that often I'm only voting for the lesser of the evils. Can't speak for the EU, but the corporate ass kissing thing bugs me here too. I have to admit I do have a litmus test on how my own small voice will go depending on outcome of the TPP. And hope my post doesn't get juried out here for saying that, so no specifics, just sayin...
I'm going to find ways of following Mr Brand on the intertubes. He cuts right to the chase. I certainly took a bashing for supporting Occupy in my community, brought them spaghetti. But they fell apart, even their website hasn't been updated in over 2 years. But Russell is 100 percent right about them having brought the concept of the 1 percent/ we are the 99, that so few are paying any attention to, that I cannot seem to stir interest in, frustratingly enough. Until recently... somewhat. I still find my facebook friends obsessing over some stupid internet game, reality teevee or televised sports. Arrrgh.

... or You? Intimidation. You're NOT intimidated. Keep it up. I think your dis-ease is communicable!

more spaghetti.

[

cold sober!!

I just see the big picture.

That is so funny.

Thanks for the laugh!!!

disbelief?

So you are of the "We must burn the place down in order to cure what ails us" ilk?

No thanks Anarchist!

etc....

Agree with you....

Do you know the narrative the Dominionists (Fundamentalists) have for the immediate future? Because they like you...think chaos is happening right now!

But that has been noted elsewhere - evidently if one agrees on even one issue (although in this case chaos is not meant the same) - then one must therefore agree on all issues. What silly drek.
What Russell said rankles some, I will hazard a guess, is because he is saying things suck. In reality, things suck no matter whose butt is in the prez chair. He is not blaming an administration, he is blaming politics and those who have bought the political process. I think some find it difficult to not view any criticism at all as a de fact criticism of Obama. Obama, for the purposes of how bad things suck worldwide, due to big money, is totally irrelevant.

...

includes removing the established American govt....

No good can come from destroying my government to get your cherished chaos.....

Chaos just is. It happens. And when it does it is best to see what opportunity can be found in it. Ameliorating chaos and shaping change that comes out of it is the best we can hope for. All systems are subject to chaos. The United States, the American people, and democracy in general usually come out okay in this regard. I hope that continues.

I believe in the American Govt....not Chaos aka Anarchy!

Yes, the tea partiers and others like the dominionism cultists and the oligarchic types are anarchic and wish to disrupt the government to establish a different kind of order. They don't like this country the way it is, what it is becoming. They are trying to create a chaotic situation so they can institute changes. I don't think they have the same changes in mind. Understanding that these kinds of situations arise from time to time and having things in place to ameliorate the extreme consequences that can come about is important.

It is time, or past time, to have new mechanisms in place. Elizabeth Warren speaks to some of that. I think that the ACA will be another piece, as will immigration reform and ending the battles over the public schools. People what this country is all about would be a good thing.

There are people who don't deal well with change and there are those who take advantage of others fears for their own purposes. At least we are not fighting in the streets, well not full out war. But we do have to establish a proper equilibrium. We'll see who wins, the opportunists or the sensible people. If it is the opportunists, we will be in for a rough ride.

Order will be established, the world moves on, then noticeable changes happen. People predictably will react badly. And we do it all over again. Such is life. We go in and out of different levels of "chaos". The world depicted in "Fahrenheit 451" would have eventually fallen.

change happens incrementally no matter how hard some try to force change....it will take as long as it takes. Its exactly what the Dominionists want...Chaos and Anarchy....they are no different then those on the far far left who also seek chaos thinking it will bring the change they want in a hurry. The best we can do is to try not let either polar get too much power...because what they want is chaos...they have no hope and think the only way change will happen is if it "all falls apart at the seams".

He doesn't need Jeremy Paxman's legitimatization of the revolution, and makes him confront the very reason why.

I'm fired up by Russell Brand, Goddamn it...

spread the words

Now, I need to relisten one time so I'm sure I can understand all of his points. He speaks just a bit fast for me to comprehend adequately. But what I DID comprehend, made damned good sense!

He performed in San Francisco about two months ago. I was about 3 feet away from him. The charisma was evident. His routine stayed with me for days. He made a lot of such in this interview and made Paxman look like an ass. Russell is soooooo deep!

The idea that the people would rise up and force the powers that be to "take all of the money they use on war and death and make them spend it on life".

That is how you change and unite humanity as a species.

It's Dennis!! (you know, from The Holy Grail!!)

Not watching much TV I am just barley familiar with who he is...but he impressed me in this short interview...we need more of him...lots more.

he was Katie Perry's first husband. Even though they were entire opposites, their differences were too irreconcilable.

.. go search her on youtube. I think one of the problems with Katie and Russell was their age difference.

Don't worry about the spelling, I knew what you meant..

The system is so fucked up because not enough people are voting, if every single person in the country voted, a lot of these inequality issues would be rectified, the oligarchs rely on keeping people from voting so they can place their shills in office.

If every single eligible voter came out to cast a vote, there would be a lot more Elizabeth Warrens in office and a lot less tea baggers.

Don't want to influence people to not vote.

But on the other hand I feel hopeless sometimes too. I still vote though.

99% of people vote or something like that and yet they just elected the right wing candidate.

I think it's more about lobbying and corporate donations than it is anything else. The richest people can afford the ads which are copy-tested and roundtabled to assure the perfect consumer response. So while voters might vote with conviction, might vote thinking they actually support their given candidate, it's already written in stone. They've been subject to consumer ads for so long that they just "buy" the candidate that is running. The one with the most money or best advertising (which itself requires significant investment) wins.

"I'M TAKING IT!"

And I love when Paxman was trying to get him to explain what the revolution was going to be, how it was going to work and he said h couldn't come up with that in a hotel room during an interview!

This is the side of Brand that I love. I've seen him a couple times and the last time, less than a year ago, he spent waaaaay too much time talking about how good he is at pleasing a woman sexually. I mean he went on and on and it wasn't funny and it was boring and made him seem so self absorbed. Unless I'm in bed with someone I don't really care how good they are!

Even but for one term.

I think he should support voting. Sure one doesn't seem to matter, but he has clout. He can get groups of like minded people to vote.

How Russell Kept from slapping the taste out of his stupid Corporatist mouth I don't know. Bless him for the Patients!

Paxman...................partisan pooper.

He's not partisan with his interviews. His most memorable interviews are usually with Conservative Party politicians ...

But Russell Brand is brilliant in this interview. I think he nearly out-Pax'd Paxman. He gave straight answers and wasn't evasive with his answers. Paxton on the "can't be bothered to vote" line got tired early on.

yes, more PLEASE! I am *so* there...shift it mofo.s!!!!

part. Russell Brand is a definite contender for Upper Class Twit of the Year

Upper-Class Twit of the Year

No addicts ever get over their addiction but he's been clean for years, so that's good stuff.

I actually wonder why addicts make good story tellers or politicians or just leaders. Must be something about the addiction personality, just me generalizing here.

Unfortunately people only consider something an addiction, generally, if it is illegal.

Though I admit cigarette addiction is ignored (probably because it's not immediately damaging to personality and personal function? Not sure).

From what I understand Russel Brand was into everything, including alcohol. Here's a good article talking about why Brand quit: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/beth-burgess/russell-brand-is-right-about-addiction_b_2847134.html

Basically he has a personality or inclination that devours the stuff, so he abstains because it's harmful, not because he's against drugs or alcohol.

The difference between 300mg of Caffeine and the effects of 30mg Amphetamine aren't extremely dissimilar, with caffeine actually having a much longer half-life and similar neuro-toxic and negative effects on stress hormones. Most people make their coffee stronger than what is listed per-serving also most consume more than two cups daily.

Personally I have no issues with drug use at all. A study was done a while back showing that Heroin addicts can function normally. Cocaine can actually increase plasticity in moderate doses. Marijuana can be enlightening and stress relieving etc. The drug war has made drugs more dangerous. If people had access to cheap heroin, they wouldn't do krocodil, if they had access to cheap coke they probably would never end up using crack.

Brand is a cool dude, very smart and very enlightened. If he thinks that he shouldn't do drugs, then I respect his view and wish him the best luck I think it's really great that he has remained open minded about it, I mean most of the time for example with AA people go to the extreme and begin to believe alcohol is evil rather than their motivations for using it in excess.

eom

Where in this country would there be a program host like this? Except on Bill Moyer's show, and he's been marginalized practically out of existence. I thought the exchange was good. Russell Brand has a brilliance and Jeremy Paxton recognizes that, and let him present his ideas. Wish we had such grownup conversations on American TV.

Though I agree he let Brand have his say and the belittlement actually hurt Paxton in the end.

I think you might be looking at this interview in the context of our extremely adversarial American conservative press, and imparting to a Britisher the attributes of our extremely pugnacious American radio and talk show hosts.

At any rate, I simply did not see what you saw. I saw pushback from Paxman, yes, to challenge Brand to elaborate on his ideas—then I saw him listen as Brand did so! I saw a civil and interesting conversation. The British can do that. I wish we could.

Brand obliterated him!

Why are you so intent on keeping score? This wasn't Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly playing to their audience, talking over a liberal guest. You seem to need Russell Brand to "win." Jeremy Paxman wasn't fighting to "win." I think you should watch more British interview shows. You'll see that they do things differently from the way our media does.

Bill O'Reilly is famous for talking over the top of his guests. Jeremy Paxman... asking the same question repeatedly when he doesn't get a straight answer. The Guardian compiled a few after a recent roasting of a junior minister.

Paxman is an institution.... would it make news that any person you see on CNN, MSNBC, or Faux Noise grew a beard? Him growing a beard and keeping it on made news... and Russell Brand only highlighted it further!

That's FOX News Bill O'Reilley / Glen Beck crap.

I don't know Paxman, and I'm not intending to bash him, but I think his condescension got smacked down.

I'm not sure it was just a matter of letting him speak, but that Paxman couldn't keep up.

Good stuff from a man who knows of what he speaks...

RB is right.

... until he started talking politics. Of course, I would never encourage folks to not vote, although we must admit, we don't know if our votes even count with Diebold counting them.

Not like we actually get much say in who runs. That is all about the money. Or can be sure our votes are counted.
Or can expect deeds to match campaign promises.

Russell Brand is correct, and I find it almost amusing that he is immediately labeled as a druggie, that smear the messenger thing sure has got a strong hold on some. Doesn't matter if he was a drug addict, that is not what he is talking about.

... I and my family are there. We have our own "block" of voters... all vote Democrat. As a matter of fact, all of my family and close friends are Democrats. I do have Republican acquaintances, but I would never call them close friends.

I am voting for the lesser evil.

The system sucks on toast. We all have the right (and the responsibility) to fight for change. Anyone who mocks the idea that a revolution is coming to our elite-dominated world is nothing but a self-satisfied fool.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

He doesn't rule out democracy completely.

Moreover, I think his reason for not voting is completely valid. I vote in every election myself, but I find his argument against voting very difficult to counter--I've actually tried to counter it with a friend who holds the same position, and alas, not done very well.

I was just being snarky.

He's approaching the question of "consent of the governed." Just how destructive and out of control can a political system be before it starts losing it's claim to being legitimate?
He mentions Occupy in that regard.
So he's guest-editing a political magazine as non-politian, anti-politian, and coming from the under-served and mistreated, even the abused and injured; an unusual attitude.

I judged him based on his stand up and an article about him and Katie Perry in Rolling Stone.
I thought he was a bit of a scumbag.
After watching this interview, holy shit! I never imagined he was that goddamn brilliant.
Now I feel like an asshole.

I doubt you'll ever see this Mr. Brand.
But on the tiny chance you do, please accept my most sincere apology. I was very wrong about you.

Cheers!

I wonder why we never hear about such brilliant people in this country... Have we really been dumbed down by the media, and the lack of affordable education? Where are our OUR Russel Brands?

It's chaotic and surging/sputtering, all over the place. I know that we aren't in a self-sustaining mode in the lease, and something has to give, even if it's human life on earth. I personally vote and think it makes sense, but Russell explained why he didn't when younger as well as now and of course it is consistant with total message. It really doesn't matter if we want revolution or not, whether it's orderly or chaotic, or whatever...it's happening and my vote is to encourage liberation and create a society that is less wealth stratified, with shrinking poor every day. We also have to create forces that neutralize the damage we have inflicted to our planet in my lifetime (65 yrs.), either improve the environment for real or pay the Big Bad Piper.

link:

"the response of many pundits - which has consisted largely of ad hominem attacks - illustrates precisely his point.

It is not Brand that is trivial or apathetic.
It is the prevailing political, economic and cultural system. And the very inability of so many media commentators to engage with the substance of this issue, the crux of Brand's argument, is symptomatic of the complete state of delusion this system revels in as it accelerates its trajectory toward environmental annihilation.

It is a sad reflection of the dire state of politics and the media that it falls to a celebrity comedian such as Russell Brand to speak truth to power - and an even sadder reflection that mainstream cultural commentators find themselves incapable of even understanding his key message.

"Apathy is a rational reaction to a system that no longer represents, hears or addresses the vast majority of people. A system that is apathetic, in fact, to the needs of the people it was designed to serve."

To this, the critics simply insist ad nauseum that there is no viable alternative..."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/25/russell-brand-crisis-civilisation-what-now