Snap, Crackle, and Popular Culture

Apparently the Henry Rollins Rant off competition, sponsored by Ziddio.com is the only place where you cant “rant-off”. Isn’t this counterproductive? I suppose if you are not letting Rollins feed you his liberal bullshit, then you violate the T.O.S. on the ziddio site. Maybe someone can tell me what good a rant-off competition that prohibits people from ranting is.

Hello,

Your comment has violated our Rules and Regulations and has been deleted

(inappropriate language and spamming). Continued violations of the guidelines

will result in more severe measures including denying access to the comments

feature and a permanent ban from the site.

Ziddio Moderators Team

The only enemy to Free Speech is Henry Rollins and Ziddio.

“Freedom is under attack” so says post-punk cultural critic, Henry Rollins. Rollins, a leftist conspirator believes that “freedom is under attack by hysterical and well-funded Christian fundamentalists” who “lie and manipulate information”- though he offers no evidence to back up this assertion. While watching episodes of The Henry Rollins show, one comes to realize that the only thing Mr. Rollins may be scared of is proof itself.

Next, Rollins calls Karl Rove a “baby huey, suck up- bitch, motherfucker” just after he accuses Christian fundamentalists of being “intellectually undernourished”. Is it possible that Rollins is jealous because Rove is a better rapper? Probably not, but I guess if that is how “intellectuals” speak then Mr. Rollins, please show me the way!

Through almost all of Henry Rollins rants it is apparent that he is very critical of contemporary American culture, yet refuses to accept that this culture is a reflection of all the restrictions put in place as a response to the terrible zeigeist which he advocates.

Sean Hannity is a “suck-up weakling apologist” which just shows how great Rollins is as a fallacious Ad Hominem attacker. If it is intellectualism you are seeking, Rollins will turn you away because in Rollins world, proper debate doesn’t exist. The difference between Sean Hannity and Henry Rollins is that Hannity actually supports his claims with facts and evidence, Rollins lacks both.

 “To question authority is to be unpatriotic…Fuck you.” No, Mr. Rollins, to question authority and have nothing to back it up with is moronic. As most of my readers saw, it is actually Mr. Rollins who dislikes being questioned. Rollins, with lack of evidence moves to impeach personal credentials, rather than attack the facts brought to the table. And if he is attacking facts, he does so with the power of opinion and emotion- which isn’t very strong at all.

Again, Rollins believes that “The constitution,[is] a thing to be manipulated, ignored, and frivolously amended- even democracy itself seems to be on the run…” This coming from a guy who shows that he knows nothing about the idea of a living constitution. Rollins proves that he doesn’t understand constitutional interpretation, and doesn’t care about the framers. Loose constructionism and strict constructionism are things that Rollins didn’t read in his newest Noam Chomsky novella, so they simply aren’t important.

Rollins then rants on how the Internet has contributed to substantial cultural change, and provides a place where people can sound off (I am guessing he knows that not everyone has their own cable television show), though Rollins is infuriated because someone (the Bush administration) wants to charge to own a domain. Actually, Henry- why dont you talk to Al Gore about that, or are you too busy sucking on his tit? Charging for domain ownership was not started by the current administration. “Telco companies want to make you pay for your site to be on the Internet, and if you cant pay, then guess what? That’s right. You’re cyber-history pal.” Rollins has equivocated access and ownership. If that is the case, then I wonder why Rollins and IFC charge their sponsors for advertisements. Rollins also forgets about the hundreds of thousands of FREE web-hosting companies. Apparently Henry believes that ownership in the internet should be free just like the air we breathe.

If you watch Rollins “Tee off” clip from show #220, you can actually see Rollins, a master rhetorician go to work. He begins his rant calmly talking about things that aren’t too outlandish, then as he picks up his hype and anger he quickly infuses outrageous assertions into his rant. Viewers are so caught up in the moment, that few actually realize how they are being manipulated. Adolf Hitler used this similar tactic, just before he killed Twelve Million people. Hmm, if Rollins is so angry, he must be right.

“The bush administration wants major Internet and phone companies to keep track of where their customers ‘surf’ all in the name of the (emphasis added) War on Terror dontchu know.” Yes, Mr. Rollins, I want to make sure that some faux-anarchist-celebrity such as yourself, isn’t planning on putting a dirty bomb in my drive way. Henry, Please don’t get me started on fourth and fourteenth amendment privacy “rights” because it is apparent that you have not a clue what you are getting into.

“How much do you want to bet, they [the Bush Administration] want the Internet regulated, contained, and then thrown into a cell at Guantanamo bay.” Restricting the internet? How about how Henry Rollins regulates discourse on his show and wont allow alternate perspectives? Does that make Mr. Rollins and his feelings of the Bush Administration one and the same? How’s about that for solipsism?

“For a country that talks so much about freedom… seems to me that some people want anything but” – Henry has never had his rights taken from him, and if he has, he surely has not made it public. But the fact still remains that even with the Patriot Actin effect, it has seldom if ever impeded upon our personal lives. Henry, through his sensationalisms tend to forget the foundation of an ordered society. Rousseau’s social contract, the idea that man gives up some of his personal liberties for protection from his established state is just an evil bedtime story for Mr. Rollins. And, utilitarianism? Mr. Rollins laughs in the face of such a concept.

“If they come for your freedom, you must not only resist. You must strike back with a vengeance that will stun them!” Mr. Rollins speaks as if he is a revolutionary leader for democracy, yet his strong convictions of a “fight-for-might” type of social system suggest anything but.

“Fuck these cowards, these traitors, enemy’s of democracy,” says Rollins in a fit of rage (perfectly designed for a television audience) at the end of his “Teeing off” segment.

Well Mr. Rollins, Fuck you.

And that’s only in two minutes!

Corey Friedman

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Well, the new blog is up and running (http://coreyfriedman.blog.com)- now I can get rid of that hideous MySpace (8 days as of writing this).

I have submitted my video to the Henry Rollins Rant contest, and from what I have seen I am the only person who has threatened to disagree with Mr. Rollins. What a horrid video.

I would like to thank all of you who renewed your subscription to this site. I have to also thank Chas for helping me promote this.

With that said, I hope you all enjoy the new writings.

Corey Friedman

Speed Versus Safety: A Correspondence with Eric Peters

I had gone to bed late last night to find an article on the AOL Main page entitled: Dont Get Caught: Tips to Avoid Getting a Traffic Ticket. The article was written by a gentleman named Eric Peters. Peters is a lobbyist for the National Motorist Association (NMA) and has written for large publications including The Wall Street Journal. His article can be found at : http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/dont-get-caught/20060421145909990001

Re:  Tips to Avoid Getting a Traffic Ticket

Mr. Peters,

          I have just completed reading your column entitled Dont Get Caught: Tips to Avoid Getting a Traffic Ticket and I am curious to know why you advocate such behavior or facilitate a means to practice this unsafe behavior. I believe that we both know that the reason Police Agencies give speeding tickets is because individuals are (consciously or unconsciously) breaking the law by speeding. The speeding in effect makes the road a much more dangerous place.

          In your article you undermine police agencies by referring to them as the enemy when the truth is that they are the protector/preventer. You suggest that the likeliness of getting a speeding ticket is dramatically lower in a Minivan than in a sports car. I would like to ask you if it is much safer? For example if two automobiles, a Mercedes-Benz SL65 and a Chrysler Pacifica are plummeting down a suburban neighborhood at 55MPH, and your child is in the middle of the road, which is going to be able to stop more effectively? The speed limit is in place for a purpose (Safety) and your article shows no regard for that reasoning.

The main issue at hand, which your article neglects, is SAFETY. Speeding tickets serve as a deterrent. They are a preventative for would-be speeders and are part of a system which keeps unsafe drivers off the road. Thus speeding tickets actually make the road safer. Your article seems not to be all too concerned with individual or communal well-being and it can be seen that the vehicle to speed in is not a minivan.

I would suggest the following to avoid getting a traffic ticket:

-Dont Speed.

-Leave the house or office an extra five minutes earlier.

Nothing is worth an accident, and nothing is worse than killing an innocent person because you were running late for the oh-so-important-stock-merger-meeting.

Corey Friedman

Fort Lauderdale Florida

_______________

Hi Corey,

Your underlying assumption - that speed limits are always, ipso facto, appropriate - is not one I agree with. In fact, speed limits are often set well below what they should be (according to traffic safety engineering principles as set forth in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD). The best “case in point” of this is the old 55 mph highway speed limit - which of course
most drivers routinely ignored. Today, the typical highway limit is 65 or 70 mph - which would have been “speeding” subject to ticketing prior the 1995 repeal of the 55 mph limit. Do you believe the mere fact that the law changed made it safer to drive 65 or 70 mph?  Or is the more logical answer that the  55 mph speed limit was artificially low?

Much of what passes for “safety” enforcement in this country has more to do with “revenue collection.” That’s the reality. Attempting to avoid being fleeced is no sin in my book.

Best,
Eric

________________

Eric,

Thanks for the response. Your correlation between ticketing and revenue collection may be valid, but at the same time you are forgetting or misplacing the traditional role of the ticketing system. Im sure you and I could both agree that the highways are safer at 55MPH compared to 70MPH. People involved in a car accident are more likely to survive the trauma of a car at 55MPG than the inertia of a car at 70MPH. Res Ipsa Loquitor. If the government can make money (which is put back into our communities) by ticketing unsafe drivers, then so be it.

How can we decide what is “artificially low”? Speeds are set low because it is SAFER.

One tends to forget that moving violations affect everyone equally. It doesnt matter how much your car is worth, or the color of your skin, at 90MPH youre a lawbreaker and chances are youre going to get pulled over. Do you posit that we can have higher speeds and adequate or better safety? Faster speeds increase risks of danger which is something that can only be seen as pejorative. Or do you recommend that just because drivers ignored the 55MPH speed limit, that we should increase the speed limit to the average speed of those who flew through our streets with little or no regard?

Corey Friedman

Fort Lauderdale FL

_____________________

Actually, I disagree with that. The fact is the safest speed is the speed that falls within the 85th percentile speed; those going significantly faster (or slower) are in fact the ones involved in the majority of accidents. The 55 mph limit was under-posted by at least 10-15 mph (according to the 85th percentile rule). Highway accident/fatality rates did not go up after 1995, when the 55 mph limit was repealed; indeed, they trended downward - despite much higher posted lawful maximums/traffic speeds.

There is a great misconception that speed, as such, “kills.” It does not. Inappropriate speed (too fast or too slow) is what’s dangerous. There is abundant evidence to support this.

Lower speeds, as such are not “safer.” Often, all they do is  interrupt the natural flow of traffic, which leads to traffic bunching up and to a problem known as “speed variance.” These factors can be reduced or eliminated by posting speeds in accordance with the 85th percentile speed. 

________________

Eric,

I think we are forgetting the driving (pardon the pun) factor of this equation. Humans. Humans are fallible creatures. The fact is that the 85th percentile rule, still does not make the roads safer. I am not saying that there are going to be less accidents at a slower driving rate (although there may be), what I am saying is that the likelihood of a person surviving a crash at 55MPG then at 75MPH is dramatically higher.

            This is a busy society, and by that I mean, there are people who constantly have things on their To Do lists. We want to get the most done, in the shortest amount of time. This applies to driving as well. Your initial purpose of your article was to educate civilians on tactics which would prevent them from getting speeding tickets. This is effect means that you advocate their law breaking behavior. I understand that you are a lobbyist, as such; you also know that there are certain ways to go about things.

            Nevertheless, it appears as though the 85th percentile distribution study was done by NMA (arent you a member), which leads me to believe that you would propose any information that your organization has brought forth. Lets not forget this makes your response / research vulnerable todata culling and thus is suspect.

            Back to the Human element- The fact is that you are dealing with humans, and being that we do not know every variable in every human/driving situation, you can not possibly accurately predict human behavior. But ill tell ya, by implementing a ticket system as a deterrent it sure does make it a little more accurate to predict how people might react to a harsh penalty.

Thanks

Corey Friedman

 _____________________

Driving faster (as such) does not correlate with a higher likelihood of an accident; that’s the relevant consideration here. It’s a false “package deal” to assert that people will be injured or killed (or be more likely to be injured or killed) simply by dint of driving faster than “x.” It’s just not so. Again, the 55 mph speed limit is illustrative. Despite much higher highway speed limits/speeds today, accident and fatality rates have not gone up. This is compelling evidence that driving faster than 55 mph (as such) is not dangerous. (Other examples include the German Autobahn system where drivers routinely travel 100 mph and faster; yet German accident/fatality rates are lower than US accident/fatality rates). It’s not speed, per se, that’s the problem - it’s inappropriate speed for conditions (as well as  poor judgment/driver error).

The 85th percentile rule is not an NMA creationm; rather it is a traffic safety engineering principle set forth in the MUTCD; there is abundant evidence that the safest speed (in terms of reducing the number of accidents) is one that correlates to the 85th percentile speed.
__________________________

Eric,

The Spectacle does not realize philosophy, it philosophizes reality.

-Guy Debord (Society of the Spectacle)

Guy Debord is considered by avant-garde detourneists to be one of the greatest social philosophers under Marx, Hegel Ok Ok Engels too. This he may be, but this essay is a critique on his Society of the Spectacle, published in 1967 by The Situationist International. I am writing this although I only believe only one person out of all of my subscribers is probably qualified to comment. In fact, I am probably not even qualified to write this but it has to be done.

Society of the Spectacle is the worst piece of post-modern European revolutionary propaganda that I have ever read. The pages are filled with abstract contradictions, conundrums and psychobabble. Words become empty vessels in this text.

Debord posits that society has become consumerized- That I agree with. Debord suggests that humans, especially in our contemporary culture (even though this was written in the 60s) have distanced themselves from their genuine self. People are projecting what they want others to see them as. This is the spectacle. A society of phonies, whether they can control it or not is irrelevant. The individual projects himself to others and gets lost somewhere in the mix.

The more he contemplates, the less he lives; the more he accepts recognizing himself in the dominant images of need, The less he understands his own existence and his own desires. The externality of the spectacle in relation to the active man appears in the fact that his own gestures are no longer his but those of another who represents them to him. (30)

Debord factions that the economy is the main foundation for human interaction- anyone who knows social philosophy also knows that this is an expansion on Marxs Dialectical Materialism.

The Bureaucrat is a proletarian in power- This I agree with as well. However when Debord starts associating commodities with apperceptive abilities (outside the human realm), I cannot agree.

Cyclical time in itself is time without conflict- Tautology?

Debord has a consistent attribution of creating definitions to common words. For example, Time has lost its meaning, and now it is just another critical social aspect. History is on the verge of loosing its inherent instinct of tradition and is being replaced by another social infraction.

Obscure references, Abstract lingo and a tantalizing text that runs right off the pages, through the woods and over my head. Dont get me wrong, some of it is really interesting. For example Debord cites an astonishing discovery that People depend on the economy as the economy depends on its people.- Not bad for the godfather of beatnik poets.

Pseudo this, Pseudo that Blah blah blah, and the ranting continues. Debord points out the falsities of celebrities, and the lies of advertising. Not much to debate with there. Back and fourth, back and fourth. He makes a reference to people being suffocated, strangled by the life they are living, the only thing strangling me is his text.

Here is the point. A European revolutionist poet, who is propagating such abstract ideas can only wind up killing himself in 1994. I notice that those who critique capitalism tend to live in the most far-fetched capitalistic countries. Funny, not too many Americans criticizing capitalism (With the exception of this administration).