Slightly OT: Charles Manson and Phil Spector

[Surfer Joe]

Is George Bush not a murderer, then, for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Barack Obama for continuing these travesties? No, because the people American troops are killing in those countries are supposedly enemies of America, which makes it OK.

This is the argument always made by Manson's groupies- not saying you're one- usually in regard to Bush.  I'm somewhat open to it, but only on a certain limited basis: if you can convince me that Bush violated international or U.S. law and/or violated the oath of his office and waged war wrongly or illegally.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  That could make him morally a murderer, and perhaps legally, too- if so, "war criminal" would seem to be the more accurate charge.  But either way it doesn't do a damned thing for Manson's thick coat of slime.

You have no right to judge Manson if you at all support the policies of Bush or Obama.

Pardon the bluntness: BS (since I don't think the board will let me spell that out). We don't all agree on politics, so we should let a mass killer run free? Not sterling stuff there. 

There has probably never been a head of state, much less a world leader, of even minor significance who was not responsible for deaths in the course of making important decisions. So there are no viable options at the voting booth, and anyone who says he is one is trying to pull a fast one or is as crazy and full of it as Manson.

For that matter, if you vote for a skyscraper or a bridge to be built, you voted for someone to probably die. So you're a murderer?  How utterly silly. When you pay your taxes and equip the police, you subsidize killings, including some unjustified ones. You paid for the bullet. And yet if you don't arm the police, far more innocent people will be hurt and will die.  So Manson should go free and organize a new murder club?  Sorry.

As Manson himself correctly states, he is persecuted for representing the side of our selves we don't like.

Colossal, spectacular B.S.  Archetypal Manson psycho-drivel. He's in jail for murdering eight or more people, not for "representing the side of me I don't like".  The side of me I don't like is that I'm typing on a message board right now instead of getting work done.

If you voted Democratic or Republican, you indirectly asked for people in other countries to be killed, which is not so different from what Manson did, except that he wasn't as far disassociated from the act as we try to pretend we are from our country's politics.

Not so different from what Manson did, except that in one case I'm voting on a clean air act and possible health care reform ,and in the other he's slicing a guy's ear off with a sword and shooting a pusher in the chest and telling people to write on the walls in a pregnant woman's blood.  Yeah, I guess that's the same thing.

[Mr. Cohen]

This is the argument always made by Manson's groupies- not saying you're one- usually in regard to Bush.  I'm somewhat open to it, but only on a certain limited basis: if you can convince me that Bush violated international or U.S. law and/or violated the oath of his office and waged war wrongly or illegally.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  That could make him morally a murderer, and perhaps legally, too- if so, "war criminal" would seem to be the more accurate charge.  But either way it doesn't do a damned thing for Manson's thick coat of slime.

I would like to believe that morality goes beyond what is 'right or wrong' according to the law.

Pardon the bluntness: BS (since I don't think the board will let me spell that out). We don't all agree on politics, so we should let a mass killer run free? Not sterling stuff there.

No, Manson shouldn't be free. I just don't know why people think megalomaniacs like George Bush and Barack Obama should be free, let alone in charge of a country. Of course, if you believe in war, in senseless violence, you'll think I'm crazy. I'm OK with that, though, because I think you're crazy. I believe that war is backwards, a relic of our tribal beginnings. Apes go to war over territory (I'm not joking) - humans should know better. It's time for a new age.

He's in jail for murdering eight or more people, not for "representing the side of me I don't like".

There is a lot of subtlety in subconscious fears. Your response illustrates only a surface understanding of what I'm talking about.

Not so different from what Manson did, except that in one case I'm voting on a clean air act and possible health care reform ,and in the other he's slicing a guy's ear off with a sword and shooting a pusher in the chest and telling people to write on the walls in a pregnant woman's blood.  Yeah, I guess that's the same thing.

Those issues (clean air act, health care reform) are just distractions from the larger, more pressing issues. There is suffering of far greater magnitude going on right now all throughout the world.

[Surfer Joe]

This is the argument always made by Manson's groupies- not saying you're one- usually in regard to Bush.  I'm somewhat open to it, but only on a certain limited basis: if you can convince me that Bush violated international or U.S. law and/or violated the oath of his office and waged war wrongly or illegally.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  That could make him morally a murderer, and perhaps legally, too- if so, "war criminal" would seem to be the more accurate charge.  But either way it doesn't do a damned thing for Manson's thick coat of slime.

I would like to believe that morality goes beyond what is 'right or wrong' according to the law.

That's a separate issue.  Law and accepted, conventional morality are closely related, but of course they're not the same.  Manson is guilty in all senses, and others may of course be guilty of other things. But when you throw Manson in with politicians, you're just trying to cleanse his slime by spreading it around until the water gets muddy.

Pardon the bluntness: BS (since I don't think the board will let me spell that out). We don't all agree on politics, so we should let a mass killer run free? Not sterling stuff there.

No, Manson shouldn't be free. I just don't know why people think megalomaniacs like George Bush and Barack Obama should be free, let alone in charge of a country. Of course, if you believe in war, in senseless violence, you'll think I'm crazy. I'm OK with that, though, because I think you're crazy. I believe that war is backwards, a relic of our tribal beginnings. Apes go to war over territory (I'm not joking) - humans should know better. It's time for a new age.

No, I'm not a war fan or a death penalty supporter.  But I'm not going to lump the guys who liberated Auschwitz with M-1 rifles in with Manson having people write on the walls in a pregnant woman's blood. If you don't see a wide swatch of moral distinction there, grab a banana and join the apes.

He's in jail for murdering eight or more people, not for "representing the side of me I don't like".

There is a lot of subtlety in subconscious fears. Your response illustrates only a surface understanding of what I'm talking about.

I don't get your and Manson's deep thinking there, huh? Please. It's pyscho-drivel, and you seem to regard attacking people with knives and guns as a legitimate conversation-starter.  Manson is proud of you.

Not so different from what Manson did, except that in one case I'm voting on a clean air act and possible health care reform ,and in the other he's slicing a guy's ear off with a sword and shooting a pusher in the chest and telling people to write on the walls in a pregnant woman's blood.  Yeah, I guess that's the same thing.

Those issues (clean air act, health care reform) are just distractions from the larger, more pressing issues. There is suffering of far greater magnitude going on right now all throughout the world.

O.K.,  I'll support the anarchy ticket in '12.

[grillo]

Surfer Joe, you seem to be doing some amazing mental gymnastics as far as your defense of some 'killers' and hatred of others. There is no difference who gives the order, if you think murder by proxy is bad then you need to understand that it is always bad. Bush, Obama, Hitler, Mao, Manson or (CIA asset) bin Laden...They All are Murderers by your definition and, guess what, even if you elected them as your representative, they all remain murderers. unless you condone the killing of Innocents we must admit this to ourselves.
Also, this topic is veering wildly into space!

[hypehat]

You shouldn't say 'well, politicians kill people all the time' to try and legitimise Manson in any way.  Manson was a cold-blooded psychopath. Most politicians who lead nations into war are not. Was Neville Chamberlain a cold blooded psychopath? or Winston Churchill? or Woodrow Wilson?

Using politicians is too much of a big generalisation to carry any kind of weight. There are obvious exceptions, true. And i'm no red-blooded war-mongering patriot, but it's just common sense.

[Surfer Joe]

Surfer Joe, you seem to be doing some amazing mental gymnastics as far as your defense of some 'killers' and hatred of others.

And I think relating the deranged and sick acts of Manson to various presidents is a dangerous and stupid act of mental gymnastics meant to suggest that one wrong shades another, and to distract, in this case, from calling Manson what he is. You also confused my basic point completely: I certainly do consider bin Laden, for example, a murderer.  That was my actual point, made quite clearly. Find for me where I defended a murderer, i.e. someone who meets the widely accepted definition of a murderer. As Luther said, words have meanings.

As to whether heads of state are murderers, that is clearly a more complex issue, but even there, the only distinction I made was quite a reasonable one- that they would be more likely to be considered war criminals, which is presumably far worse than a murderer.  If Bush is found to have acted criminally as head of state, he will not be arrested by a cop in blue and tried by the local district attorney.  Is that clear enough?

However, I will say this: I do not agree with the ridiculous implied premise that all heads of state are automatically mass murderers.  

And I will add this: if the topic is veering even more widely from the point at which we started discussing whether Charles Manson is a murderer, it's because people are going to absurd extremes to muddy the waters in his favor.
"Sure I'm driving drunk, officer, but you have no right to judge me because somewhere, someone else is doing something worse!"  Please.  

[Surfer Joe]

You shouldn't say 'well, politicians kill people all the time' to try and legitimise Manson in any way.  Manson was a cold-blooded psychopath. Most politicians who lead nations into war are not. Was Neville Chamberlain a cold blooded psychopath? or Winston Churchill? or Woodrow Wilson?

Using politicians is too much of a big generalisation to carry any kind of weight. There are obvious exceptions, true. And i'm no red-blooded war-mongering patriot, but it's just common sense.

Thank you for that island of sanity and reason in an increasingly disturbing thread, hypehat.

[Nicole]

Everyone's making valid points and arguments, some enough to make me reconsider how I was thinking of things before. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (cliché, I know) on certain aspects of the discussion, because if someone believes in something strongly enough, no one/nothing is going to change their mind. It would be so boring if we all thought exactly the same And politics is something I won't get into, it can bring out the worst in anybody.

[Mr. Cohen]

You shouldn't say 'well, politicians kill people all the time' to try and legitimise Manson in any way.  Manson was a cold-blooded psychopath. Most politicians who lead nations into war are not. Was Neville Chamberlain a cold blooded psychopath? or Winston Churchill? or Woodrow Wilson?

You assume that I'm trying to legitimize Manson, the typical argument, when in fact I am trying to delegitimize politicians by comparing them to Manson. I believe that politicians that lead their nations into war are in some way sociopaths. Just because a viewpoint has mainstream consensus, that doesn't prevent it from being psychopathic. After all, most Germans supported Hitler at one point. In defense of Churchill, the Hitler problem was so out of control that perhaps their only option by the late 1930s was to "fight fire with fire". Perhaps there were other ways it could have been dealt with earlier, but that's a ridiculously complicated subject. I'm not so sympathetic towards Wilson, but that's a completely different topic. Regardless, I just see a lot of politicians causing a lot of problems with their ham-fisted, knuckle-dragging response to political disagreement: war. Bush and Obama are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Surfer Joe]

Everyone's making valid points and arguments, some enough to make me reconsider how I was thinking of things before. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (cliché, I know) on certain aspects of the discussion, because if someone believes in something strongly enough, no one/nothing is going to change their mind. It would be so boring if we all thought exactly the same And politics is something I won't get into, it can bring out the worst in anybody.

True words of wisdom, Nicole!

[?]

Is George Bush not a murderer, then, for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Manson's prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says he is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

[grillo]

I would also argue that those who favor the death penalty favor murder by proxy. I'm sure we can all come up with reasons why killing is okay, Joe, but my argument, like DADA's, is that no murder, no matter who committed it or why it was committed can EVER be sanctioned, with the obvious exception of personal self-defense. Since I personally would not go to war on  a foreign country, I cannot differentiate between 'evil' Manson, who seems like a megalomaniac psycho (could it be his near lifetime in the hands of Authorities plays apart?), and cuddley Churchill or Obama, who also seem like the same. So, because I think murderers are all bad I'm doing mental gymnastics? Sure. Whatever.
Still, politics aside, I hope we can continue to enjoy our Beach Boys posts together.

[the captain]

This thread doesn't belong in the BB forum anymore. It belongs in the sandbox.

[Surfer Joe]

I would also argue that those who favor the death penalty favor murder by proxy. I'm sure we can all come up with reasons why killing is okay, Joe, ...

I'm hoping you can show me somewhere that I said anything remotely like that.

[hypehat]

You shouldn't say 'well, politicians kill people all the time' to try and legitimise Manson in any way.  Manson was a cold-blooded psychopath. Most politicians who lead nations into war are not. Was Neville Chamberlain a cold blooded psychopath? or Winston Churchill? or Woodrow Wilson?

You assume that I'm trying to legitimize Manson, the typical argument, when in fact I am trying to delegitimize politicians by comparing them to Manson. I believe that politicians that lead their nations into war are in some way sociopaths. Just because a viewpoint has mainstream consensus, that doesn't prevent it from being psychopathic. After all, most Germans supported Hitler at one point. In defense of Churchill, the Hitler problem was so out of control that perhaps their only option by the late 1930s was to "fight fire with fire". Perhaps there were other ways it could have been dealt with earlier, but that's a ridiculously complicated subject. I'm not so sympathetic towards Wilson, but that's a completely different topic. Regardless, I just see a lot of politicians causing a lot of problems with their ham-fisted, knuckle-dragging response to political disagreement: war. Bush and Obama are part of the problem, not the solution.

You just proved my point. There are far too many variables in absolutely every example you can think of, so statements like yours and grillos just don't stand up.  'Politicians' is way too big a generalisation. You can't do it. I agree that war is a bad thing, and that leaders carry responsibility, and i also don't agree with our recent forays into the Middle east. But, in my personal opinion, to claim a misguided war and intentionally killing a pregnant woman and smearing her blood all over the walls are similar is just too much.

No-one here is advocating the death penalty, i think. Although me and my friends once did declare war on Wales during a paticularly dull maths lesson way back, so you've got me there.

[Mr. Cohen]

You just proved my point. There are far too many variables in absolutely every example you can think of, so statements like yours and grillos just don't stand up.

I think it definitely stands up in the cases of Bush and Obama, which were my original examples. Of course it's convenient for those who disagree with me to bring up something like WWII, but that was roughly 70 years ago. In just that short amount of time, the world has changed so much. There has been both a technological revolution and an information revolution. I thought the 'baby boomers', with their 60s flower power and free love were supposed to be the ones in charge by now. Well, they are, but oops, turns out they love war as much as mommy and daddy did. Sorry for the Woodstock mess. I am utterly disgusted by this travesty being perpetrated. But, as the wise Nicole said, we'll have to just agree to disagree.

[hypehat]

But, as the wise Nicole said, we'll have to just agree to disagree.

Sounds alright by me 

[Reggie Dunbar]

Bobby Beausoleil is still producing & recording inside the walls. Good stuff, too.
So the Spector / Manson collaboration may have a chance.

[grillo]

Bobby Beausoleil is still producing & recording inside the walls. Good stuff, too.
So the Spector / Manson collaboration may have a chance.

What kind of a set-up do they have in prison? Do these guys just get to screw around in a recording studio while doing time or what? I guess I'm ignorant about the resources available to convicted murderers, but it seems pretty wild that they'd have the chance to make records. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems really odd. Anybody know how this might work?

[LostArt]

I was searching around awhile back for information regarding San Francisco bands from the mid to late '60s, and came across some stories about The Orkustra, a band that was formed partly by Bobby Beausoleil (who was also an early member of the L.A based, Arthur Lee led band, Love).  As I explored further, I found this site. 

http://www.beausoleil.net/wizard/index.html

If you explore the Cronicles section, there is an interview with Seconds magazine, in which he (Bobby) talks all about his life before prison, his recordings in prison, his electric stringed invention, and the movie for which he composed and recorded the soundtrack (which is available for sale).  It seems as if he has his stuff together.   

[hypehat]

Bobby Beausoleil is still producing & recording inside the walls. Good stuff, too.
So the Spector / Manson collaboration may have a chance.

What kind of a set-up do they have in prison? Do these guys just get to screw around in a recording studio while doing time or what? I guess I'm ignorant about the resources available to convicted murderers, but it seems pretty wild that they'd have the chance to make records. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems really odd. Anybody know how this might work?

I think it's mentioned earlier in the thread, but in theory a prisoner can have a few personal items - a guitar and four-track are presumably not out of the question, as the guy Reggie mentions has one. You could easily make records on that. I don't think we're talking Wall Of Sound here....