If you've posted in forums you might remember writing some decent responses. I usually spend a lot of time polishing my discussion forum responses depending on the subject or who I am talking to. Often I want to remember what I said about something, but finding the original post can be difficult. So it makes sense to capture the better responses for later review. Welcome to Clint's Reposts.Friday, August 27, 2004
After Taliban, Axis of Evil Next
I found the below article by William Rusher a good summary of the conservative viewpoint regarding the Iraq "thing". Perhaps it will help our Spanish friend to understand why the U.S. is doing what they are doing.
This was clipped from the local Gazette Telegraph today. Enjoy.
This was clipped from the local Gazette Telegraph today. Enjoy.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
When musicians talk politics
In response to this post:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=79106&messageid=1091756226
Very good Brad. I had not considered the viewpoint that Springsteen and company are at least being upfront about staging political song fests instead of sliding politics into their concerts unannouced, as Dixie Chicks and Linda R. and some others did.
I admit to being miffed that some song artists I previously admired would taint their craft with political blah, blah, blah. I thought to myself "how can they be so freaking stupid to not support an all out assault on terrorism." But your position made me think about it a bit deeper.
Regarding unannounced politicizing in general - if I were to, for instance, go out on a job for a company I work for, and during the job continually brought up what an ass Bush or Kerry was, I doubt I would last long working for that company.
Self employed musicians of course have the luxury to say whatever they want, when they want on stage (or off); but please let's not hear them whine about their sponsor shutting them down when they are doing a job for a sponsor and continue to spout a polarized viewpoint. If they want to do their own anti Bush gigs like Springsteen, fine, I support their right to do so.
But alas, the damage is done with me regarding some musicians. Several have forever been diminished to me because of their political position. Whenever I hear them, I can't help but think about who they are via their politics. The excellence of their music starts to take a back seat to their political position. That sucks.
I suppose it's human to feel that way.
-Clint
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=79106&messageid=1091756226
Very good Brad. I had not considered the viewpoint that Springsteen and company are at least being upfront about staging political song fests instead of sliding politics into their concerts unannouced, as Dixie Chicks and Linda R. and some others did.
I admit to being miffed that some song artists I previously admired would taint their craft with political blah, blah, blah. I thought to myself "how can they be so freaking stupid to not support an all out assault on terrorism." But your position made me think about it a bit deeper.
Regarding unannounced politicizing in general - if I were to, for instance, go out on a job for a company I work for, and during the job continually brought up what an ass Bush or Kerry was, I doubt I would last long working for that company.
Self employed musicians of course have the luxury to say whatever they want, when they want on stage (or off); but please let's not hear them whine about their sponsor shutting them down when they are doing a job for a sponsor and continue to spout a polarized viewpoint. If they want to do their own anti Bush gigs like Springsteen, fine, I support their right to do so.
But alas, the damage is done with me regarding some musicians. Several have forever been diminished to me because of their political position. Whenever I hear them, I can't help but think about who they are via their politics. The excellence of their music starts to take a back seat to their political position. That sucks.
I suppose it's human to feel that way.
-Clint
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
David Warren comments on American Politics
I've basically given up on politics except to always vote libertarian until I see a change in the dull grey debate that David Warren describes below. Gosh this guy can write...and think! David W sums it up again (full article at http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Jul04/index231.shtml):
"America is polarized, not only between two parties, but between two cultures, and two worldviews, basically Christian and basically post-Christian, for which the Republicans and Democrats have become mere proxies. As personalities, Bush and Kerry make appropriate leaders. The sort of person who likes Bush -- who has some respect for what the man is, whether or not he agrees with all his policies -- will almost certainly despise a man like Kerry, and consider him a fraud and poseur. And vice versa: the sort of person who finds Mr. Kerry smart and "nuanced", will tend to find Mr. Bush a bloodthirsty ape.
The intense competition of a two-party race will slur the policy differences. It is a capitalist myth that competition engenders variety. The contrary is true, for as my friend Eric McLuhan writes, "Competition leads to sameness, and the hotter the competition the more the competitors are alike." This is in fact a selection principle of nature: cars get more like other cars, Coke like Pepsi, elephants get more like other elephants -- through competition. And politicians, like businessmen, get more alike, by competing for the same broad market.
So while American society may be splitting at the seams, the two ruling parties are struggling, tweedledum-tweedledee, to embrace the disappearing middle -- to find that ideal point, where the seam is, between the two rending buttocks of public opinion. The Republicans trying to be more compassionate, the Democrats more tough, until by election day they have got it just right, and are nearly indistinguishable, on paper.
But people are not paper, and the American public are looking not at policies but at men, and asking the question, which of these two necessarily flawed individuals can we best trust to guide us through the uncertain time ahead? There is nothing either Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Bush can do -- or nothing predictable -- to reduce or enhance their respective appeals to the two contrary constituencies. Events controllable by neither gentleman may suddenly swing a fraction of that electorate, decisively, a little to the left or right."
Clint
"America is polarized, not only between two parties, but between two cultures, and two worldviews, basically Christian and basically post-Christian, for which the Republicans and Democrats have become mere proxies. As personalities, Bush and Kerry make appropriate leaders. The sort of person who likes Bush -- who has some respect for what the man is, whether or not he agrees with all his policies -- will almost certainly despise a man like Kerry, and consider him a fraud and poseur. And vice versa: the sort of person who finds Mr. Kerry smart and "nuanced", will tend to find Mr. Bush a bloodthirsty ape.
The intense competition of a two-party race will slur the policy differences. It is a capitalist myth that competition engenders variety. The contrary is true, for as my friend Eric McLuhan writes, "Competition leads to sameness, and the hotter the competition the more the competitors are alike." This is in fact a selection principle of nature: cars get more like other cars, Coke like Pepsi, elephants get more like other elephants -- through competition. And politicians, like businessmen, get more alike, by competing for the same broad market.
So while American society may be splitting at the seams, the two ruling parties are struggling, tweedledum-tweedledee, to embrace the disappearing middle -- to find that ideal point, where the seam is, between the two rending buttocks of public opinion. The Republicans trying to be more compassionate, the Democrats more tough, until by election day they have got it just right, and are nearly indistinguishable, on paper.
But people are not paper, and the American public are looking not at policies but at men, and asking the question, which of these two necessarily flawed individuals can we best trust to guide us through the uncertain time ahead? There is nothing either Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Bush can do -- or nothing predictable -- to reduce or enhance their respective appeals to the two contrary constituencies. Events controllable by neither gentleman may suddenly swing a fraction of that electorate, decisively, a little to the left or right."
Clint
