Article - PG Music Forums

PG Music Home

In case anyone might be interested, I have a piece on American Thinker today.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/they.html

Regards,

Bob

+1

excellent article. (That means you're about to be deluged by objections. I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly. All that's necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do and say nothing.)

We should reward common sense when we see it. Heaven knows the opposition is quick to ridicule it... and when the oppositions point of view is the only one we're allowed to see or hear, shame on us for allowing that to happen.

But we're almost (if not totally) there already.

This has been around a long time, but it is a wakeup call when you see how long the agenda has been in existence and how thoroughly it has succeeded
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

While searching for this, I was somewhat surprised (yet, not really) to see that 99% of the articles were oriented toward character bashing the author in hopes of undermining the message. But the message stands on its own two feet regardless of how anyone may perceive the author's personal perspective.

Thanks Pat. The reaction so far has been positive, but then, AT readers tend to be conservative types, so I'm just preaching to the choir.

Regards,

Bob

Politics is politics and I am not that interested in discussing your views, whether or not I agree -- except to say

a) to every complex problem, there is always a very simple solution -- and most of the time it is wrong;
b) This generational viewpoint of "they" has been present in every generation.

However, the one thing that really bothers me was this one:

Quote:

"They started awarding trophies to every player in school team sports, winners and losers."

I don't why folks keep throwing that up as if it is destroying the competitive fiber of our youth -- 'cause it is crock of crap.

This sound-bite is tossed about by those who don't really pay attention any more to kids in sport. Kids know who wins and loses, winning trophies are for winners and the competitive spirit is alive and well. I am not sure how recognition for participation in an activity has somehow led to the downfall of our society.

Don't like the movies -- don't go see them, they have always been bastions of liberal, corrupt individuals and corporations. Don't like the way schools are run, vote in a new school board. Your simplistic rant about what is wrong with America is misinformed and as dangerous as the yea-hoos on the left.

Isn't there anyone in the middle anymore?

Kevin

Kevin,

For someone “not that interested in discussing your views “, you do have quite a bit to say.

“Your simplistic rant about what is wrong with America is misinformed and as dangerous as the yea-hoos on the left.”

Your response sounds more like an expression of personal antipathy than a rejection of my views. For that reason, I will not bother to refute any of your points.

Thanks for reading the article and commenting.

Regards,

Bob

before we get a flame war going here, I'd just like to say that intelligent people should be able to express highly volatile ideas peaceably and without resorting to character assassination.

The old expression is that "He who runs out of arguments strikes first", so resorting to personal attacks in forum discussion is generally regarded as an admission of ideological defeat.

In my experience you can get away with almost any statement in discussions of this sort, as long as you say it in a way that preserves the dignity of those on the other side of the discussion. Failing to do that pretty much always leads to a fight rather than a discussion.

I agree Pat. It was not my intention to start any controversy.

Regards,

Bob

Quote:

Kids know who wins and loses, winning trophies are for winners and the competitive spirit is alive and well. I am not sure how recognition for participation in an activity has somehow led to the downfall of our society.

Sure they know. But do they care?

And I am against giving losers trophies because it teaches kids that they will be rewarded for just showing up, like most people do at their jobs when they get older. If your life is just about showing up, I pity you. I do everything 100% and 100 miles per hour. That's because I was raised in a generation that taught me that the hardest workers succeed. Of course that means I also crash hard when I crash. Life is to be lived, experienced and enjoyed, not just endured. That kind of comment usually comes from paents who were eggheads and bookworms and never experienced the joy of working with a team and achieving a common goal. If they do choose sports, the goal is to excel. If not, that is fine too. If they choose arts, music, dance, carpentry, plumbing... do it 100% and excel at it.

Trophys to losing teams is a bad thing. A trophy is supposed to represent excellence, not participation. Little doughy kids like "Chad" and "Cameron" do not deserve trophies just for showing up in their uniform to please their yuppie parents.

Yes, I am an old school inner city kid who grew up scuffling on the streets. I did not have permissive parents, and many times during on field confrontations my father stood and watched me get the stuffing beat out of me. Rather than stepping in, he allowed it to be motivation for me to become better at defending myself so it didn't happen. And it resulted in my being Northast Ohio Golden Gloves runner up 2 years in a row, at the same time helping me realize that fighting outside of organized boxing is stupid and pointless. After Golden Gloves, I never got into a fight where it wasn't to rescue someone from an outnumbered beating. However, once I step in, it's a battle to the death.

You don't learn that being rewarded for nothing but showing up.

All these parents now jumping on the "my kid won't play football because he might get hurt" bandwagon should just put them in dresses and eye makeup and prepare them for the gender change surgery. Planes crash too. So your kid will never fly because there that chance? How about driving? Cars crash more often than planes. You may not have noticed from your position, but life is tough. Wear your helmet.

Remember. Conceive it, perceive it, believe it, achieve it.

before we get a flame war going here, I'd just like to say that intelligent people should be able to express highly volatile ideas peaceably and without resorting to character assassination.

That's an excellent thought!

I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.
All that's necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do and say nothing.

Bob, the gist of the article is good (at least, in terms of intent), but I think it simplifies things a bit much.

You repeatedly say We grumbled, but did nothing. I don't think this is accurate. Quite a bit has been done by people on these issues, and continues to be done. To say otherwise does discredit to those who have worked long and hard for their causes.

You say "In true Alinsky fashion, they batter us with labels.", but your own terms - "Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement" - seem to be exactly what you are complaining about.

But what I find most problematic in pointing to a group of "them" is that they are conveniently not "us".

Quote:

before we get a flame war going here, I'd just like to say that intelligent people should be able to express highly volatile ideas peaceably and without resorting to character assassination.

That's an excellent thought!

I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.
All that's necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do and say nothing.

Bob, the gist of the article is good (at least, in terms of intent), but I think it simplifies things a bit much.

You repeatedly say We grumbled, but did nothing. I don't think this is accurate. Quite a bit has been done by people on these issues, and continues to be done. To say otherwise does discredit to those who have worked long and hard for their causes.

You say "In true Alinsky fashion, they batter us with labels.", but your own terms - "Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement" - seem to be exactly what you are complaining about.

But what I find most problematic in pointing to a group of "them" is that they are conveniently not "us".

David,

Thanks for reading the article. While I agree that “quite a bit has been done”, I submit that it has not been enough. I don't believe that stating that fact does any discredit to anyone. A failed effort is still a failure, regardless of the good intentions of the people making the effort.

“You say "In true Alinsky fashion, they batter us with labels.", but your own terms - "Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement" - seem to be exactly what you are complaining about.”

I respectfully disagree. These terms are political, not epithetic. Terms like “Xenophobe”, “Homophobe”, “Racist “ and “Misogynist “ are epithets, not legitimate political descriptions, such as “Marxist”.

“But what I find most problematic in pointing to a group of "them" is that they are conveniently not "us". “

Actually, that was the point of the entire article. Everyone blames “Them”, while in fact, WE are “Them”, not by commission, but by omission.

Have you any argument on the content of the article, or just a problem with the way it was presented? Your comments have not made that very clear to me.

Regards,

Bob

Well I won't comment on that since political discussions are not permitted on this site. I did, however spot a big error in one of your claims.

They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace

The source you cite, whether accurate or not, claims 44% greater pay and benefits. That's not even close to the triple (300%) you claim. The problem with this type of error is other people read it and assume it's correct.

Quote:

Well I won't comment on that since political discussions are not permitted on this site. I did, however spot a big error in one of your claims.

They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace

The source you cite, whether accurate or not, claims 44% greater pay and benefits. That's not even close to the triple (300%) you claim. The problem with this type of error is other people read it and assume it's correct.

Point taken. I stand corrected.

That said, I still submit that a 44% difference in pay and benefits is egregious. Actually, it's closer to 50%, or twice that of the private sector.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

In future, I will pay closer attention to my statistics. Good catch.

Regards,

Bob

You imply that there's some sort of concerted Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology behind all the changes. But it's more a given than a proven point. And (to my mind) you don't make a very compelling case.

For example:

They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace.

The basic premise - federal bureaucracy is answerable to no one - is a large claim, and not really true. Bureaucracy by it's definition is answerable up the chain, and ultimately the folk at top are as well. It's slow and insulated, but it is accountable.

As for pay benefits, are you comparing apples and oranges? When you say "general populace", it doesn't sound like you're comparing the same benefits for the same type of jobs. Considering that we're in the middle of a massive recession, I suspect the comparison is even less balanced, given the level of unemployment.

They created an imperial presidency and made the Congress inconsequential.

Wikipedia says Imperial Presidency goes back to the '60s and Nixon, with another big push by Reagan. That's not exactly overnight, and those aren't generally seen as folk on your list.

Congress is many things, but not inconsequential.

They fostered the destruction of our manufacturing and agriculture bases.

The flight of capitalists based on cheap manufacture and labor isn't by folk on your list, either.

They permitted the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, and chastised anyone who objected.

I'd argue that the people who paid the illegal aliens bear the brunt of the blame here. Statistics says that's driven by the demand for cheap labor for agriculture. In any event, the people who support the idea that workers having some level of rights aren't generally Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement.

They legalized and promoted the systematic murder of millions of the innocent unborn.

Clearly a hotbutton issue. The Jane Does in Roe vs. Wade now say they were reluctant and blame their lawyers. But I doubt the majority of abortion supporters were socialists. While Margaret Sanger was a socialist, and a believer in eugenics and racial superiority as well. But it's an unsupported leap to claim that of everyone who believed that abortion was a reproductive rights issue has the same set of values.

You claim a lot, but rely on the reader to agree with you, assuming they also lump everyone other than them as having the same set of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world ideology driving them.

That's just not the case. The argument is an emotional one, not a logical one.

"We revered Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all of those who gave us this great nation."

Why were these people "revered"? Most of what people believe about Washington is myth (although stripped of the myth, he's still pretty awesome). Jefferson was a brilliant thinker, but very much a flawed man. Lincoln is often admired because he "freed the slaves", but that's simply not true, and distorts what the American Civil War was about in the first place.

From the historical documents I've seen, I wouldn't agree. We've never been the sort of homogeneous group that school history texts seem to present us as. And history has never been quite as squeaky clean as we're often led to believe.

"But we weren't the morally, sexually, politically ambiguous creatures that now inhabit much of America."

I heard an story a while back on NPR, where people talked about this sort of thing. Invariably, they would cite the time when they were growing up. What was interesting is they they would talk to someone who was an adult at that time, who quickly debunked this idea that "things were so much better". They kept pushing back the the prior decade, and that before, but never did find such a time.

So - in my view - you paint with a wide brush of generalizations and rely on appealing to your reader's sense of nostalgia and shared moral outrage.

An it worries me, because in the process of simplifying the problem to a Marxist conspiracy of some sort, it overlooks assumptions, such as the existence of that mythical better time. It also feel it encourages a "tribe" mentality, which seems to be hardwired into us. It seems very easy to put someone in the "not our tribe" category.

We knew that actions had consequences, and that hard work would be rewarded."

The sad thing is, that's not necessarily true. Good people suffer, evil people live out lives of luxury. People take credit for the work of others, and sometimes people get away with murder.

I appreciate people standing up for what they believe is right. But having someone disagree with you doesn't make them a Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive.

If you look through that paper, you'll also see that there's no clear agreement as to what the measure of over/underpayment is. It finally bases the conclusion that federal workers are overpaid because "Just 1 in 5,000 federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year."

That's the metric for wages? At a minimum, they could at least try to show those non-fired workers underperform their private equivalents, but they don't even try.

Further, it argues that top federal positions shouldn't be paying comparable wages because "it draws talent away from high-valued activities in the private sector", which is an interesting argument: we essentially should pay less for government to ensure we get worse government.

All in all, an odd paper. Oh, I see it's written by the Cato Institute:

Quote:

The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

The bottom line is that even this paper admits it's not an apples to apples comparison.

It's grand to live in Canuckistan.
Where the pucks fly through frozen stands
And the docs are on the dole.
We cut the wood for bats, popsickle sticks and studs,
Where the true north stands proud and free.
Strong arms hold our blades
And our crosses burn bright on verdent hills

You get the idea.
I don't.

Quote:

You imply that there's some sort of concerted Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology behind all the changes. But it's more a given than a proven point. And (to my mind) you don't make a very compelling case.

For example:

They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace.

The basic premise - federal bureaucracy is answerable to no one - is a large claim, and not really true. Bureaucracy by it's definition is answerable up the chain, and ultimately the folk at top are as well. It's slow and insulated, but it is accountable.

As for pay benefits, are you comparing apples and oranges? When you say "general populace", it doesn't sound like you're comparing the same benefits for the same type of jobs. Considering that we're in the middle of a massive recession, I suspect the comparison is even less balanced, given the level of unemployment.

They created an imperial presidency and made the Congress inconsequential.

Wikipedia says Imperial Presidency goes back to the '60s and Nixon, with another big push by Reagan. That's not exactly overnight, and those aren't generally seen as folk on your list.

Congress is many things, but not inconsequential.

They fostered the destruction of our manufacturing and agriculture bases.

The flight of capitalists based on cheap manufacture and labor isn't by folk on your list, either.

They permitted the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, and chastised anyone who objected.

I'd argue that the people who paid the illegal aliens bear the brunt of the blame here. Statistics says that's driven by the demand for cheap labor for agriculture. In any event, the people who support the idea that workers having some level of rights aren't generally Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement.

They legalized and promoted the systematic murder of millions of the innocent unborn.

Clearly a hotbutton issue. The Jane Does in Roe vs. Wade now say they were reluctant and blame their lawyers. But I doubt the majority of abortion supporters were socialists. While Margaret Sanger was a socialist, and a believer in eugenics and racial superiority as well. But it's an unsupported leap to claim that of everyone who believed that abortion was a reproductive rights issue has the same set of values.

You claim a lot, but rely on the reader to agree with you, assuming they also lump everyone other than them as having the same set of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world ideology driving them.

That's just not the case. The argument is an emotional one, not a logical one.

"We revered Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all of those who gave us this great nation."

Why were these people "revered"? Most of what people believe about Washington is myth (although stripped of the myth, he's still pretty awesome). Jefferson was a brilliant thinker, but very much a flawed man. Lincoln is often admired because he "freed the slaves", but that's simply not true, and distorts what the American Civil War was about in the first place.

From the historical documents I've seen, I wouldn't agree. We've never been the sort of homogeneous group that school history texts seem to present us as. And history has never been quite as squeaky clean as we're often led to believe.

"But we weren't the morally, sexually, politically ambiguous creatures that now inhabit much of America."

I heard an story a while back on NPR, where people talked about this sort of thing. Invariably, they would cite the time when they were growing up. What was interesting is they they would talk to someone who was an adult at that time, who quickly debunked this idea that "things were so much better". They kept pushing back the the prior decade, and that before, but never did find such a time.

So - in my view - you paint with a wide brush of generalizations and rely on appealing to your reader's sense of nostalgia and shared moral outrage.

An it worries me, because in the process of simplifying the problem to a Marxist conspiracy of some sort, it overlooks assumptions, such as the existence of that mythical better time. It also feel it encourages a "tribe" mentality, which seems to be hardwired into us. It seems very easy to put someone in the "not our tribe" category.

We knew that actions had consequences, and that hard work would be rewarded."

The sad thing is, that's not necessarily true. Good people suffer, evil people live out lives of luxury. People take credit for the work of others, and sometimes people get away with murder.

I appreciate people standing up for what they believe is right. But having someone disagree with you doesn't make them a Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive.

I began a rebuttal to your points, but realized that it would be futile, and a waste of time. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree.
I appreciate your reading the article and taking the time to comment.

Regards,

Bob

Quote:

I began a rebuttal to your points, but realized that it would be futile, and a waste of time. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree.

Astonishingly enough, that's exactly the same reason why I initially decided not to give a detailed response.

But you asked...

Quote:

I appreciate your reading the article and taking the time to comment.

And thanks for taking the time to read and consider my response!

I suspect any additional responses would just devolve, sort of like John's free verse. I'm sure there's some rhyming scheme embedded somewhere in his lyric - I'm just not clever enough to grok it.

I admire your well thought out views David. Its good to seee someone who can cut through the crap without getting down in the muck.

Thanks!

But... Since I called Pat out on his terminology, I'm now morally obligated to point out:

Quote:

Its good to seee someone who can cut through the crap without getting down in the muck.

Cheers!

Man, there are a BUNCH of things about this discussion that bother me:

I'll preface my replies with the admission that I speak opinion. I'm not professing my point of view to be absolute truth. having said that...

IMO, most of the rebuttals above make the same logical error they claim to be correcting in the original article.

Quote:

to every complex problem, there is always a very simple solution -- and most of the time it is wrong;

that is, in itself, a simple summary of a complex problem. "WRONG" is the simple summary bandied about most often when there is no opposing argument offered, but the current argument is rejected.

The greatest affront to common sense (IMO) is to suggest that any conclusion that is not perfect is therefore wrong. Conservatives don't claim to have perfect answers. We shoot for RATIONAL answers. The definition of a rational decision is that it is not based on what makes us feel good, but rather it is the least-cost max-benefit solution

I didn't see ANY rebuttals above that offered anything more tangible than a rejection of the ideas offered because they aren't perfect. Nobody can win that game because no matter how much time is spent considering the cost and benefits, the opposition can just reject it without offering a better option.

(thoughts divided into separate posts for clarity of reading)

Quote:

However, the one thing that really bothers me was this one:

Quote:

"They started awarding trophies to every player in school team sports, winners and losers."

I don't why folks keep throwing that up as if it is destroying the competitive fiber of our youth -- 'cause it is crock of crap.

This sound-bite is tossed about by those who don't really pay attention any more to kids in sport. Kids know who wins and loses, winning trophies are for winners and the competitive spirit is alive and well. I am not sure how recognition for participation in an activity has somehow led to the downfall of our society.

OK, logical error 101: you turned this into a straw man argument by bypassing his real observation and replying as though he were making a completely different and less valid point. This is NOT about recognition for participation, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

If there has ever been a well-researched and documented topic, it is the topic of motivation. It has been so thoroughly examined by the scientific, business, academic, psychological and religious communities that I wonder if there is anything left to learn about it. When something is understood so well that applying the learned principles to animals yields highly predictable results, that tells me it is a fairly stable body of evidence.

And here is the key premise of motivation: "Behavior that is rewarded tends to be repeated"

If you reward excellence you get more excellence. If you reward mediocrity you get more mediocrity. Welfare states go one step beyond trewarding mediocrity... they reward a total absence of productivity and value adding to society. A society is the sum of its parts, and if the common denominator of a society is mediocrity (or worse, sorriness), then that society can not prosper for long.

The goals of equality and excellence are conflicting goals. The quest for equality would put EVERYBODY in the olympics... the quest for excellence rewards only those who have diligently trained and shown themselves to have superior ability

Quote:

I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.
All that's necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do and say nothing.

David, I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would object to this statement! I presume you object because you disagree with the original article.. but my statement is generic. The very fact that you decided not to remain silent when you disagreed is implied agreement with my statement. You chose to publicly take a position rather than be annoyed and pass on by. That's all my statement means... yet you disagreed with it then turned around and did what I said immediately after disapproving of it.

logical error 101: refuting an opposing argument with exactly the same logic, but in the opposite direction.

Quote:

You imply that there's some sort of concerted Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology behind all the changes. But it's more a given than a proven point. And (to my mind) you don't make a very compelling case.

OK, apparently this is a reference to the snippet on communist goals that was presented to congress in the 60s. (Did you follow the link and read it?)

David, you dismiss the assertions without making ANY case, let alone a compelling one.

IMO, there are several compelling reasons to give credibility to that list of communist goals:

1) there's plenty of old news footage of communist leaders boldly saying that they will undermine the USA without ever firing a shot. Why would they make such an assertion? How could it even happen? Its not a rational thing to say unless there is a plan in place to MAKE it happen.

2) there are also plenty of interviews available online (and who knows what is available in classified documents) of defectors who outlined in detail the strategy for undermining the capitalist world. Here is one such interview, and it corroborates perfectly with the aforementioned list of goals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuQmaupl5Gk

3) the list of communist goals is a highly specific set of predictions, none of which were true when the list was presented to congress, and all of which are true today. The statistical likelihood of that many specific things coming to pass exactly as stated (but without a concerted plan) is so low that its unimaginable that it could "just work out that way"

4) there are two old sayings (for those who can hear conventional wisdom without automatically disagreeing with it)... one of which says "when a man's words don't line up with his actions... believe the actions"

The other one says "Past performance is the best indicator of future performance"

The statistical likelihood of a president ACCIDENTALLY surrounding himself with people who have well documented histories of affection for socialism... well, its just not likely at all. They may say with their mouths "we're not socialists" but their history and actions say otherwise

In Star Wars Obi Wan waved his hand in front of the stormtroopers and said "These aren't the droids you're looking for", and the storm troopers repeated the mantra and let them go. Obi Wan turned to the others and said "It only works on people with weak minds"

I consider the phrase "we're not socialists " to be such a political mantra, repeated by those who are willing to believe what feels good

My opinion... your mileage may vary (FWIW, political mantras abound on both sides of the aisle... free thinkers don't typically subscribe to anybody's party line)

Quote:

before we get a flame war going here, I'd just like to say that intelligent people should be able to express highly volatile ideas peaceably and without resorting to character assassination.

The old expression is that "He who runs out of arguments strikes first", so resorting to personal attacks in forum discussion is generally regarded as an admission of ideological defeat.

In my experience you can get away with almost any statement in discussions of this sort, as long as you say it in a way that preserves the dignity of those on the other side of the discussion. Failing to do that pretty much always leads to a fight rather than a discussion.

RIGHT ON-O-METER
0_____________/100

Quote:

David, I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would object to this statement!

Sorry, I thought I had been clear by highlighting particular words. I'm commenting on the language you use here.

When you write "I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.", the implication is that people who don't support the article don't have good sense.

Second, by invoking the "evil to prevail" quote, you're again using emotional language. The implication is that people who may not agree with particular things are supporting evil.

So it's not a statement on the article, but rather a comment that you appear to be making a value judgement against anyone who disagrees with the article.

It thought it was ironic that you'd start by explaining that people should be polite in discussing the article, yet immediately include those tactics yourself.

Quote:

That said, I still submit that a 44% difference in pay and benefits is egregious. Actually, it's closer to 50%, or twice that of the private sector.

Are you possiblty just jealous that you are not among them and thus just speak angrily out of envy for someone else's success?

How many poor people put down athletes and begrudge them the large salaries? Well, there are 30 teams in the NBA. Each of those 30 teams has ONE starting center. That means that there are only 30 of that job available for competition. 30 men in the entire male work force are qualified for those jobs. Is that not a specialized position? 30 out of how many million in the work force?

So use that analogy. How many doctors are there? How many lawyers? How many Supreme Court Justices? How many factory workers, gas pumpers and convenience store clerks? Does normal logic not say that 1 of those 30 people who qualify to start at center in the NBA make more money than the kid who sells you the slurpy at 7-11?

Don't be jealous because you are a "have not". Work harder and become a "have". Or grow taller.....

Mods, it is really time to pull this post. This post was made by a wannabe journalist in an attempt to drive traffic to a site where I suspect he gets paid by the hit and needed hits.

This is a MUSIC forum, whether it is called "Off Topic" or not, the user guidelines specifically say that we are not to discuss politics or religion.

Time to pull it before there is gunfire between the conservatives and the liberals.

Quote:

Quote:

That said, I still submit that a 44% difference in pay and benefits is egregious. Actually, it's closer to 50%, or twice that of the private sector.

Are you possiblty just jealous that you are not among them and thus just speak angrily out of envy for someone else's success?

How many poor people put down athletes and begrudge them the large salaries? Well, there are 30 teams in the NBA. Each of those 30 teams has ONE starting center. That means that there are only 30 of that job available for competition. 30 men in the entire male work force are qualified for those jobs. Is that not a specialized position? 30 out of how many million in the work force?

So use that analogy. How many doctors are there? How many lawyers? How many Supreme Court Justices? How many factory workers, gas pumpers and convenience store clerks? Does normal logic not say that 1 of those 30 people who qualify to start at center in the NBA make more money than the kid who sells you the slurpy at 7-11?

Don't be jealous because you are a "have not". Work harder and become a "have". Or grow taller.....

No, Eddie, I'm not at all jealous. I believe that a person should make as much money as he/she can in a competitive workforce. Public sector jobs are not a competitive workforce.

And I can't grow taller. I'm shrinking daily.

Regards,

Bob

The "Article" is simply hilarious... the thread is even better. LOL!

Quote:

Mods, it is really time to pull this post. This post was made by a wannabe journalist in an attempt to drive traffic to a site where I suspect he gets paid by the hit and needed hits.

This is a MUSIC forum, whether it is called "Off Topic" or not, the user guidelines specifically say that we are not to discuss politics or religion.

Time to pull it before there is gunfire between the conservatives and the liberals.

Actually, Eddie, I am a journalist. Have been for years. There was no attempt to “drive traffic” anywhere, and no monetary motive. You may “suspect” that I get paid by the hits, but the fact is that this particular publication does NOT PAY for their content.

As for the user guidelines, they say nothing of the sort. They only refer to keeping the discussions “Music Related”, and in that sense, I have violated the guidelines. I neglected to read them carefully, just as you have.

Quote:

The "Article" is simply hilarious... the thread is even better. LOL!

Another quarter heard from. Of course, no real rebuttal, just hit and run.

Quote:

David, you dismiss the assertions without making ANY case, let alone a compelling one.

I'm not trying to make a compelling case. There's way too much material in the article to even begin with that.

I'm just noting that - for me - the article fails to make a compelling case. Instead, it appears to primarily rely on what the reader already believes to be true, and appeals to emotion and nostalgia.

That's OK, because that's not really the goal of the article. It's not written to change anyone's mind - it's a motivational speech that's preaching to the choir. There's a place for that.

I'm just not in that target demographic.

9. All of the forums except for the Off Topic forum are for discussions of PG Music products only. The Off Topic forum is used for MUSIC-RELATED discussions that aren't about PG Music products. Please keep all your posts as constructive as possible.

Defense rests.

Quote:

9. All of the forums except for the Off Topic forum are for discussions of PG Music products only. The Off Topic forum is used for MUSIC-RELATED discussions that aren't about PG Music products. Please keep all your posts as constructive as possible.

Defense rests.

What you actually said was: "...the user guidelines specifically say that we are not to discuss politics or religion."

Actually, they don't. Which is it?

I would like to apologize to the Mods and the forums members for violating the guidelines by posting a political thread.

Now everyone can return to telling each other how great their music is.

Oh, man!

I had just pulled out my thesaurus to see if I could come up with a clever rhyme with Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology! Combined with John's Canuckistan chorus, I figured it to be the next "Harper Valley PTA"...

Edit: Hrm... If only "progressivist" were a word, I'd have the perfecta trifecta (quadfecta?) of "isty" rhymes.

Edit of Edit: Ooops! I spoke to soon!.

Key of G (the most liberal of all keys)

There once was a Marxist from Canukistan
Who found a topic which PG Music would surely ban
Blaming the communist collective
And the world movement progressive
On a thread that far too many pages ran...

OK, does it now comply with guidelines?

Amen

Quote:

Quote:

David, I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would object to this statement!

Sorry, I thought I had been clear by highlighting particular words. I'm commenting on the language you use here.

When you write "I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.", the implication is that people who don't support the article don't have good sense.

Well.. my intent was not what you are inferring. That comment was mostly a reiteration of the original article, which I will summarize briefly like this: if people don't speak up and participate in the events that affect them, then THEY are the architects of their own dilemma... they can't blame anybody else. I think it is reasonably correct to summarize the article in that way.

I assume you are offended because you took it personally. I submit, however, that trying to understand complex discussions by assuming that it is about you will almost always lead to conclusions that have nothing to do with the real topic... (as this thread testifies.)

Quote:

So it's not a statement on the article, but rather a comment that you appear to be making a value judgement against anyone who disagrees with the article.

David, I'm not trying to attack you. I like you and I respect your opinion on many things. You are a value adding contributor to the forum and you are clearly an intelligent guy. But IMO, to be offended because someone makes a value judgment is the functional equivalent of being offended because one of the kids didn't get an A on the test. In both cases somebody is getting validated without having to face a challenge successfully. From where I stand, until an idea can be defended rationally, it deserves to be valued less than an idea that is defensible. Would you actually disagree with that??

All things are not equal, and therefore value judments are necessary. The fact that you opposed the article is proof that you yourself made a value judgment. You heard his point of view, and valued it less than you value yours, so you spoke up. That's normal and its a good thing! Analyzing pros and cons makes us think.

Discussion is good. I find it very disturbing that so many people gang up on anyone who wants to discuss and dissect ideas. That is the first step in groupthink. Yet the evidence in this thread indicates that people would rather silence those with a different opinion than to communicate their differences. I believe the reason is because they can't defend their position, but they don't want to look too closely at the Baby Ruth they're eating for fear it might be something else.

Quote:

It thought it was ironic that you'd start by explaining that people should be polite in discussing the article, yet immediately include those tactics yourself.

There is a big difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea. Not once did I attack you or anybody else. All I did was point out what I consider to be inconsistencies or fallacious reasoning. Separating key points from peripheral points is a part of rational thinking

But, I accept your observation and I apologize if I've offended you. I see you as a good person, and I have no attitude toward you at all.

Quote:

The "Article" is simply hilarious... the thread is even better. LOL!

excellent! I like to hear opposing points of view! Sitting in a room full of people who think exactly as I do is boring

Is there a particular point you want to logically refute? If so, I am willing to consider your thoughts.

In my experience, people who arrive at their conclusions via the examination of evidence and the exploration of ideas can support their points of view. Those who just accept the opinions of others tend to offer ridicule without substantive points to back it up.

Quote:

I assume you are offended because you took it personally.

No personal offense was taken, but thanks.

It seems basic in our nature to divide people into "us" and "them."

When I was a kid, Saturday was a terrible time to be watching television. The local UHF station would show reruns of programs like "The Invaders", roller derby, "big time" wrestling... Basically, filler.

The programming included "The World at War", what seemed to me (as a young child) to be a many, many part documentary which included a lot of footage from WWII. It certainly wasn't "Hogan's Heroes."

One particularly memorable clip of film was of bulldozers pushing stacks and stacks of corpses into trenches. Suddenly, this wasn't some long-ago event of history. Those had been people who's only misfortune was that they'd been the "others".

So when I hear people talk about "us" and "them", this is what I think of.

I wish I could say that I've made the world somehow a place where that's harder to happen, but I don't think that's that case.

Peace.

David,

I agree wholeheartedly. I am not a competitive person, to the point that I don't even like sports. I'd rather that the teams just bought another ball so they didn't have to fight over the one.

I do not prefer war to peace or we to they. I agree with everything that has been said about demonizing opponents. It is bad form and I don't like it. I have been in many discussions where people who disagreed with ME piled on to demonize me from every direction; But I am OK with what I consider to be unfair treatment because I value myself less than I value rational thinking.

I believe it is the responsibility of every thinking/caring person to watch for and refute messed up thinking before it becomes mainstream and gets out of control. You seem to think the same thing, and I honestly respect that.

It is an inconvenient fact, however, that caring and thinking people often come to different conclusions about what is messed up thinking. This happens for a variety of reasons too complicated to address here... but it doesn't need to polarize society.

Good communication diffuses polarization in the same way that pouring extremely hot water into extremely cold water results in a temperature that is less extreme than either

Conversely, when extreme thinkers stay exclusively in the same think tank, it is like boiling the water or putting it in the freezer to make it more extreme than room temperature. Only open discussion of ideas can prevent extremism.

This is why forum discussion is good and necessary even though it is uncomfortable and sometimes abrasive... combination of opinions tends to dilute the extremes.

It bothers me when people try to stifle open discussion because they are uncomfortable with it. THAT is what leads to polarization. People who stifle communication on the premise that discussion is divisive lack a basic understanding of the principles that make societies stand or fall.

It bothers me when people try to exert peer pressure and public humiliation on those who say things they don't like. That exalts emotion over rationality. Publicly mocking an idea without taking time to understand it virtually ensures that people will go underground with their thinking and become all the more extreme.

We are the guardians of civility, and how we address difficult topics lays the groundwork for the world our kids will live in. I sincerely hope that all of us can exchange ideas without taking or giving offense, or turning the topic into a rabbit trail involving insignificant side details.

I'm not your enemy David, and I don't want to be perceived that way. I see you as a fellow inhabitant of an imperfect world, and if we don't cooperate then we are doomed to compete. And as stated already, I don't like competition, I prefer cooperation.

Baloney and Huey. All this stuff has been debated since ancient greeks. I don't do politics anymore. I lived that life far too long. Just park a marked car infront of a pub that's getting an annual inspection and some moron calls silly hall to say you were drinking on the job. Then the even more moronic Chief seizes the alleged opportunity to attack you for it. After the dust has settled land the lawyers for the union and the city hash it out they drop it. But you become guilty by inference, you were into something sketchy, I remember that thing in the papers, this guy is crooked. And so it goes.

In one case after having my training department refused something as trivial as a microwave oven 4 years running I slid the cost in with the radio gear. The elected officials and the chief missed it totally, but I got the thing.

I officially belong to nothing. I've had to quit what I was involved with, and I might go back and play horn with my wife in the fall in a brass band, but no more committees, no more President of this or that, and well, no more NOTHING. My pensions are what they are, I don't even need all the cash. Never had any all my life, but the kids are gone, the house paid for, and I buy junk I don't need all the time. Amazon should have their own truck for my neighbourhood.

Unless you intend to run for office, or are going to jump in and become active, you are sitting back, sure. But that can mean that, in my case, after joining the Junior Conservatives in 1964, and having a political presence ever since, I've tossed in the towel. Time for someone else. I have 5 years of firewood at the cabin, and am able to tell the wife how to snare hares, or winter dress a moose. I almost hope the whole thing goes to wherever in a handbasket so I can have an excuse to live in the cabin for a few years. Much better than living on the streets in a city.

You guys argue who said what and why. This should be the only politics or religion to hit the boards for the next 10 years.

Go and mess with quodlibets. (If I spelled it wright!)

a note to those who just want me to shut up and sit down:

This topic is bigger than we are. It will never be concluded, it will always be in our face all the days of our lives. We have a few options, we aren't totally powerless.

we can talk, we can fight, or we can go underground and become more extreme in our thinking until we cease being a cohesive society and we become disjointed factions, the very epitome of WE vs THEY

I prefer open communication, as it is the only option that addresses differences in a constructive way.

I am always ready to talk, and I will never be willing to shut up, sit down or go away. This is far too important to do that. If you truly want to de-polarize and eliminate the WE-THEY mentality and combat division before it becomes rooted in mutual enmity, then disussion is the only way. Anyone who says he wants peace but not open discussion is either naive or unaware of the mechanics of peace.

a thought on the nature of standing for something:

Many people who once planted an apple tree never lived to see any fruit from it. Nevertheless, the tree did eventually bear fruit, and those living when it fruited were blessed by it.

If we only plant seeds with the expectation of immediate benefit, we will almost certainly become impatient waiting for results and give up. Just as a large ship travelling at full speed takes time and distance to turn around, many of the seeds we plant during our time on earth will take longer than our lifetimes to fully actualize a result.

This is true of bad seed as well as good seed. All actions and words have repercussions; we do not exist in a void. Every action and word emanates like ripples in a pond, and our sphere of influence is far larger than most of us imagine. And we do tend to reap what we sow (or, somebody down the line reaps it when we're gone)

For these reasons it it is good to envision a destination before we start turning the ship around. It is necessary to know which fruit we want to leave for our kids before we plant the tree.

And then, having planted it, we should spend time watering and fertilizing it until it establishes a solid root. This is the basis of common sense IMO. There are many philosophies that disregard the tenets of cause and effect, and they are not worthy to be regarded equally with good sense value adding philosophies.

This is not to say that any philosophy is perfect, for I don't believe that. But our goal should be to make changes to an imperfect world that do less damage than good.

To reject thinking just because it is not perfect misses the point. That strategy will render anyone impotent to move in any direction, because all philosophies are flawed.

But if we communicate and work together, it is possible to get a consensus on the fruit we want to leave for posterity.

Or not. Our call.

Well, I've managed to make things worse by respond to a private email from Bob thinking he was Pat.

Hilarity did not ensue.

So this is a public apology to Bob. Sorry about that!

No problem David. All is well.

Regards,

Bob