- Global Copycats
- The Winners and Losers of the Jobs Report, Economic Theories of the Recession Edition
- The Ultras’ Politics of Fun Confront Tyranny
- Meeting Muscat
- Economists: Actively Evil Neoliberal Ideologues or Soulless Technocratic Hacks?
- How an Israeli Strike on Iran could radically weaken Israel
- Feel the Lin-sanity: Why Jeremy Lin is more than a cultural curio
- Ethiopia, Anti-Terrorism, and Human Rights
- The Arab Digital Vanguard: How a Decade of Blogging Contributed to a Year of Revolution
- JM Coetzee’s Cricketing Life
- ‘Little’ Protests, Big Erasures
- Hose streets? Our streets! Belgian firefighters soak police in protest
- Arab Talk Interview: Nikhil Pal Singh on Palestine
- Is [Toto's] “Africa” “Actually” African? – Mind. Blown.
- Your scholarship won’t pay their bills.
Today’s New York Times contains a fine example of how ideology works at the high end: report information that might trouble the established order, but conclude on a tranquilizing note that allows the comfortable reader to turn the page (or click “close tab”) without changing his or her worldview. Both functions are important. Outlets like the Times do report tons of important stuff that one would be hard-pressed to learn otherwise. But, as Alexander Cockburn put it long ago, a primary function of the bourgeois press is reassurance.
Gosling’s presence in a film assures it will be taken as an important revelation of the American zeitgeist, which in turn reinforces his own cultural significance. His fame has reached the level of tautology: It has transcended causal logic altogether, acting as a feedback loop that amplifies the ideas and cultural assumptions that he transmits. Such resonance allows his films to serve as especially effective bearers of ideology. They target psychological spots that have already been softened, bypassing rational argument to establish the sort of beliefs that can perpetuate society on its current terms.
Consider the recent film Drive, a nouveau-noir thriller in which Gosling plays a stuntman and getaway driver who, in an effort to protect his neighbor and inamorata from the thugs who would do her harm, becomes entangled in a cycle of Mafia-related violence. If that premise sounds familiar, it is because the movie fits the tried-and-true formula of patriarchal fantasy wherein viewers are asked to accept that violent death at the hands of others is the primary existential threat and, consequently, that women need male protection to survive.
Under late capitalism, the true existential threat is deprivation. Far more will succumb to a lack of food, uncontaminated water, or medicine than will be murdered. Scarcity pervades our everyday lives and terrorizes us: Even our relative opulence cannot quite suppress the mantra of “work or starve” humming quietly in the background. Capitalist society trains us to cater to capital to escape this threat, placing great value on those who are able to suck up to bosses.
Patriarchal fantasies play against this. In their contrived worlds, social value accrues to brutes who can physically overpower would-be aggressors — which is to say that men are rendered heroes by default. Hence Ryan Gosling’s character in Drive.
- Writing American Empire
- Bishops and burkhas and buggies
- Why Planned Parenthood Had To Fight Back So Hard
- Internet of People and Social Flâneurism
- Interview with Alyssa Eisenberg
- Adverts from Playboy, November and December 1962
- Pakistani Women – Multiple Locations and Competing Narratives
- The Death of Cinema Redux: Martin Scorsese’s Hugo
- Starship Troopers and Other Super Bowl Fantasies
- “From schools to prisons, outsourcing government’s works typically ends with cronyism, waste and unaccountability”
- Islam, Women and the West
- Saul Alinsky: The activist who terrifies the right
- Love in Fanon, Keguro’s GWU talk.
- Concerning the Violent Peace-Police: An Open Letter to Chris Hedges
- Video police deleted from journalist’s camera by police after Occupy Miami eviction, recovered.
- Santa Rita, I hate every inch of you
The Invisible War:
- Internet of People and Social Flâneurism
- Frank Pasquale collects opinions On the Servicing Settlement (they all hate it; we got screwed)
- Occupying the ‘Wall Street Journal’
- A Funny Thing on the Way to the Oakland Police Review Board Forum
- Hi Bill Keller. The New York Times admits it infringed on our copyright. Why can’t you?
- The Saturday interview: Stuart Hall
My feeling is that student fees are instituted, basically as a technique of indoctrination and control. I don’t think there’s an economic basis for them. And it’s interesting that, you look at the timing — like when I went to college, I went to an Ivy League university, The University of Pennsylvania. Tuition was only $100 and you could easily get a scholarship.
Students today are over $1 trillion in debt. That’s more than credit card debt. A trillion dollars of debt? That’s a burden on people coming out of college. It’s got them trapped. It (tuition) is a technique of control, and it surely isn’t an economic necessity in the richest country in the world. All sorts of things started happening — the university architecture changed. Universities that were built, worldwide, in the post-’70s and on, are usually designed so that they don’t have meeting places, designed just to keep students separated and under control. Look at the ratio of administrators to faculty: it’s gone way up the last couple of decades … not for educational purposes, but for more techniques of control.
What you’re talking about, I think it should be opposed, because it’s a general form of indoctrination and control, which goes down to kindergarten. I mean, that’s what No Child Left Behind is about. It’s training for the Marine Corps. It’s a way to make sure that children aren’t free, independent or inquisitive, exploring.
Joseph Briones, 30, was arrested along with 408 others at an Occupy Oakland protest Jan. 28. He is one of 12 who were apparently issued the restraining orders, and is therefore barred from being within 300 yards of Oakland City Hall, potentially for the next three years, according to Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Teresa Drenick.
But based on a Feb. 8 hearing, Briones and his lawyer understood that he did not have a stay-away order against him, said Occupy Oakland media committee member Omar Yassin. “That’s why he was at the plaza, carefree, on Wednesday,” said Yassin. That’s when Briones was arrested.
In a Feb. 9 press release, Officer Johnna Watson of Oakland Police media relations said that “Joseph Briones is one of four individuals charged with a violent felony offense stemming from the Jan. 28 protest.” But according to records at the District Attorney’s office, that’s incorrect; Briones is charged with three misdemeanors.
While everyone scrambles to get their story straight, Briones is still in jail. He has a hearing at 2 o’ clock today. If found to have violated a stay-away order, he could face six months in prison. So far, Briones is legally innocent of any crime; he has not been convicted of any of the charges leveled on him in connection with Jan. 28. None of the other 11 who are prohibited from going near City Hall have been convicted of anything either.
Besides all that, the stay-away orders may be entirely illegal…
- Random Searches on the New York Subways: Getting Used to the Stop-n-Frisk
- Don’t Spill That Semen!
- Brazilian Police Go on Strike and More on the Brazilian Police Strike
- On Technology and classless society and Quotations on Hidden Labor
- America at Midpassage?
- The Madonna of the Sea
- Blogging as Outsider Art
- Syrian Dictator Seeking Work… on Craigslist?
- Shut Up, Jonathan Franzen
- The Tuareg Uprising in Northern Mali
- 1789, 1979, and all that…
- How to Date a Wall Street Man (Continued)
- Why Foreign Bestsellers Often Fail in Japan.
- Remaking the University: Have We Protected Poor Students from Debt?
- Mr Kristof, I Presume?
- On Massad: The Failure of the Anti-Imperialist Intellectuals
- On Syria
- How a seedpod led to $400,000 bail and 8 felony charges
- I Was Caught in Police Violence at Occupy DC
- Tucson Students Stage Walkouts, Teach-Ins Over Suspended Mexican American Studies Program
- Towards 1971 I: A Personal Journey
- Towards 1971 II: The Making of a Tragedy
- Towards 1971 III: A Few Good Pakistani Men
- Towards 1971 IV: The Enemy Within
If you’re like me, you probably haven’t watched Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace since its original release in 1999, because you’ve had literallyanything else to do. And you probably think, in your hazy hindsight, that it’s just “not that good” or “pretty bad” or some other relatively gentle descriptor that lets George Lucas off the hook for being an affably clumsy old billionaire man-frog. However, having recently rewatched Phantom Menace to prepare for its upcoming 3-D rerelease (do you like the Star Wars prequels but just wish you couldalso have a headache???), allow me to say this: HOOOOOO MY GOD FUCK US ALL BECAUSE THIS MOVIE GOT BIT BY A RADIOACTIVE GARBAGE AND IT IS A FUCKING MONSTERPIECE THEATER THAT TRANSCENDS BAD AND GOOD-BAD TO COME BACK AGAIN TO BAD AND REDEFINE COMEDY ITSELF. Seriously. Seriously. Drinking game: Take a shot every time something hella dumb happens and/or every time Jar Jar Binks makes you want to personally send tear-soaked reparations to 110 percent of the black people on earth. Oops, sorry about how you’re dead now (alcohol poiz).