Get the code. Add it to your site. I SUPPORT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT – BANNER PROJECT
Monday, October 17, 2011
Count Me In - I SUPPORT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT – BANNER PROJECT
Just added this here. It may not be much, but if I tell two friends...
Get the code. Add it to your site. I SUPPORT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT – BANNER PROJECT
Get the code. Add it to your site. I SUPPORT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT – BANNER PROJECT
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Apple's Net Neutrality - Rotten to the Core
@RyanNewYork got me thinking about this again yesterday with a tweet that read, "It's always sad when progressives who claim to support Net Neutrality also support censorship of closed systems like iTunes". I couldn't agree more.
Late last year net neutrality supporters were up in arms over Comcast demanding increased fees from Netflix for delivering its content to Comcast subscribers. Net neutrality supporters were rightfully concerned that Comcast could be leveraging its control over the delivery pipeline to hamper a competitor's business and make its own more attractive and accessible. I personally joined the chorus, envisioning the potential abuses this kind of behavior could lead to.
With approximately 17 million broadband subscribers, the potential for a company like Comcast to negatively impact Netfix's business is substantial. Theoretically, if the fees charged by Comcast were high enough, Netfix might even have to stop delivering its service to Comcast subscribers, leaving those subscribers with less options to choose from within a less competitive landscape. Many of those subscribers are likely to be locked into service contracts and/or have few other options available for broadband Internet access.
Now, it's easy to hate Comcast. I mean, they're a cable company. But in reality, their subscriber base and their net neutrality transgression pale in comparison to those of the Wall Street and consumer darling Apple.
Comcast's subscriber base is dwarfed by that of Apple. By the end of Februrary 2011 Apple had sold more than 100 million iPhones worldwide and an additional 15 million iPads (this is prior to the release of the iPad2). Each of these devices is designed to function within an environment where Apple exercises control over which applications can be purchased and loaded onto the devices, how those applications can function, the price at which they can sell and deliver content, and even what programming languages can be used to create the applications.
Yet every day I see people who rail against Comcast and consider themselves staunch advocates of net neutrality tapping away at their Apple devices, seemingly unaware of the contradiction. Why does Apple get a pass? The company's mobile strategy is the antithesis of net neutrality. In fact, it is a deliberate, and so far extremely successful, attempt to position itself directly between content providers and users, profiting handsomely in the process.
Apple's explanations for this strategy are flimsy at best. Providing the best possible user experience? How does limiting my ability to customize my device to my needs do that? How does forcing me to look at white rectangles where Flash video files should appear accomplish that? How does requiring applications to function in ways that insure Apple collects a commission first and consider usability second, align with this goal?
Before Apple fans start bashing me for critcizing the great Oz, I ask that they consider a few questions. 1) Has the ability to purchase, download and install applications and plug-ins not officially approved by Apple or sold through its Mac store, destroyed the computing experience on your Apple desk or laptop? If Apple told you tomorrow that it would now be locking down its desktops and laptops in the same way it has its mobile devices, would you be ok with that? If not, why not?
Now one could argue - if you don't like Apple's approach go buy an android or other device and quit complaining. But that's a myopic perspective. And anyone who makes this argument for Apple while criticizing Comcast is guilty of some serious rationalization.
Apple's App Store requirements will affect content pricing both within and outside of its ecosphere. If a company like Amazon wants to sell ebooks into the Apple ecosphere it needs to do so at a price that allows it to provide Apple with a 30% commission and still make a profit. That would be fine if Apple didn't require that Amazon and others agree to sell those same ebooks at the same inflated price when offered through their own sites or other markets. By doing so Apple effectively inflates prices for everyone, even if they choose not to use Apple devices.
Apple's stance on Adobe Flash has also shown that the company is quite willing to block specific software or technology as well. Adobe is strong enough to weather the storm, but what about smaller companies and start-ups introducing new technologies that Apple considers a threat? Will they simply be shut out of the Apple ecosphere? Will they be asked to pay a price of admission so high that it undermines their ability to compete? Based on Apple's conduct to date these are very credible scenarios, and given the reach of Apple's ecosphere very disturbing ones.
So although I was pleased to see Senator Franken voicing support for net neutrality and criticizing Comcast at SXSW, I think to a great extent he's barking up the wrong trouser leg. Think about it, Comcast represents 17 million broadband landline users, a fading technology. Apple represents 100 million plus users in an expanding one. Yet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the moment Senator Franken stepped off the stage at SXSW, he and hundreds of the net neutrality supporters in the audience all fired up their iPads.
Late last year net neutrality supporters were up in arms over Comcast demanding increased fees from Netflix for delivering its content to Comcast subscribers. Net neutrality supporters were rightfully concerned that Comcast could be leveraging its control over the delivery pipeline to hamper a competitor's business and make its own more attractive and accessible. I personally joined the chorus, envisioning the potential abuses this kind of behavior could lead to.
With approximately 17 million broadband subscribers, the potential for a company like Comcast to negatively impact Netfix's business is substantial. Theoretically, if the fees charged by Comcast were high enough, Netfix might even have to stop delivering its service to Comcast subscribers, leaving those subscribers with less options to choose from within a less competitive landscape. Many of those subscribers are likely to be locked into service contracts and/or have few other options available for broadband Internet access.
Now, it's easy to hate Comcast. I mean, they're a cable company. But in reality, their subscriber base and their net neutrality transgression pale in comparison to those of the Wall Street and consumer darling Apple.
Comcast's subscriber base is dwarfed by that of Apple. By the end of Februrary 2011 Apple had sold more than 100 million iPhones worldwide and an additional 15 million iPads (this is prior to the release of the iPad2). Each of these devices is designed to function within an environment where Apple exercises control over which applications can be purchased and loaded onto the devices, how those applications can function, the price at which they can sell and deliver content, and even what programming languages can be used to create the applications.
Yet every day I see people who rail against Comcast and consider themselves staunch advocates of net neutrality tapping away at their Apple devices, seemingly unaware of the contradiction. Why does Apple get a pass? The company's mobile strategy is the antithesis of net neutrality. In fact, it is a deliberate, and so far extremely successful, attempt to position itself directly between content providers and users, profiting handsomely in the process.
Apple's explanations for this strategy are flimsy at best. Providing the best possible user experience? How does limiting my ability to customize my device to my needs do that? How does forcing me to look at white rectangles where Flash video files should appear accomplish that? How does requiring applications to function in ways that insure Apple collects a commission first and consider usability second, align with this goal?
Before Apple fans start bashing me for critcizing the great Oz, I ask that they consider a few questions. 1) Has the ability to purchase, download and install applications and plug-ins not officially approved by Apple or sold through its Mac store, destroyed the computing experience on your Apple desk or laptop? If Apple told you tomorrow that it would now be locking down its desktops and laptops in the same way it has its mobile devices, would you be ok with that? If not, why not?
Now one could argue - if you don't like Apple's approach go buy an android or other device and quit complaining. But that's a myopic perspective. And anyone who makes this argument for Apple while criticizing Comcast is guilty of some serious rationalization.
Apple's App Store requirements will affect content pricing both within and outside of its ecosphere. If a company like Amazon wants to sell ebooks into the Apple ecosphere it needs to do so at a price that allows it to provide Apple with a 30% commission and still make a profit. That would be fine if Apple didn't require that Amazon and others agree to sell those same ebooks at the same inflated price when offered through their own sites or other markets. By doing so Apple effectively inflates prices for everyone, even if they choose not to use Apple devices.
Apple's stance on Adobe Flash has also shown that the company is quite willing to block specific software or technology as well. Adobe is strong enough to weather the storm, but what about smaller companies and start-ups introducing new technologies that Apple considers a threat? Will they simply be shut out of the Apple ecosphere? Will they be asked to pay a price of admission so high that it undermines their ability to compete? Based on Apple's conduct to date these are very credible scenarios, and given the reach of Apple's ecosphere very disturbing ones.
So although I was pleased to see Senator Franken voicing support for net neutrality and criticizing Comcast at SXSW, I think to a great extent he's barking up the wrong trouser leg. Think about it, Comcast represents 17 million broadband landline users, a fading technology. Apple represents 100 million plus users in an expanding one. Yet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the moment Senator Franken stepped off the stage at SXSW, he and hundreds of the net neutrality supporters in the audience all fired up their iPads.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Don't Be Afraid of Glenn Beck. Be Afraid of Rupert Murdoch.
Like many other #p2 I took great pleasure in hearing British MP Tom Watson call out Glenn Beck as a bigot. Watching the headline of Jason Linkins’ Huffington Post article, “British MP Tom Watson To Glenn Beck: 'You Are A Bigot'”, streaming by repeatedly on Twitter warmed my heart. Although I enjoyed seeing Beck called a bigot, it was MP Watson’s final volley that impressed me most and that I think is most important.
It is Rupert and James Murdoch who should answer for bigots such as Glenn Beck and phone hackers such as Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire. They employ them. They promote them. They are responsible for them. It is time for thinking citizens in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia to unite against the Murdochs' vicious brand of politics that masquerades as publishing.
Thank you MP Watson, I couldn’t agree more. Glenn Beck is a bigot, a fool and a hatemonger. But without the exposure he receives via the Murdochs he would be just another moron spouting crap at a backyard barbecue. Glenn Beck is not our real problem, the Murdochs are.
We need more leaders like Britain’s MP Watson to stand up and say so. The Murdochs are businessmen, and unless they perceive it as a threat to their business, they will continue to provide a platform for Beck and his ilk. Leaders here in the US need to step up as well and call out the Murdochs for their role, and consider their reputation when reviewing new deals and acquisitions. As consumers, we need to put the pressure on as well.
Great work has been done encouraging sponsors to avoid Glenn Beck’s programming. However, even with no sponsors Beck is not going away. This is because Beck draws in a large audience that then sticks around creating value for sponsors and driving up the cost of advertising on other programs. The Murdochs will take this deal from here to eternity. Although it’s a moral victory for us progressives to see Beck’s program running with no sponsors, it will have little or no impact.
The Murdochs won’t reconsider their arrangement with Glenn Beck until they perceive it as a threat to their broader business empire. The successful efforts pressuring sponsors to drop Glenn Beck need to be expanded to have a broader view. Companies that advertise on any Murdoch/News Corp platforms are supporting Beck, et al, and we need to let them know we perceive it as such.
And it’s not only the advertisers we need to convince; it’s ourselves and each other. Last Tuesday evening I watched as my Twitter stream became crowded with #idol and #idolsnark hash tags. Thoughtful #p2 who rail against Fox News all week long don't seem to make the connection that tuning into their local Fox affiliate to watch American Idol just helps fill the Murdochs’ coffers. We need to think more clearly than this and realize when we may be part of the problem. If the same people who organize efforts against Beck and others are tuning in to American Idol and consuming other News Corp products, the Murdochs will continue to laugh all the way to the bank.
It is Rupert and James Murdoch who should answer for bigots such as Glenn Beck and phone hackers such as Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire. They employ them. They promote them. They are responsible for them. It is time for thinking citizens in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia to unite against the Murdochs' vicious brand of politics that masquerades as publishing.
Thank you MP Watson, I couldn’t agree more. Glenn Beck is a bigot, a fool and a hatemonger. But without the exposure he receives via the Murdochs he would be just another moron spouting crap at a backyard barbecue. Glenn Beck is not our real problem, the Murdochs are.
We need more leaders like Britain’s MP Watson to stand up and say so. The Murdochs are businessmen, and unless they perceive it as a threat to their business, they will continue to provide a platform for Beck and his ilk. Leaders here in the US need to step up as well and call out the Murdochs for their role, and consider their reputation when reviewing new deals and acquisitions. As consumers, we need to put the pressure on as well.
Great work has been done encouraging sponsors to avoid Glenn Beck’s programming. However, even with no sponsors Beck is not going away. This is because Beck draws in a large audience that then sticks around creating value for sponsors and driving up the cost of advertising on other programs. The Murdochs will take this deal from here to eternity. Although it’s a moral victory for us progressives to see Beck’s program running with no sponsors, it will have little or no impact.
The Murdochs won’t reconsider their arrangement with Glenn Beck until they perceive it as a threat to their broader business empire. The successful efforts pressuring sponsors to drop Glenn Beck need to be expanded to have a broader view. Companies that advertise on any Murdoch/News Corp platforms are supporting Beck, et al, and we need to let them know we perceive it as such.
And it’s not only the advertisers we need to convince; it’s ourselves and each other. Last Tuesday evening I watched as my Twitter stream became crowded with #idol and #idolsnark hash tags. Thoughtful #p2 who rail against Fox News all week long don't seem to make the connection that tuning into their local Fox affiliate to watch American Idol just helps fill the Murdochs’ coffers. We need to think more clearly than this and realize when we may be part of the problem. If the same people who organize efforts against Beck and others are tuning in to American Idol and consuming other News Corp products, the Murdochs will continue to laugh all the way to the bank.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Sarah Palin's Bobby Jindal Moment?
President Obama gave a brilliant speech yesterday, reminding us and the rest of the world of who he is, and of what America can and should be. Earlier in the day the Palin puppet masters attempted to steal the president's thunder by releasing Palin's video response to the Giffords shooting, or more precisely, the criticism she has received in its wake.
The juxtaposition of these couldn't be more telling. President Obama came with a message of unity. He honored the dead, he held out hope for the survivors, and he encouraged Americans to pull together, respect one another, and face the nation's challenges as one. People were moved, they wept, there was catharsis, and maybe even some healing.
The Sarah Palin machine took a very different approach with a very different objective. Although it was slightly disguised as a response to the shootings it was nothing of the sort. To be generous you could say it was just a ham-handed attempt to deflect the criticism she's received. To position herself once again as the victim of the lamestream media and liberal propaganda. However, for me the deliberate use of the phrase "blood libel" indicates that the actual objective was even more pernicious.
Does anyone believe that Sarah Palin even knew what blood libel meant prior to being handed her script? Do you think she even understood its significance as she read the words from the teleprompter? This is a woman who has demonstrated time and again that she has a limited education and no particular interest in improving upon it. The woman doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea. But her puppet masters do, and they also knew what impact using blood libel in her response would have. They knew it would draw a strong response, further inflame the situation, and provide additional fodder - page views, large audiences, and the accompanying ad dollars - for her employer. They also knew the negative reaction to the phrase would reinforce the feeling among Palin supporters, many of whom are also very unlikely to understand the term’s significance, that liberals and the lamestream media are just out to get her. This of course fires up her followers who can then be leveraged to get behind whatever issue or candidate she is being used to shill next.
The tactic is indeed pernicious but not atypical. What I find interesting, and rather sad in Palin’s case, is that she isn't in on the joke. She sits in front of the camera gazing at herself in the monitor and thinking she’s being groomed by her handlers to be President of the United States. When in reality they have nothing of the sort in mind. I can only hope that Palin's vapidity was as clear to others as it was to me. If so, perhaps this could be her Bobby Jindal moment.
So Sarah, you have inspired Braata’s Song of the Day – Pretty Vacant – The Sex Pistols. I had to dig deep for it but couldn’t think of any other tune that was more appropriate
The juxtaposition of these couldn't be more telling. President Obama came with a message of unity. He honored the dead, he held out hope for the survivors, and he encouraged Americans to pull together, respect one another, and face the nation's challenges as one. People were moved, they wept, there was catharsis, and maybe even some healing.
The Sarah Palin machine took a very different approach with a very different objective. Although it was slightly disguised as a response to the shootings it was nothing of the sort. To be generous you could say it was just a ham-handed attempt to deflect the criticism she's received. To position herself once again as the victim of the lamestream media and liberal propaganda. However, for me the deliberate use of the phrase "blood libel" indicates that the actual objective was even more pernicious.
Does anyone believe that Sarah Palin even knew what blood libel meant prior to being handed her script? Do you think she even understood its significance as she read the words from the teleprompter? This is a woman who has demonstrated time and again that she has a limited education and no particular interest in improving upon it. The woman doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea. But her puppet masters do, and they also knew what impact using blood libel in her response would have. They knew it would draw a strong response, further inflame the situation, and provide additional fodder - page views, large audiences, and the accompanying ad dollars - for her employer. They also knew the negative reaction to the phrase would reinforce the feeling among Palin supporters, many of whom are also very unlikely to understand the term’s significance, that liberals and the lamestream media are just out to get her. This of course fires up her followers who can then be leveraged to get behind whatever issue or candidate she is being used to shill next.
The tactic is indeed pernicious but not atypical. What I find interesting, and rather sad in Palin’s case, is that she isn't in on the joke. She sits in front of the camera gazing at herself in the monitor and thinking she’s being groomed by her handlers to be President of the United States. When in reality they have nothing of the sort in mind. I can only hope that Palin's vapidity was as clear to others as it was to me. If so, perhaps this could be her Bobby Jindal moment.
So Sarah, you have inspired Braata’s Song of the Day – Pretty Vacant – The Sex Pistols. I had to dig deep for it but couldn’t think of any other tune that was more appropriate
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Giffords Shooting and the Hate Speech Apologists
The apologists have been out in force hoping to sugarcoat the hate speech and excuse the likes of Palin, Beck, Angle and Bachmann. They try to paint critics of hate speech as being politically correct and speculative. The apologists are either dimwitted or being disingenuous and its pretty easy to spot who falls into each category.
I watched yesterday as they tried to push the political correctness meme with the hashtag #newtone. It was more embarrassing than anything else really. I see they are continuing this morning, scouring the ends of the earth for samples of violent images or statements made democrats in an attempt to support their argument. If their argument had any validity they wouldn't need an army of pawns trying so hard to prove it.
@StopBeck captured the true essence of the reality the apologists are attempting to obscure with this sublime screenshot from glennbeck.com. One might assume it's brilliant parody, but it's the real thing.
Hat Tip to @StopBeck - twitpic.com/3ovsm9
And Arizona, WTF?!?!
Was anyone else struck by the irony of watching the horror of the shooting unfold on the local TV affiliate with the call letters KGUN? What, was KILL already taken? Did the station owners, producers and news crew even register the irony of broadcasting to the world a perfect demonstration of failed gun control policy on a TV station with the call letters KGUN? Unbelievable, Vonnegut couldn't have written this shit.
Jared Loughner
Look at this guy. This is the kind of guy you steer clear of when walking down Main street, the guy you don't make eye contact with on the subway. But someone sold this man a gun. This man walked into Wal-Mart and loaded up on ammunition. This man had the right to carry that gun, concealed and loaded with that ammunition, so he could sneak up on a group of Americans exercising their right to freedom of assembly, and slaughter them. Any sensible person knows this is ridiculous.
The apologists will push their meme with full force and a lot of dimwitted fools will surely buy into it. And this is a very dangerous thing. If people are unable to admit when they are wrong and learn from a tragedy like this, it is sure to happen again.
I watched yesterday as they tried to push the political correctness meme with the hashtag #newtone. It was more embarrassing than anything else really. I see they are continuing this morning, scouring the ends of the earth for samples of violent images or statements made democrats in an attempt to support their argument. If their argument had any validity they wouldn't need an army of pawns trying so hard to prove it.
@StopBeck captured the true essence of the reality the apologists are attempting to obscure with this sublime screenshot from glennbeck.com. One might assume it's brilliant parody, but it's the real thing.
Hat Tip to @StopBeck - twitpic.com/3ovsm9
And Arizona, WTF?!?!
Was anyone else struck by the irony of watching the horror of the shooting unfold on the local TV affiliate with the call letters KGUN? What, was KILL already taken? Did the station owners, producers and news crew even register the irony of broadcasting to the world a perfect demonstration of failed gun control policy on a TV station with the call letters KGUN? Unbelievable, Vonnegut couldn't have written this shit.
Look at this guy. This is the kind of guy you steer clear of when walking down Main street, the guy you don't make eye contact with on the subway. But someone sold this man a gun. This man walked into Wal-Mart and loaded up on ammunition. This man had the right to carry that gun, concealed and loaded with that ammunition, so he could sneak up on a group of Americans exercising their right to freedom of assembly, and slaughter them. Any sensible person knows this is ridiculous.
The apologists will push their meme with full force and a lot of dimwitted fools will surely buy into it. And this is a very dangerous thing. If people are unable to admit when they are wrong and learn from a tragedy like this, it is sure to happen again.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Jared Loughner - Only a Pawn in Their Game
It popped into my head the moment I first heard of the assassination attempt on Congressman Giffords. The old Bob Dylan song, Pawn in their Game. It's been stuck their ever since. The haunting nasal twang and simple style of his early work is clear and insistent, the story is ugly and painful, real and true.
The song was written nearly 48 year ago after the murder of Medgar Evers. It directly references Mr. Evers’ murder along with the ignorance, racism and hatred so prevalent during the civil rights era. We've made some progress since those days. However, the manipulative strategy Dylan rails against in this song is still being executed today. Conservative politicians and their pundits leverage today's technology to conduct it in a more sophisticated manner and on a grander scale than they ever could have in the dark days when Dylan wrote this song.
Simply replace a few words in the song to bring it up to date. Maybe replace "blacks" and "negro" with "Mexicans" or "immigrant", or maybe not even bother. Replace "south politician" with “conservative politician” or “conservative pundit”. The point is clear.
Some may think this song goes to easy, absolves the perpetrators of hateful acts. But I'm sure that's not what Dylan was saying. Most people like Jared Loughner go to prison, are executed, end up in a psychiatric hospital, or die while perpetrating their heinous acts. But the Palins, Bachmanns, Becks, Angles, Limbaughs and Kochs remain free to orchestrate the game. And the pawns continue to fall.
Only a Pawn in Their Game
By Bob Dylan 1963
A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain
But he can't be blamed
He's only a pawn in their game.
A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks
And the hoof beats pound in his brain
And he's taught how to walk in a pack
Shoot in the back
With his fist in a clench
To hang and to lynch
To hide 'neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain't got no name
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught
They lowered him down as a king
But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
He'll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
Only a pawn in their game.
Only a Pawn in Their Game – Live recording
The song was written nearly 48 year ago after the murder of Medgar Evers. It directly references Mr. Evers’ murder along with the ignorance, racism and hatred so prevalent during the civil rights era. We've made some progress since those days. However, the manipulative strategy Dylan rails against in this song is still being executed today. Conservative politicians and their pundits leverage today's technology to conduct it in a more sophisticated manner and on a grander scale than they ever could have in the dark days when Dylan wrote this song.
Simply replace a few words in the song to bring it up to date. Maybe replace "blacks" and "negro" with "Mexicans" or "immigrant", or maybe not even bother. Replace "south politician" with “conservative politician” or “conservative pundit”. The point is clear.
Some may think this song goes to easy, absolves the perpetrators of hateful acts. But I'm sure that's not what Dylan was saying. Most people like Jared Loughner go to prison, are executed, end up in a psychiatric hospital, or die while perpetrating their heinous acts. But the Palins, Bachmanns, Becks, Angles, Limbaughs and Kochs remain free to orchestrate the game. And the pawns continue to fall.
Only a Pawn in Their Game
By Bob Dylan 1963
A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain
But he can't be blamed
He's only a pawn in their game.
A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks
And the hoof beats pound in his brain
And he's taught how to walk in a pack
Shoot in the back
With his fist in a clench
To hang and to lynch
To hide 'neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain't got no name
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.
Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught
They lowered him down as a king
But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
He'll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
Only a pawn in their game.
Only a Pawn in Their Game – Live recording
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Song of the Day
I've decided to add a Song of the Day to my poor neglected site. At the very least it will give me an excuse to visit here every day and neglect my duties for a while.
Kicking it off with an all time favorite by Freddie Notes and The Rudies - Shanghai. Whenever you're feeling low, put this one on and it'll cure your ills.
Kicking it off with an all time favorite by Freddie Notes and The Rudies - Shanghai. Whenever you're feeling low, put this one on and it'll cure your ills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)