon

10/27/2004 05:17:39 PM · #9

Originally posted by bdobe:

Well said bdobe.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/27/2004 09:39:07 PM · #10

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by ScottK:
When and where have you been denied a forum for dissent? More generally, what major public forum has denied any point of view with at least a minimal base of support a fair hearing? If there are so many voices being silenced, then how are you aware of them all?

I wasn't merely commenting on my experience, I was referring to the national "public discourse". Note that major news outlets have published editorials essentially making the point that, after 9/11, many of them felt that they had less latitude to express dissenting view points on the Iraq war, and other Bush policies. Of course, much of this was "self imposed" censorship; however, such phenomenon was made possible by the tactics used by the Bush administration, and his supporters, to quell the opposition. For example, since the horrible attacks on 9/11, the administration -- and its supporters -- would routinely paint critics as "un-patriotic", "un-American", as terrorists sympathizers, etc. Why, just look at the personal signature that some DPC members are using: 10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anyone but Bush. Hmmm, I wonder where he got that ridiculous and misguided idea. Again, it's because of such tactics by the Bush administration and its supporters, that rational, educated and thoughtful dissenting opinions were not widely aired before the run up to war in Iraq, the exuberant Bush tax-giveaways, and other ill conceived policies by this administration.

I'm sorry, but the hyper-sensitivity you describe is one of the reasons I have a hard time taking many of the left's anti-Bush and/or anti-administration positions seriously.

Because somebody "felt" they didn't have the latitude to criticize, the then it must be some other outside force that's responsible? But that's not enough, the fact that someone "felt" this is now given as proof that Bush is infringing on people's freedom of speech. This just does not logically stand up.

And your example is perfect: "10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anyone but Bush". Ok, we can debate whether or not this may or may not be accurate (I would defend it, I know you've argued against it), there's nothing about that which in any way casts negatively on you - unless you're a terrorist. (I assume not.) What it says is that Bush is the one who will fight terrorists more effectively (again we can argue the point, but not relevant at the moment). What you "feel" it says is that if you oppose Bush, you're a terrorist. But it doesn't! So, who is at fault for your "feelings"? Is it Anachronite's fault for expressing an idea about who will better fight terrorism? Or is it your fault for being hyper-sensitive and reading meaning that may or may not be there? And if you denounce his statement because it made you "feel" insulted or threatened, aren't you infringing on his freedom to express himself without worrying about being misinterpretted?

This is exactly why I asked. Because it's my opinion/observation that there is very little, if any, denial of anyone's right to dissent. What I think is happening is that you (the collective "you") are, either through over-sensitivity, or (if I were going to follow your track of logic) through a desire to remove dissent to your opinion, denounce anyone who disagrees with you (again, collectively) in equal but opposite terms. So in denouncing oppression which, if it exists, probably exists to a far less degree than you describe, you actually attempt to impose that same oppression yourself.

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/27/2004 09:40:26 PM · #11

Originally posted by BradP:

That video lasted about 10 seconds before I couldn't stand listening to it.
Nothing personal, just have no use for noise.

I heard bits on the radio, and I have to agree. What a droning, plodding litany of babble.

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

10/28/2004 02:24:01 AM · #12

Originally posted by ScottK:

I'm sorry, but the hyper-sensitivity you describe is one of the reasons I have a hard time taking many of the left's anti-Bush and/or anti-administration positions seriously.

I don't recognize the "hyper-sensitivity" you speak of. In fact, it seems to me that it's conservatives which are the "hyper-sensative" ones... for example, I could cite countless instances of over-reaction and reflexive name calling that's come from those that support the administration; these are examples that, to my satisfaction, illustrate perfectly well what I would describe as true "hyper-sensitivity." But this an extremely subjective issue, and not one that you'll get me to see your way.

Originally posted by ScottK:

Because somebody "felt" they didn't have the latitude to criticize, the then it must be some other outside force that's responsible? But that's not enough, the fact that someone "felt" this is now given as proof that Bush is infringing on people's freedom of speech. This just does not logically stand up.

Hmmm... what an incredibly narrow way you've used to look at the situation. You appear to completely dismiss the importance of "political tone" and the sort of climate that that tone can imbue public discourse with. Again, this notion of "political tone" is not just something that I've pulled from mid air; as I mentioned in my original post, many journalists, media watchers, politicians, and others, have arrived at the same conclusion -- that is, that the administration's political rhetoric stifled the latitude they had to present dissenting view points. Of course, this is not something that you, or those that share your world view, will concede; but, unfortunately, the world is far more complicated than what you present it as. And, in that more complex world which I know to exist, the tone that political leaders -- namely the president -- set is important, and it does affect how journalists and other public officials behave and report on.

Here's an example of the sort of practice that set a "political tone" where dissent is not tolerated:

BUSH-BACKERS-ONLY POLICY RILES VOTERS AT RNC RALLIES

"Whose vice president is he?" said 72-year-old retiree John Wade of Albuquerque, who was asked to sign the form when he picked up his tickets. "I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say, and they make me sign a loyalty oath." [August 9, 2004]

As I mentioned elsewhere, one often sees Bush supporters heckling Mr. Kerry at his rallies, yet the Democratic nominee has never asked anyone to sign a "loyalty oath" in order to attend a pro-Kerry rally.

Originally posted by ScottK:

And your example is perfect: "10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anyone but Bush". Ok, we can debate whether or not this may or may not be accurate (I would defend it, I know you've argued against it), there's nothing about that which in any way casts negatively on you - unless you're a terrorist. (I assume not.) What it says is that Bush is the one who will fight terrorists more effectively (again we can argue the point, but not relevant at the moment). What you "feel" it says is that if you oppose Bush, you're a terrorist. But it doesn't!

Again, what an incredibly narrow way of looking at the issue. I see your point, but frankly I think it relies on semantics much too much. As I've attempted to illustrate, language, and especially that which is used by political leaders, has a tremendous impact on the "political tone." In fact, language is so powerful in affecting the political climate, and the way that people act and "feel," that it is often regulated. This is something that is widely accepted and understood, that's why "charismatic" individuals -- that is, those that can stir and make people "feel" -- are so "dangerous." I would say that Doctor King was certainly a charismatic individual and speaker; which is what permitted him to effectively make people "feel" a certain way, and thus affected the "political tone" of his era. Accordingly, the political climate and those that operate in it (ie., journalists, politicians, etc.) are sensitive to how a people are made to "feel" by their political leaders; and, thereby, regulate themselves accordingly. As an example, just look at how "fear" is often used to make people "feel" a certain way, and thereby manipulated to fall in line for or against "X".

Originally posted by ScottK:

So, who is at fault for your "feelings"? Is it Anachronite's fault for expressing an idea about who will better fight terrorism? Or is it your fault for being hyper-sensitive and reading meaning that may or may not be there? And if you denounce his statement because it made you "feel" insulted or threatened, aren't you infringing on his freedom to express himself without worrying about being misinterpretted?

First, please note that I've not asked the user to remove his signature. In fact, note that in my original post I was careful to not attribute the quote to any one directly, as I wanted the user to remain anonymous -- so to not single him out. I belive that he has a right to present his opinion. In case it's gone unnoticed, I've made it a point to defend dissent. And just to illustrate how much I belive in Freedom of Speech, and on the value of airing dissenting views, I'm a financial supporter of the same organization that's defended Rush Limbaugh and atheists alike: the ACLU. Moreover, I would make the point that it's the American-Left which has traditionally been far more tolerant of dissent and of diversity than the Conservative-Right. Why, just look at the ACLU and Rush; here's a perfect example of the traditional positions of the American-Left and Conservative-Right. Rush often rails against and demonizes the ACLU; however, true to principle and its mission, the ACLU supported Rush against the State of Florida in his recent drug abuse case. As for the "feel" argument that you rely on once again, please see my post above.

Message edited by author 2004-10-28 03:41:13.

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

10/28/2004 08:48:09 AM · #13

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by BradP:
That video lasted about 10 seconds before I couldn't stand listening to it.
Nothing personal, just have no use for noise.

I heard bits on the radio, and I have to agree. What a droning, plodding litany of babble.

You could have watched it without the sound. You might not like it but aren't you curious to see a music video that can galvanize the under 20 crowd to vote? I really liked it but the TEENS around here LOVED it (teens as in 18 and 19).

cbeller

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/28/2004 09:10:17 AM · #14

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Awesome video; right on.

Though its not airing on MTV nor will the mtv.com site air the video in its entirery.

Actually the video is Ranked #1 on MTV and was played as a world premiere video on TRL.

myqyl

Nikon D3100

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

10/28/2004 09:43:10 AM · #15

Originally posted by ScottK:

As much as I'm hesitant to enter into more political debate for a while, I just have to point this out... Freedom of Speech in this country (USA) has been in rapid decline for the last 3 decades. I'm not talking about Left Speech or Right speech, just the freedom as a whole. WTO protesters, dissent at either of the major parties political conventions, anti-abortion protesters, and a host of others have all been regulated into "Free Speech Zones"... I thought the Free Speech zone was suppose to stretch from the coast of Maine to the furthest island of Hawaii... Not to point a political finger here, but go to a rally for the current presidential candidates wearing the other candidates shirt. I know for certain that you won't get into either and you'll leave one in handcuffs. The Civil rights of this country are in EXTREME jeopardy right now. I urge everyone to actual READ the USA PATRIOT ACT... It's long and often boring, but if you actually read it, I think anyone with an ounce of objectivity will see it is the Anti Bill of Rights Act.

Edit (to keep on thread :) ) I'm not an Eminem fan by any stretch, but I will try to sit through the rap to see what he has to say... My children are home right now and I know better than to bring his brand of free speech into my home while a 6 year old is getting ready for school :) But I am glad to hear that a musician (and I apply the term losely here) is getting political... I applaud the Dixie Chicks for putting social conscience ahead of air time. God bless them.

Message edited by author 2004-10-28 09:50:00.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/28/2004 10:24:17 AM · #16

AND...As if the Patriot Act wasn't enough John Ashcroft has come up with the "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," dubbed Patriot Act II. Patriot Act I already allows the government to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on the citizens of the US without judicial review, find out library patron reading habits, etc, but as if that wasn't enough they have included these provisions in USPAII:

*Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)

*Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War."

*The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."

*Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

*The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

*Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

*Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

*Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."

*American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.

*The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.

*And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" -- stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 -- would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."

You can see the entire draft of USPAII at THIS ARTICLE.

Also available in the article are critiques of USPAII from the ACLU and The Center for Public Integrity.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/28/2004 11:49:06 AM · #17

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Since burning the American flag is considered "speech" and, thus, protected as real speech would be, why shouldn't giving material support to terrorist organizations be considered "speech" in a likewise manner?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

*Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War."

While it may be true that the national Congress has not exempted anyone from habeas corpus, individual states have. Most recently, the state of Utah had was prepared to prosecute Mark Hacking for the first degree murder of his wife, Lori, even though her body had not been found ( it has, since ).

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

*The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."
Wired News flat out lied. I challange them, or YOU for that matter, to provide a single instance where someone suffered genetic discrimination based on their DNA, flawed or otherwise. And, by discrimination, I do not mean that they weren't prosecuted for a crime based on DNA evidence that tied them to the crime.

[quote=Oluzi]*Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

No warrant, but it WOULD require approval from the Attorney General, so "authorities" couldn't just act on their own. And, that is already law following a "declaration of war". The "new" provision only broadens it to include "authorization for use of military force" - not a huge leap.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

*The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

This is like the "have you stopped beating your wife" question - loaded. Of course "secret arrests" will be specifically permitted, but, then again, they have never been NOT permitted, though their legality was upheld by the highest courts. Wouldn't you rather have it spelled out instead of having to run to the courts for clarification every time?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

*Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

We already have laws that protect "whistle-blowers" in the workplace, and, I'm sure, YOU support them. This is just a logical extension to that protection. And yes, we actually WANT neighbor to spy on neighbor, especially if that neighbor is plotting to kill large numbers of us. If we had had BETTER neighborly watch in effect, the Columbine massacre would have been prevented, as would the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

*Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

If they are carrying out orders that do not entail destroying property or inflicting grevious harm upon persons, then they SHOULD be immune. If the orders were illegal, those who ISSUED the order should be charged. It is not reasonable to require beat policemen to have a thorough knowledge of all civil laws, nor to question orders that, under some circumstances, might be perfectly legal and proper.

I could go on to rebut the remaining items, but other duties call. I'll try to get back to them later. Suffice it to say - most of your fears are just that

The sky is falling

LoudDog