Daily Archives: February 23, 2017

Chicano Batman's new album, Freedom Is Free, comes out March 3. Josue Rivas/Courtesy of the artist hide caption

Chicano Batman's new album, Freedom Is Free, comes out March 3.

My enduring memory of Chicano Batman dates to the first time I saw them perform, back in 2010, at a bar called Footsies in Los Angeles's Glassell Park neighborhood. It'd be generous to even describe the space as "tight," as the group was surrounded by fans so close that one could have swiped Bardo Martinez's keyboard off the ironing board he used as a stand. Yet, as cramped as it was, once the group began playing its blend of pan-Latin inflected music, it's like the walls melted away and we were transported to a straw-thatched patio on some coastal city rooftop, tar and concrete beneath our feet but a hint of ocean on the horizon.

The group's previous albums, including their eponymous 2010 debut and 2014's Cycles Of Existential Rhyme crafted a distinct sound through their embrace of myriad musical touches, including the psychedelic fuzz of Rio de Janeiro's tropicalia and licks of surf guitar reminiscent of Lima's cumbia peruana. However, with Freedom Is Free, the group is now incorporating the rhythms of American soul and funk music. I've been so accustomed to their Global South syncretism that it took me a moment to place why, on "Angel Child," the snap of Eduardo Arenas' bassline and angular attack of both Martinez and Carlos Arvalo's guitars felt so familiar and then it hit me: It's pure James Brown.

Chicano Batman has always exuded soulfulness in a broad sense of the term, but with Freedom Is Free, they're deliberately playing with '60s and '70s R&B influences. Ample credit goes to new collaborator Leon Michels, the Brooklyn-based soul producer who's worked with everyone from Lee Fields and the late Sharon Jones to the Black Keys and Wu-Tang's Raekwon. Together, he and Chicano Batman don't transform the group's sound so much as subtly expand it. Gabriel Villa's funky drumming becomes a more prominent anchor, especially on the album's outstanding, mid-tempo stepper, "Jealousy," while the title track still hums with dream-pop guitars, but now adds a boogie bounce on bass.

As Freedom Is Free's title suggests, Chicano Batman is also making a statement on the current moment, a deliberate rejoinder to the militaristic bromide that "freedom is not free." I'm not sure Chicano Batman has ever cut a track as explicitly political as the album's penultimate song, "The Taker Story." Martinez, normally so languorous on vocals, brings a more forceful presence, like a latter-day Gil Scott-Heron or Eugene McDaniels, singing about the predatory nature of mankind and how it leads to "genocide and extinction, all the functions of civilization."

It's heavy, heady stuff, but the group follows that with an instrumental, "Area C," a cool breeze of a closer that coasts on the group's trademark, balmy grooves with just a hint of drum machine burbling in the background. It's a calming, contemplative end to the album, one last strum of comfort for these uneasy times.

See more here:

First Listen: Chicano Batman, 'Freedom Is Free' - NPR

Theres a debate to be had about how we define free speech, but as long as Katie Hopkins [above] is still getting published in a hugely popular paper, its largely academic. Photograph: Dan Kennedy/Discovery Communications

Were currently in the midst of something of a backlash against political correctness. And by we I mean, quite specifically, newspaper opinion columnists. Every couple of weeks another article will be published railing against campus no-platforming or leftwingers policing language, and proclaiming, pompously, how vital it is that we should be free to offend.

In their crusade against the dastardly social justice warriors, the pontificators are joined by a bevy of right-leaning politicians and an army of juvenile internet trolls. As far as I can tell, most ordinary people remain largely unfazed by the whole thing. Possibly because, beyond a handful of overexposed incidents involving university students, its hard to identify what the supposed threat actually consists of.

I cant claim to be a neutral voice on this issue though I think its important that dissenting speech should be formally protected, I also tend to see efforts to make language more inclusive as a positive thing. The hypothetical threat of a subset of people enforcing strict rules that limit our ability to express ourselves is terrifying, I agree; I just dont think theres much evidence of that happening.

The balance of power is important. Even where incidences of campus censorship do seem egregious, theyre limited in their impact. Student activists dont have the ability to stop high-profile journalists writing what they damn well please, however much they might wish it were otherwise. Theres a debate to be had about how we think about and define free speech, but as long as Kelvin MacKenzie and Katie Hopkins are still getting published in hugely popular national newspapers its largely academic.

Unlike the genuinely worrying authoritarianism of Theresa Mays government which is backed up with political power censorship by the left is, at most, a paper tiger. However, its a useful distraction for reactionaries as it allows them to avoid grappling with a far trickier question: while we recognise that free speech should be a protected right, to what extent do we have a personal duty to consider the impact of our words on other people?

The lazy thing to do at this point would be to point to John Stuart Mills distinction between speech that harms and that which merely offends. He argued that individuals should be free to behave as they please, as long as their behaviour doesnt harm others; but this freedom should allow for the causing of offence. Campaigners against political correctness tend to insist that offence is all were arguing about. From their perspective, requests to stop using gay as a pejorative or avoid jokes involving racial stereotypes are about nothing more than protecting the feelings of sensitive snowflakes.

Ignore childhood memories of sticks and stones the reality has always been complex. Mill himself struggled to precisely define the supposed line between harm and offence, and research has regularly demonstrated the unforeseen damage that words can do. A recent study at Kings College London found that women are more prone to anxiety around navigation, spatial awareness and visualisation because of the pervasive stereotype that women are bad at reading maps. Another piece of research found that girls as young as six believe intellectual brilliance is a male trait.

Numerous studies have found that African Americans internalise the negative racial stereotypes that are present in the culture theyre immersed in. Though significant progress has been made in terms of formal rights, gay and lesbian 16- to 24-year-olds are more likely to have suicidal thoughts than straight people of the same age. Words have real-world effects.

No single droplet causes the flood, but throwaway jokes and comments microaggressions in the much derided parlance of social justice activism add up to a climate of hostility that makes life significantly harder for members of targeted groups. Its no coincidence that the loudest voices against political correctness tend to be white, straight, male and class-privileged: a demographic that has not historically been oppressed.

Casting all critics as authoritarian and censorious artificially polarises the debate. Its perfectly possible to believe people should have the right to say horrible things while questioning their decisions to do so. Genuinely self-regarding actions are fairly rare. Humans are social animals and most things we do tend to have some sort of impact on others. Commentators rail against the largely imaginary threat of censorship because its easier than acknowledging that the world doesnt revolve around them. The vast majority of arguments about political correctness can be neatly summed up: just because you have a right to behave badly, does that mean you actually should?

Continued here:

When the freedom to offend is a freedom to harm - The Guardian

BEIJING

The U.S. navy said the strike group, including the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson, began routine operations in the South China Sea on Saturday amid growing tension with China over control of the disputed waterway.

Defense ministry spokesman Ren Guoqiang said China had a grasp of the situation regarding the carrier group in the South China Sea.

China hopes the U.S. earnestly respects the sovereignty and security concerns of countries in the region, and earnestly respects the efforts of countries in the region to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, Ren told a regular monthly news briefing. Of course, we also respect freedom of navigation and overflight for all countries in the South China Sea in accordance with international law, he added. The situation in the South China Sea was generally stable, Ren said.

Good military relations between the two countries are in interests of both, as well as of the region and the world, and China hoped the United States could meet China half way, strengthen communication and avoid misjudgment, Ren said.

Friction between the United States and China over trade and territory under U.S. President Donald Trump has increased concern that the South China Sea could become a flashpoint.

China wrapped up its own naval exercises in the South China Sea late last week. War games involving its only aircraft carrier have unnerved neighbors with which it has long had rival claims in the waters.

China lays claim to almost all of the resource-rich South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion worth of trade passes each year.

Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also claim parts of the waters that have rich fishing grounds, along with oil and gas deposits.

The United States has criticized Chinas construction of man-made islands and build-up of military facilities in the sea, and expressed concern they could be used to restrict free of movement.

Read the rest here:

China Aware US Navy in South China Sea, Respects Freedom of Navigation - Voice of America

How might we make the case for freedom today? Asserting the capacity to think for ourselves seems like a good place to start. We should encourage people to live more freely by trying out new things, by experimenting with words or actions that fall outside conventional ways. We might also take inspiration from history. From periods such as the Enlightenment, when a practical battle for moral autonomy, for the right to speak, act and live freely, both sprung from and deepened a broader intellectual struggle to develop ideas suitable for the times.

Today, at a time when historic achievements related to freedom are to some extent being reversed, we need to broaden as much as possible the discussion about the history and importance of liberty. To that end, Living Freedom, a new, three-day residential school in London organised by the Institute of Ideas, is offering a unique opportunity for keen young advocates of freedom to participate in meaningful debate and a series of intellectual challenges.

Open to anyone between 18 and 25 years of age, and taking place in London from 6 to 8 April 2017, the school will provide an opportunity to explore current issues and also to discuss the historical development of the idea of freedom. Topics will include: the classical conception of freedom; freedom of conscience; existentialism and freedom; and how freedom relates to democracy. We will also explore determinism and free will, libertarianism, and the role of the state. There will be lectures, debates and workshops.

In stark contrast to the ethos of sensitivity-checking, which seeks to protect us from unfamiliar material and encourages us to stick to what we already know, Living Freedom will ask attendees to engage with difficult, controversial and challenging ideas. The school will be held in the spirit of Jean Paul Sartres argument that we should not shut ourselves up in our own minds, in a nice warm room with the shutters closed. Instead, he said, we should fly out over there, beyond oneself, to what is not oneself. If that appeals, then we hope to see you at Living Freedom.

Alastair Donald is co-founder of Living Freedom and associate director at the Institute of Ideas.

For further details and to apply to attend Living Freedom, click here.

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Original post:

Living Freedom - Spiked

Bill Harbour and Charles Person were two of the young activists who sought to end segregation in the South by doing a simple thing taking a bus ride.

Those bus rides brought about bombings, beatings and imprisonment but also the eventual end of segregated transportation in the South.

Harbour and Person spoke at the Hotel at Auburn University on Wednesday night as part of a Black History Month program hosted by the Auburn Alumni Association.

Harbour and Person recounted their experiences during the 1961 Freedom Rides.

Bus ride to Birmingham

Person was the youngest of the 13 riders of the first Freedom Ride that left Washington D.C. to travel to New Orleans on May 4, 1961.

All change begins with young people," Person said. Young people want to see things happen. Older people, we rationalize things and make things seem OK.

Person described his arrival at the bus station in Anniston, learning that the other bus had been firebombed. Klansmen boarded and demanded they move to the back of the bus.

Well being smart students, we said no, we weren't going to move, Person said. So they began to punch us.

At that point, James Peck and Walter Bergman, two white Freedom Riders, tried to intervene.

That really infuriated them to think that whites would come to aid black students, Person said.

The men beat Peck and Bergman and forced the rest of the group into the back of the bus, which continued on an alternate route to Birmingham bypassing the angry crowd that had burned the other bus.

When the bus arrived in Birmingham, Peck and Person went to test the desegregation at the bus station, but they were intercepted by another mob. Person suffered a severe injury to his head in the beating. A photographer snapped a photo and the crowd turned on him letting Person go.

The riders eventually boarded an airplane in Birmingham to reach their destination of New Orleans.

Person later went on to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps in Vietnam.

Scars from 1961

Harbour went on two Freedom Rides at the end of May 1961, including a bus ride from Nashville to Montgomery.

Harbour said the bus was met in Birmingham by the infamous Bull Conor, who put the group in jail "for their own protection.

After being driven out of town in cars, the group re-boarded a bus and made it through Birmingham with the protection of the state police.

We pulled into Montgomery and everybody vanished, Harbour said. No protection nowhere. Didn't see anybody. John Lewis said, 'Bill something's wrong.'

Then an angry mob appeared in the station and attacked the Freedom Riders.

It was rough, he said. It was real real rough. I have scars now that happened at that bus station in Montgomery.

The group continued its ride after an intervention from the National Guard to Jackson, Mississippi where they were arrested.

We went into the bus station and asked for a hamburger and Coke, and they put us straight in jail, Harbour said.

Students from across the country sought to take part in the Freedom Rides and 436 students were arrested, Harbour said.

Fifty percent were black, and fifty percent were white, he said. Were not sure how that happened, but it did.

Before the remarks from Person and Harbour, the Auburn University Moasic Theater company debuted a new work titled There are no Free Rides, an interpretation of the history of the Freedom Rides

They were going to war armed only with their passion and freedom songs inherited from their ancestors, one actor said during the play.

Here is the original post:

Freedom Riders recall 1961 bus rides - Opelika Auburn News

Drivers have usually been subject to the same tight restrictions on broadcasting video from the paddock as anyone else, and some including Hamilton have found themselves in trouble.

"If you look at football, social media is so much greater, they utilise social media a lot better in football, in the NBA, in the NFL," Hamilton said during the Mercedes 2017 launch at Silverstone.

"In F1 every time, for example, I would have posted a picture or a video, I would have got a warning from the FIA, or notice telling you to take it down.

"This year I am hoping that they will change that rule, and allow social media for all of us because social media is obviously an incredible medium for the world to communicate with.

"And for the sport to be able to grow, it is a super easy free tool to grow for the sport, for us to use, to share it, to engage with other people.

"There are people who are following me who have not been F1 fans for a long, long time, but one of their friends who happens to follow me or one of the other drivers has said to follow, and [they have] since started to watch the races.

"I am sure it is one of the fastest and it's the new way, the new way forwards."

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff has agreed with Hamilton on the role of social media, and believes that Liberty Media will be able to make changes in that department sooner rather than later.

While major issues, such as the distribution of income among the teams, remain subject to long-term contracts, Wolff says that other tweaks to enhance to show could be seen as early as this season.

"Of course you are always limited by contracts and also part of the success of F1 was long-term contracts that give F1 stability," said Wolff. "But that also means that probably you might not be able change everything at once.

"But I think there will be quite some short-term changes, things that are possible to be implemented. At least what we have heard, in terms of enhancing the show at the track, giving access to the paddock, giving teams and the media more rights, and the drivers more rights.

"So I think there are quite some things that are going to happen pretty quickly."

Wolff confirmed that various members of the team have been in contact with Ross Brawn and the sport's other new bosses.

"We have spoken to each other a couple of occasions, a few times over the last weeks. As a team, various team members in their fields, we had a very regular exchange, with Ross, with Chase Carey, and with Sean [Bratches].

"And they are interested in hearing our opinions, and hearing where we see deficits, and where we see opportunity. It was a very proactive approach. I think just the way it should be."

Read the original here:

Hamilton calls for more social media freedom for F1 drivers - Motorsport.com, Edition: Global