New issue of ARTHUR

Less scope/content in general. Still worth picking up, though, Strummer interview is above average...

Given that its free if you can get it its hardly worth considering not doing so. But maybe not as interesting as the first 2 - I don't see a celebrity interview (i.e. of and by) I really liked the Sevonious vs. Peaches and Rushkoff vs. P.Orridge ones.

That opening essay about the "black dude" was embarassing to read.

what was "embarassing" about it?

The self-satisfaction of referring to himself as a "white guy at ease" out after dark in a non-white part of town; a random person he encounters as "a middle-aged black dude." The tokenism involved with using this person's acknowledgement for a congratulatory rumination on the author's, what, idealism? Also, there's nothing "cool" about the Weathermen; they fucking killed people.

It just rubbed me wrong.

Actually, the Weathermen never killed anyone (besides themselves, that is). Know your history.

I could argue about the race stuff, but there's probably no point.

Yeah, they killed themselves, the fucking idiots. Doing what? Making bombs to kill or destroy property of others. Kathy Boudin was involved in the murder of a police officer, whether or not it came under the formal banner of a weathermen "activity" doesn't really matter much to me. She was one of the leaders.

I could argue about the race stuff, but there's probably no point = I'm lazy

Look, first of all I think you have some serious misconceptions about the Weather Underground's activities. Stupid and counterproductive as their modus operandi was, it basically involved setting a bomb somewhere and then notifying the authorities to get everyone out of the area. I know that Boudin's Brinks Robbery thing was not explicitly a Weatherman activity, but even so she was hardly a leader on a par with Dohrn or Rudd. But this is all beside the point, since the author explicitly says that the Weathermen were "too stupid to be deserving of anything other than morbid curiosity." So what was your problem again? Because he didn't exactly defend them.

As for the race bit, allright, let's get into it. You have a problem with him identifying the race of the guy addressing him and his friend. You assert that he cites the races of the people involved to ascribe some kind of credibility/coolness to himself. But should race not be acknowledged as a personal characteristic, given the larger social context that it places the conversation in? Do you not think it's weird that *anyone* would approach a stranger in this day and age and think that they were members of organizations that haven't been around for 30 YEARS!?! And the fact that it's a black guy, referring to organizations which were basically composed of white radicals who idolized the Panthers, you don't think that makes his race significant? If it was a burnt-out white hippy-dude, the comment might be a little less inscrutable, but coming from some random middle-aged black guy, yes, you have to admit that that is odd.

""white guy at ease" out after dark in a non-white part of town"

He only says this in the context of trying to understand where the other guy is coming from. Note that he says he thought the "black dude" "might have considered" the area of town "non-white". It's not like he was saying "look at me! I'm cool cuz I visit the ghetto!" Give me a break.

I thought this was about the Kinks :(

Well look, Shakey, you asked for opinions and I proferred one. Did you write this article? Basically the writing struck me as a bit too self-congratulatory, a quality I generally dislike regardless of the subject matter.

well, I react badly to being called lazy. And no I didn't write the article, I'm not a writer/critic.

It wasn't meant to be an insult, Shakey. It's just, why drop a line like "I could argue .. but there's no point." I mean, either argue or don't!