Just because you guys haven't argued in 18 or so hours doesn't mean I'm not going to still post country songs in here.
I will ignore your country songs and put up something worth listening to
Just because you guys haven't argued in 18 or so hours doesn't mean I'm not going to still post country songs in here.I will ignore your country songs and put up something worth listening to
I'm still waiting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you guys haven't argued in 18 or so hours doesn't mean I'm not going to still post country songs in here.I will ignore your country songs and put up something worth listening toI'm still waiting.
How about something revolutionary, even if it's about three months early?
Vive le Galt!
I raise you all with... Dashstep!
NO!
Vive le Galt!
Taldor will rise again!
Taldor will rise again!
In the context of country music, this could go very badly.
Instead, hawt chicks.
"What?...It's good!" -Pinkie PieNO!I raise you all with... Dashstep!
Two words: glue factory.
I'm goin' back to Loretta Lynn for a bit, because I've been listening to her records. 'Cuz she's the f#@!ing bomb, yo!
You Ain't Woman Enough (To Take My Man)
And for you kids who can't take any country not made by punk rock hipsters, Portland, Oregon
I do wish people would argue more about the economy, though. It's the only way I learn stuff anymore.
|
If it makes you feel better, I don't like capitalism either. I just don't agree with any currently used large scale economic systems.
Of course, the only democrat I ever had a civil, two way conversion with said, "It isn't about which side [democrat or republican] is better, it's about the problems each side makes, and which problems you would rather deal with."
I liked talking to him about politics, the only democrat I can say that about. I wish I knew his name. But names stay in my head about as long as a snowball in a bonfire.
If it makes you feel better, I don't like capitalism either.
Thank you, DLH, it does.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't have many civil conversations with Democrats, either.
Which is largely why I'm a progressive. Both systems work, but the results of capitalism are a very few rich and a great deal of poor people, dying in the gutter. That's not a result I particularly like. I think the best system is a NESD (Northern European Social Democracy) which still incentivizes entrepreneurship and markets, but provides for the victims of its excesses.
In the end, the pie is the same size, but more people are taken care of. You can't have a system that says "hey, go nuts, work hard, and keep every dime you swindle" and rewards sociopathy without a counterbalance that acknowledges that, hey, not every person is driven by the profit motive. Our system disproportionately rewards greed rather than actual hard work. We equate monetary success with hard work, but it's not even particularly correlative.
No, provide the necessities for basic human decency and to foster good citizenship (healthcare, clean water/air, education, etc.) so that those of us who are happy not being rich can actually enjoy the middle rung on the ladder, and keep the very wealthy from making idiot bets that tank the economy.
More importantly, DLH, do you also like Loretta Lynn?
Courtesy of DJ Drunken Nomad over on WPZO
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is largely why I'm a progressive....I think the best system is a NESD (Northern European Social Democracy) which still incentivizes entrepreneurship and markets, but provides for the victims of its excesses.
Well, obviously I largely agree with most of your latter two paragraphs, but my politroll contrarianitis is throbbing.
I haven't been paying much attention to it, but I was reading in a "Socialist State of the World" bulletin that the Scandinavian countries have been rolling back the social democratic welfare states for over a decade now. I guess we could ask the ever-sexy Madame Sissyl.
Anyway, I've been reviewing some general literature on economics by both orthodox Marxists and revisionist Marxian-Keynsians (I like to take into account a wide variety of points of view) and two things stand out:
I don't know much about Scandinavia, but even at the height of American prosperity and Bastardized Keynsianism (the more I look into it, the less American government policy looks like what Keynes was really talking about), vast layers of the American population were left out, largely its darker skinned members. At the very moment that it looked like there was a chance "the American dream" was going to be extended to them and that maybe there actually was going to be a chance to get that deluxe apartment in the sky, the American bourgeoisie decided to cutback on social spending and attacked the living standards of the working class and started the process by which we got to where we are today.
The other thing that stands out clearly, at least to me, when I read about the American economy and labor relations in the 20th century is how these bastards don't give anything back unless they have no choice. And I think its ridiculous to think (not saying you do, dear Comrade Meatrace) that the plutocrats can be trusted to divide the pie unless we're all willing to run around in the streets yelling "Vive le Galt!"
(Edited)
Courtesy of DJ Drunken Nomad over on WPZO
Country music is better with Muppets.
Of course, Muppets are better without country music, so...
You see, DLH, how hard it is for me to have civil conversations with Democrats?
[Turns to Comrade Jeff]
The only thing I can remember about you and music is that you like the Pogues.
So, here and now, Comrade Jeff:
Who are your five favorite singers/bands/musical acts/composers/whatever?
Jethro Tull? Jimmy Buffet?
/puke
But I think you're missing a point in the first paragraph. It wasn't that the bourgeoisie saw the dark skinned members might get a shot at the good life and started the attack. The bourgeoisie didn't and don't care about them. Racism is just a weapon to use to divide the working and middle classes. The elites knew much of America was racist and could be persuaded to work against its own interests to keep their color privilege. Racism wasn't the motivation for the bourgeoisie, just an opportunity.
Yes, I agree with all of that. I was having a hard time trying to parse down to one paragraph everything I think about the history of "American prosperity."
It was probably historical happenstance that they finally started doling out the moolah to the inner cities a few years before the '74 crash that seems to be a turning point in the corporate interests driving far to the right. But, imho, it does suggest something about the limitations of American capitalism. Last hired and first fired and all that.
As you say, the Pogues.
Tom Waits.
Jethro Tull
Shriekback
Jimmy Buffett
You know, people like that.Ask me on another day, it'll be a different list
The Pogues and Tom Waits are as good as Loretta Lynn.
I can also rawk out to Jethro Tull, but Loretta could kick their ass even if she was eight months pregnant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm for implementing a new economic system where simple survival doesn't require money, that money is for luxuries. However, this concept (which I have well more fleshed out) works on a small scale much better then a large (I think all economic systems would though) so the idea then is to alter society to be centered around small groups, which can then be represented in a tiered government. Have a more tribal/community centered, type system within the group, but more capitalistic system between groups, only without corporations, or at least severely limited corporations.
(I am of the opinion that corperations multiply the capitalism problems)
That and wiping out and rebuilding from scratch an education system that does the opposite of the prussian system.
|
|
More importantly, DLH, do you also like Loretta Lynn?
She's alright, but have too much stuff that a really like a lot more then her to spend a lot of time on her.
Personally, I'm for implementing a new economic system where simple survival doesn't require money, that money is for luxuries. However, this concept (which I have well more fleshed out) works on a small scale much better then a large (I think all economic systems would though) so the idea then is to alter society to be centered around small groups, which can then be represented in a tiered government. Have a more tribal/community centered, type system within the group, but more capitalistic system between groups, only without corporations, or at least severely limited corporations.
(I am of the opinion that corperations multiply the capitalism problems)
That and wiping out and rebuilding from scratch an education system that does the opposite of the prussian system.
Interesting notion, that tiered government system... Sort of, like, what most democracies have today...? Local, state, federal power in the US? Or would the small groups be even smaller? If not dependent on where you live, what would determine which small group you belong to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't care less about Loretta Lynn, but Tammy Wynette is awesome because of her participation in this
[Ignores anti-Loretta sentiment due to a promise not to say anything derogatory about dear Comrade Meatrace for a whole week]
Yes, Tammy is also the shiznit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys don't know me very well; if there's anything that's going to make me keep posting country songs it's telling me to stop.
Btw, I favorited that post for the Massive Attack, not because of the [censored] [censored] [censored] of [censored] [censored] dear Comrade Meatrace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good, cuz Massive Attack is one of the best things to happen to music in the past 25 years.
And for anyone who still thinks electronic music has no soul, just remember, Techno IS Detroit. And Derrick May is a god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And because I'm bored I'll just post this, Afrika Bambaataa doing a cover of Metal by Gary Numan.
Disregarding for the moment that Bam's whole sound is basically a mashup of Kraftwerk loops and early hip-hop beats, apparently, like, Gary Numan was the only white artist that early hip-hoppers and black disco club DJs all agreed on. Because he used real drums. It became part of the hip hop/house culture in a way other synth-pop artists never did.
It all kind of dawned on me when I heard M.E. I had heard that riff before, but where? Oh, yeah, Where's Your Head At Incidentally, Rooty is one of my favorite albums as well. :D
Disregarding for the moment that Bam's whole sound is basically a mashup of Kraftwerk loops and early hip-hop beats, apparently,
Hee hee! I have a funny story about that in another thread; hold on a second...
Now, to [bubble bubble bubble] and listen to some old-skool beats!
Yeah, I certainly am not a member of the "Techno has no soul" crew, but it's not a genre that I've really dived into.
Also, hee hee!
|
|
Interesting notion, that tiered government system... Sort of, like, what most democracies have today...? Local, state, federal power in the US? Or would the small groups be even smaller? If not dependent on where you live, what would determine which small group you belong to?Personally, I'm for implementing a new economic system where simple survival doesn't require money, that money is for luxuries. However, this concept (which I have well more fleshed out) works on a small scale much better then a large (I think all economic systems would though) so the idea then is to alter society to be centered around small groups, which can then be represented in a tiered government. Have a more tribal/community centered, type system within the group, but more capitalistic system between groups, only without corporations, or at least severely limited corporations.
(I am of the opinion that corperations multiply the capitalism problems)
That and wiping out and rebuilding from scratch an education system that does the opposite of the prussian system.
I find it interesting that the first thing you took away from my post was the tiered government. That wasn't even a main point, that was filling in the hole of one gets a small group into one nation with a bunch of others.
To answer your last two questions, first, the groups would be limited in size to about 5-10 thousand, you should always be voting for someone you have at least met. Second, each group would be living together but also is by choice, you can choose to join a different group, though that would involve moving to where the new group is.
So, smaller communities and something to make these units more independent... like, call it a principle of subsidiarity? Would this unit be responsible for guarding the rights of each individual? Could the group decide to make moving illegal and then collectivize your house?
But, I always liked this one better.
There ya go, I knew deep down inside you liked good music. Somewhere.
Low is definitely top 10 material. Not a lot of albums I can say that have changed my life, that's probably one of them.On the whole I think Low is probably tied with Hunky Dory for the best Bowie album. Stationtostation and Scary Monsters are both REEEEALLY close though.
Also, I am Rob Gordon.
Edit: Also, I was riding the bus home on Thursday and it was all bleak and snowy out and my iPhone shuffled me to Warszawa and I was like "yeah, this is perfect, totally fits the mood of the day" and I wallowed in it. And the next track was this and I just cracked up on the bus. People were probably staring.
Also, I am Rob Gordon.
And I am recovering Barry.
"Oooh, kind of a ne-ew record, very nice Rob, a sly declaration of new classic status slipped into a list of old safe ones. Veh-ry PUHS-sey! Couldn't you be any more obvious than that, Rob? How about The Beatles? How about f&~~ing, f$*~ing Beethoven! Track one, side one of the Fifth Symphony!"
Hee hee!
As for Bowie, anything from the seventies is rock f$@*ing solid. Except for maybe Pin-Ups.
I can't stand Aladdin Sane.
I love it.
He looked a lot like Che Guevara, drove a diesel van
No link 'cuz it's not country.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with trying to devolve everything to the smallest groups is concentration of wealth. If resources are only pooled (through taxation or whatever means) at the very local level, then divisions of those communities into rich and poor will be even more reinforcing.
Communities with many rich people will have low taxes (as a percentage) and still provide abundant resources for their inhabitants while poor communities will need to tax at higher rates to provide for even basic needs.Prices will be higher in rich communities so the poor will not be able to simply move in. Poor education in the poor communities will help to keep the poor from moving up.
We already see that in the US in those things funded by local property taxes. Money provided from the state and federal levels helps counter the trend.
Now, if you can find an economic system that guarantees basic needs, not just survival, but access to education and other opportunities to improve, then many of those problems go away. Those needs still require resources and labor and skills, whether organized in a capitalist way or not. Since not all communities will have equal access to those things locally, that will all need to be organized on a higher tier.
Exactly!
The problem is compounded two fold, first is the concept that money is absolutly needed for simple survival, second is that work is needed to attain money on an individual basis.
As the need for workers decreases it makes everything worse.
So if 100 work hours per week can sustain a small town, in current economies you have everyone in town fighting each other for those work hours just to survive (except the small minorty that actually owns the work being done).
Solution is to make an individual's survival dependent on the group rather then the individual, so the group can divide the work amongst themselves and it no longer matters how many hours an individual works they still reap the benefits. As technology progresses, in this model, people can work less without negatively impacting individuals since the inability to find work no longer prevents survival.
The concept here is the housing, education, food, water, etc, are all provided for the group and paid collectivly in the rare cases that payment is needed (I highly support making each group as self sufficient as possible, with current tech shouldn't be a major problem). Then groups can make things, like tvs for example, then sell these things to other groups or individuals, the money received pays only group bills, like electricity, then the remainder is divided amongst the individuals based on their standing in the group, which is democratically granted (everyone starts the same, preferably with communal raising of kids, and the individuals must be granted higher status by the group, by showing their work or ability to complete tasks, etc) the money individuals gain can the be spent on luxuries like games, tv, etc.
Prestige comes more from socially granted status rather then from monetary gain, individuals becoming rich doesn't do much for them, at least not as much as in current systems.
Unlike capitolism, this system encourages working with others and helping them be smarter, rather then teaching only what they need to know.
Capitolism is an eat or be eaten system, you gain greatest benefit by taking from others what they need to survive, which is done most easily by keeping them at a level where they are just capable enough to do the tasks required of them (hence the prussian system).
In my system, you gain greatest benefit from giving others the ability and knowledge to do better, because it helps to have the whole group be more efficient and capable.
The major drawback to this system is implementation, first, it really requires a very different social structure and outlook to work, and getting current ppeople to change to the social structure needed would be difficult and could be done only on a small scale, so that basically rules out implementing this system accross large numbers of people. Second, it precludes anyone from becoming super powerful, there is no option to be the Rothschilds, which means all current such entities are unlikely to want to give up their power and station in life, though I'm sure a few would, but those that wouldn't would probably fight this concept to the death.
So the surplus money is divided democratically between the people in the group. It is also okay that different people get different amounts based on social standing. So... what is to prevent the rise of little tyrants everywhere? And, I repeat my question: Does the group have the right to steal your house? Does the group have the right to prevent you from leaving? Who makes the laws? Does the individual have any rights and who guarantees those rights?
I love it.
He looked a lot like Che Guevara, drove a diesel van
No link 'cuz it's not country.
I remember how excited I was when I got the album. It was a sort-of sequel to Ziggy Stardust, it had to be great, right?
It just sunk link a turd. There wasn't really a single song that I liked, and it lacked all the production nuance of Ziggy.
Every few years since I've put it in to reassess with new ears, and I come to the same conclusion. It's poop.
Perhaps it is some fault with me. After all, I REALLY like Outside. But, whatever, I'll always have Berlin, amirite?
And of course it had less production nuance than Ziggy--it's David's love letter to Iggy Pop!!