Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*

pdw writes "Revolution is not an AOL Keyword* is an entertaining piece of prose, which has been floating around the blogspace for the past month. In reinterpreting Gil Scott-Heron's The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Eddan Katz has given us quick worldview, common to most Slashdoters, and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!"

Groovy...

[TopShelf]

So am I supposed to smoke clove cigarettes and snap my fingers to this???

The Revolution will be moderated up.

[rdewald]

The one thing that seemed off about the langauge in the homage to GSH's insightful song about the ultimate irreverence of mass media was the attempt to address "geeks" via a reference to AOL keywords.

I don't know any geeks that use AOL.

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

The web isn't mass media, it just has mass distribution.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[Qender]

uh, he's not making a geek refrence, what he's saying is pretty much what you say in your last sentence

"Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword...."

hence his line

"revolution is not an aol keyword."

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[stephanruby]

I guess you're a geek with no TV. The tag line "AOL keyword blahblah" was created for the television market. It's just like Tampax tampons, most of us will never use them and yet most of us know about them.

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[therevolution]

Besides, the revolution, if there is one, will probably have a web site, but it will run on Apache and Perl Scripts. There won't be an AOL keyword....

No, I don't have a web site... no Apache or Perl scripts either. Sorry.

But feel free to mod me up anyway!

Re:The Revolution will be moderated up.

[miu]

I don't know anyone who has ever used, is using or ever will use AOL.

Uh huh. And uncle Steve is bringing his friend Bruce to Thanksgiving dinner. Bruce seems nice, maybe he can help uncle Steve find a nice girl to marry.

Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Considering up here in Canada we've held referendums to determine if we should divide the country (first Quebec, and now Alberta is talking about it too) I find it hard to believe we would ever see such an event take place.

Even with Bush going a bit nuts with the whole "You must give up your rights to be safe, citizen." power grab in the US, he can easily be voted out at the next election. No revolution (violent or otherwise) necessary.

You need the support of the majority to have a revolution, otherwise it's called other things.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends. Would you consider the United States Civil War a revolution by the southern states?

Re:Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, against colonial powers, though I admit I know little of the US Civil War so feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong...

Re:Revolution

[bsartist]

The primary issue of the civil war wasn't slavery - it was the balance of power between the federal government and individual states.

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery until late in the war, and not for the reason that many believe. The war was going badly for the north. General Lee, a graduate of West Point, and before the war one of the best commanders the US Army had, had won victory after victory. Many northerners were calling on Lincoln to recognize the secession of the south and sign a treaty with the Confederate States.

Putting an end to slavery was, for Lincoln, a means of gaining support for continuing the war from the abolitionist movement. If the north and south were to remain separate, it would have been largely symbolic, as slavery was not widely practiced in the north at that point anyway. The new law would only have teeth if the war continued, and the south was brought back into the union and subjected to its laws.

An interesting bit of history: Before the civil war, the US was referred to using the plural form - i.e. "these United States are..." It wasn't until after the civil war, and the post-war rise in the power of the federal government, that the singular form began to be used - i.e. "this United States is..."

This post brought to you by Ken Burns - and viewers like you. ;-)

Re:Revolution

[luzrek]

Having grown up in Florida, which was a Slave state, now populated by Northerners, I think that I've gotten a fiarly good education on both sides of the topic. While the US Civil war was not entirely about slavery, slavery was certainly the motivating factor. As the west was settled there was an agreement made to admit one slave and one free state each time any state was created, thus maintaining a balance in the Senate and preventing either side from mandating or abolishing slavery. Shortly before Lincoln was elected it began to become clear that the number of "free" states was going to out pace the number of slave states so the slave states wanted to pass legislation changing the location of the Masson-Dixon line (the line above which the US was "free" and below which it was "slave"). To do this they needed their canadate to be elected (Jefferson Davis). He was not elected despite the 3/5ths of the unrepersented slave population of the south counting towards its electoral tally (which was an even older source of bad-blood). The south then tried to break off and form its own country. From 150 years later (almost) this looks like the south was simply a sore looser. At the time this was a violation of everything that Lincoln beleived in (basically he was a true patriot, very much beleiving in the USofA) and Lincoln acted to prevent the disentigration of the Union. Thus the civil war. In short, the American civil war wasn't about slavery for the North, but it was for the South.

Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory. The Southern politicians assumed that since the cotton for the world's textile mills came from their states that France and/or Britian would come to their aide. This was bad reasoning since Egypt was already producing higher grade cotton and European and Industrial warehouses were full at the beginning of the war. Of course we all know that the war turned at Gettysberg where Lee (despite what you may have gotten from the Ken Burns specials) basically killed 15000 of his own men by ordering Picket's charge over the strong objections of the other southern generals (Longstreet included).

Also, remember that the American Civil war was much more costly for the South than for the North. A greater portion of their 18-40 year old men were killed, what industry the south had was destroyed by Sherman, and the way the social and economic elites lived was fundamentally altered. No Southerner should attempt to glorify the civil war. What the Confederacy stood for, and the war planning of its politicians is an embarassment to all true Americans.

Re:Revolution

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Looking back at it, the military "victories" the South won were phiric. In no battle was there a clear winner in terms of causualties, and from the beginning it was clear that the North's greater population (why Lincoln won to begin with) and industrialization (the South couldn't even manufacture the bullets for many of the Northern guns they captured) was going to eventually lead to its victory.

Wars aren't about guns. Nor are they about casualties, or slogans, or tech, or logisti

Re:Revolution

[geekoid]

you just need power to have a revolution.

Re:Revolution

[n3m6]

Clint Eastwood A lot of crap's coming down tonight. You wanna be a player or not. Wanna know what happened that night or don't ya. Cause I was there

-absolute power

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

he can easily be voted out at the next election

That was written on the assumption that he was voted in fair and square the first time... ... which is debatable.

Re:Revolution

[moonbender]

Perhabs Hitler's takeover of the Weimar Republic, which was a modern democracy, converting into an absolutist fascist regime in 1933 could be called a revolution. It was very much inside the system, though, it was not a violent public uprise.

Apart from that, the couple of modern democracies - including first and foremost the USA, the right to bear arms nonwithstanding - have taken great care to keep up a large enough and well-equipped military to prevent a public, violent revolution from happening. And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

And of course, in a working democracy, a revolution is made unlikely since the majority gets what it wants anyway.

Which is oh so convienent since it seems like we are being told more and more what it is we want instead of thinking for ourselves, which is of course part of the message of The Revolution will not be Televised.

Re:Revolution

[rdewald]

The word revolution in this context refers to the overthrow of a government, or form of government, or social system by those governed, usually by forceful means, with another government or social system taking its place.

In recent history, this has happened because of, or has been attempted by, people seeking a democracy is the new form of government. Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy. It's not that it is impossible, it's that it has already happened.

The word can also mean a radical change of any kind. This is sometimes necessary in any social system. Democracy allows for a non-violent method to achieve this kind of revolution every election. While the change from Carter to Reagan in 1981 was not a revolution in the former sense of the word, it was in the latter sense. So, the answer depends in some measure on just what one means by revolution.

Orwell's Animal Farm

[NigelJohnstone]

"Maybe this is why a revolution in this sense will not happen in a democracy"

If democracy is the base state of a country, then we would long ago have all become democracies. Clearly that is not the case, since many dictatorships exist throughout the world.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a very insightful piece of work you might like to read:

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/animf.htm

Its basically the story of how Russian went from Tzars to Democracy to Dictatorship, transposed into Animals on a farm.

The pigs SLOWLY amass power and control, the rest of the Animals SLOWLY lose power and control, and the balance shifts until the pigs attack the Farmer and depose him.
A SLOW bypassing of Judicial review, a SLOW move to gain more control is how the US democracy will die, but its still a revolution, just in slow-mo.

Economic Democracy?

[composer777]

If I were to devise a system of government where Bill Gate's got 40 billion votes and the rest of us got 1 vote, we wouldn't even laugh. Calling capitalism democracy is absurd.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviet Communist revolution happened shortly after their democratic revolution, although that was short lived and unstable.

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

Well, given that Bush wasn't elected by the majority, one could argue that the electorial college system actually promotes a kind of revolution. Once you have Texas and Florida, plus the middle states you can ignore the majority opinion for President. Maybe bloodless coup is a better word.

Re:Revolution

[jcast]

Once you have Texas and Florida, plus the middle states you can ignore the majority opinion for President.

Think about what `majority opinion' means, then: the opinion of the East and Left coasts. Why is it considered inherently better that we submit to their whim for president than that they submit to ours?

Re:Revolution

[Silent_E]

Well, in the case of the 2000 election, what the "majority opinion" meant was literally more than half of the voters. It isn't whim, but objective, countable (ahem--not counted) votes. Voting makes our system legitimate.

We can bicker about the how legitimate our voting numbers are (my memory is that it was actually about 40% of the registered voters, which was half? (perhaps less) of the eligible voters). But if you are going to call voting a "whim," then you are dumping the premise of democratic governm

Re:Revolution

[Samari711]

except then you get candidates effectively ignoring entire states and just focusing on the major population centers, which is a bad thing. it basically robs voters who live in areas with low population desities of a say in presidential policy, because if no candidate cares about them it doesn't matter who they vote for. i'm not saying the electoral college is great, but it does have some redeming qualities and shouldn't just be thrown out without careful consideration.

Re:Revolution

[WegianWarrior]

I'm about to open my mouth wide enought to stick my foot in here, but yes. The United States of America would take a great political leap towards what democracy means (peoples rule) if they ditched the electoral college and just appointed the one who most citizens voted for as president.

Or you could look into parlamentism; where the head of state has to answer not only to God and the voters, but to the national assembly. Works a treat in a lot of nations y'know... And how about trying more than two parite

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

Chile was a democracy prior to Sept 11, 1973 when it was overthrown by a US-supported military coup and became a brutal dictatorship. A new leader wasn't elected until 1989.

Re:Revolution

[Archie Steel]

Nice rewriting of history here...in other words, you're saying that it's okay to have a military coup if a government has unpopular policies...

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there was only one acceptable way to get rid of Allende if you didn't agree with him: vote him out. Now if Allende had given himself dictatorial powers, like Pinochet did, then maybe you would have a point. The fact is, despite what you think of Allende's politics (which were a lot more popular with the majority of Chileans than with the rich landowners, I'll give you that), Chile was still a democracy, because there were still going to be elections.

But you've touched on the inherent risk of democracy, that it contains the seed of its own destruction: the people can put an anti-democratic party in power if they vote so. Even in the States, with sufficient votes, it would theoretically be possible to amend the constitution in very undemocratic ways - though I doubt this would ever happen, thanks to the numerous checks and balances of the american system).

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right. What you have to do in democratic societies is to educate the masses enough so that they don't vote for fascist/non-democratic/extremist parties. To oppose restrictions on what people can vote for is contrary to the democratic ideal, even though it does carry the risk of less democracy.

Re:Revolution

[nat5an]

In other words, despite Dubya's warning, Iraqis could very well vote en masse for an Islamic party. That is their right.

Hey, the Algerians tried this, but the French said their election wasn't valid. ;-)

Excuse me?

[robinjo]

Finland have received huge amounts of support from the USSR and been one of the most conservative countries in Europe.

Care to explain where you got this nonsense from?

Re:Excuse me?

[garbs]

Well, I read something years back, dunno if it's true or not, as how Finland got 1/3 of it's military equipment from the west, developed 1/3 of it owns equipment, and it got the other 1/3 from the USSR.

Maybe that's what he is referring to or something.

Re:Excuse me?

[10Ghz]

I also believe that the USSR helped Finland building roads etc which later could be used in an attack on Sweden, but I'm not sure.

Part of the peace-treaty with Soviet Union (for those who do not know history: we fought two wars against them during WW2) was that Finland was required to build a railroad from the eastern-border to the Swedish border. Soviets wanted that in case there was a war with Sweden so they could use it as a supply-line.

As to the Soviet "aid". Well, we didn't really get any aid from t

Re:Revolution

[sedna]

Well, it's clear that history and politics easily creates debates depending on your context and background. If you want to read some descripitions about what happened in Nicaraguar you can try these links:

http://www.countryreports.org/history/nicarhist . ht m

http://www.jorian.com/san.html

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central _a merica/nicaragua/history.htm

http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Nicaragua/History

The truth is that the actual politics by the Sandinistas was less soicialistic the in Swed

Re:Revolution

[CashCarSTAR]

And in order to arm the Contras to fight against the Sandistas, money was funneled through Iran, to repay the Iranians for helping with that little election thing in '80. As well, arms were funneled to the freedom fighters in Afghanastan, arms that which funneled down to the Taliban. As well, in order to be a foil for Iran, military support was given to Iraq.

Some of the parties involved in this whole affair are in the current administration, (Poindexter especially). Finally, back on topic, It will remain to be seen if Iraq is going to be Chile pt. 2, the second great libertarian experiement.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with Bush going a bit nuts with the whole "You must give up your rights to be safe, citizen." power grab in the US, he can easily be voted out at the next election. No revolution (violent or otherwise) necessary.

<TINFOILHAT>... unless the elections are "postponed" due to a terrorist threat. </TINFOILHAT>

Hmm...

[Galvatron]

I guess it depends how you want to account for France. They went though many different governments from 1789 to the modern day. You could probably get technical and say "France wasn't a democracy here, this wasn't a revolution, that was an outside conquest" etc. But the fact remains that France has had several democracies fail, and the failures accompanied bloodshed.

I believe that Kerensky was in the process of setting up a democracy in Russia when he was overthrown by the Bolsheviks. He ruled for such

Re:Hmm...

[James_Duncan8181]

Umm... the declaration of Independence split the US colonies from a British Govt (constitutional Monarchy). This would obviously make the British Govt (still a constitutional Monarchy, last time I checked) older then the US Govt. The House of Commons has existed constantly during this time, and if you consider the Monarch must request that the Govt form (strictly speaking they do so only at her behest) the British Moanarchy has lasted in a constant line since at least Cromwell. So no, the US can't really

Re:Hmm...

[Simon Brooke]

Some have made the claim that the United States government is the oldest government in the world, which may very well be true, depending on how you want to define the end of a government.

They have what? Do citizens of the United States know nothing of what happens overseas? What about

• Sweden since 1634 [sweden.se]
• Switzerland since 1648 [about.ch]
• The United Kingdom since 1707 [britannia.com]

I'm sure you could find other examples.

Re:Revolution

[Cyberdyne]

Has a revolution ever happened in a true democracy (or at least as true as you find in North America)?

I'd say the American Civil War would probably qualify; the English Civil War might - Parliament certainly existed at the time, and the House of Commons was made up of elected members, although the Civil War was fought to remove an unelected head of state (King Charles). It was also followed by a military coup (Cromwell dismissing the Long Parliament).

In modern times, however, it would be very unlikely.

Re:Revolution

[will_die]

You get some who say that the US Civil War was the United States second revolution.
Now if you consider revolution as a shift from one system to another then thier have been numberious ones in the US. From looking at them they seem to have a couple of similar factors.
They get started in college and higher learning institutions.
They start small and slowwly grow, thoses that start small and quickly grow usally are just a fad and die out after the fun is over.

In this case then yes thier have been numerous

Re:Revolution

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, I'm beginning to think maybe my definition of revolution may be a bit too narrow...

Perhaps we should include the peace movement, feminism, civil rights, etc... I guess it all depends on how you look at revolution.

I typically think of it as a power change initiated by an oppressed majority, but I guess it could also be initiated by an oppressed minority that gains popularity with the silent majority...

Re:Revolution

[Associate]

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

If this is about reliving the 60s, you can forget it, buddy. The movement is dead. Yes, of course. Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops. A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.

Re:Revolution

[dipipanone]

Keep in mind what Tommy Lee Jones said in Under Siege.

Oh absolutely. Whenever I need astute political analysis, Hollywood is always the first place I turn.

If you want your political insights to be pithy, easily consumed with no intellectual effort, and absolutely content free and lacking any reference to complex reality, Hollywood will deliver.

Which actually explains a lot about US political life, if you think about it.

What is this guy, retarded?

[j1mmy]

Just because it's not an AOL keyword doesn't mean you can't find it. Try googling, dammit.

Re:What is this guy, retarded?

[goon america]

The revolution WILL probably be indexed by google. Hopefully it will end up in the cache too, in case it gets slashdotted.

excuse me

[deadsaijinx*]

if i seem to be trolling, but this is just some blog poem with a bunch of links. Thats all, just a load of links. The message isn't very original either. Of course the revolution wont be a mass media, everybody and their grandma's doing it, we stand united as a nation sort of deal. that's what makes it a REVOLUTION! By definition it is an underground movement. If it was mainstream, it wouldnt be a revolution, it would be a reinforcement of the status quo. Maybe it sounds like i'm trolling, but this is just my two cents.

Re:excuse me

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

No doubt. I prefer a more subtle homage myself ala the KMFDM/MDFMK lyrics in the song "©control" - too bad the album was only so-so...:

Fight the power and the power will fight back
You're only as good as the system you hack
If you become a problem you will be replaced
Banned, shut down, erased
The world has capsized, gone erratic
Constitutional rights have dissolved into static
The truth is based on misinformation
Reality is only a hallucination
Another decade gone terribly wrong
Effectively affecting generati

Re:excuse me

[bogie]

No your not missing anything, I don't know why this story was even posted in the first place.

My submission that got rejected which talked about how Microsoft is now threating people with the EULA who are trying to run MS programs via WINE was a lot more interesting.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30325.htm l

Re:excuse me

[deadsaijinx*]

you're right. far more interesting. But, what the hell, it is a holiday.

on an unrelated note, i think there should be a designated place on slashdot for people to post their rejected articles. I can only imagine what kind of gems i'm missing.

Re:excuse me

[hswerdfe]

you do have a journal.

but your right a central place would be cool

and hey while we are at it...
why don't we take this central place and let people moderate it ...
untill some stories get put to the main page....

or why isn't there feedback as to why your story never got posted..

or why don't we let people vote on book reviews.

or why don't we pre-cash content from small web servers....

or why isn't slashdot updated produce valid html 4 or better.

or why is isn't it easier to submit patches to fix slashcode

Re:excuse me

[unitron]

"The reason it got posted was the reference to "The Revolution will not be Televised." And there was incredible significance to that. If you haven't read it, go read it."

Even better, listen to the record (or an MP3 of it or whatever).

Revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a challenge.

It'll probably be slashdotted before it gets too far....

Will the revolution...

[Toasty16]

...include pr0n?

So, uh..

[TheKey]

So, hm.. yeah, we not what the revolution is not. It's not a whole bunch of things. So, what exactly is it?

Re:So, uh..

[Jerf]

Morpheus: No one can tell you what The Revolution is. You have to see it for yourself.

Seriously, people talking about "The Revolution" typically mean it as the magical event that will make People Like Them run the world, after which it will be a magical place of flowing milk and honey where everybody is happy all of the time, except the people the speaker hates. Everybody talks about what it isn't because it's a lot easier then trying to nail down exactly what this magical event is and giving yourself a testable prediction about it that might fail miserably.

I don't see why this is a problem though, because if there's one thing we're good at as a species, it's rationalizing things. That's like all our frontal lobe is good for.

People talking about "The Revolution" are better off not talking about it and doing something to make the world a better place in a concrete way. It's really a pernicious meme, similar to the old "Envision World Peace" meme; while you're busy "envisioning world peace", you're not doing anything helpful to anybody. You're not even making an honest buck, which partially goes to taxes, which partially goes to helpful social programs.

Upshot: I wouldn't spend much time getting trying to figure out what they mean. Whatever concrete thing you suggest, that's not it, but it's 100% guarenteed to be better then that. Been here, done this. That's the same diseased thinking that makes people alive today continue to think that damn it, despite repeated undeniable miserable Communism will work in the real world someday if I just try hard enough.

Re:So, uh..

[deadsaijinx*]

I'm lactose-intolerant you insensitive clod!

In Soviet Russia, the revolution does y.... hmmm, no second thought, lets not do that. --- Comrad Red sez "It is a GLORIOUS day for REVOLUTION!" .... much better.

Hmm

[bogie]

I read the first few "stanzas", clicked a link or two and then got bored. Was something funny or interesting supposed to happen?

Re:Hmm

[deadsaijinx*]

patience [lycos.com] keep poking the links and see what happens... you just have no patience

The Classic "Revolution"

[DaveAtFraud]

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

From "The White Album" (The Beatles for those of you who don't remember or weren't alive then).

Sarah Jones

[ABetterRoss]

Not Foxy Brown...

Her take on 'Revolution' is worthwhile too...

http://www.endmisogyny.com/sarah_jones.htm

Re:Sarah Jones

[Silent_E]

It is worthwhile, but she is fighting representations of women in a genre of hip hop, not talking about political change in politics. What does make Jones's thing more of a political revolution is that the FCC is trying to censor her song by fining the heck out of radio stations trying to play "My Revolution." She's fighting back (see Sarah Jones v. FCC). The People for the American Way [pfaw.org] are helping.

Katz

[DanThe1Man]

Did anyone else read the name Katz and start to shake a little bit?

Re:Katz

[seldolivaw]

Seriously though, are they related? And can we stop them before they breed again?

Re:Katz

[CvD]

Definately. I thought: Brother of Katz? Does he write as horrible articles?

Did they really fire him from Slashdot? I turned him off in my profile fairly quickly, and his name would only turn up in comments, usually when there was some Katz-esque article written.

Good thing he's gone...

If you blog it, they will come.

[skraps]

The poem is well done, perhaps even motivational - but the predictions won't necessarily hold up. Revolutions are sociological; they require lots and lots of interaction and communication. Bidirectional communication. So television obviously won't work, but there's no reason the Internet won't. The Internet is as bidirectional and decentralized as it gets. It already reproduces most every existing social network. It models real-world news outlets and idle chit-chat flawlessly, and takes them a step further by widening the audience and speeding the delivery. It also brings new forms of communication that weren't previously possible - weblogs, for example.

Whitey's on the Moon

[waldoj]

For any newfound Gil Scott-Heron fans, my favorite GSH piece:

Whitey's on the Moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
And whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now, I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
'Cos whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me
'Cos whitey's on the moon?
Well, I was already givin' him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin' up
And as if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[bedouin]

Not Gil Scott, but somewhat related, the Last Poets "E - Pluribus - Unum [www.sci.fi]," my personal favorite.

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[balthan]

A moose once bit my sister...

Re:Whitey's on the Moon

[BitHive]

I appreciate the sentiment, but while a few whiteys were actually on the moon, a hell of a lot more were living in the same kind of poverty the poem brings to mind. Maybe I should publish that poem I wrote, Darkey's Slam Dunking*

*I didn't actually write said poem.

Gil Scott-Heron

[jefu]

If nothing else, this will have served well by reminding us of Gil Scott-Heron whose voice and words have haunted me since I first heard him many years ago. If you don't know his work, give it a listen. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is likely to be the easiest to find - but there's more than that worth listening to.

Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations

[MichaelCrawford]

A little over a hundred years ago, John J. Chapman gave a commencement address that I found so inspiring that I copied it to my website after I first came across it:

• Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations [goingware.com]

I found it in the dead-tree edition of The Cluetrain Manifesto [cluetrain.com], which I think makes the case that the revolution will be networked. However I agree that it won't be taking place on a sanitized, controlled system like AOL, but on the wilds of the real Internet.

And to show that I walk the walk, I invite you to read my recent article, "Living with Schizoaffective Disorder" parts I [kuro5hin.org], II [kuro5hin.org] and III [kuro5hin.org].

Is it just me...

[deblau]

or did anyone else go through that looking for links they regularly click on?

What is Revolution?

[huphtur]

answer... [googlism.com]

"common to most Slashdoters"

[Daniel Quinlan]

Speak for yourself.

I'm not a citizen of the net. I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people on the net could really care less about me and my well-being. Many -- I don't know if it is "most" or "some" -- of them are downright hostile to me and the things I believe in. There's no need to go into a full list. Actually, I'd love to go into a full list, but I'd probably just be moderated down by the people who are hostile to my views.

There is nothing magical about the net. People are still people. Some of them are out for power, some are not. Some agree with me, some do not. Some people will be able to manipulate net media just like some people can manipulate mass media now.

What obvious to me is that many bloggers have just as overinflated ego about their importance that many talking heads in the media have right now. For the moment, I'm avoiding the blog popularity contest. While I do read a few interesting blogs, I try to avoid ones run by people with big heads who think (right or wrong) that the internet will be the vehicle that will make them powerful. I'd rather vote in an election (even with limited realistic choices) than let pagerank decide what I believe.

Daniel

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Flakeloaf]

I'm a citizen of my country. Most of the people in my country could really care less about me and my well-being. Many -- I don't know if it is "most" or "some" -- of them are downright hostile to me and the things I believe in. There's no need to go into a full list. Actually, I'd love to go into a full list, but I'd probably just be beaten and imprisoned by the people who are hostile to my views.

There is nothing magical about my country. People are still people. Some of them are out for power, some are n

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[Malcontent]

Well nobody cares about you in your country either. Other then your familiy and few friends nobody really cares about you anyplace. Even then I don't think you'd want to know how much your friends are willing to stand by you if the cops ever questioned them about anything.

Re:"common to most Slashdoters"

[lysurgon]

Dan,

There are a lot of people who don't think the interet will make them powerful per se, but believe that the internet will make the world a better place and help them lead a happy and fulfilled life at the same time. That's where I and my blog stand. I think if there's one thing that the internet can do, it's to increase the prevalence and vitality of communty/personal-level networks and culture (e.g. things that only 100 - 1000 or so people pay attention to and tend to be responsive and lively) in respo

What's most important of all

[Anonymous Coward]

and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!

If you're reminded of how important this is, why the hell are you sitting on your can posting on /.?

Fascist Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The late 20th Century has seen a global fascist revolution, pushing the world towards an "Orwellian State". The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before. With Television promoting the mythes of the two-faced so called democracies the world over, people are duped into a life of consumerism and apathy, leaving the gate right open for the rulers to wage war on weaker nations, and tighten their grip on their own populations in name of "security".....ahhh fuck it, who is listening, this is slashdot....

Re:Fascist Revolution

[beakburke]

"The concentration of wealth into the hands of a few has seen "the masses" being herded like sheep as never seen before."

Do you realize that on balance that income equality became much greater over the last century? Yes, it really sorta peaked during the 50s in the US, but on the whole, the industrial revolution and the end of the Guilded Age created and cemented the concept and notion of the middle class. Before that, you had subsistance farming (everyone was poor) with a very few well to do people in the ruling class and the later robber-barrons of the 19th century. You will never achive perfect income equality, and even if you could, the costs of doing so would be far greater than whatever benefits it would provide. At some point, the redistribution of wealth ceases to be productive to the overall well being of the people.

In Revolutions

[Nikkos]

In Revolutions people die.

How many slashdotters would truly be willing to die in order to see their beliefs come to light? How many would be willing to kill friends/neighbors because they don't agree?

It's too late for first-world countries to have a revolution that would help them more than hurt them. The intelligent use of democracy is the only way - and that would take getting off one's ass, turning off the computer, writing letters, actually _voting_, and being active in society. Things _I_ can say truthfully I've done.

If you don't have a solution, stop screaming about the problem.

Nikkos

Re:In Revolutions

[Beautyon]

That definition of revolution is way too narrow.

A revolution happened in South Africa, and not a shot was fired. No one has to die or even suffer for a revolution to take place. It is in no way too late for first world countries to have revolutions.

There is a revolution going on right now in the first world; everyone is switching to the Euro as their currency of choice for all transactions.

The effect of this will be felt world wide. The face of everything will be changed.

That is revolution.

Cool

[Com2Kid]

I feel rather nifty, as I know at least a few of the people whose websites where linked too. :)

But yah, they are right, it is NOT an AOL keyword. We all know that AOL censors free speech too much to let any revolutions happen on it. ;)

Question

[visvogel]

and of course reminds us of what is most important to all, to go out and enjoy life!

Have you been watching Oprah again?

how does that go again?

[Hecubas]

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

C'mon people, you have free will. Especially if this is America, you have a choice.

--
hecubas

Lies!

[Tuxinatorium]

"Revolution is not an AOL keyword"

Yes it is! [aol.com]

Well, maybe its reserved for ...

[aralin]

... The Matrix, Revolutions!

Reference

[tastydarb]

This reference sounds more like Mao's quote:

"A revolution is not a dinner party."

While it is close in idea to "the revolution will not be televised," this also got its base from Mao; "... is not an AOL keyword" is closer to the original germ.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[mr_bungle2110]

Dude, relax. I'm sure George Washington stopped to have a beer at least once during the American Revolution. I'm sure Abraham Lincoln read a nice book, just for fun, during the Civil War, and I'm sure that FDR spent a night with his mistress not thinking about the Depression or World War I. I'm sure he spent a hundred.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[fussman]

I agree with the parent. There are too many trolls on here that are trying to get a reaction out of people, for the sole purpose of arguing, and try to hard. The result is what looks like a caffeine-fried 14 year old, but really is just a libral troll trying to get people to pay attention like a two year old does when it gets a new sibling.

Oh, and Mr. Bungle, RIGHT ON!

Re:Let me get this straight...

[DrVital]

So your solution is to live in a constant state of fear, obsessing over the dead, and the horrible state of the planet?

I'll take the middle ground.

Cowboy Bebop is worthwhile.
Cowboy Bebop has taught me far more about how to deal with this life then you have.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Qender]

Here's a bigger hint to the clueless moron: If everyone sat around and ate "shreddies" while watching TV, there would be much less violence in this world, the problem is that people put down their toys and picked up guns. Just because some people in this world fight each other doesn't mean I will destroy my life. My life is made of many things, my life is made of the people I know, My life is made by a consumer culture and it's governing systems. My life is made of the plants in my yards and the shows on my TV. Whether or not I choose to watch TV is a different matter, it's a choice I make in my life. Personally, I don't have time for TV, I've not watched it in a long while. But if I did have time, I would watch all the cartoons I wanted.

YOU WANT SOME DAMN PRIORITIES? How can you solve your problems?!, in your life?!, right now?! If you are so concerned over the deaths in this world, why don't you go do something about it. Don't sit in front of a computer and tell everyong else not to talk about anything but the wars. Go solve the damn problem. Fight against the war, fight against the iraqis, fight with the iraqis, whatever you want. If I want to sit at home and play diablo, I will. If I want to go down to the store and buy a sandwich, I will. And nothing you can say, about any other part of the world, will make me feel guilty about eating my sandwich.

I don't like death, I agree with you, death is bad. But life includes "shreddies" and "cowboy bebop", so get over it.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[unitron]

"If everyone sat around and ate "shreddies" while watching TV, there would be much less violence in this world, the problem is that people put down their toys and picked up guns."

I think you'll find that people without TV, toys, or enough to eat are often a big part of the causes of wars, if not by acting out of their own desperation then by having that desperation exploited by others for their own power-hungry ends. War isn't always the result of people with options preferable to violence choosing violenc

The trolls right

[Treeluvinhippy]

here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life

You know he's right, that really isn't getting on with life. You should see that our time here is very finite with so much out there to see and do it's a shame to waste it, enjoy and cultivate life for it really is a precious commodity that can not be sold our bought only given.

Enjoying life can be a walk in the park, dinner with some one you love, or watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies.

Wasting life can be letting a addcition get out of control, intentional harming someone and spending a long ass time in prison or being an unoriginal /. troll. Sorry dude I've heard the bebop/cereal statement by other trolls. Maybe it's time for you to get away from the computer and find a girl.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Tailhook]

followed by a WAR against Islam

Such a war would involve the destruction of Islamic holy artifacts, such as mosques and holy cities. It would also involve the slaughter of Islamic leaders (and dictators don't count.) Finally, it would witness the enforced adoption of something other than Islam.

All of this is within our power. Nassiria can be erased from existence with a few hours effort. Every mosque in the Middle East could be precision bombed to dust. We could hunt down and execute every Moslem leader of consequence anywhere we care to.

None of the above has, is or will occur. Rational people know this. That's why the vision of multitudes of enraged Moslems descending on the western forces remains a vision. They know, as you do, that calling recent events a "war against Islam" is a hysterical stretch.

Keep stretching. The world is better off with you marginalizing yourself as much as you possibly can. The only damage that may attributed to you is the degree to which real atrocities against Islam are discounted as you fill the air with your noise. Rest assured, however, that ultimately the rational amongst us will still be able to tell the difference.

Re:This is pointless blog Karma whoring

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

The only blog I ever enjoyed reading was Disenchanted [disenchanted.com], but it was (supposed) to be discontinued. I see a new entry though, so maybe the author changed his mind...

In any case, your average blogger can be replaced with a simple program. See here. [brunching.com]

Re:This is pointless blog Karma whoring

[goon america]

Yes, well, blogging is a) driven solely by ego b) exactly the same as posting on slashdot.

No, I take that back. Sometimes, (believe it or not) something useful will come out of a slashdot discussion, and this is because slashdot has a relatively reliable quality-grading system that blogging really lacks.

Re:I submitted a story on Micromechanical mirrored

[LinuxInDallas]

Tweeter has had DLP based TVs for a while now. They look pretty decent and are about half the cost of a plasma. My boss bought one a while back. Best Buy is a little behind.

Re:What was the asterisk for?

[Samari711]

if you had RTFA you would have seen at the end of the poem:
*See generally Gil Scott-Heron, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Re:The revolution will not be televised...

[CausticWindow]

np: Autechre - Surripere (Draft 7.30)

Mmmm.. Surripere. It's nice. Gotta love your Warp.