big thoughts HERE.
Unless the emptiness itself represents your thoughts on Dylan’s integrity; I believe you forgot to add a link to your big think blog. I’m sorry to bring up this quibble in the combox; I figure it is the quickest way to bring it to your attention.
Thanks! Linking is trickier than it seems (for me).
Only a certified idiot, useful or otherwise, would endore Obama for another term.
Dylan can say what it is he supports politically or he not say.
Doesn’t matter all that much to me.
I’ve always interpreted the body of his work as a critique of modernity. Maybe I’m wrong. Again, doesn’t matter all that much.
His best work can be found in his ‘Christian’ albums. I think.
Is this open for debate? Because there is a sense in which the reporter was not being an ideological tyrant. A good deal of clarification on the wavering independents could also be achieved(?) The reporter is not an ideological tyrant because he didn’t build or invent the Republican and Democratic parties. The reporter is not responsible for the existance of “left” and “right”, nor for the existance of a two party system.
Some political scientists might say that the existance of the the democrats and republicans is a key feature of american politics, and thus inevitably a key feature of american exceptionalism. I would think that a small majority of both democrats and republicans are highly annoyed by such independents. Especially the democrats and republicans who work get out the vote. So the boots on the ground democrats and republicans hate dealing with independents as much as a car salesman hates dealing with customers who in reality are just browsing. They soak up your time under false pretexts (being persuadable) and yet remain on the fence.
While independents represent a sizeable chunk of americans, there is also a sort of middle class expectation that you know where you stand, and you can spit it out and move on without equivocating. So some portion of folks are a lot more honest/quick to endorse a political party or candidate. So the reaction I get from republicans and democrats can often times strike me, or be summarized as sort of BUY SOMETHING ALREADY! (pick a side or product).
It is different of course for Dylan since he is really a service mark, or a sort of Brand. He doesn’t want to give a reporter an endorsement because he doesn’t want to detract from or dilute his intellectual property/integrity in his own image or fame. You can call it servicemark or authenticy if you want to get away from legalism. But brand immage is simply historical integrity/authenticity (pick your adjective) in a certain line of business. Dylan like independents (who may be more or less like unfamous groupies(deluded by faux-sophistication), or have minor servicemarks may in fact decide that they do not desire any particular association with either the Obama/ Romney, or democrat/republican brand.
But Dylan’s position is actually a fairly sophisticated one. By pointing to facts about Obama that bring about positive sentiments, he is at the same time pointing to their general irrelevance as grounds for informed policy support.
Against the general political agnosticism of Dylan, i.e. “What the fuck do you want me to say?”, the reporter was pressing a sort of general middle class belief that this election is in fact one which presents significant/stark differences, and that one should be able to know what side one prefers. i.e. it isn’t a 500 page discourse on the political economy of Trademark, historical reputation, authenticity and integrity, but an “in general” lightning round up/down, left/right, Obama/Romney, put up a yard sign, press #1 or #2 on stupid poll questions and move on 2012.
Mail (will not be published) (required)