Chords for Change
By BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN
Published: August 5, 2004
A nation's artists and musicians have a particular place in its social and political life. Over the years I've tried to think long and hard about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried. I've tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures.
These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.
Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?
I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions. They understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith.
People have different notions of these values, and they live them out in different ways. I've tried to sing about some of them in my songs. But I have my own ideas about what they mean, too. That is why I plan to join with many fellow artists, including the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, Jurassic 5, James Taylor and Jackson Browne, in touring the country this October. We will be performing under the umbrella of a new group called Vote for Change. Our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come November.
Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting.
Bruce Springsteen is a writer and performer.
Springsteen announces pro-Kerry tour in NYT op-ed
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Springsteen announces pro-Kerry tour in NYT op-ed
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Rock Stars Announce a Swing-State Tour
By JEFF LEEDS
Published: August 5, 2004
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 4 - Bruce Springsteen and an eclectic chorus of musicians, including R.E.M., the Dave Matthews Band, Keb' Mo' and Death Cab for Cutie, will stage concerts in nine of the presidential campaign's swing states this fall to raise money and press voters to oust the Bush administration, organizers of the concerts said Wednesday.
The weeklong lineup of rock concerts, to begin on Oct. 1 with shows in six Pennsylvania cities, signals an unexpected surge of political activism among some of the nation's top recording artists. Even for artists who have delved into politics before, sometimes to the dismay of concertgoers, the concept of focusing on swing states just weeks before the election injects a twist into the usual campaign calculus.
Representatives of the artists' coalition said they planned about 34 shows in 28 cities on the tour, called Vote for Change. In Ohio on Oct. 2, for example, Mr. Springsteen, R.E.M., John Fogerty and Bright Eyes are to perform in Cleveland, while the Dave Matthews Band, Jurassic 5 and My Morning Jacket are set to play in Dayton. Meanwhile, Pearl Jam and Death Cab for Cutie are to take the stage in Toledo, and John Mellencamp and Kenneth Edmonds, known as Babyface, are to play in Cincinnati.
Other states on the tour include Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin, with the final performances in Florida on Oct. 8.
The artists will perform without pay, and proceeds will go to America Coming Together, a group run by veteran Democratic supporters. The MoveOn political action committee, an arm of the liberal group MoveOn.org, which will present the tour, hopes to enlist hundreds of thousands of members at the shows.
Organizers declined to predict how much they would raise for their get-out-the-vote efforts, as many plans are incomplete, but the total could easily be millions of dollars.
Mr. Springsteen, for example, generated an estimated $38.7 million last year during his sold-out 10-night stand at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Mr. Springsteen has long tried to avoid taking overtly partisan positions, but he said he believed the time had come to act.
"On Sept. 12, man, I was rooting for the president, and I hoped that the seriousness of the times was going to bring forth some strength and wisdom in our leaders," Mr. Springsteen said in a telephone interview this week. He added: "But I never understood from the very beginning what the war in Iraq was about. I did have a strong feeling we were misled into it. You get angry for the young men and women who have given up their lives. It was the tax cuts, the environmental rollback, the civil rights issues, these are all things where I said, 'I've got to find some way of getting involved.' "
Mike Mills, the bassist in R.E.M., said the war in Iraq had moved the group to join the tour. "It's literally a matter of life and death," Mr. Mills said. "This is right now, and that's why we think it's so important that we get this administration changed."
Organizers have not released a list of ticket prices, but they said tickets for Mr. Springsteen's shows were expected to sell for $75. The tickets are to go on sale through Ticketmaster on Aug. 21. The coalition is offering early access to tickets to people who register at the moveonpac.org Web site, said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn's political action committee. Within hours of the announcement on Wednesday, more than 10,000 people registered as new members to get a chance at early tickets, Mr. Pariser said.
Mark McKinnon, the media director for the Bush campaign, said, "We think it's unfortunate these particular fine musicians have decided to affiliate with a hate-filled fringe group like MoveOn.'' Republicans have complained about a video briefly posted on MoveOn's Web site in December likening Mr. Bush to Hitler.
Mr. McKinnon added that Mr. Bush had drawn his own support from the entertainment world, citing stars like Lee Ann Womack, Kid Rock and Jessica Simpson.
The Vote for Change concert run comes as divisions among the electorate have made it difficult to predict the implications for artists who share their ideological views with audiences. At a Las Vegas casino last month, the singer Linda Ronstadt was booed by some in the audience after she dedicated a performance of the song "Desperado" to Michael Moore, the director of "Fahrenheit 9/11."
And artists' representatives and record label executives still point to the backlash against the Dixie Chicks last year after their singer Natalie Maines told an audience in London that she was ashamed that Mr. Bush hailed from Texas, the band's home state. The radio station chain Cumulus Media pulled the band's music off the air.
It is not clear how far individual artists might go in endorsing the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry, or in criticizing Mr. Bush from the stage. While several artists participating in the events said they would back Mr. Kerry, not all said they felt comfortable specifically directing fans to do the same.
At R.E.M.'s performances, "my feeling is there will probably be a brief comment or two during the show," Mr. Mills said, adding: "The reason we are here is to get John Kerry in the White House. At the same time, it's rock 'n' roll, it's supposed to be enjoyable. We want people leaving feeling positive and buoyant."
By JEFF LEEDS
Published: August 5, 2004
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 4 - Bruce Springsteen and an eclectic chorus of musicians, including R.E.M., the Dave Matthews Band, Keb' Mo' and Death Cab for Cutie, will stage concerts in nine of the presidential campaign's swing states this fall to raise money and press voters to oust the Bush administration, organizers of the concerts said Wednesday.
The weeklong lineup of rock concerts, to begin on Oct. 1 with shows in six Pennsylvania cities, signals an unexpected surge of political activism among some of the nation's top recording artists. Even for artists who have delved into politics before, sometimes to the dismay of concertgoers, the concept of focusing on swing states just weeks before the election injects a twist into the usual campaign calculus.
Representatives of the artists' coalition said they planned about 34 shows in 28 cities on the tour, called Vote for Change. In Ohio on Oct. 2, for example, Mr. Springsteen, R.E.M., John Fogerty and Bright Eyes are to perform in Cleveland, while the Dave Matthews Band, Jurassic 5 and My Morning Jacket are set to play in Dayton. Meanwhile, Pearl Jam and Death Cab for Cutie are to take the stage in Toledo, and John Mellencamp and Kenneth Edmonds, known as Babyface, are to play in Cincinnati.
Other states on the tour include Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin, with the final performances in Florida on Oct. 8.
The artists will perform without pay, and proceeds will go to America Coming Together, a group run by veteran Democratic supporters. The MoveOn political action committee, an arm of the liberal group MoveOn.org, which will present the tour, hopes to enlist hundreds of thousands of members at the shows.
Organizers declined to predict how much they would raise for their get-out-the-vote efforts, as many plans are incomplete, but the total could easily be millions of dollars.
Mr. Springsteen, for example, generated an estimated $38.7 million last year during his sold-out 10-night stand at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Mr. Springsteen has long tried to avoid taking overtly partisan positions, but he said he believed the time had come to act.
"On Sept. 12, man, I was rooting for the president, and I hoped that the seriousness of the times was going to bring forth some strength and wisdom in our leaders," Mr. Springsteen said in a telephone interview this week. He added: "But I never understood from the very beginning what the war in Iraq was about. I did have a strong feeling we were misled into it. You get angry for the young men and women who have given up their lives. It was the tax cuts, the environmental rollback, the civil rights issues, these are all things where I said, 'I've got to find some way of getting involved.' "
Mike Mills, the bassist in R.E.M., said the war in Iraq had moved the group to join the tour. "It's literally a matter of life and death," Mr. Mills said. "This is right now, and that's why we think it's so important that we get this administration changed."
Organizers have not released a list of ticket prices, but they said tickets for Mr. Springsteen's shows were expected to sell for $75. The tickets are to go on sale through Ticketmaster on Aug. 21. The coalition is offering early access to tickets to people who register at the moveonpac.org Web site, said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn's political action committee. Within hours of the announcement on Wednesday, more than 10,000 people registered as new members to get a chance at early tickets, Mr. Pariser said.
Mark McKinnon, the media director for the Bush campaign, said, "We think it's unfortunate these particular fine musicians have decided to affiliate with a hate-filled fringe group like MoveOn.'' Republicans have complained about a video briefly posted on MoveOn's Web site in December likening Mr. Bush to Hitler.
Mr. McKinnon added that Mr. Bush had drawn his own support from the entertainment world, citing stars like Lee Ann Womack, Kid Rock and Jessica Simpson.
The Vote for Change concert run comes as divisions among the electorate have made it difficult to predict the implications for artists who share their ideological views with audiences. At a Las Vegas casino last month, the singer Linda Ronstadt was booed by some in the audience after she dedicated a performance of the song "Desperado" to Michael Moore, the director of "Fahrenheit 9/11."
And artists' representatives and record label executives still point to the backlash against the Dixie Chicks last year after their singer Natalie Maines told an audience in London that she was ashamed that Mr. Bush hailed from Texas, the band's home state. The radio station chain Cumulus Media pulled the band's music off the air.
It is not clear how far individual artists might go in endorsing the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry, or in criticizing Mr. Bush from the stage. While several artists participating in the events said they would back Mr. Kerry, not all said they felt comfortable specifically directing fans to do the same.
At R.E.M.'s performances, "my feeling is there will probably be a brief comment or two during the show," Mr. Mills said, adding: "The reason we are here is to get John Kerry in the White House. At the same time, it's rock 'n' roll, it's supposed to be enjoyable. We want people leaving feeling positive and buoyant."
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Matt
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
- What color are leaves?: Green
- Spam?: No
- Location: People's Republic of Maryland
http://www.timeswatch.com/articles/2004/0805.asp#6
Bored In The U.S.A.
"Writer and performer" Bruce Springsteen pens a rather bland op-ed for Thursday's New York Times about the October launch of the "Vote for Change" concert tour, showcasing Springsteen and other liberal performers like R.E.M. and the Dixie Chicks aiming to defeat Bush.
Springsteen writes: "Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out….We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of 'one nation indivisible.'"
Minus the cute, self-deprecatory remark about rich guitarists, Springsteen's piece is sufficiently conventional to have been taken straight from DNC talking points.
Bored In The U.S.A.
"Writer and performer" Bruce Springsteen pens a rather bland op-ed for Thursday's New York Times about the October launch of the "Vote for Change" concert tour, showcasing Springsteen and other liberal performers like R.E.M. and the Dixie Chicks aiming to defeat Bush.
Springsteen writes: "Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out….We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of 'one nation indivisible.'"
Minus the cute, self-deprecatory remark about rich guitarists, Springsteen's piece is sufficiently conventional to have been taken straight from DNC talking points.
-Matt
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
I'm not sure I get it. If the NYT prints *anything* "left leaning," they are necessarily liberal?
This just in: the NYT is a right wing wacko newspaper!
A Record of Recovery
That Was the Week That Wasn't
This just in: the NYT is a right wing wacko newspaper!
A Record of Recovery
That Was the Week That Wasn't
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Matt
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
- What color are leaves?: Green
- Spam?: No
- Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Daniel Okrent knows the NTY is a Liberal rag:
http://www.timeswatch.com/articles/2004/0726.asp
"Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
Of Course It Is."
Now, was that so hard?
Daniel Okrent, the Times "public editor" (what other newspapers would call an ombudsman) admitted the obvious in his Sunday Week in Review column, provocatively titled "Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"
Okrent answers his own question in the piece's very first line: "Of course it is."
After making that admission (sure to inflame the Times newsroom), it's perhaps no wonder that he's taking the month of August off.
Okrent, who was the editor at large for Life magazine from 1999 to 2001, admitted his Democratic leanings in his very first column as ombudsman. Yet in Sunday's column he states: "I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."
He concentrates in particular on the paper's coverage of gay marriage, which he terms "a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause" (and a cause Okrent himself appears to personally support).
Still, Okrent observes: "...for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability. Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial."
Indeed, Times Watch criticized each of those front-page stories at the time they were filed. In the January 12 story, the Times reporter stated as fact that adoption laws favoring heterosexuals are discriminatory. In the January 30 piece, the Times went out of its way to portray gay couples as monogamous homebodies. And for its March 19 front-page story, the paper shut out experts opposed to gay adoption, quoting only those sympathetic to the cause.
On gay marriage, Okrent concludes: "On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires."
Okrent takes the issue of liberal bias to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who of course disagrees. Okrent summarizes: "[Sulzberger] prefers to call the paper's viewpoint 'urban.' He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means 'We're less easily shocked,' and that the paper reflects 'a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility.'"
It sounds like Sulzberger is trying to argue (nicely) that the Times is just a little more open-minded than its inflexible conservative critics.
For the rest of Okrent's sure-to-be-debated article, click here.
http://www.timeswatch.com/articles/2004/0726.asp
"Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
Of Course It Is."
Now, was that so hard?
Daniel Okrent, the Times "public editor" (what other newspapers would call an ombudsman) admitted the obvious in his Sunday Week in Review column, provocatively titled "Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"
Okrent answers his own question in the piece's very first line: "Of course it is."
After making that admission (sure to inflame the Times newsroom), it's perhaps no wonder that he's taking the month of August off.
Okrent, who was the editor at large for Life magazine from 1999 to 2001, admitted his Democratic leanings in his very first column as ombudsman. Yet in Sunday's column he states: "I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."
He concentrates in particular on the paper's coverage of gay marriage, which he terms "a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause" (and a cause Okrent himself appears to personally support).
Still, Okrent observes: "...for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability. Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial."
Indeed, Times Watch criticized each of those front-page stories at the time they were filed. In the January 12 story, the Times reporter stated as fact that adoption laws favoring heterosexuals are discriminatory. In the January 30 piece, the Times went out of its way to portray gay couples as monogamous homebodies. And for its March 19 front-page story, the paper shut out experts opposed to gay adoption, quoting only those sympathetic to the cause.
On gay marriage, Okrent concludes: "On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires."
Okrent takes the issue of liberal bias to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who of course disagrees. Okrent summarizes: "[Sulzberger] prefers to call the paper's viewpoint 'urban.' He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means 'We're less easily shocked,' and that the paper reflects 'a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility.'"
It sounds like Sulzberger is trying to argue (nicely) that the Times is just a little more open-minded than its inflexible conservative critics.
For the rest of Okrent's sure-to-be-debated article, click here.
-Matt
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Matt wrote:You don't think the NYT is liberal?
Perhaps left of center, but certainly not the left wing mouthpiece the right would like to believe. The NYT (along with the Washington Post) was key in "exposing" Clinton in the '90s. They also buried the fact that Gore would have won under at least 2 recount scenarios:
EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go ... Contrary to what...
While the article is now only available for a fee, I believe they don't mention that Gore could have won until about half way through.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Any paper that employs Judith Miller (who was probably the person most responsible for spreading the Chalabi-stoked "Saddam has WMD stockpiles" story) ain't left-wing.
And that's just one example.
Ryan
And that's just one example.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Me either:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... post152974
More on Judith Miller:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml? ... ith_Miller
Ryan
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... post152974
More on Judith Miller:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml? ... ith_Miller
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Rspaight wrote:http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?p=152974&highlight=iraq#post152974
Is it safe to say "I told you so" yet?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD