The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDU5ZDdlZTJmNTg3ZTM5OTc4MjJkYzdjOWFlMTBmNGE=

http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/05/22/the-essential-president-bush/

I have no respect whatsoever for a man who is of a lower intelligence and general knowledge than myself running the country in which I live. I'm an idiot, so how can I trust a lesser brained fool to run our lives?

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."
—Bush, reassuring us that the wartime president of the most powerful nation on earth does not think too much
Source: Federal Document Clearing House, "Roundtable Interview of the President by White House Press Pool," June 4, 2003

I don't have the same issue as you do.  Pres. Bush doesn't have "a lower intelligence and general knowledge" than I do.  Sure, Al Gore or John Kerry may score better on grammar, but I couldn't trust them, whether they be a lesser or greater brained fool than I.

I'm just thankful God graced me with a President of such high caliber in my lifetime.  I don't think either party will find a man or woman to meet or exceed Pres. Bush anytime soon.

I gots ma countrees back ya see. I be da one 2 defend it and all that stuff. john kerry and dose guys are poop heads you poop heads!

 :thud

(this is not a bow)

Well, there you go.  Not everything is a joke to me.  Not everything is to be ridiculed and mocked.  I made it clear in my home that if Kerry had won the election, no one was going to refer to Pres. Kerry as "stupid" or "a fool," even if we didn't want him to be President. 

Well exactly, it's a large responsibility. One in such a situation should be able to handle a bit of sarcasm from a teenager on a message board. It should not offend anyone, it should only serve to express an opinion which could be put much more harshly in serious terms.

And on the trust issues -- I don't trust a guy to run a country when he's previously been arrested for D.U.I. A person who cannot control their urge to be intoxicated and drive a vehicle is not fit to do anything sensible.

That's a respectable thing to do.

What about those protesters who hold signs saying, "God hates fags!"? Can I call these people stupid? Fools? Or must I reserve respect for their stance because they hold ground at homosexuals' funerals?

If there's one itty bitty thing I've learnt from Ian spewing his opinions here -- it's that when you believe something to be wrong you should stand up and at least make mention of it. It does no good to sit quietly while things go on which go against one's own moral belief.  And the fact that you make the thread topic in reference to that album is just pointless. Why not just start a pro-Bush thread? You didn't even mention Neil Young in the post! You just provided links for some Dubya 'pats on the back' sites.

Yeah, Im gonna have to disagree too. You've had a much better president than Bush in your lifetime and Im sure there will be more to come...

Thank you, sir.

There's a difference between showing respect for the office of President and respecting someones opinion on homosexuals.  There's a difference between believing sex between two men or two women is not what God intended for people to do, and holding a sign saying "God hates fags."  There's a difference between standing up and saying you believe something is wrong, and standing up and acting like a "lesser brained fool" compared to the people you disagree with.

The only President in my lifetime I'd rank higher than GWB is Reagan, and some days they are neck and neck.

Oh, that is SUCH A SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would NEVER HAVE GUESSED THAT!

In other far-out news, the sun may rise tomorrow.

Who is at the top of your "President in my lifetime" list, Spaceman, and why?

I have nothing to add.  Just wanted quote this.

 (http://www.primusmedia.de/image/cover/front/0/6852724.jpg)

Not a big fan of politicians, really. They all take dirty money, and have to compromise any standards of moral conduct in order to get there. IMO.

We haven't had what I would call an admirable president in my lifetime.  I think that the pressure of TV guarantees that the best man for the job won't get elected, because what it takes to do the job and what it takes to please people on TV or in campaigning are two different things, and the most competent presidents we have had would have failed in the TV world.

All the more reason to consider politics irrelevant.  Pete Townshend was right: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."  It doesn't matter who is in charge, things go on the same for the most part.  As long as you can paint a pretty picture everyone is happy.

I'm sure the President isn't as dumb as people think he is -- it's just the way he speaks (though why he has a Texas accent if his parents don't is beyond me) combined with his portrayal in the media. People certainly wouldn't think he was an idiot if not every comedian and joke newscaster was telling you that he was.

Have you WATCHED any footage of him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_6B6vwE83U&search=george%20bush

That proves nothing other than that he's a bad public speaker.

I personally think that's a cop out, but believe me, that's not meant as an attack. 

Charles, if I may move to the spiritual side on this thread (what, politics AND religion?), Scripturally speaking, that may be the best attitude to have.  One thing that drives me nuts on the modern religious right is the obsession with politics and the belief that public policy must reflect our moral values to be acceptable.  Yet:

1) We are as Christians supposed to be strangers and aliens in this world.  Aliens don't have input into the government or else they cease to be aliens.  IMO this also puts a serious damper on Christians and heavy patriotism, since we are members of God's Kingdom first and the US second.

2) We are supposed to be ambassadors to this world.  Ambassadors don't come in and try to change foriegn policies.

3) Our primary focus is supposed to be making disciples.  How many people have become Christians because marriage was defined as man/woman or because flag burning was banned?

4) Paul was imprisoned in the capitol of the largest nation known to man at that time, had had multiple audiences before the ruler of the world, and was in constant interaction with that ruler's bodyguard.  What did he say he was doing?  Impacting the rules of the empire?  Or communicating Christ?

I have hinted at this before and I will make this explicit now: to a Christian, politics are IRRELEVANT.  I believe this is orthodox teaching, and that Christians have never made a Scripturally based reaction to democracies since they are so recent.  All reactions I have seen start with assumptions that I can't find Scripture supporting.  Christians should be aware (as all ambassadors should) and vote (rendering unto Caesar and doing civic duty) but not depend upon a corrupt material tool to do incorruptable spiritual work. If we tie ourselves to the Republican party and it is marred by scandal?  What happens to the name of the church?  Don't say that can't happen -- I will show you scandals we have had in house in the last 20 years.  Think what would happen if that were to happen on the scale of the Republican Party central leadership.  You want the name of Christ associated with that?

And on policy matters?  Take welfare -- the welfare system as we know it had to be formed by the government because the church, after it decided that "evangelism" is spiritual and good and taking care of material needs was liberal and social gospel and bad, bailed out on taking care of the poor.  Rather than focusing on what the government should do, what if the church took the words of Jesus and the Bible serious and focused energy on taking care of the poor?  Why, the world would wake up one day and see that welfare was not nearly as needed anymore because the job was already being done and done better than any government agency ever could.  Marriage definition?  No matter what, a civil ceremony will never define marriage because God makes the covenant.  So who cares if the government changes that?  All they are changing is a civil arrangement, and they have no impact on the spiritual side of marriage.

We are to be an independent body that is non-partisan.  IMO THAT is the Scriptural approach.  So I totally sympathize with Ian's approach and basically say the same thing.

On the accent thing -- I don't know where his parents grew up, but if they didn't grow up in Texas and he did, that would be an obvious explanation....

And to the unbelievers out there -- sorry about that, but since the principals in this debate (Ian and Charles) are Christian, I chose to frame my thoughts around their debate since they accept the Christian world view.  The rest of you carry on as usual...

George speaks like those dumb kids in class who when reading a passage from a book to everyone they skip words like 'disputatious' and replace it with 'dispu-something-or-other'.

Wonderful, wonderful posts, Jeff.

I believe the Bush family is from New England somewhere. Connecticut, maybe. They moved to Texas later, although  believe GW grew up at least partly outside of Texas, too.

I heard it's a fake accent.

I thought about saying he fakes it because he wants to sound like a cowboy, but chose not to. It isn't nice to poke fun.

Well, if he were agreeing with me, I'd say the same.



To me, that is irreconcilable with:



But I agree with:



We should NOT depend upon the political world to define or defend Christian principles, and we should not be surprised when this world and this country turns its back upon the principles we hold dear.  For example, marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I don't depend upon a court or a legislature to define or defend that.  Children should not be aborted, but I don't expect abortion to become illegal.

The following is not correct:


Per Wikipedia, "His family moved to Texas when he was two years of age. He was raised in Midland, and Houston, Texas."

I was being sarcastic...

Did you change your signature, Rerun?

How much difference can TV possibly make on presidential election outcomes? Is our country so dependent on image that we will choose the guy with the best body or facial features?

Lincoln was concerned about growing his beard prior to the election, figuring people would think it a ploy or plainly that he looked silly.

What if a church is tied to a pastor who is marred by scandal?

http://www.sharperiron.org/category/bob-gray/

What happens to the name of the Church?

I, IMO, do not like to state "ALL x are y."  If I were to post every woman who has had an abortion hates children, it wouldn't make any more sense than saying everyone elected to an office is corrupt.

Yes.


He grew it upon the suggestion of a little girl, who said it would make him look dignified, according to the recent bio "Team of Rivals."

http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln50.html

Sure it is reconcilable.  The first statement says this:  Christians should not focus their energies upon political endeavours unless God calls an individual into public service (which I think is valid).  That's why I used the welfare example.  To be more specific, the church I have chosen to attend does free medical clinics, free law counseling, HIV ministries, ministries to the poor and homeless, oil changes and lawn care for single mothers, et al.  Rather than worrying about what the government should do, Christians should be the church and not worry about what the government is doing about "xyz".  Also, since Christ is our King and ultimately the one who takes care of us -- and the one who puts presidents into office, and that included Bill Clinton, we can be sure that He is control of our lives as believers regardless of political environments.  Campaigning for issues should not be our focus.

However, we are also called to be wise in the ways of the world so that we can minister to the actual needs.  Luther said that if we fought the devil in all his schemes except the very schemes he was currently executing, we have failed.  So while I don't depend upon the government to do anything for me, I still have a responsibility to know what is going on, if only to be a good ambassador.  And I am called to submit to the authorities and be a good citizen, which in a democracy includes voting.  When I vote, I don't do it to try to advance a spiritual agenda.  Some churches are doing this.  This is very near to me -- two churches in my local area are in danger of losing tax-exempt status because of their political activities.  They see it as their Christian goal to get certain leaders in office with certain platforms, most of which have nothing to do with the Christian mission.  It is one thing to say that an individual needs to vote knowledgably, another to say that a Christian looks to political answers or that politics must mirror morality in order for us to conduct our activities.  

Ask Richard Nixon in 1960.  The TV debates were the single strongest factor in his winning the race.  Bob Dole could have been a good president but there was no way he had the charisma to win against Bill Clinton.

EDIT: Oops -- I meant LOSING the race to Kennedy.

Jeff, do you believe that God actively puts presidents in office?

Why would I need to be knowledgeable about voting if the process I'm participating in is irrelevant?  :)

The Church is a supernatural body that has the ability to receive the power of God to overcome the effects of sin in the members to effect true godliness and to execute God's will.

The Republican party is full of unbelievers, many of whom will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals, although they will never show that overtly.

Which do you want to hitch your wagon to?

Yes, pastors can sin.  But my point is that they in theory have the ability NOT to sin.  Remember what the Bible says about men and their institutions: without God, there is no righteousness.  The ONLY reason that our Constitution has been as effective as it has been for so long is separation of powers, which acts to minimize the impact of fallen man.  I would lean on an institution created by God long before I would one created by man.  I have faith that my pastor is godly (I could be wrong but I doubt it).  I have no faith in the leaders of the Republican party.

You mix two different ideas:  you need to know what people are doing around you because they expect you to do this.  It's the whole "paying taxes" thing.  Jesus didn't need to pay taxes but he did.  They are irrelevant because they accomplish nothing toward my completing my mission in life.  God may call me as an individual into public service, but as far as the Church goes, there is nothing politics can do to help that cause.

Do I believe that God is sovereign?  Do I believe what the Bible says about God holding the leaders of the earth under His control?  If God is not in control of the election of the most important leader of the entire world, how can I be sure He is in control of my life?  And THAT is why the Clinton-bashing in the 90's made me VERY angry in the church.  Yes, he was immoral and a poor example.  Yes, I voted against him.  But you know what?  God put Him there.  God could easily have let the other one win.  So how can I argue with that?

We have to be careful, because discussing the sovereignty of God with unbelievers present is asking for trouble.  But if God is not in control of the US election, He is not in control of anything.  And if He is not in control, how can you trust Him for anything?

The fact that Jesus showed us an example of following civil law tells me they aren't irrelevant.  Laws and politics should not become idols to distract us from what is most important, but that does not mean they have no significance or bearing.

Does that kind of intervention mean that you don't believe in free will? It would seem to me that if elections are "rigged" from above, the wills of voters is not free.

That kind of belief --and please don't think I mean to say you think what I'm about to say, but it is just how I am playing out that thought in my head--would lend itself to arguments that we've got God on our side, woudn't it? I mean, the sort of thought that goes into crusades or holy wars.

And then it also stands to reason that God has placed all world leaders in their respective places, including those in North Korea, Iran, etc., correct? Or historically, including Hitler, Hussein and the like?

Wonderful, wonderful post, Jeff.  100% agreement.

How about this then?  "irrelevant for executing the Christian mission".

And you shouldn't.

Does Him being in control mean the same thing as Him putting someone in office, in your opinion? I guess that's what I'm wondering. Obviously, any believer would believe He is in control on a grand scale, and capable of control on as detailed and specific a scale as He'd want to be. But that doesn't, I don't think, mean that He necessarily DOES choose to put someone in or take someone out of office.

Yes.

This is where I think you start to see the limits of human understanding.  Like, for instance, how logicians like Godel and Turing have proven that it is impossible for logic to prove every possible argument.  Logic itself loses its grip on things at a certain level and this is actually logically provable (take a graduate symbolic logic class if you don't believe me -- I did and was amazed to see the boundaries of human understanding).  I do believe in the sovereignty of God, and I also believe in the freedom of man.  I don't see how they easily go together.  Some modern theologians speculate that we creatures limited to 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time can't see things that might make perfect sense in multiple dimensions beyond us.  I don't know.  Whatever the case may be, I believe in both.  The term I use is "trump card".  God's will trumps mine.  When His will and my will clash, I lose.  But most often, it is done by control of circumstances.  I want to make my flight.  But if there is a traffic jam out of my control, I am not free to exert my will.  God has not violated my free will but has acted in such a way that I can't exert what I want to do.  Simple stupid example, and this gets REALLY deep really fast, but I believe in both.

And as for "God is on our side", even MORE reason why the church should stay out of politics.  The church needs to remember what happened the last time that it won temporal power.  It wasn't pretty and it didn't work.  Also, I don't know the full mind of God, and while I know He is for me as an individual, I don't know if He is for my plans and intentions.  Plenty of times what I wanted was not what God wanted.  "God is on our side" is a terribly arrogant thing for any Christian to believe.  After all, most Christians were anti-Clinton and very disrespectful of him, yet in some way he was God's choice for that job at that time.

I will tell you this:  Clinton claims the name of Christ.  My pastor in college was friends with Clinton's pastor in Arkansas and that pastor swears up and down that Clinton had a true conversion experience.  If nothing else, if Clinton was a believer, and if Bush Sr. was a believer, don't you think that God would have to do something in that case in order for His promises about guiding our steps to be true?  And while I can agree that God might not actively exert his will in every single event (though honestly I am not sure of even that), don't you think that the leader of the US is a pretty important thing to be involved in?  I mean, the Bible says that God put various pharaoahs into office, and other leaders.  Why would he pick one election over another?  For that matter, how can we ever know ANYTHING about God's will that He chooses not to reveal?  But since God has the ability to control things, and since He promises to lead history to a certain point (or else prophecy is worthless), I have to assume that every election is another step toward the fulfillment of God's ultimate plan.

Thanks, Jeff, for sharing your thoughts on the subject(s). Same to Charles, Ian and various others on this board who have done the same. Respectful discussions about religion and philosophy--without any participants either watering down their beliefs for others' benefit OR fighting like spoiled children--is rare and worthwhile to me. I would never have guessed that a Beach Boys board would be a place to find it.

You are very welcome, and thank you.

I was asked to.

Did you mean what you wrote here?  That you believe pastors have the ability not to sin?

We are all flesh and blood mortals, and thus prone to sin, but there's no mandate anywhere stating we MUST sin.  It's simply a historical fact that no human being except Jesus has been able to resist the temptation of sin.

I think you ned to keep this sentence in mind when you quote the "ability not to" part. I don't think Jeff meant that any pastors (or anyone, for that matter) can 100% be free of sin, but that they can overcome their sin.

Of course, I'm not Jeff. So I shouldn't try to answer for him. I'm probably wrong.

Depends upon what you mean.  Go through life for 50 years and not sin?  No, I don't think anyone is strong enough in faith to do that.  Go 5 minutes without sinning?  Yes, I do.  Do I think that unbelievers can make it 5 minutes (arbitrary number) without sinning?  If you use the understanding of "sin" as seen on the Sermon on the Mount, no, I don't.  Sin is attitude as much as action, and God sees violent anger as a sin as bad as murder, even if the anger is not exerted in public view.  And I believe that the Bible teaches that the only cure for this deep seated sin is the regeneration of Christ in the soul, what most people hear today as "being born again".  Only Christ indwelling a person can keep them from the deep sins of the heart.  In practice, we all still sin and we must be aware of that.  But we have the ability to choose NOT to sin, whereas an unregenerate person is unable to do this.  Augustine and Luther put it this way: non posse non peccare: NOT to be able NOT to sin.

Think of a bird with a broken wing.  It may want to fly, but as long as the wing is broken it is unable to exert that choice.  Only Christ in a believer's heart can mend that particular "wing".

And on the sig thing, I am just trying to put an ugly situation where no one shined, and all have agreed was handled very badly, forever in the past.  That sig was an in-your-face reminder that I felt was unneeded.  Not trying to be difficult.

No, that pretty much covers it. 

OK, sorry to keep prying into people's beliefs, some of which aren't really the topic, here, but...

Jeff, you said you think someone can go 5 minutes without sinning. Wouldn't original sin mean that it not true? Even if one isn't sinning in thought or deed, doesn't original sin mean someone who hasn't been baptised and isn't a believer is in a kind of perpetual state of sinning?

And MARY!  Don't forget Mary!  Wait...I'm not Catholic...

Baptism isn't needed for Salvation.

You ought to go to Missouri Synod Lutheran church to get the opposite pounded into your head. Their mantra, "He who believes and is baptised shall be saved."

Ah, well, I don't remember that part in my Bible.

I don't remember a lot of things in mine. Partly because I don't read it much.

This is tricky, and God hasn't revealed everything in this area (ex: most theologians believe in an "age of accountability" before which a child is not held guilty of sin, but the Bible is silent either way on such an issue).  But here goes:

Original sin means a lot of things, but in essence it means practically that a person is broken in such a way that they are unable to live sinlessly even if they wanted to.  That's why I chose the broken wing analogy.  A bird can want to fly, try to fly, have the free will to choose to fly, but not have the physical capability to fly.  Humans are born broken morally.  The only cure for this brokenness is Christ in you which happens at conversion.  Your wing is healed.  However, before that happens, a lot of patterns of behavior are built.  Plus, the healing is not total until the end of life on the other side.  All of this means that though we can choose as believers not to sin, we can still choose to sin, and will do so, just because of who we are and where we are.  In heaven for those who make it, God will remove the ability to choose to sin so we will be perfect, and that is why there will be no tears.

It's not just them -- there are a lot of Christians who believe that.  I ask them how in that case Jesus could say to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise" if that were true.

Mmmmhmm, yeah, I'm sure that's why you think I said that.

I didn't think it was that uncommon a belief, actually. But it is one I don't share. While it isn't for reasons that are backed in Scripture, I can't believe that a ceremony/ritual is the key to salvation. It strikes me as ridiculous. It would seem to me that belief, works, right-mindedness all make more sense (again, not going on a particular religion here, just the ideas themselves) for salvation than saying participation in a ceremony will do it for you.

Luther, I would say the Bible limits it even more than that -- righteousness (which is only perceived but not genuine anyway) and works save no one.  No one is good enough.  If it were up to us, there would be no hope.  True Christianity is the only religion which teaches that no one has the ability to please God in themselves and that God is wholly responsible for saving those who become believers.  We have nothing to offer God to become a Christian and we are totally dependent upon his grace in order to come to him:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
"And without faith, it is impossible to please God, because whoever would come to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."

There is not one good thing you can do to earn your salvation.  Having said that, one who is saved shoud start doing good works as that is proof that a change has taken place inside.  The Bible calls that "fruit".

Oh, I absolutely know that is what the Bible teaches. I just wanted my statement to go to my personal thoughts on a non-specific level: that for any religion to try to impose ritual over something more moral or spiritual seems horribly correupt to me.

That said, I understand the Christian teaching that a person's behavior is far insufficient for salvation. "saved by grace...not by works, lest any man should boast." And I have to say that such a thing makes logical sense, too, because that belief does, well, exactly what that last quote says: it keeps our heads from inflating too much.

Won't Get Fooled Again has been listed in the UK Independent Newspaper as the number one song with - as I understand it - the political message most often misunderstood - in this case the message is said to be 'conservative', a word that may mean different things in the UK and USA.

Of course the song has no party-allied political message at all. It is not precisely a song that decries revolution - it suggests that we will indeed fight in the streets - but that revolution, like all action can have results we cannot predict. Don't expect to see what you expect to see. Expect nothing and you might gain everything.

The song was meant to let politicians and revolutionaries alike know that what lay in the centre of my life was not for sale, and could not be co-opted into any obvious cause.

This was everything to do with what I believe to be the power of music and congregation and nothing to do with what any individual might do to use the language of modern rock and pop to express their privately held views. I suppose the 'universal' themes behind rock, that I have always espoused, can emerge over time looking vacuous, unspecific, vague and dilletantish. But despite its looseness, and its decadence, rock has lasted a lifetime, and still seems to prevail as the impudent portal for the naive complaints of the hopeful young.

From 1971 - when I wrote Won't Get Fooled Again - to 1985, there was a transition in me from refusal to be co-opted by activists, to a refusal to be judged by people I found jaded and compliant in Thatcher's Britain. Peter Gabriel and I spoke often on the phone about work we were doing with David Astor, Neville Vincent, Donald Woods and Lord Goodman to raise money to help spring Nelson Mandela from gaol in South Africa. We realized quickly that what we were doing was buying guns for the ANC, an organisation that some on the far right believed were no better than the IRA. Nelson was sprung, so everything turned out well. But when in the mid-nineties, one of the very last IRA bombs went off in a theatre in London close to where my musical of Tommy was about to open, I decided my karma had come around full circle.

Not all action to change the world has to be trumpeted from the rooftops by Bono editing the Independent newspaper (though it was a fantastic and audacious stunt equal to Lord Matthew Evans giving me an editorial chair at Faber and Faber in 1985), or from the scaffolding of a rock festival. Roger Daltrey does indeed play rock 'n' roll with Richard "Dirty" Desmond (who owns some big newspapers among other things), but he himself gets down and dirty visiting hospitals where the teenage cancer victims for whom they raise money struggle to survive. He holds them, laughs with them, and gives them hope. This is One-to-One stuff of the kind that I find I am incapable. I can meet and speak with survivors of sexual abuse, drug abuse and the victims of all kinds of domestic violence, but I have what I now know is a quite common problem with those who might suddenly die on me in a hospital, clinic or hospice.

I am just a song-writer. The actions I carry out are my own, and are usually private until some digger-after-dirt questions my methods. What I write is interpreted, first of all by Roger Daltrey. Won't Get Fooled Again - then - was a song that pleaded '….leave me alone with my family to live my life, so I can work for change in my own way….'. But when Roger Daltrey screamed as though his heart was being torn out in the closing moments of the song, it became something more to so many people. And I must live with that. In the film Summer of Sam the song is used to portray white-boy 'street' idiocy; a kind of fascist absurdity, men swinging their arms over air-guitars and smashing up furniture. Spike Lee told my manager that '…he deeply understood Who music….'. What he understood was what he himself - like so many others - had made it. He saw an outrage and frustration, even a judgment or empty indictment in the song that wasn't there. What is there is a prayer.

http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=285&zone=diary

Right ON!

Yeah, a prayer and good analysis.  I see that last line as so very devastating, so very accurate in its capturing of the political and cultural process.  In 1971, everyone thought that the world was going to change.  Townshend was one of the first voices saying, you know what? Different leaders, same old crap.  And he's right -- Daltrey's delivery, while amazing in isolation, totally obscures the true meaning of the song.

Just now read this thread.  Some of you know that I do not consider myself to be a religious person, but I have to say that I hope Jeff is right regarding the sovereignty of God.  I hope that there really is a reason that GWB is still allowed to inflict such evil on the world.  I've grown hopeless at times over the last few years as I see the death and destruction caused by Bush for the monetary gain of his cronies, and the sad erosion of our Constitution at the hands of an Administration that doesn't believe in separation of powers. If God has a plan for this, I sincerely hope that we see the good come from it soon. 

I never believed in Satan until Bush was elected again.

Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water.

Not trying to start sh*t, I REALLY hope God has a plan for this.

On another note, I try to separate musicians from their music, but I have a real hard time with Townshend, and even with the Who following his legal troubles.  I just got a great needle-drop of the mono "Who's Next", and I'm having trouble enjoying it.  Do we just enjoy the art, and try not to think about the creator?

Pete's 'legal troubles' - by which I take it you mean his caution for looking at Child porn websites - are something that I as a long-term Who fan have no problem with. I have read his web-sit efor years and he has always maintained a VERY strong position against child pornography and had stated ON his web-site shortly before this came to light (but not that shortly...) about his issues with it and that he was going to try to do something about it - he was appalled when he came across a site with hie 9 year old son while they were looking for something else.

I do believe Pete's explanation - he is guilty of arrogance in thinking that the laws against looking at this stuff did not apply to him if he was researching against it. It's because I saw his previous comments as they were made that I think he was telling the truth. I don't think ROger would have worked with him again if he thought this was the case either.

Pete is a man who bears his soul and his thoughts over the internet quite regularly and I thought at the time that he'd better be careful.

He's a good man who made a mistake, not a paedophile or a pornographer.

Why would you want a mono version of Who's Next?  More to the point I can't find any record of there even being a mono version. The last Who LP issued in mono was Direct Hits in the UK and Magic Bus in the US.

And, if I remember correctly, the laws concerning what Pete did had either just changed or changed after the fact.  Though that's going by my very faulty memory.

Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.

~Senator Robert M. La Follette

Absolutely correct.  I must have been thinking about the discussion of "Wont Get Fooled Again" when I typed Who's Next.  It's actually Who Sell Out (the Doc Ebbetts UK mono mix) that I just got a copy of.

I only had the mono version for years - total shock when I finally got a stereo copy and found out the difference! Not exactly a matter of just separating the tracks and adding reverb was it!

Mono-stereo wars, that's my kind of business!
Overall, have to say I dig the Stereo Sell Out more! Which is rare, because I usually dig the mono better on most any album, due to sonic thickness. But the stereo Sell Out amplifies the trip. Even though the tinniness of the mono prob'ly jibes with the pirate-radio broadcast theme better. Hell, I'll take em both on a twofer.

I just wanted to post here because all the other "Threads" I want to post to are deleted or locked.

Hard for me to pick a favorite between the mono and stereo.  Very different.  I was only familiar with the Stereo until about a week ago, so the mono version sounds a little foreign to me.  Its growing on me though, and it's nice to hear something old be "new" again.

Anyone remember those action films where a huge gangwar or shootout occurs, and afterward, as everyone lies dead, the cops ride in? Just wonderin'.

Colors?

(http://hs.riverdale.k12.or.us/~pnelson/photo/crayons.jpg)

:lol that billy...

I think it was easier hearing it Mono first - all the extra stuff was a lovely surprise - I wasn't expecting new guitar licks to pop up hear and there. I don't have a favourite - I tend to think that the stereo version is more what they wanted and it's what is on the CD, which was a well put together package.
The BIG difference of course is the guitar solo on Our Love Was, which are two totally different approaches. Love em both equally.