The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-bruce-johnston-blasts-obama-20120511

i feel that everyone has a right to their opinion, but save it for after the 50 year anniversary tour no matter what political affiliation.

am i over reacting or did others feel this could've waited?

also i can't picture bruce saying f*ck lol

I can: when he's lambasting the album Friends in the Songwriter DVD he's basically saying "f*ck you"

Also, this tidbit is turning into an interesting debate here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12223.msg273762/topicseen.html#msg273762 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12223.msg273762/topicseen.html#msg273762)

He's absolutely wrong -- maybe not about Obama or Romney's personal character, but about Obama being a socialist (the US right's repeatedly calling Obama 'socialist' has become as tiresome as the left's old habit of calling everyone vaguely right-of-centre 'fascist', and is about as accurate). Just as a matter of simple fact, he's wrong.

BUT -- that's no reason he shouldn't state his opinion. It's not like he got up on stage and started singing "Romney Girls" or something, he just talked candidly to a fan, in a conversation that he presumably thought was meant to be private, and actually stated his honest opinion. The real 'asshole' here is not Obama or Romney, or Bruce, but whichever 'fan' decided it was a good idea to make a video recording of that conversation and post it to the internet. All that'll do is make him less likely to talk openly -- or at all -- to fans. Even though I disagree with Bruce's politics, I've actually got more respect for him now than I did before, for actually *talking about his opinions* with fans, rather than just spouting platitudes.

"Elderly rich Republican not Obama supporter" is not really news, and not even really worth discussing, but Bruce should not have to be on guard twenty-four hours a day while the reunion tour is on, in case he accidentally has the temerity to express a controversial opinion while someone nearby has a phone.

There is room enough for all sides of the political debate to have a say, whether recorded at a podium, a rally, or a fan meet-and-greet.  Bruce has as much right to say what he said there as anyone else in the industry, I give him credit no matter how much I may agree or disagree. It's the folks who would say Bruce was out of line because they don't agree politically with his comment, and therefore should not have said it, that would be more troubling than what Bruce said.

I've made it a point to never give half of a crap about a musician's political views if they don't bash you over the head with it in their music. I could care less about Bruce's opinion on Obama or any candidate. I would've been a bit upset if he inappropriately stated all this during a show or publicized interview, but in a conversation with a fan? Talk all you want Bruce, as long as you show up and sing Disney Girls with its lyrics intact.

Going to see Ted Nugent for the second time in August. I think the guy is a total loon, but man can he make a guitar howl. Musicians are welcome to have any opinion and affiliation they want; I listen to them for the music.

Agreed, although what he said does speak to a fairly large problem happening in the States right now.

I had posted this on another thread, but it applies here; I will not discuss politics nor the election with my fellow fans beyond this; I only care about the tour's success.


first time in 42 years, says Bruce.. . .

Now we are going beyond all dreams and expectations: the BB singing a cut from Sunflower, around the piano with Brian playing, ol' Al taking Carl's verse, elegant minimal accompaniment, Jeff being lovingly reverent and supportive (he has totally adjusted his Dodger stadium strategy).   This is not real. . ..

In other news, I see that Bruce offered some political analysis of the election. . .
Though a Republican, I prefer when my heroes stay out of politics, if only because I hope there is no backlash that hurts the BB and the sales. It's not "hip" among the young to be a Conservative (unless you're Johnny Ramone). I just hope it goes away.

Also, some thought my response o the Village Voice essay was harsh, but I want to do all I can to combat error and analysis that might dissuade any  listener from getting the album or listening to the single, etc.  Just trying to apply by craft to some BB defense.

 I also agree the the performance of TWG is evolving toward clarity and precision.  I hope that who ever is producing the official DVD that we will be buying from PBS of from whomever soon is vigilant about going a good job; they ought to have recorded various shows and chosen the best performances instead of banking on one.

thanks and best wishes to all my co-celebrants of all these marvelous events

All I can say is "ugh"...now in every interview, we'll probably have Brian and Mike, et al, asked their political opinions, or to comment on Bruce's comments.  Bruce does have the right to express his opinions, and it is unfortunate that someone felt the need to make the video public.  Gotta keep those good vibrations happening...

I can respect Bruce for at least hating both candidates, but is Bruce not the epitome of the strangely conservative, money grubbing side of the Beach Boys? It reminds that Bruce probably never liked Smile and still doesn't like Smile.

you guys are trusting a tabloid website? I can't imagine Bruce saying anything that profane or offensive in public. ever.

I saw this on TMZ, It's getting a lot of buzz..

Surprisingly people seem to be on Bruce's side


http://www.tmz.com/videos/0-quv0jwfc/?adid=rr_raw_uncut (http://www.tmz.com/videos/0-quv0jwfc/?adid=rr_raw_uncut)

 :lol

Lol, awesome. Maybe not a socialist and maybe not an asshole, but a terrible, terrible president. Way to have the balls to speak your mind, Bruce!

I think it's hysterical. I mean, I don't agree with the man, and as Andrew said, the fact that anyone accuses Obama of being a socialist is disconnected from the actual meaning of words. (I haven't seen him centralizing any means of production lately, if you catch my drift.) But clearly people can disagree on politics, and it's part of what makes our country great.

I do wonder if Bruce inherited all the Rite Aid money, which would certainly give him a different outlook than the rest of the band.

But anyway, the group has always been politically incoherent, which is one of their charms (I recall Brian saying in 08 that he was going to vote for McCain, because he made him "feel safe"). They want so badly to be hip, but they can't help but be a bunch of old white guys. And they've (as a group) always been so dedicated to abstract ideals (music, beauty, summer, etc.) that I can't ever find myself irritated with them over this kind of thing.

There's a video on the website. He's just chatting with fans, not saying it angrily or aggressively or anything, more mildly incredulous that they could support Obama.

well, there you go, he had no idea he was being filmed. I don't think we would've wanted this to get online.

Bruce is a big boy. He's probably more tech-savvy than the rest of the band. He shouldn't be surprised.

Ummm I don't do politics personally BUT every man has his right to freedom of speech , and to be honest who ever uploaded the vid should have thought better HOWEVER its like 1988 all over again , after Mikes rather controversial performance at the RRHOF what happened to the new BB's single YES it went to No1    

I dunno about anybody else, but I enjoy hearing the band cussing. Especially now that they're old. Like when Brian is like "that about blew my fucking mind" or something similar in Beautiful Dreamer. I rewinded that like 5 times.

Rite Aid money? Seriously, how does that tie into this? Is that a thinly veiled critique of some kind?  :-D

If Bruce had not lived and worked among Hollywood's wealthy elite since the 1960's, it might be worth mentioning. But again, all of this comes down agreeing or disagreeing with what he said. That's the bottom line, whether we want to admit it or not, and it has been the bottom line with everyone from Pete Seeger to Toby Keith to Green Day to Ted Nugent. Politics is an ugly business, but if these celebs want to take a dip in the pool, they have the right to do so.

I am sorry, but I found that article absolutely hilarious. I'm just going to move ahead and enjoy the rest of the summer now...

And BTW, did someone upthread intimate one can't be both a republican and a devotee of Smile? That's curious.

My own personal opinion: Bruce is talking out of his arse, as are most Obama-haters in general. (He wants to get free healthcare available for the poor eh? Gee, what a socialist scumbag! What's that? He supports gay marriage? Well what a lousy president he is! I mean, can't he just stick to starting wars and cutting taxes for the rich...)

But anyway.. more generally Bruce's reported remarks are unhelpful as they reinforce the not-entirely-accurate assumption that the BB's are a bunch of right-wingers.

Exactly what I think. I don't get it when people see that someone is disagreeing with their beliefs and then refuse to watch or listen to any of their work.

I had done this with some liberal celebs years ago. It's just petty and stupid.

Not tryna get political, but how can Obama hand out free healthcare when medical costs are one of the biggest expenses our country? Last I heard he was trying to force everybody to pay for insurance, which one: is a scam, and two: millions of people can't afford.

This means the beach boys are back in the pop world's eye. I mean, who cares about mundane stuff like this on TMZ unless you're back! So congrats beach boys, you've done it!! I wonder who'll marry a Kardashian, or if there's another Love child out there (no pun intended).

By the by, I guess I should have stuck around or came early to the Beacon show. It looks like they were right under the main marquee there.

He sounds drunk to me, anyone agree?

Sorry, not Rite Aid. Bruce was adopted by the president of the Rexall chain of drugstores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Johnston

See, this guy gets it.  The only really important nugget in this entire "story" is how everybody there came THIS close to getting an autograph.  You other guys totally missed that to go rant about politics...

TMZ has become one of my addictions recently: If they didn't mock the entire celebrity culture as a basis for their show, and not do these things with a sense of humor, I'd never watch or pay attention. As it is, the other celeb shows that report news about anyone named "Kardashian" with any hint of serious intent or newsworthiness look foolish in comparison to the show which treats it like the put-on which it really is.

So if Bruce gets on TMZ for making political comments, he won't be the first or the last.

Of course he has the right to spout off. Of course.

He also has to accept that when he opens his mouth and trots out the tired old 'Obama = Socialist' crap, he's gonna get called on it. No more of a boogeyman socialismo than FDR or LBJ or even, shock of shockers...NIXON (EPA. yup!)

Never really liked him. Always considered him an elitist snob who writes wimpy music. There I said it. MY freedom of speech  >:D

He just comes across as an out of touch country club senior citizen. "and now...singing his hit Disney Girls...please welcome...Thurston Howell the THIRD"

Sure, but how does that matter to the issue of him making these comments? Would it matter if he were adopted instead by a band of traveling folk musicians instead of the Rite Aid founder? :-D

I have only met Bruce once, but he spoke to my friend and myself for a good 15 minutes before a Beach Boys show. He was very pleasant and displayed a great depth of affection for Brian and the Beach Boys catalogue.

I am not a right-winger and I agree that the "socialist" epiphet is misguided and flat-out wrong, but I find Bruce to be an excellent singer and songwriter, and a pretty good guy from my limited experience.

Honorable men can differ...

I still dig me some Bruce.

As I edited above, it's the Rexall founder. And in general -- not without exception, but in general -- people who are wealthier and in business tilt toward the GOP. Certainly that would have shaped the environment Bruce grew up in, and the political range of expression that he thought preferable.

Bruce has done two good songs in his entire career: Deidre and Disney Girls. Now that's two more than me, but still... Always been my least favourite Beach Boy.

Funny that Bruce said that, as I wrote on here a few weeks ago that he would be the type to call the President a socialist. It's a shame that Bruce doesn't understand what socialism is. Because if he thinks President Obama is one, imagine what a socialist forgetful Ronnie Regs is, with his raising taxes and expanding the welfare state. I don't mind that Bruce has his own political views, my problem is that he is talking out of his ass, just like most 69 year old rich white guys who have had a silver spoon in their mouth since day 1.

I totally agree that he sounds drunk to you.

And what has this all told us? That TMZ is usually correct when they report things.

I don't want to make this too political and off topic, but that generalized statement is simply not true in 2012 and hasn't been for some time.

And your screename is Disney Boy (1985).

I don't think this political leaning is surprising. Unfortunately, it may further the incorrect notion (fed by some of the band's own actions over the years) that they are a "Republican" band. I think Jon Stebbins had a nice breakdown of the best guess as to very, very general political leanings of the band members.

Bruce seems to be the only overt, wearing-it-on-his-sleeve Republican in the band.

I do think it's funny that the whole "ecology" theme they've used to varying degrees over the years, the whole "saving the ocean for surfers" stuff is totally at odds with that political leaning.

I for one think Bruce should do a monologue on all of this at the show in Berkeley....  :lol

Seriously, I think once they were hugging the Reagans in the 80's at events, I had to make the decision to either compartmentalize that stuff or potentially not be able to stomach them. So I just ignore it. Not that it matters, but I completely disagree with what appears to be Bruce's stated politics. But I'll still enjoy his show with the BB's. It also doesn't matter to point out that, no, what Bruce said certainly doesn't help me like the guy more.

Stupid Stupid Stupid. I hope he was drunk because that's the excuse I would use. Everything's going great, Beach Boys getting rave reviews and positive press everywhere, and then boom, alienate a large swath of fans with a divisive reckless comment in public. I've been in email and phone contact with a bunch of people inside the Beach Boys world this morning and there are people who are extremely unhappy with the timing of this nugget, not to mention the word choice. I completely  think he's within his rights to criticize and dislike the President's policies and to voice his passion for whatever political sensibility he feels good about. But to call the President an "as*hole" is ugly and can only hurt the Beach Boys which really sucks because they are hitting a home run on this tour. Potential album sales at Walmarts might have improved, but they just tanked at Starbucks. It would have been a good thing to keep this one to himself until after the tour etc...

I don't agree with him, but I still like Disney Girls and that Surfin' Round the World album KICKS UTTER ASS.

I don't know the exact breakdown of the statistics as they pertain to the general public, but I certainly think that it's worth pointing out that Bruce's economic position may well be directly informing his political positions. As it should, I suppose. He can talk all he wants about it, and he's opened it up for fans to discuss what this tells us about Bruce, if anything.

Like I said before, it makes no matter to me, but it doesn't endear him to be at all either. I doubt he cares who he endears himself to as this point. :)

It's easy. We do it over here in the UK: It's called the NHS. It's really not difficult and it means everyone is treated equally regardless of wealth. Obama's health reforms may not lead to the US getting free NHS-style healthcare but hopefully it'll be something almost as good. Insurance isn't a scam, it works well. (Of course the NHS over here in Blighty might not stay great for long if the Tories screw it up as many fear they're about too, but hey ho...)

Well put, Mr. Stebbins. We can only hope this will not dog them throughout the tour. As you say, whether one agrees with it or not, it takes the focus off the great music they're making.

Yep.  A rich elitist Conservative snob who writes wimpy music.  Who walks across the stage smiling and clapping his hands in his cute white shorts.

Yeah, it seemed amusing at the time... And i really do like the track itself, if not particuarly the bloke, his politics or the rest of his music career.

I really think he only thought he was talking to the few people there and that it wasn't being filmed and it wasn't going to go on the internet.

It is still quite true. I'm not saying there aren't rich liberals; there are many, and they are quite rich. I am talking about averages. And it continues to be true that the wealthier you are (and white), the more likely you are to be a Republican. This is borne out by repeated survey data.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/republicans-still-the-party-of-the-rich/
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/

Gross.

Perhaps BJ should offer some statement to the press, saying something to the effect that he regrets mouthing off.   It's never good to curse out a political figure, as it diminished the worth of your critique; name calling is not viable political discourse from either side. We all speak in folly from time to time; publicly to acknowledge the peril of doing so and the unintended chances of alienating and distracting is always wise; he need not withdraw the critique per se nor "flip-flop" politically. Just say that it was a stupid thing to say, which it was, for all the reasons John cites. It would have been stupid if he called Romney or Bush or Palin the same names too.

I care about one thing: the total aesthetic and cultural success of the BB.

also, Bruce's adoptive father wasn't the founder of Rexall, he was simply the president of the company at one point. the founder was probably a very old man when Bruce was born.

My favorite expression that I'd like to reuse in honor of Bruce:

"He's the kind of guy that was born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple."

Eminently sane. Thank you, Van Dyke.

I was thinking the exact same thing. You can be entitled to your opinion but the way it was spoken and the cursing will turn many off. I've already been reading the comments on TMZ and Rolling Stone which now is carrying the story too and I have to say not good on his part.

I don't mind people with different political views from mine, I just mind that peoples' political views are so strongly held, and so obtuse.  Anytime I hear the word "socialist" my eyes glaze over, and I know it's someone who doesn't know what it means and hasn't through through things very deeply or fairly.  (I could probably pick a buzzword on the left that fits too, but I can't be bothered right now)

As far as Bruce goes, y'know, he had a human moment.  I don't think it was well-advised, but I like what the poster said above:  people have a right in this country to say anything they want...AND others have a right to say what THEY want, including condemning the original speech.  

And again, whether Bruce was raised by a retail drugstore chain's executive or something considered less "conservative" makes no difference to what he says in 2012. If that's how he feels, I'd think the folks would have enough respect for him as a thinking adult capable of forming opinions on his/her own that there wouldn't even be an issue with background, upbringing, childhood, etc. that would be worth noting.

If he were voicing opinions on the other side of the political spectrum, saying the exact same things only from a different ideology, would it be an issue here?

The issue is timing and appropriateness, and I think in that regard Bruce overstepped the line no matter what politics were expressed,  especially in the midst of a reunion tour and album and all of that.

However...he is surely not the first to do it and will not be the last. Just ask the other famous musician named Bruce, for one notable outspoken political rocker...

While not as good as Mike's RRHOF speech, still a worthwhile Beach Boys WTF moment.....Sure seems like Bruce had been enjoying some Pacifico's. Rock on Bruce :drunks

Nope. He needs to close his mouth on the subject right now, take the hit, and ride it out. The statement is already there for posterity - no need to keep it in the limelight and make it worse.

I have a feeling the powers that be are already remedying that situation...

Yep I used that one on a thread maybe a week ago about Romney. But it definitely applies to Bruce. Sure, he did some hard work as a producer, but he basically pulled a Dick Cheney to get himself in The Beach Boys. Just as Cheney headed the group to pick Bush's vice president and picked himself, little Brucie was supposed to find a replacement for Glen Campbell and "picked" himself to be in the group.

And its funny how certain conservatives talk about how they work hard for all their money, but Bruce doesn't even do his job. His job is that of songwriter, and apparently he hasn't had anything he felt worthy of releasing since 1992. Which is pathetic. And his other job, as a "performer", well clapping your hands and walking around in shorts, yuck.

The story has already gone viral -- now I'm wondering if SNL will take a potshot at Bruce this weekend.

To think, just a few days ago, we were all so excited about the Jimmy Fallon appearance. The risks of having a higher profile, indeed...

Well, Bruce is right about one thing - we're f*cked - but that's true for either Romney or Obama.

No it wouldn'tve!    :P

Yeah, Joanne, we might see some back-peddling going on soon......

I dunno.  It brings somewhat unwanted publicity to the Beach Boys right now, but it does bring publicity. A la the James Watt 'controversy' but hopefully not as visible.

"Calling Damage Control Central,  Damage Control Central come in please......."

His actual quote:

We're more popular than Obama now; I don't know which will go first—rock 'n' roll or Obama. Obama was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.

I agree with this. :)

Bruce Johnston - Going Public.  :lol

Okay, just one thing...

Regardless of your political views, WHO TF CARES WHAT HE SAID ABOUT A >>>PUBLIC<<< FIGURE?!??! Geez. It's not like he pissed on the Alamo or threw a bomb down a toilet.

Exactly. It's a quite disgusting betrayal of trust. If Bruce says anything at all about it, he should just say "Yes, that's what I said and I stand by it. Obama *is* an asshole. It's not like you should be surprised I think that given that I've been a Republican longer than most of you have been alive. But the only reason my private political views -- views shared by roughly half the country -- have become an issue is because when I was having a private conversation, someone else decided to secretly film it and make my personal views everyone else's business. That guy is a bigger asshole than Obama and Romney combined".

Posting a video like that is a form of intimidation -- paradoxically, by broadcasting speech like that, whoever uploaded the video is trying to limit Bruce's -- and other people's -- freedom of speech by making them scared to say anything remotely controversial even in private. The only way to behave to bullying like that -- and it is bullying -- is to stand up to it.

Both of those would be totally kick ASS rock and roll >:D

And I went onto the HuffPost Politics Facebook page HOPING AND PRAYING that one of their bloggers (they're NOT journalists) posted a story about this so I could rag on the libtards on there.

Caveat emptor - when you're working for a business (ala Beach Boys Inc./Brother Records) your personal 1st amendment rights can go out the window. You know I'm right. Big ass libs and big ass conservatives BOTH buy CDs (or downloads).

I had a client once go off on 'fascist Republicans, blah blah blah' and I just sat quietly. You don't mix politics with business. It's bad for business. Jus' saying.

Wow, an elderly, rich, white guy that thinks Obama is an asshole. Shocking

True  :o

 :P

He also said "Republican asshole" as well. Sooooooooo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

So true. It scares me Bruce said "our guy isn't any good", he does not seem to know about Ron Paul. Ron Paul IS our guy. He is everybody's guy.

Ron Paul will win, I am sure about that, Mitt Romney's campaign will soon look like a game of columnated ruins domino.

I'm a young, broke white guy who also thinks Obama is an asshole. Bradley Manning, Guãntanamo, endless war, the insurance industry gladhanding healthcare bill, I could go on forever. I wouldn't deign to call him a socialist, though, as I know the meaning of the word. I wish we had a real left wing/welfare state in this country instead of wolves in sheeps' clothing like Obama.

It's all a shell game, as I'm sure several others have already pointed out.

Just because I do not split infinitives does not mean I am VDP, though I continue to be flattered by the comparison.  Bruce, if you're listening, please feel free to enlist us scholars to help compose the statement. I'll work for free to serve my BB.

I think you're overestimating the American people. Paul don't got a ice cubez chance in hell.

He did in regard to Romney. Apparently nobody is up in arms about that...

A very conservative fund manager, Jeffrey Gundlach, pointed out the coincidence of the explosion of debt in the U.S. since 1980 and the widening wealth discrepancy in the USA.

“I see problems between the haves and have nots in the U.S.,” he said, noting that the top 1% of Americans' share of national wealth increased from 8.9% in 1976 to 23.5% in 2007. “This may be oversimplifying it, but it looks like the U.S. borrowed a whole lot of money and gave it to rich people.”

Full article:

http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120424/FREE/120429968&cslet=UnhOY2lLYjlLL0NZK2lNaXM3T25UUEpyb3V6cXVHUEc=

Yeah, I get it Bruce.  You and the other 1%-ers own 23.5% of the USA and you want MORE not LESS.

But, what are you going to DO with all the EXTRA money, hmm?

Wow...let's not disgrace the Dear Leader with our words!

A mess.

This reunion has been going from strength to strength and THIS is what get picked up about the tour???
As many of us know, these comments aren't even close to the worst things Bruce has been heard to utter offstage regarding social issues.
Not even close.

This needs to be addressed publically and privately by the team running/financing this tour.

 

I'm pretty sure Mike is a Republican, and Brian has leaned that way at times.  The band was a personal friend of the Reagans.  So, no surprise there.  But I'm pretty sure Al Jardine at least leans left, between his environmentalism and his expression of compassion for people of lesser means.  So, there's always Al for those of us who are, as some on this board call us, "libtards."  (Thanks, Rethuglicans.)

Stuff like this brings out the worst in people. The comments thread was pretty depressing to read as a Beach Boys fan.

And yeah, this totally doesn't sound like Bruce at all. Strange.

I'm pretty sure Bruce polished off a few shots before meeting those fans

You may be right.  I can't see Bruce saying anything controversial unless he's drunk or high, he's always reported to be such a people-pleaser when interacting with fans.  I'm not even sure Mike is like that unless he's had a few.  I doubt Mike was completely sober when he did the Rock Hall of Fame rant.

I think the moderator should just delete the thread and everyone just focuses on the music and the tour. This is very depressing. I'm already really shocked by how Bruce talked. :( All those lyrics from Disney Girls have disappeared :(

I KNOW Mike Love & Brian Wilson would never talk like that! <3

Not publicly. No point in bringing it up again. It'll blow over and in a week it will be like it never happened. Every statement released by a public figure/their publicist just sounds ultra-contrived.

Ignoring reality is keen imo imo imo

I think Mike's politics are rather more complex than that, and Brian's rather less so. Mike certainly made some comments in the 90s that suggested he didn't like Clinton, and seems to be rather socially conservative (and he doesn't seem the type who's particularly keen on taxes, either), but he was also a strong supporter of the Natural Law Party while the Maharishi was alive, and he's a *very* strong supporter of environmental causes, which are not normally a Republican strong point, and he made some comments which were mildly against the Iraq war a few years back. I've no doubt he *votes* Republican, but I suspect he probably thinks of himself as an independent.

Brian, on the other hand, has never really given the slightest indication of having any actual political opinions. I think he said he voted Republican in the last couple of Presidential elections, but he also took part in a webcast to raise funds for Barbara Boxer in the late 90s. I suspect that he's someone who doesn't give politics a great deal of thought and who votes based on the candidate's personality rather than anything else.

Let's be honest, "Disney Girls", as good of a song as it is, could be the theme song for the Republican party. They look back to the 1950s as this time of total awesomeness where everything was perfect, but that place never existed. There has always been problems. It's not a coincidence that the man fetishizes 1957 as this great time, when everything was more simple. It's bullshit. African-Americans  weren't given the same rights as whites back then, homosexuality (or even sexuality on the whole) were looked at as disgusting, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. And hey Brucie, was it ok in the '50s and '60s when taxes were actually higher than what they are under that "socialist" President Obama?

Well, now, this IS getting juicy!

On one hand, I don't want to know, on the other...

Complete non-issue for me. I always assumed most of the BB were quite Hawkish in their political beliefs so.... meh...

Don't worry guys, I have it on good authority that the Beach Boys are about to issue a statement declaring that Bruce's remarks in no way reflect the viewpoint of the current Beach Boys lineup as a whole... only 40-60% of them!!!  ;)

It's certainly kind of disappointing for me personally to hear this sort of thing out of people whose music I love, especially something that sounds vaguely hateful out of someone I never pegged as the least bit hateful, but it certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying their music.

It actually seems quite in character for the few brief times I've met Bruce. He can be very friendly, but also he can be... odd... in that he'll be friendly to fans by gently mocking them in a way that *could* be seen as affectionate but could also be seen as insulting, and that seems a quite normal way for Bruce to interact. For example, one of the times I met him, he teased me about my beard, saying that my then-girlfriend 'must be blind' (I was able to fluster him a bit then by saying "she is" -- my wife is legally blind) and I've seen him behave similarly to a few other people too.

The tone he's using in that video, the sort of mock-incredulity, is very similar to the tone he uses in that kind of situation.

As I said, it's complicated. The band has been all over the place. Mike has been conservative, yet very motivated on the environment. Brian has raised money for Democrats (I think at the request of Don Was), yet has talked about voting GOP in 04 and 08. We've heard from Bruce. No idea about Al, although something suggests to me that he'd be more lefty than the others. No clue about Dave. So in other words, they're like a lot of people in this country -- not always in agreement over politics, but still working together and trying to do their best.

My exact sentiment as well. One big  ::)

Dave seems like a Ron Paul guy to me.

(I have nothing to base this one)  :lol

I think back in 2000, Brian, or someone posting under his name on his website, made a comment after the election/recount/supreme court debacle, something to the effect that the supreme court shouldn't pick the president, etc. Certainly not a firm indication of a political leaning, but unforuntately few people could objectively comment on that case. It seems most people who voted for the guy who won supported that supreme court case, and those who voted for the other guy were against it.

Again, that may have spoken more to the political leanings of whoever typed that stuff back in 2000. Remember that was the early days of "who is actually posting under Brian's name?" debate on that "Blue Board."

So nobody thinks going on (multiple) taxpayer funded multimillion dollar Hawaiian vacations while the economy is in shambles and thousands of families have lost their homes is something a selfish asshole would do?

I'm a liberal Democrat, but in general I don't stop listening to someone's music or going to their movies if their political views differ from mine. I think celebrities have just as much of a right to talk about politics as the rest of us. Plus, it's no surprise to me that Bruce is a Republican. I don't think it was any secret.

That said, his choice of words and his timing are way, way off. As has been stated here, calling Obama a Socialist is completely off the mark and just indicates that he has been drinking the Fox News Koolaid. And of course, he could have avoided calling the President of the United States an a**hole on camera, or even just to a few fans. Think before you speak, Bruce.

Bruce has always seemed out of touch to me. As pretty as it is, Disney Girls pines for a world that only existed for upper middle class and rich white people. And the same thing is happening here, when Bruce says not to support Obama "unless you're not interested in having any money." Because Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and put the benefits more toward the poor and middle class. And that would hurt Bruce, but not your average fan. But Bruce is seeing it from Bruce's world.

Still going to the show in NJ in June. If Bruce starts spouting off about Obama on stage (which I doubt), I won't walk out. I'll just roll my eyes. I still love the music.

Stop it. The man is from Hawaii. It's his home, the same way Texas is George W. Bush's (and taxpayers paid for his brush-clearing excursions there).

Whatever the case, this thread isn't the place to get into fire-breathing political argument.

And that makes it right? There's a reason this country is so f***ed and it's because the people let elected officials get away with whatever they want.

I'm going to move this over to the Sandbox, and also try to stay out of this debate before I get shot :lol

Oh, and they're ALL selfish assholes. Democrat? Republican? They're the same.

Obama? Romney? Just say no. Vote Wilson/Love in  2012. :lol

Well, of course, our current president is not a wealthy landowner as W. and earlier RepubliKans were, so even a dim bulb should understand that BHO would need to vacation at a resort/compound that can be made secure, from Ted Nugent.  BTW, You are aware that Bush spent 65% of his so-called "presidency" on "vacation"?

You Republikans keep trying tho'.

agreed, president Brian Wilson. ;D

And that makes it right? There's a reason this country is so f*cked and it's because the people let elected officials get away with whatever they want.

I am not excusing George Bush or any of his predecessors from using taxpayer money to fund their vacations. They knew what the job entailed before they volunteered for it and completely do not deserve multimillion dollar vacations with the wretched jobs they have done/are currently doing running this country.

Absolutely no reason he has to vacation at the furthest possible spot in the country away from his current home in Washington, DC. They have Camp David for a reason and it costs BHO and his entourage a helluva lot less money to travel to Maryland.

Seriously S-O-T, you must be aware that the US economy was losing, in the final months of 2008, between 200,000 - 300,000 jobs every month, that's EVERY MONTH.  But somehow BHO is responsible?  Your comments make no sense at all.  Put the pipe down.  You want BHO to vacation on the Moon perhaps?

arhgg

I agree w/ the earlier poster:

a fine mess:

In my opinion, this thread should not have been moved to the sandbox. It's hardly off topic. And the best is yet to come if my prediction is correct, that this comes up on Bill O'Reilly's show tonight. Bill is salivating over this one for his Pinhead or Patriot segment. I think it's pretty well known here that he's a huge BB fan.

Mike:What another fine mess you gotten us into...(while hitting bruce with his hat)
Bruce:(Crying) I'm sorry Mikey...
 ;D

Yes!

Can this please be moved back to the main section, at least for a few more days

Point out where I said he was responsible for the economic collapse? He's responsible for being irresponsible and frivolously spending taxpayer money at times when that money would be much better off being cycled back into the American economy. Yes, Bush also did the same thing.

What I'd like is for the president to not take any more vacations outside of the Washington, DC area, the place he currently calls home, until he can figure out a way to right the economy and cut government spending. Same goes for any president who comes after him, but unfortunately due to the ineptitude of the Republican party, we are stuck with a completely ineffective leader with absolutely NO creative solutions for ANY of our problems for another 4 years.

To me it has nothing to do with political affiliation. I'm sure McCain would be in the same spot Obama is currently in. And that spot is really not much better off than it was in 2008. Judging by the rest of the world, maybe it's worse?

Personally, I think where Bruce crossed the line was in using the "a-hole" term. Regardless of one's political leanings, and mine are about as far away from Bruce's as one's can be, there's a difference between simple policy or ideological disagreement and totally disrespecting the office of President.

It never ceases to amaze me how far we've fallen as a society in recent years in terms of discourse. Free speech is one thing. Acting like a crass, pumped-up, senile idiot is another. Call our Presidents bumblers, incompetent or even flat-out wrong if it suits you, but always respect the office and the enormity of the job. I doubt most of us here would be able to handle it. Referring to OUR President as an a**hole just makes us look like a country of myopic, slack-jawed simpletons.

The thing we always have to remember is that...even in our differences...there's still probably *more* things that we agree upon than not. Sadly, it's the other stuff that always seems to define, rile and divide us. Hey, anyone who knows me knows that I'm passionate about politics, too. I can get riled-up as well. But, passion and stupidity don't have to walk in lockstep. And Bruce made a very public, very stupid move. Unfortunately, it's our lazy media that seems to feast on these "gotcha" moments...while never missing a beat in feeding the "rile-up fire."


And yes, I know certain public figures used the same profane terms against Bush, too. Even worse. Still doesn't make it right.


IMHO of course.

Basically, I agree with this.  Well said.  And better said than I did.

While hoping not to pis$ everyone here at Smiley Central too much, I just think Bruce needed to show more r.e.s.p.e.c.t. to the current POTUS.  Since the majority of "the kids" in the BB's audience probably VOTED for the guy in 2008, I think Bruce's "pithy" comment would not be appreciated.  Seriously people, what you do expect?  Bruce was excluding, not including.  I'll give him a Mulligan tho'.  Especially if he was drunk.

Other people want to go all nuts and talk about how BHO shouldn't vacation in his home state, well that's fine but I just think that's a little nuts too.  Sorry if I offended anyone.

Just caught the segment about this on the TMZ TV show. They gave equal time to the fact that he called both Obama and Romney assholes. That's what I'm more concerned about than anything; outlets running away with a "Beach Boy Calls Prez an A-Hole" story. Calling them both assholes helps him save face a little. I don't actually think this is a big deal. In fact, most people probably do think they're both assholes. This story will blow over pretty quickly, and for now it gets them face time and exposure on outlets they may not usually get. As they say, any press is good press.

Given that any comments are coming from a 60's-70's era rocker, it looks like "a tempest in a teapot" as they say.  Both the Prez and VP know and have used that word that can be a noun, verb, participle, etc.  Even old Country Joe did a Woodstock Spelling lesson circa 1969.  

Romney is in deep do-do with this high school past back to haunt him and the template for Obamacare came from Romneycare.  It was a Republican model. Now he wants to distance himself from it.  One is the same as the other in many respects.  I will say for Obama, that the US is less hated as a result of his bridge building, and like it or not, Biden speaks his mind, and tells it like it is.  So what.  It is what I like best about him. Go Joe! Reagan spoke his mind as well.  

People are human.  Politicians and Rock Stars.  And Music - a mirror that is held up to society.  

See Steve Stills.  Uncensored and hunky as ever.  During the show.  Not off-stage.   ;)

The solution!  A White House lawn Beer Summit! 

Bruce can bring the American beer!  ;)

Didn't the Beach Boys play at least one, if not more, Republican conventions?  Brian was with them for at least one of them, and landed in county jail for some infraction or other. 

I'm also now remembering that Bruce has some kind of organized crime connection via his adopted family.  He even alluded to it himself at one point.  Does anyone have details on that?  Not that it has anything to do with his political leanings, at least not for certain.   

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-bruce-johnston-blasts-obama-20120511

While he has a right to share his political opinion, it's a bit out of line to tell his own fans they're "f***ed" if they vote for Obama.  Encouraging words, Bruce, thanks.  ::)

ootpoov

 Who would have guessed that BRUCE would be the Beach Boy most likely to make a controversial political statement on the reunion tour??? Not me.

 I would be quite happy if the group kept political BS of any stripe out of what has been a wonderful reunion thus far, even if it is an election year. Go file your absentee ballots Bruce, then be ready to play your toy keyboard.

 Presidential administrations spanned by The Beach Boys: JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Wow.

 BTW- Barack Obama was born around the time Brian & Mike got together to write "Surfin." Double wow.

 

I watched the video, and Bruce mentions that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were "something-something," implying they were the last "good guys" in politics.  Since O'Neill was a Democrat, I think he was sort of trying to be non-partisan while saying he didn't like or respect Obama, and also said that Romney was an a-hole as well.  Bruce sounded really drunk.  I'm sure he regrets it, but I also suspect he wasn't thinking about a video camera being present catching him in a casual, drunken conversation with a fan.  In fact, the video camera shot is at a low angle, so whoever was holding the camera may have been taping in such a way that Bruce wasn't even aware he was being taped (even if he had been sober).  I give Bruce a pass on it and it's too bad the media blows such things out of proportion.  I wouldn't put it up there with a Mel Gibson rant or anything, and it was certainly not as tasteless as what a sober Ted Nugent said about Obame a few weeks ago.

The fact that a BB's political opinions made the news, somehow, is indicative of the new high profile of the band. Bruce has been making political statements forever.

Can a video of a conversation from a private source such as a iphone be called a 'statement'?

That's very true, I was shocked to read about it on TMZ of all places.

The iPhone created autotune, which caused Bruce to say "asshole" instead of "fine young man", as well as "fucked" instead of "fun in teh sun, dawg."

"Wait until Obama doesn't have to try anymore, you're fun in teh sun, dawg."

I never imagined Bruce to say something like that, I always thought he was so soft spoken  :lol

    I thought Obama was a corporatist/fascist war monger demagogue... did I miss something?
And Rocky, why do you care what Bruce says about a guy (Obama) who literally could not care less about you, your family, or anyone else on earth that does not directly benefit him, a guy who, like all 'rulers' before him, has far more in common with the political elite of the worst tyranical state than he does with you.
    I'm sure Bruce is Republican which is as tragic as those who align themselves with any political party, so what's the big deal? If Brian had called Dubbya out on being a war criminal you'd probably think it was awesome.
I also like your whole You-have-a-right-to say-things-but-you-shouldn't angle. Very broad-minded of you.
If a guy's beliefs bug you do you really think that means he shouldn't speak his mind?

I really hope this doesn't delve into a political discussion, but I guess its unavoidable.  I just, I guess I wish he hadn't said it in such a crude manner. Ya know?

this was discussed here all day. It did turn into such a heated  political thread that the Mods moved the topic to the Sandbox...

There's an interview with Al Jardine from around 1980 where he blasts liberals for ruining the country. I would imagine Bruce, Mike and Al are all pretty hardcore Republicans. I would also imagine that Carl and Dennis were not, but that's just a guess (or maybe hope)...

So, like I said, the Bruce Johnston/Political debate thread was moved to the sandbox today. I really don't think the point of that was to start another one an hour later.  It is still open for discussion...in the Sandbox

What's gross to me is, there's like a half dozen posts on here about Bruce being a white guy.  Or an old guy.  Or a rich guy.  WTF peeps!?!  Damn!

Throughout history, bigots have never been able to resist revealing themselves.  No need to call them out.  Just put their hated "type" on display (and that includes the self-haters) and like fly on stink -- here they come.  That's so wrong.

And if I can't appeal to your heart...let me appeal to your gray matter.  Think about it.  Bruce was caught (more or less in a private conversation) disagreeing vehemently and frankly with some politician's policies.  And believing that politician therefore to be an donkey.  Strong language.  That's it.  So freakin' what -- he thinks Obama's a punk.  Disagree with him.  Man up.  He didn't hate on Obama for any other reason.  Just his actions, yo.  That's cool.

Some of you all need to get serious and chiggity check yoslef?

OK, sorry. Missed your post. I will move my conversation into the sandbox. (sulks away and shoves knife into throat)

Did O'Reilly mention this?

I've never been in the Sandbox...this is weird! :o

All this over-the-top drama about the tour being marred or thinking this has now derailed the all the good hype is ludicrous.  Today, the old adage, "Any press is good press" is how things work today.  The story has some legs to live on for a few days and then it will fade away. You guys are making Bruce to be Ted Nugent or something.  Let's all get a grip!

I won't comment on whether I agree with what he said or not, because what's the point?  I will say though, that I've always felt that politics and music don't mix.  Music, and in a larger way Art (ecompassing for instance, actors, entertainers, etc.) in my opinion is the closest connection we have to God, and politics are necessarily created by men to control other men.  So you're taking the greatest thing on earth (God given & inspired art) and using it to promote some of mankind's most corrupt and wicked behaviors.  (Again, I think politics are necessary, they just don't mix with art). 

I know a lot of people think though that art isn't good unless it pisses somebody off.  You're basically pissing off half your audience, though, so it really doesn't make any sense, whether it's Bruce, or George Clooney, or whoever on either side. 

Ron, I'm with you on this. Spot on.

(There is decent political art, but little of it survives the times in which it's made. That which does is more about struggling for and against arbitrary power than any specific ideology.)

Yo, G!  What it is, funky dude? Happy, happy black and nappy, ain't too proud to bitch, my momma loves me but she could be jivin' too!  What's goin' down, dog?  Sounds like you be sufferin' from da Ebonics plague?  Sheeeeiit, foo, I be doin' dat shiiit too!  Don't be a hater and diss da peeps here, you dig brotha?

Peace out, Beaner Bag!

I agree that I'm not particularly into politics and music mixing, but stuff like early Dylan or The Beatles "All You Need Is Love" is more about universal things anybody can relate to. When you tell someone who to vote for though I'm not for that. Bruce has a right to feel like he does, a lot of people do and a lot don't, but I don't really think it's important for us to know.

You didn't get the memo. If you don't support the President you're a racist. Get it right! :)

My favorite that 'walked that line' and was pretty brilliant was Chuck Berry's "The Promised Land".  It's clearly about the freedom rides of the 60's... but instead of taking a side (although one side was clearly right, and one was clearly wrong) he brilliantly just acts like he was on the bus. 


Of course we're just talking about Bruce running his mouth, not making music with a message, but still the point is: Many of my musical heroes were very careful not to even divulge their political leanings out of respect for their audience.  People in general don't want a singer telling them what to think, it's just a little bit more irritating when you DON'T agree with them, than when you do :)

Actually now that I see Bruce attacked both sides I'm kind of OK with this. Honestly as far as uniting the country it's been decades since we've had anyone both parties will willingly work with or even respect. I bemoan that myself as I simply wish we had someone who brought all sides together.

You have to be willfully ignorant of this country and its history to believe that the outright contempt directed toward this country's president -- a man who received more that 69 million votes (more than his predecessor achieved in two previous elections) -- has no racial component.

From the 'Meeting The Band' thread yesterday.


....guess it was a bad day!

That's who Bruce is. He can be the biggest jerk in the group and he can be the kindest. He does have a kind of split personality. I thought that was pretty well known.

My contempt for him is the same as my contempt for, oh, only the last dozen or so administrations.

Liked this from the RS comments thread:

The fact that this is controversial is the real problem.  If any of these things were said about Bush when he was president, it would go unnoticed!

Bruce is basically right on.  Bush and Obama are both different heads of the same 2-headed monster.  Romney is a creep.  It's not about parties anymore.

I think it's super cool to hear Bruce speak his mind this way and I'm with him.

(no offense to anyone here -- we're all entitled to our opinions.  I'll be voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary next month).

Bruce just doesn't want his taxes to go up because he won't be able to afford that diamond encrusted solid gold pair of short shorts he's had his eye on.  :lol :lol






Will Ralph Nader just throw his hat into the race already????!!!!!!!!

Regardless of politics, I think Bruce should just say "f***"  more often.

I agree with this.  I have deep convictions about politics, but I try to keep that out of my music. It just polarizes the audience, when the point of music making IMHO is to bring people together. As Brian says "Music is God's voice".

edit: ARHG ;(

Finally saw the video. Kind of upsetting that a guy's idle talk can be captured and thrown on the internet and under the microscope nowadays. Certainly not the first instance of this, but c'mon - this is basically casual small talk going on, here. Bruce should be allowed to say something like this in a casual conversation without the world coming down on him for it. People are treating it as if he called together some kind of press conference and said "Obama's an asshole" or something.

Again, I really don't agree with the guy on this subject, but this just isn't very fair.

Also, his mention of Tip O'Neill alongside Reagan as well as disapproval for Romney shows that he isn't some Republican blowhard who blindly supports the political right no matter the circumstances. Speaking out against Obama doesn't mean you're a Republican, just as supporting him doesn't mean you're a Democrat - there's a middle ground, or at least, not everything is totally black or white when it comes to this sort of thing.

"I write the songs that make the whole word f*ck", type of thing?

The Beach Boys have never been about politics, so political rant should be left out of conversation with fans or public setting.

This contrasts them to the likes of John Lennon who was a very outspoken person of strong opinions from the very beginning (as a European I find the public burning of albums in the southern states after the 'more popular than Jesus' comment to be utterly hilarious and an indicator of the general mood of the US).

Point is if someone as a public figure has shown his political ideology and support(or lack of) to a political figure then it is more acceptable to the fans.
No one would bash Lennon if he were alive today and said the Republican party has become a disaster (which he ofc would do, who are we kidding).

But Beach Boys should stay out of this.
I personally have no spiritual affiliation or religious conviction, but I still think its great when Brian talks about the spirituality of music! I love the new song 'TWGMTR' even though to my rational mind the song makes no sense whatsoever, but I understand what it wishes to say, and I find it beautiful.

Avoiding writing about something you feel extremely passionate toward is a bit of a sellout, and boy, do I almost never use that word. I hate it and I hate people's constant accusations with their use of it, but it feels somewhat (not completely) appropriate, here.

I get that music is ultimately a spiritual thing. I agree with that, but I don't agree at all that specific topics or whatever should be considered "off-limits" for the sake of music being safe and easy for everyone to understand. Part of music is expression, after all. If you have a thought that might piss people off and you are an artist, your art being an extension of yourself, then chances are good that you're going to piss this person off or that person off sooner or later because, again, your art is an extension of yourself. That's their problem, not yours.

Politics are something I'd probably never write about due to the "spiritual" aspect of music, I can't think of much music I listen to that touches on the subject (although I can think of some), but applying those sorts of rules to art or setting those kinds of boundaries for art just isn't right, to me. Art is not about compromising yourself - quite the opposite, actually.

Also, consider that the Beach Boys did write a couple semi-political songs in their time, don't forget. "4th Of July", for instance. If we include songs that make more of a general social statement, then we can add a few more to that pile, too.

Agreed, it wasn't just h8ing on Obamalamadingdong. He seemed disheartened with American politicians in general. As we all should be.  :hat Fight the power, etc.

I wonder what the rest of the video is like. There's no way it just happened to start & end at the moments he decided to voice a negative opinion about American political figureheads. I doubt context is important, but I'm curious what exactly brought up what it was the conversation was about.

"Hey Bruce, say Obama's an asshole!"

"But I don't really feel that way!"

"Come on. It'll be funny!"

"Oh fine. But only because I love the fans!"

*iPhone autotune camera activated*

Excellent point.  

Good will come from this.  It will open up a dialogue, about what both parties are lacking in this country, and whether it is working in appropriate direction for its' citizens.  Not for nothing, these guys have really seen the world, doing concerts under all types of repressive military martial law type conditions, and seen their own band members deal with governmental issues, such as Carl's draft status for Vietnam, which makes them more informed than what everyone else gets through a very filtered media.  

It looks very much off-the-cuff, and, context is critical.  It may only represent 1/2 of a conversation.  

Lots of remarks in the comment posting section agreed with him, and it may represent an important voting segment during the election.  No doubt those who do polling want to know who they are and how best this segment can be swayed on Election Day.  If Europe is any indicator, of dissatisfaction, DC policymakers are already at work cleaning up their act.  Or, appearing to do so.

He was correct about Tip O'Neill and Reagan.  

I wouldn't quite put it the same way he did but I agree with the general sentiment. That being that many politicians in the US no longer seem to care about real people who usually aren't extreme one way or another but just want progress in general. The infighting and general bad feeling among the two parties have made that very difficult. I consider myself a patriot, I love my country but ego is bringing us down.

I hope this causes no offense but I want to make a statement that I have been afraid to talk about before. I don't care what people call themselves, I just want to someone for whom change means more than a catchy slogan to appeal to the masses. I had a wait and see attitude but he's already reneged on medical Marijuana which is far healthier than narcotic meds. My mother got addicted to those when she broke her hip and it led to brain damage. She got off them but never was the same and in light of her recent death I feel strongly that other methods such as marijuana, acupuncture, and infra red heat treatments need to be made mainstream. Being a childhood diabetic and suffering from kidney failure, I feel strongly that different treatment would have prolonged her life greatly. Both parties have a lot to answer for when it comes to the drug companies. All I know is that I have friends who are ill that benefit greatly from going off the beaten path and none of them have had side effects. Again sorry to be a bit controversial but with her dead I had to speak up here.

I think you're misinterpreting...at least what I was saying. The reason I pointed out that Bruce is a white male (I might have even pointed out that he was rich and raised with money) was to say that he is speaking from a position of privilege. That's it. That he's not taking the experiences of less privileged people into account. And the specific part of the video that caught my eye was when he said to his fans (paraphrasing), "Sure, support Obama if YOU want to lose all your money." You will only lose money under Obama's policies if you're wealthy. Very, very wealthy. I didn't see anyone on the board implying that Bruce is a bigot. Bruce never even mentioned that Obama is African American. He just doesn't like fiscal policy that doesn't skew things toward the rich (privileged).

So yeah, he was only disagreeing with Obama's views, which is fine. Except, he should have watched his language.

Oh, and he should get into the 21st century and realize that these days fans have a habit of videoing every celebrity encounter with their phones, and anything celebs say will be on the Internet in 30 seconds. It's Celebrity 101 these days.

Conservatwats are just as bad as libtards. Libertarianism is where it's at.

I've got to say I don't care at all about mixing politics with musicians but I think Bruce should think about whats he's saying in light of the bands currently higher stature in risk of alienating fans.

Calling yourself a libertarian is just the new way of not having to call yourself a conservative, because everyone knows conservatism is lame.

On the other hand, I really do respect Ron Paul. But most of these new found "libertarians" are just Bush Republicans by another name.

It's a fact that the USA economy, now, in 2012, is improved from from where is was at the end of 2008.  Europe continues to struggle.  England is hitting a double dip recession.

Are you SERIOUS about Obama not going on vacation?  When we had the BP oil spill in the Gulf, did you think Obama should have swum to the bottom of the Gulf can capped it off with his super powers?  Like Aquaman?

The money that taxpayers pay to send presidents on vacation is just chump change compared to the money wasted on the military industrial complex and Corporate Welfare.  Get over it.

 :hat

I think the USA is a country composed mostly of chuckleheaded Goobers and slack-jawed yokels.  Just call me Cletus!

Yup.

 :lol

You've been watching too much Jerry springer..lol... ;D

This is an excellent post, and should be considered the final word on the matter, at least for me. Offense is never given, it is taken.

This is serious wishful-thinking. Bruce: 'But i don't really feel that way!'? Er no. He does feel that way, hence why he said it.

To call the sitting President of the US a "a...hole", whatever your political beliefs, is not only unpatriotic but un-American.
I've heard that Bruce is a jerk, .......  Bruce, it's fine to be a Republican but try to come off as an intelligent one!

Republicans wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts have taken to calling Obama 'socialist'.  Fact is, that bill has added trillions to our deficit
and the 'Trickle Down" has never materialized. "Trickle down economics" was just a PR fantasy thought up to justify making the very rich richer!
If it worked, we wouldn't be in the dire straights we are in today.  I like to say even Jesus Christ couldn't undo the mess George Bush left us in.

I'd think Carl, and then Dennis, would have kept the political balance in the band.

We love the BB for the music, Bruce should have been smart enough
to keep his mouth shut and let the music do the talking.

To his credit, he did call Romney a "A..hole" too.

Somebody asks Bruce what he thinks of Obama and the guy gives an honest reply. Good for him! What was he supposed to say, "Sorry as a celebrity I'm not allowed to give an opinion"?

Also bear in mind, it's not like Bruce called a press conference on the subject. He was asked face to face by a fan on the street.

"Improved," but how much? Barely? Why are unemployment continue to hover at over 8%? Why do important programs continue to have their funding slashed? Things aren't better than they were in 2008, and you know why? Because nothing has changed. We're on the same damn path we were when Bush left office. The US government continues to spend wayyyyyyyyy too much money, and most of that money is wasted.

And yeah, I am serious about Obama not vacationing anywhere but Camp David or anywhere else near Washington, DC. He's already jet setting all over the country/world in the name of "politics." I don't know what the BP oil spill has to do with anything, but now that you mention it, I think that Obama had absolutely ZERO reason to travel down to the gulf coast at that time. Trips like that serve absolutely no purpose. The f*** does he think he can do? He isn't Aquaman and didn't swim down there and cap that sh*t off.  Why was he there? To survey the damage and say "yeah, that's shitty, we better do something about it."  That's definitely worth the cost of the trip down there.  ::)

That's fucking pathetic that you think millions of dollars being spent on a vacation is "chump change."  You are literally what is wrong with America. You let politicians off the hook for that kind of excess. Nobody deserves a vacation paid for by the taxpayers, especially when their salaries far exceed that of the majority of the population. Why hasn't Obama taken the initiative to cut the excessive funds being spent on "the military industrial complex and Corporate Welfare?" And why do you turn a blind eye to that?

Both my wife and I found out along time ago about Bruce. How about this, he stuck his head in our car at a hotel here in KC as the band was checking in. He actually admonished us for having our son out that late(11pm on a Friday). This was in the mid 80's. So this incident was no surprise to me.

He could of said he didn't like him but he called him an a**hole which brings a lot of attention to him and the band. He should know to be careful when he's got a person with a camera recording what he's saying.

It doesn't seem like he knew he was being filmed.

'Twas a joke ^_^

For every fan offended others will become endeared - it's just an opinion and everyone's got one.  It's only an issue because he's not in step with the vast majority of the music business.

Now THAT is being an asshole.




(Bruce, not you ;))

Many people have said it better than me. He was caught unawares. I may not agree with his politics, but I will defend to the death his right to express them. And it's not his fault if some twat films him talking about anything without his permission, let alone awareness.


These iPhones, eh - first autotune, now this!

Oh it gets worse. At a show in Saint Louis in 1971 the crowd was booing the new music when Bruce suddenly grabbed the mic and said, "Hey, I'm getting really pissed off at all you people who can't do anything but scream the names of old songs. Shut up already." So yes hypehat, you're right. A real big one.

That's proto-punk, really  :lol

Think of the new songs they would have been booing in 71 so IMO Bruce was right on.

I get it, SOT.  You're angry.  I will try to respect your opinion.  I just think you are just angry at the wrong guy IMHO.

That's great of him.

.... uh poor Bruce, I hope he's not reading this thread   :lol

Maybe they were playing "Student Demonstration Time".

Nah, but really that's cool.

It would be FANTASTIC if he had done that at one of the Mike and Bruce shows.

Seriously, it really depends on who is doing it. It is quite ok to do it if you are expected to, but someone like Bruce, no way that's ok. The ol' double standard. ;) I notice not too many here are complaining that he called Romney the same thing. Though, I will say that the sitting president should not be disrespected no matter what the political party.

This was during an autograph session? How did that topic come up? and this is the same Bruce Johnston who praised Roger Waters in the Beach Boys 50th Wal-Mart booklet.

So if I say to Brooce: "Eff you a$$hole, you are a douchebag" he won't take offense?

LOL

(Thread headed for sandbox again....)

 :deadhorse

I met Bruce tonight at the VIP and it was chilly to say the least. I'm really, really disappointed. He was not friendly at all. Kind of put me in a weird frame of mind for the show. Al on the other hand was very, very nice.

If there's one thing that Bruce is, it's not poor. Ha.

 :lol Rich famous people making political statements.

Is there a correct way to do anything in government? One person says its good then one person says its bad.

Someone had to say it and Bruce did.

You got "bad bruce" during the VIP. The man has a split personality.

"Someone had to say it and Bruce did."

Yeah, Romney is awful...

Yep, he sure is.  Deep pocketed Flip-Flopper. Thousands of Repugnicans don't even like him.

Are you mad because Bruce doesn't like Obama?? Or that he isn't a staunch Democrat?? He's entitled to his political views or opinions.  

And those of us who think Bruce's comments are misguided, wrong-headed, ignorant bullsh*t are also entitled to say so.

It was my impression that there would be no real interaction at the meet and greet.  It was represented as a photo session after the sound check not a schmooze.

The guys were seated, and the guest was placed behind the band for the photo, to be picked up online.

Did I miss something?

Er, yeh but manners and general politeness cost nothing. Just being plain pleasant shouldn't be difficult. Al doesn't seem to find it hard.

You shall not question the DEAR LEADER.

Although he did not mention the controversy, he said that he wrote a column on the Beach Boys and I believe it's in the NYT today. Anyway I read it at his website. Pretty nice Bill. And so true.

Superbly well put!

The exchange between heysaboda and stack-o-tracks is proof positive that Americans like their bullshit wrapped up in nice designer (D) clothing. Grow up. The (D) and (R) agenda was bought out in the 1950s.

OK, Bruce should be reprimanded and sit out the next several dozen dates. Then the remaining sober members should beg for forgiveness and grovel at  Blondie and Ricky's feet and implore them to rejoin the band.

Well, SNL did have something with the Beach Boys last night, and it may or may not have had anything to do with Bruce's comments. There was a big B&W poster of the Boys circa 1964 hanging on the wall in what was supposed to be Joe Biden's "dorm room" in the White House. My husband (a poly-sci major) thinks that they used a pic of the guys from the pre-Bruce era as a semi-snub to Bruce's anti-Obama remarks. Me, I suspect it was there because the BB's had just been in NYC.

Anyway, judge for yourselves:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/obama-visits-biden-cold-open/1401439

I'm glad that Ron Paul has young people believing in good policy.

Since you mentioned it TRBB, I happen to be a registered Independent (I) in the good ol' USA.  Used to be in the Peace and Freedom Party.  But I'd agree w/ your point, TRBB, that many Americans settle into their (D) or (R) status for life, and rarely question it later on.

However, I happen to think there ARE major differences between (D) and (R).  For example, Al Gore would not have taken us into war w/ Iraq, no way.  This is just my opinion tho', no need to Flame me over it.

Re: Ron Paul, have you guys read thing things printed in his newsletter, not written BY him, granted, but FOR his newsletter.  Yikes and double YIKES.  Sorry, IMHO Ron Paul is a moral leper, living in the 18th century, and if you don't know this, then you are not reading enough.

And by the way, TRBB, I do enjoy reading all your posts.  And I enjoy, or used to enjoy most of those from stack-o-tracks too.  It's just when he brings out the "you're what's wrong with America" card, as he did in response to me, well, I'd say that's a foolish way of making an argument.

So, to anyone still reading, is it possible to have a political discussion without the insults?

P.S.

Ru Paul would be a better president than Ron Paul!

Yes, nicely put, DB (1985).

If Bruce hates Obama, that's fine.  And if all the BB's hate the current POTUS, I really, honestly don't care.  It wouldn't bother me.

But for Bruce to disrepect the man is just uncalled for.  It's a comment that reflects poorly on Brucie.  Obama is a husband and father of two girls, and doesn't need the disrespect, even from an aging over-the-hill rocker.

Does Bruce realize that over 60% of the "youth" now attending BB's shows, voted for the guy?

Hey Bruce, takes one to know one, hmm?

 :hat

I registered as an (R) in order to vote for Ron Paul in the elections. Once it's all said and done, I'm re-registering as an independent. I'm a libertarian and support either eliminating or HEAVILY downsizing government.

I'm not going to argue over opinions on a message board. I think we're all better than that.

As far as the Ron Paul situation goes the truth is somewhere in between what the ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX conglomerate and the uber-right-wingers write and say. The claims that he's a moral leper stuck in the past may be relevant for his own personal viewpoints, but the fact that he wouldn't let his personal views dictate his policies is to be admired especially if you consider his voting record. The newsletter thing is a mess; he even admitted responsibility for it. I would ask all of the "he's a racist antisemitic POS" people why people of all races and religions support him. Must be a lot of self-hating Jews, Arabs and blacks in the Ron Paul Revolution!

I am certainly in agreement with him with regards to the benefits of limited government (if we can't eliminate the government, make it as SMALL AS POSSIBLE), free markets, sound money, a cooperative and non-isolationist foreign policy with emphasis on free trade, warm relations, and NON-INTERVENTION, and the concept of personal liberty. I am quite anti-democracy; democracy is such a bullshit movement and I still don't know how people can defend it, even when democracy leads to those people being oppressed. I support the right to bear arms and believe that all people should be uninhibited from acquiring them. The government and current policy make it easier for criminals to commit crimes (because as we know criminals have no regard for the law) than for average folks like us to defend ourselves against them; I also support Castle Doctrine.

Ron Paul is like this - he is who he is but he doesn't want everyone else to live according to how he feels we should. No other politician runs on that kind of "live and let live" policy.

I think Carl Wilson was wrong for potentially alienating at least 50 percent of his audience by declaring Conscientious Objector status.

I will concede that those are many good points about Ron Paul.  Too bad his policies didn't catch on circa 1980.  Also to his credit, he was opposed to the Iraq war.

I have always hated Bruce's songs (besides Deirdre). Now I personally dislike him for his conservative politics.
I'm going to boooooo him to pieces during Disney Girls if I go see them play this summer.

On the VIP Nation site the Meet and Greet is represented as being more than simply a photo session:

• Exclusive meet & greet with members of the Beach Boys
• Personal photograph with the Beach Boys

::)

Somebody didn't watch the video.

WTF??? Exactly what planet were you living on when he did? :o

WHOOSH!

   Sorry, why should one respect someone who, daily, is responsible for dozens of 'civilian' deaths in many locations around the world? Because he's a father!? Are you mad? Pretty sure it doesn't take much magic altruism to be a father. Because someone voted for the guy does not make him respectable. Peaceful and voluntary interactions are something I can respect. In what way is your demagogue peaceful or respectful to those murdered in the quest for empire?
   Remember how you used to hate those mean old wars of GWB? Why are you not on the street everyday protesting the current overlords' wars? There are more, not less, conflicts that 'Merica is involved with since the peace-prize-president arrived. Personally, I'd be ashamed to still follow leaders or believe that anyone other than me has my best interests at heart.
Clear the cobwebs folks.

That's incredibly rude and disrespectful, just as much as Bruce's comments were. I highly advise you to avoid such snobbery and enjoy the show.

 :lol

 ;D

I believe Bruce is a control person and now red lights and whauga horns are sounding all around him. I am sure he is completely bummed at this point. He is on record for many years that he wanted no part of any reunion and so he reneges and is all in. Now look what happened. I'll bet when he puts his head down on his pillow tonight he'd wish he stayed with his original plan. Too late now.  I wonder what his sons think?

Riiiiight...because no one *dared* try to disrespect George W. Bush when he was in office.  The left-wing loons (including 90% of the entertainment industry) took every shot at Bush they could get...whether it was deserved or not.  Hell, some filmmaker even made a movie where he gets assassinated.  San Francisco wanted to name a sewage plant after him.  Yet people on this board are getting their panties in a wad because some old geezer that wrote a Barry Manilow hit dare call Obama an a-hole.  What a pity!   ::)

Hypocrisy...it's grand!

Well, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots.  Obama has ended he Iraq War, the war started by Bush, based on 100% lines.  "But nothing's good enough for the likes of you, hmmm?" -- Basil Fawlty

"overlords" LOL is this the planet Cornball?

Plus, libertarianism is a cop out.

To anyone who believes in 'peace and love', Ron Paul is quite clearly the best option.  For instance, he is the only candidate who would get us out of all of these wars.  It's pretty strange to see so many people who are against war support Obama.  Forget about what politicians are saying and look at their actions.  Ron Paul's record in Congress is 100% consistent with his policies and has always been.  I would encourage folks to take a deep look into their own spiritual and moral center and think about things in a different way.  It's a new world these days; things are not what they seem.  Bush was actually easier to deal with than Obama because it was quite clear that he was the figurehead of evil.  But the 'powers-that-be' learned their lesson ... Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The policies of his administration may appear to be different than Bush's on the surface, but the motivations are very similar.

We need to wake up!  We're brainwashed and the time in which we still have a chance to change things is closing in.  Another decade of this stuff and we're doomed. 

If you don't care for Bruce's songs, more power to you. But if you're sitting in front of me 'booing' The Beach
Boys at the show date that I attend next month...I'll dump my beer over your little 'tolerant liberal" head.

Better yet, buy a good beer to drink and buy a Pabst Blue Ribbon to dump... ;D

YES!

Should anyone need a break I recommend this thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12970.msg275064/topicseen.html#msg275064

I promise no more Drunk Posting!

 :afro

Sit on the sidelines...bwah haw haw. Sorry that you think peaceful interactions are a cop out. You must be very violent in your everyday interactions with individuals...Oh, you're not? well why not? In your collectivist brainwashing you have forgotton or suppressed the obvious truth to yourself, that truth being collectivism includes the sacrificing of the individual to serve the collective, and the conscription of the individuals labor to serve the interests of the collective via coercive taxation under threats of violence, i.e. involuntary servitude.
 
Individualism (libertarianism to you), on the other hand, includes the protection of the rights of the individual to self-ownership, the right to be free from the aggression and intrusion of others (like the government), the sanctity of justly acquired private property (taxation=theft), and voluntary exchange, voluntary association and voluntary contracts.
Planet cornball. Nice ad hominem. What is the basis of your beliefs? Oh yeah, you have none. You have been successfully indoctrinated into the State. Congrats. Better not think outside the two party system. Better not consider the fact that the State cannot be fixed because it's entire existence is violence. Better not look at the gun in the room. Instead let's just pretend that voting for someone will make life better.
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Manson for President.  ;)

 >:D

who's his VEEP?

Okay, point taken.  And, I apologize for my rampant snarkiness.

So, seriously and just curious, do you see individualism as EXACTLY THE SAME as libertarianism, or are they different?  I am honestly trying to learn something.

Also, in your view, is all taxation theft, or just at some (undefined) level it becomes theft?  Maybe this is a dumb question?

John Waters

I too apologize for my snarkiness. it is awesome that you are interested in my ramblings at all!
To me, the individual is the only REAL thing that exists. In other words, groups are not real, instead they are made of individuals (real). It seems silly, but that is the main point. Seems that if one looks at people as belonging to this or that group it is easier to dismiss them as individuals who have needs that they are trying to meet.
   Now, the individuals who make up the government of any place on earth are still individuals, right? And like any person they have the right to be free of coercion, violence and theft, and they have no right to inflict those things on anybody else. No one can magically give someone a right that they themselves do not posses. I cannot tell my friends to go steal half of your money, nor can I and a bunch of my friends vote on how much of your money we want (even if it is a good cause). But somehow, because some lawyers who have been dead for 250 years wrote on a piece of paper that it was okay for Some folks who are elected by a majority of the voting population (which itself is a small minority of total people) to use violence and coercion to do what those voters want it is supposed to be valid. it, of course, is not.
   Basicly, the Declaration of independence should stop at "All men (and women and children) are created equal." Instead it goes on to say that we need to elect people who are outside of law but can use violence to gain whatever they want. Not too consistent with the first sentence, is it?
   We use voluntary interactions in 99% of our life and I think, without the State stealing from us and creating more and more laws (it's never LESS laws, is it) to regulate us humans would be able to come up with voluntary ways to have all those needs that state supposedly provides (School, roads, defense) met, only cheaper and better and without violence.
   Think of it this way, two hundred years ago if you were an abolitionist  folks might have asked you "how will the cotton be picked without slaves?" and the only honest answer would have been "who knows?" You see, it doesn't matter. What matters is that slavery is morally wrong. No one could have predicted that there would be giant metal combines that did the work of hundreds of slaves and you would have been laughed at for suggesting such a thing. But that doesn't mean slavery is cool.
I feel the same about the state, that it must end, peacefully, with people who, rather than being indoctrinated for 15 years of their life by mandatory state 'education', are raised peacefully and with respect to others. The state hasn't worked for at least 7,000 years, so I for one am ready to try something new. Multi-generational, but worth a shot.
PM me and I'll send you links of folks who have clear ideas about this if you are interested.

Thanks again for thinking!

Mr. grillo, you've just become one of my favorite posters on here. You nailed it. SMASH THE STATE!

Yeah, I thought it was quite well said too.  I am going to think further on the concept of "voluntary interactions".  That was nicely put.

Not silly, but completely unclear to me. What makes one real and the other not real?

Don't get me wrong, as a social libertarian anarchist, I find the idea of abolishing the state a rather important end-goal but not if it means turning corporate power into unfettered tyranny as per Ron Paul's policies, and those who mischaracterize and misconstrue genuine libertarian values within the United States. In these cases, it seems that the interest of so-called anti-power libertarians are mostly simply interested in echoing the agenda of the wealthy elite --> taxation is theft (remember that taxation mostly harms the extremely wealthy which is why we're all supposed to hate it), legitimate private property, and so on. To me, the modern day US libertarian movement is nothing more than a huge gift to concentrated wealth and power wrapped up in a pretty masquerade of activism.

Libertarians and anarchists, get off the roads.  I get sick of  people saying you don't use services and don't want to pay taxes when all you people do is use services, like roads. And public schools taught you to read and write, mostly likely.  You all will be using Medicare and Social Security when you're old, and I'm sure your parents and grandparents already have and do. Even Ayn Rand used Medicare and Social Security.

Erm, did I not just say that I identified with the anarchist movement and had a lot of problems with the anti-tax platform of today's pdeudo-libertarians? Let's get this straight: those who place the taxation = theft issue as a priority are not genuine libertarians. Ayn Rand, of course, is nothing like a real libertarian. These are people whose hearts are in the right places but have had their natural activist impulses co-opted by a pro-corporate power party.

What are you going to do if we don't get off the roads? Because our current system dictates that if we don't want to be threatened by a government agency we HAVE to pay taxes. So as long as we're paying into the system, we're going to use it. It's also under considerable duress since the road system in the United States sucks harder than the Secret Service in a Colombian brothel.

I also went to private school but you definitely have the state-sanctioned public school mentality. Cheers. :)

I would consider that an honor.

I would totally vote for this.  You guys are onto something.   :)

The percentage of our Federal income taxes (and the Federal budget) that is spent on roads is so small as to be irrelevant to this discussion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_by_agency  I think libertarians are bent because of the amount of money that is spent killing brown people, assassinating citizens overseas without trial or due process, furthering the military industrial complex.

I'll gladly pay more state taxes if we can stop the egregious spending at the Federal level.

peeps?

I'm not very impressed.

When you say "bent," you mean "justifiably upset," right? The only brown people we should still be fighting are the drug cartels in Mexico. That country has been and continues to be completely messed up by America's appetite for drugs and we've done next to nothing about it. We get their drugs and they get our weapons and tens of thousands of Mexicans are dead because of it.

All right, that's an entirely fair grievance thought it must be noted that these wars you are talking about are motivated mainly by the concentrated wealth power centre not the state. American foreign policy has been, for decades, a consequence of business power wanting to extend their control over resources to the international sphere. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to eliminate that kind of behavior, you have to attack at its roots, not at the State which has merely been an instrument of major financial institutions.

The War on Drugs needs to be ended and all drugs legalized and sold on the free market as soon as possible. You'll fight the drug cartels by depriving them of business.

Oh goodie - let's put drugs into the hands of the same sort of people who run the fast food industry. And then once state regulations are done away with, then they can be free to poison us as much they want to without all those pesky consequences.

Of course drugs are a double-edged sword, but it's obvious that the people who want to do drugs are going to do them no matter what and the other option is to let gangsters & sleazy dealers deal them. If they were legal, at least the tax money could go for educating the masses on the dangers of hard drug use & addiction. As opposed to a new Escalade with shiny chrome rims for the guy who puts baking soda in your cocaine.

Luckily we have this guy protecting us from the evils of marihuana: http://blog.norml.org/2012/04/30/the-drug-czar-knows-even-less-about-hemp-than-he-knows-about-cannabis/

You are correct that "the people who want to do drugs are going to do them no matter what and the other option is to let gangsters & sleazy dealers deal them" but to me, drugs, the hard ones (not Mary Jane) are just another form of slavery.  Legalizing them and putting them out in the 7-11's would be ruination for our society.  We'd have 1,000 times the problems that we have today.  But, I agree the "war on drugs" is an effing fiasco.

I don't know what the answer is though, other than sensible drug education, from a very early age.  And better family/home life.

Unfortunately, the Zetas now get our weapons courtesy of the U.S. Department Of Justice.

Right.  One need look no further than Prohibition to see how this works.

What business do we have in Afghanistan, though?  Osama is dead and we are trying to win a war in a place that the Russian's could not.  (Think about that.)  There is no business interest in Afghanistan (or Libya, for that matter).  For all the business interests in Iraq, we are still paying $4.00/gallon for gas.  That said, I agree with you that business (read: money) is the reason we are fighting these wars.  Just look at the defense budget allocation in the Federal budget.  It's sickening.

I do believe rockandroll was talking about the military industrial complex....which is big business.

Yes, I mentioned that in my post from last night.

I'm all for legalizing drugs and putting an emphasis on education - I'm more skeptical about the wonders of the free market solving these problems.

The American government never particularly cared about killing Osama. That was never a major goal. Remember that a few weeks after 9/11 the pretext to attack Afghanistan shifted away from Osama to regime change. The business that the US has in Afghanistan is the same business that they had in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominician Republic, Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, and on and on - and that is, they desire to see a political system that is open to American investment, doesn't matter in particular what it's for, it is usually something specific to the region. Now that's the war the US wants to win but if they can't win that, then simply having a state in shambles, unable to produce a genuinely national-oriented government should suffice. And something similar was true of the Soviet Union. They didn't particularly care about leaving Afghanistan in shambles either, as long as it didn't become a key strategic piece in the bid for American imperialism. If they could be part of the Soviet Union, great, if they couldn't, then being in shambles would be good enough.  


There are business interests for the United States in every state on the planet.

 
Which of course is incredibly cheap. I bet some of our friends on this board from Europe and England would love to pay $4 per gallon. Gas prices in the United States should be higher and the reason they should be higher is to induce pressure for alternative fuel, that is if we care about the survival of the species. Keep in mind, the US desire to control Middle East oil resources is not to keep prices low - that's assuming that they're going to war the benevolent reason that concentrated power really cares about the American people. In reality, the US controls Middle East oil because they want to control the price level within a certain range (not too low and not too high) and most significantly, to use it as a lever of strategic power. This control ultimately gives the US leverage over rival economies in Europe and Asia. That's the central purpose for controlling resources - the benefits of this very rarely affect the common American.

And anyway, I am a little hesitant to go down the line of thinking that American intervention in Afghanistan would be more acceptable if we had business there, or American intervention in Iraq would be more acceptable if gas prices were lower. Ultimately, I think, one should be against intervention because it violates a basic right to independence and no positive results that come as a consequence of that violation in any way justifies it.


Okay but the reason why these wars are being is not so defense can get a big budget - that doesn't really help anyone substantially. Rather, defense has a big budget in order to protect the interests of the minority of concentrated wealth and power.

I almost don't want to take a swim in this pool, but over the past weeks I had a few interesting conversations that made me question or at least second-guess the legalization issue. I was at the point of throwing up my hands and saying "legalize it" because all the arguments against the so-called "war on drugs" rang very true. But then I thought of and discussed a point which I have not seen discussed among the pro-legalization folks posting here. Maybe a few opinions either way would be helpful, maybe a new thread is warranted, whatever...anyway:

The issue which has been changing my mind is how drugs which are legal and are being prescribed regularly by physicians are causing havoc. Witness the "pill mill" cases which are running amok in certain areas of Florida and other states. Witness the increase in crime and robberies of drug stores and pharmacies where the target is Oxycodone, Oxycontin, and other legal, prescribed painkillers. Witness the increase in misery caused by addictions to these pills and how addicts will resort to crime, theft, and the "black market" where an Oxy can bring 10 dollars per pill and more to those seeking their fix.

In my area there has been a dramatic rise in pharmacy robberies - one college student was on a robbery spree claiming he had a syringe with the AIDS virus or some such nonsense and he was hitting a string of area pharmacies for prescription painkillers until he was caught. Other robberies are more of the strong-arm variety, or more typical of the dumb guy who hands the bank teller a threatening note but has no weapon, only a threat on paper.

It would be a comedy of errors but no one is laughing, and it is affecting people beyond the pharmacy employees who have to deal with this nonsense directly.

And the issue of pill mills and doctor-shopping, not to mention the daily occurrences of fake and forged prescriptions being passed off to pharmacies, as well as regular accounts of employees and patients stealing doctor's prescription pads and worse, may qualify this as an epidemic. And a very costly and time-consuming one at that.

So here is the point:

How would legalizing and controlling the narcotics and hallucinogenics currently outlawed in the US produce a net positive result different from what is happening around those narcotics and pain-killers which are currently legal, regulated, and prescribed by doctors?

We call for legalization, yet what would make it different from what is happening around legal painkillers like Oxy and the rest? Black markets still exist, criminals are still profiting on the re-sale and illegal distribution of these drugs, law enforcement is spending a lot of public money to control the abuses, millions of people are "hooked" on these drugs and when their legal supply runs out, too many are looking to a criminal or underground element for their fix...

How would an across-the-board legalization produce results which would differ from what we see with legal prescribed painkillers?

Just to add, this happened to one of our posters in the last week or two - you're on to something....

Exactly - these are entirely the right questions which is why simply legalizing drugs and putting them on the free market wouldn't work. You'd also have to invest in education, which we know works when you look at how cigarette smoking has gone way down. You also have to keep in mind that a lot of crime related to drugs in the United States is a result of drugs being extremely high in cost, particularly compared to their costs in other industrialized countries with more socialized medicare.

What concerns me about these two points is that the prescription painkiller issue has revealed flaws which I don't believe education or reduced costs through socialization would address or come close to resolving.

Investing in education would possibly create another bureaucracy - what agency would we charge with overseeing this when currently the DEA, AMA, Dept. Of Health and Human Services, and various other local, state, and federal groups are seeing the crime and abuse of legal painkillers spiral out of control? Will another government agency be impaneled to train "educators" and have the taxpayers pay them to spread the word about the problems and dangers of these drugs?

Currently the doctor is the one charged with making these decisions. As it should be, yet how would a government agency be able to better educate the general public than a doctor who deals with the people one-on-one? Again, tobacco is still legal and is still a choice for people to make. So is alcohol, and despite spending untold millions of dollars to educate people on the dangers of drinking and driving, there is at least one story every day in nearly everyone's local newspaper about someone driving drunk.

I don't think personal responsibility can be legislated or taught by a government body. Nor should it be.

As far as saying the cost is too high, suggesting a system of socialized medicine would be a solution, I disagree. For one, I do not want my money going to fund someone's hobby of chasing an Oxy with a beer. Period - it sounds harsh, it sounds inhumane, but any cent taken from me by a government instituting a system of socializing the prescription of painkillers at a reduced cost is a system I'll fight against with all my efforts.

The system currently in place for dealing with prescription painkillers is failing, and the issue will get worse before it gets better. Considering there is already a system in place for controlling and regulating the sale and distribution of these legal narcotics, as well as a system of reducing costs and offering lower-cost generic alternatives to brand-name pills...yet we *still* have an active black market, underground network of dealers and distributors, and the aura of crime surrounding the abuse of these painkiller from petty theft to violent robberies, I don't see how lowering the cost of the pills for the users through government subsidies or outright public funding through socialization would solve the larger issue.

Or the issue of how much is the limit when an addict depletes then needs more than their prescribed amount, or their subsidized amount through a government program, and the need for "more" exceeds that person's ability to make rational decisions?

Additionally, if we subsidize and socialize these prescription painkillers, and publicly fund them so the costs are kept low, how would the government agencies who currently regulate these things then control or be able to stop "John Doe" from getting a prescription painkiller under his allotment and selling it to "Jane Doe" for a profit when Jane's allotment for the month has run out?

And would legalizing any of the drugs currently illegal produce a different result?

No, not necessarily. And even with another government agency, with a more socialized system you'd be vastly reducing taxpayer costs to health care - the amount saved there would more than likely be much more than the amount that the taxpayer would be paying for education.


Because that's how education works. I didn't decide not to smoke because the guy at the corner store told me not to - I decided because it was taught to me very early on how dangerous smoking is.


It is, and far fewer people make that choice than they did even ten years ago - and the difference between people who make that choice now and people who made that choice in say, the 1950s is probably astronomical.


According to the National Institutes of Health, alcohol-related traffic deaths per population have been cut in half since the 1980s, amounting to 150,000 lives being saved which is "more than the combined total saved by increases in seat belt use, airbags, and motorcycle and bicycle helmets." This, as far as I'm concerned is not only a vast improvement but a uniquely vast improvement. Now, if your standard for something to work means zero fatalites, then unfortunately, there is no solution to any of the problems you're raising and there never will be.


You mean, we don't have a responsibility to protect each other?


In that case you will be more than likely fighting against decreasing drug-related crime. You say you don't want to "fund someone's hobby of chasing an Oxy with a beer" but you're currently funding Big Pharma's overspending on research and development, which helps keep drug prices high, which leads to the kind of criminal activity you were talking about above.


In fact, the US government is uniquely the only government in the industrialized world legally prohibited from negotiating drug prices, which is also keeping drug prices high and ensuring a thriving black market, and drug-related criminal activity. So, yes, if you want to eliminate a lot of the drug-related criminal activity you have to keep drug prices low and if you want to curb abuse of drugs then you have to educate people, which has likewise proven to be effective. These are elementary and proven ways to deal with these issues but there is one central flaw - they do not necessarily lead to generating enormous profits for private businesses. Therefore we're supposed to hate these ideas. But apart from that reason, I can't fathom any serious reason we should oppose them - that is, if we're more serious about dealing with these issues than we are about protecting the interests of the wealthy elite.


I don't know - you'd have to show me that this is a serious concern in countries that have a more socialized system before we would need to consider it to be a viable reason not to pursue such a system.

Of all the points, I just want to address the one about protecting each other:

Who has the authority to legislate or even decide who will support and who will be supported by public funds? Who decides the level of "protection" afforded one person to another? Who will decide under socialized medicine which addict receives their fix at a reduced cost and how much of the controlled substance they receive versus any other person in the same program?

Do we include those living in the US illegally? Do we include those already receiving public assistance of some kind? Do we include those who have committed a felony offense up to and including murder? Do we include those who do not work, and do not contribute to society? Do we include the entire world's population, do we include only North America, do we only go state-by-state or county-by -county? Where does it end?

In other words, why should I not only feel like I'm somehow not able to choose whether I'm responsible for someone else other than me and my immediate family, friends, and dependents, but also why should I trust someone to not only take my money through taxation and public funding but also determine which anonymous person or persons I have no legal, personal, or moral obligation to protect or support is worthy of that money and support, if I choose not to support or protect them?

I'm already sick and tired of my money going to support politicians and their lifestyles and exorbitant spending habits which benefit no one remotely close to me...why would I support giving them more power to use more money?

Socialized medicine as a panacea for solving the prescription painkiller issue is a flawed solution, mostly due to the fact that prescription painkiller abuse, theft, and black-market sales is driven by addicted individuals who in too many cases are not much beyond looking to someone else for their own gratification or the fulfillment of their cravings from the addictions. For every person who is genuinely and legitimately addicted through no fault of their own, whether through bad medical decisions or whatever else, how many are like that college student who was going around my area robbing pharmacies for Oxys and other painkillers for his own selfish needs and wants?

Should I be legislated or compelled into thinking I owe something to that f*cker who terrorized various pharmacy employees to gratify his own needs and wants in life, versus someone who legitimately and/or medically needs the help? Do we really need another government agency to make those decisions for us, and take our money to fund those choices?

Or can we make those choices without assistance from a government body of some kind?

And, apart from all the side issues, the bottom line is the painkiller issue I already raised: We have seen a system which is failing more and more each day when dealing with prescription narcotics which are strictly regulated and legal, and controlled by the government. Why should we believe that the same system and the same government will be successful if and when more types of currently illegal drugs are legalized?

In a properly functioning democratic society, the people make those decisions. I can in some way understand your hesitation. In the United States, we are ideologically driven to understand the government, not as driven by the population but driven by a select few people. This, of course, was by design. It was understood from the beginning that the role of the government was to protect the interests of the elite minority rather than the population as a whole. There are indeed larger concerns - and the fight for a functioning democracy is a legitimate fight. Remember, of course, it is assumed in a normal society that everyone will be supported by public health care. It's not simply a matter of one this group of people pays for another group of people. Everyone needs some form of health care at some point and, yes, some people may need more of it than others but that is very rarely that person's fault.


Well, when I stop someone from stepping in front of a moving truck that they do not see, I don't stop to ask if they are documented or not. Furthermore, it depends on the case, but usually in the case of undocumented immigrants that I know of, the US bears some responsibility for these people being in the country in the first place.


Again, why should you choose to stop someone from stepping in front of a moving vehicle. We're entering into a debatable arena here, but when we talk about personal or moral obligation, it seems to me that we are personally and morally obligated to protect each other. I don't think anyone would say that if you knew you could stop someone from getting hit by a truck that you didn't know, that it was okay to let them die because you don't know them. In fact, I think you are personally and morally obligated to alert that person. That seems to be the very basis of a civilized and decently functioning society.


Because the way our society is set up, that's the only way to get effective and decent results, if you are interested in getting them.


This is why I'm not merely suggesting socialized medicine, but also legalization and education.


Again, you'd have to demonstrate that these issues would be exacerbated by a socialized medicare system.

Pescription drugs are not "strictly regulated...and controlled by the government." I repeat, prescription drug prices are set by the pharmaceutical industry and unlike in other industrialized countries, the US is prohibited from negotiating these prices. Consequently, drug prices are higher than they are in any other industrialized country. And as a result, according to a recent study, "the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S." What role the government has - in fact, the role the public has - is paying for the costs of developing drugs (not the manufacturing, which costs comparatively little) and as studies have shown, more than half of Big Pharma's development costs typically go into the making of copycat drugs in order to stay competetive on the market. This is the worst system imaginable - not only does the public pay for this kind of mis-spending but they pay more when such mis-spending leads to the high cost of drugs. To me, the facts show, that the problem with prescription medicine has nothing to do with the government's role - outside of the government's role in protecting the interests of these corporations. The problem mostly is that the needs of the public are quite simply inconsequential when compared to the needs for profit.

I fail to see how the basic human reaction of stopping someone from walking in front of a moving vehicle relates *in any way* to a discussion of topics related to socialized medicine curing the ills of the prescription painkiller mess.

I could see it this way, in theory:

If I see someone walking in the street, and see them fall, I will go over and help them up. And if they are injured or need additional help, I will do my best to provide it. That is my choice.

On the other hand:

I do not need an employee of the government giving me an order to report to 7th Avenue and Main Street of my town and stand there on duty from 7 am to 3 pm to watch for anyone who might trip and fall on that street corner and require assistance.

One is a choice driven by human nature and ultimately a gut reaction, the other is a mandate which eliminates the most obvious choice in that scenario.

If we can equate stopping someone from getting crushed by a vehicle in front of our own eyes in some extreme comparison which seems to suggest the worst extremes of relativism and relativist logic, we can surely consider the above.

Or perhaps the whole notion is like comparing apples to oranges to sledgehammers. :)

BTW

GREAT series of posts!

Under my health plan, prescription painkillers of the variety I was prescribed after at least two somewhat major surgeries would cost me about 2 dollars for about a week or 10 days' supply as ordered by the surgeon(s) at the time, give or take. But I work full time, I pay for my own health insurance out of my own salary at a 100% rate, and this is what I receive in return. Is it a perfect plan? No. Are the rates too high? Perhaps. But I pay for what I receive.

I also declined to have those prescriptions filled, and the slip went unused and eventually destroyed and discarded. I chose Tylenol instead, over the counter and easier on my stomach. It was my choice to do that, as it would have been my choice to do something else with those pills if I did receive them, something other than what they were prescribed for.

The notion that high costs are driving the black market is just a little bit dishonest, because if you are employed and you either buy or pay into a pool for you health insurance, the cost of a painkiller when used as prescribed and as directed by a doctor is *FAR LESS* than what the average piece of sh*t dealer on the black market is charging.

And again, if we legalize, say, heroin...who sets the limit? Who sets the allotment for each person? Who decides if the hardcore addict receives twice the amount of anyone else? Who sets those limits and if taxed, who collects and receives those tax amounts? What does an addict do after they have shot their entire monthly stipend in their system within 3 days? What prevents black market and backstreet sales to those addicts seeking more?

And I fail to see how one is a "basic human reaction" and the other isn't. I would say that the reason why we don't feel morally obligated to set up a system to protect people is because it is ideologically driven into our skulls from virtually the beginning of our education, that we're not supposed to look out for other people. This is somewhat theoretical but it seems to me that the level of indoctrination that goes into convincing people that they should be primarily looking out for themselves suggests to me that this a reaction against what is probably a very basic impulse to help people.


Again, this is supposed to be a democracy. What you're describing is a totalitarian dictatorship, and it seems to me that that's not the system we're supposed to live in. In a functioning democracy, it is the people who give the government orders and if the people decide that they want a public health care system (which, according to most reports, they do) then the government should abide by that.

I come back to GF's point again.

To me, the hard drugs amount to slavery by other means.  People trapped by these drugs cause misfortune to themselves and all those around them.  In 2006 there were around 18,000 DUI traffic DEATHS.  Just imagine having a family member killed in this way.

So, just on the point of legalizing (hard) drugs, there are really no facts present that can convince me that legalization would be anything other than ruinous RUINOUS for our society.  And, the cartels would find a way to stay involved IMHO.

Through education/comfort/caring whatever, we have to bring people back from drug use, not encourage it.  (Even though, as I said, the "war on drugs" is a sick joke.)  Hard drugs are POISON!

BTW
Rockandroll, I assume GF was referring to the FDA which controls drugs but doesn't, as you discussed, PRICE them.  NO QUESTION, if you are sick or ill you are at BIG PHARMA'S MERCY and I have no idea what the answer is for that.

(thanks to Grillo and TRBB too -- all excellent posts!  EPIC Sandbox!)

Right and people in every other industrialized country on the whole pays less for receiving the same.


I fail to see the point of this anecdote.


Well, it's certainly not just high costs. The prohibition of drugs certainly drives the black market.

Yes, the black market exploits people who are addicted but again, this is why education is ultimately crucial. It's unquestionable though that high drug prices are very much related to drug-related criminal activity. As the Associated Press recently noted, after a spike in pharmaceutical heists, "experts say the reasons include spotty security and high drug prices that can make such thefts extremely lucrative."

It would be tragic - and, according to the statistics, there would have been over twice as many fatalities had it not have been for education and treatment programs. Like I said, that is a unique success and what it dramatically suggests is that education can play a decisive role in prevention, just as it has done in the case of cigarettes, a drug incidentally, that had a far more "RUINOUS" effect on our society than any drug you could mention.


I agree.


I do. Eliminate Big Pharma.

The open and honest reality of substance abuse is enough to serve most people.  Is that equal to the results of laws and enforcement?  That's the question.

Regarding facts -- Do you stay away from the pot because it's illegal or because you don't want to do it?  What motivates you?  Those are facts that you can use.

To people who trust in people, and to people who don't care what other people do -- laws and enforcement are simply a last resort -- otherwise they are an insult to their (and all human) intelligence.  It totally degrades.  Plus...boat loads of wasted money.

It's legal to buy glue and paint thinner.  People do it, I've heard.  If they were made illegal to possess, people would still do it.  But, Hollywood would glamorize it -- and more would probably do it.  Alcohol was banned and MORE people did that.  That's a fact.

The fact I always remember is --- if it's (whatever it is) is made illegal -- you guarantee that only law breakers will do it.

If we bought our drugs within a free market -- just like we buy our groceries -- it would be much cheaper.  There's no need to over think this.

Health care today will be even worse now that Bureaucratic Big Government will be taking over.  It's a mess turning into a horrific disaster.  Sarah Palin was right -- there will be death panels.  They've already admitted it.

How about just think about it period since what you've suggested has absolutely no bearing on reality and it's frustrating since we've already discussed it so I'll just have to repaste what I wrote here:

The US health care system is the most expensive in the industrialized world – about twice the per capita cost of most industrialized countries - and it is the one that most closely follows a so-called free-market capitalist model. The studies have shown, in fact, that it is precisely because the health care system is run on this capitalist model that it is so expensive to the American public. In fact, if you look at the socialized aspect of the US health care system, you find that the administrative costs there are a fraction of the cost of privatized health. So in that case publicly subsidized health care in the US have kept prices lower than privately controlled health care. This, incidentally, isn’t too surprising when you look at US economic history. So, for example, if you look at the economic boom of the 90s, what was referred to as one of the most successful economic periods in US history, you’ll find that the products most responsible for the boom were heavily subsidized by the public. And, really, since WWII, modern high-tech products have had an enormous amount of support by the state.

Now part and parcel to this is the question of why drug prices are so high in the States. Again, we can put this down to the capitalist model. In a capitalist system, the main impetus of a drug company is to make profits. This is why companies have been shown to spend an overwhelming majority of its research and development on copycat drugs to stay competitive in the market. Just doing a quick search, the most recent figures I could pull are from 2004 (though I assume not much has changed too drastically since then) when 27 billion of 41 billion dollars of drug company research spending went into the development of copycat drugs.  This de-mystifies two great prevailing free-market myths at once: one, that a free market system would reduce costs and two, that a free-market system spurs innovation.

Now until you can actually deal with the reality of the health care situation (i.e. why it is actually so expensive and why other systems are much less expensive) then you talk about how much we need to overthink things.


No one has "admitted it" because it's a phony fabricated scare tactic drummed up to protect the interest of the powerful elite, who are the only one who serve to gain from the current system in the United States, which is an international scandal. And besides, Palin was talking about Obama's health care proposal which was virtually identical to Romney's health care proposal. Both were pro-corproate, right-wing business-oriented health care plans and were absolutely nothing like the kind of real, genuine, socialized health care plans that every other industrialized country in the world has.

The reality of the healthcare system is "death panels."  That's the course we're on.  Because someone will need to pass out the "healthcare bucks."  And there won't be enough to go around.

People need to be prepared to deal with that.  I realize it won't be you...but to others who read this - be warned.  The whole push to get us to socialized medicine was the scare tactic.  All the "America's the richest country...we shouldn't have uninsured" blah, blah, blah -- "people are dying on the street."  That garbage was the muscle to herd the people off the train and into the camps. 

You can rattle off all the Big Pharma/industrial complex, socialism slogans all day if you want.  Please do.  But it's so out of touch.  Wasted billions on drug research is nothing compared to a Big Government that tosses off billions on paper clips, toilet seats and solar panels.  Make that trillions.  Oh...and it's our money.

Then why is it that the United States, the only country in the industrialized world without socialized health care, has the most expensive health care out of all these industrialized countries? Why is it that the US has the highest health care expenditure than any other country? That is "our money" too. These are the facts - socialized health care systems are far less expensive to tax paying citizens, far less wasteful, and far more humane than the capitalist model that is used in the United States.

And again, since you completely ignored this point, the death panel nonsense was not aimed as a critique of socialized health care - it was a scare tactic used to undermine Obamacare which had absolutely nothing to do with socialized health care. It was virtually identical to the health care policy introduced by Mitt Romney: a business-oriented health care platform that was a huge gift to industry, and in fact was far to the right of the kind of health care policy that even Nixon was proposing in his administration, which is a real testament to how far into la-la land we have gone in the past 40 years.

On Drugs:   Throwing people in cages for smoking or snorting or shooting a substance that you don't enjoy is morally disgusting.

On 'Health Care': Forcing me to pay for your health care, which isn't even healthy or caring, is morally disgusting.

If you are afraid that without government  there would be no way to deal with these things, think of this; Americans give almost 300 billion dollars a year to charities. Now imagine if the giant monster called the state wasn't sucking up 30-60% of your income to 'pay' for its horrible services, you and apparently a lot of others, would VOLUNTARY pay for the services they find useful, like with EVERYTHING else you/they do.

This stuff can be figured out, but believing that a violent organization that seeks only more power for itself (The State) is the solution is not logical.

I didn't realize we lived under a dictatorship.

The statistics have shown for at least a decade that the majority of citizens desire some kind of public health care system. If we are serious about democratic values, then it's that direction that we should be heading in.


Like I said, I am a libertarian socialist, so obviously I'm not afraid of that, since the end goal is a society without government, as government is traditionally understood. That being said, I know that it is much harder to achieve that kind of society when you shift all the power the public has to the corporate world. At that point, you chances of living in a truly free, liberated, democratic society are about as hopeless as they can be.


At least the state is a power centre that we have some control over. The option we have now is far more dangerous and grim - which is giving the power entirely to tyrannical corporations. This is why the contemporary US faux-libertarian movement is so dangerous, because it is precisely pushing for unfettered, unchecked tyrannical control by corporate power.

I do not believe in Mob Rule, I'm sorry, democratic values, but I do believe in the individual and his/her right to do as he sees fit, so long as it hurts no one else or their property. I don't even understand Anarcho-socialists...you want no rulers but will somehow force everyone to do what you want? Please explain.
Don't you understand that the only reason Huge Corporations exist is Because the state created a legal-fiction called a corporation that privatizes gains and socializes costs, the all-time worst set-up for a business model, if you are interested in people. Without the power of the State to back them, no one would do business with these corporations. They could not exist. They are simply an arm of the state.
Starbucks doesn't throw you in jail if you don't pay your taxes.
K-mart can't take your kids from you.
Who can... the state.
If you are afraid of people, as you seem to be R&R, the last thing you should want is an organization that has the 'legal right' to force you to do as it wishes or kill you. Bad people flock to that. They steal and call it taxes. They kill and call it war. Call it what it is; Evil, wrong, a blight upon the universe, but do not insult yourself by calling the state a solution.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't believe in a kind of society wherein individuals look out for each other, rather than just themselves then this belief "in the individual" is nothing but airy-fairy talk. After all, the few examples that we have seen of truly free market societies are typically terribly impoverished, malnurished, poorly educated, etc. In those cases, the individual is left as a shell of a person. It seems to me that if one truly cared about the individual, they would understand that the individual lives in a world and that world works in a particular way. Furthermore, "their property"? What counts as property? Does private ownership of a business count, and if so, doesn't that entirely deprive the rights of most individuals "to do as he sees fit"?



Who is "you"? And furthermore, this is patently false. In an anarchist society, no one forces anyone to do anything. Anarchist societies work by means of free association (unlike the forced association of capitalist societies) where individuals may produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence without constraints from social or political bodies. People can choose to participate in particular groups if they want to or not, but their survival is not contingent on the participation or lack of participation in these groups.


I have said words precisely to that effect here several times (check the Ronald Reagan thread) so this is something I am indeed aware of. Though the public subsidizing the cost of development has been in place long before the "Huge" corporation.

Have to rush away now, sorry. Will respond to other points later...

My questions about legalized painkillers were driven home yet again this morning, where a story in the local news appeared about a pharmacist (a part-time pharmacist, just to be accurate) who is now charged with stealing approximately $65,000 worth of prescription painkillers which he got from various means working within his job duties. These included falsifying prescriptions, issuing prescriptions under various names that either did or did not exist then keeping the meds himself, forging doctor's prescriptions and ID's in order to get the drugs, and outright theft and false inventory counts of the supplies. The drugs most involved - big surprise - were a variety preferred by heroin addicts, among others not listed by name.

They have not caught up to him - the article was not specific, but they think he fled to Egypt, where it seems he was or is a citizen or might have family or other connections.

The pharmacy itself is a local store with a few branches, and not a familiar chain or franchise.

The question becomes what did he do with those drugs? In those quantities and value amounts, it could be suggested they eventually ended up on the black market, or were sold on the underground market for profit. Perhaps some were for personal use, again the article did not address that point.

The one issue to refer back to in this thread is that of regulation. These painkillers and their distribution from doctor to pharmacy to patient is a pretty tightly controlled process, at least in some areas around me. There are strict, standardized procedures which involve those medical professionals who prescribe these medicines having a license and an ID number, as well as a check-and-balance system to address any unusual requests or abnormal amounts of certain meds being prescribed more often than what would be normal. This ensures one major point, that at least in this area, doctors have to be certified, qualified, and licensed doctors or medical professionals in order to write a prescription for certain meds.

Certain states like Florida whose laws and standards for this process are less stringent and less specific are the areas which are currently calling the prescription painkiller issue "an epidemic", and one of the core issues is the "pill mill", which are often community health centers that are acting as a front for selling prescription narcotics and painkillers under the table, and which try to bypass the laws in place.

Check certain news outlets from several counties in Florida, and it truly is an epidemic where the black market and illegal sale and distribution of these legal painkillers are too often going to addicts not under a doctor's care and who are outside the system set up for treatment and care. In other words, recreational users and addicts not receiving treatment are the customers.

A system of socialized medicine combined with price controls and possible additional federal funding for this type of medication in order to "lower the price" should not be applied to recreational use and abuse of the medications, IMO. An addict who actively seeks treatment to kick the addiction and live a better life is and should be treated differently from those who are currently in areas of Florida and elsewhere gaming the system already in place to re-sell the pills for profit on the black market, or who are seeking the pleasure of a high - the Oxy chased with a beer crowd I had mentioned earlier. I don't back down from that description because it's happening every day.

And I don't think tax dollars should go to funding that kind of chosen abuse.

Nor do I think instituting a system of socialized medicine and price controls to reign in "Big Pharma" would address the issue, or "epidemic", of legal prescription painkiller abuse and re-sale.

Apart from a drug such a marijuana, which at this point I see not many reasons why it could/should not be legalized, heavily taxed, and sold within limits and standards of quality as a recreational substance, I fail to see the benefits of legalizing heroin, forms of cocaine which are non-medicinal, meth and its derivatives, or other obvious drugs and substances not mentioned.

Because the legal means of controlling and enforcing laws for what we already have and consider legal when prescribed by a medical professional are not working, and the issue is getting worse by the week in the US.

And one point I felt needs to be raised, regarding federal funding, price controls, etc.

We hear certain terms given to specific industries, most notably names like "Big Tobacco" and in this thread "Big Pharma".

This will sound funny but it is ultimately a serious issue which I feel should be addressed more than it has:

"Big College"

A current firebrand of an issue is student loan debt: What should be done, how can we help, why are so many young Americans fighting enormous debt incurred during their college years...solutions range from lowering interest rates, to more government grants i.e. federal funding for higher education, to partial or even total forgiveness of such debt, which could be called "The Bailout Solution". It was one of the benchmark issues of the early days of the Occupy protests - what can we do about this debt?

If we point to "Big Pharma" as one of the reasons why there is a prescription painkiller epidemic in this country, suggesting lower prices for such drugs could be part of a multi-faceted solution, can we then point a finger at "Big College" and ask why the costs to students are so high?

"Big College" is a multi-billion dollar industry in and of itself. Some schools make tens of millions of dollars every year in athletics alone, none of which goes to the students under NCAA laws...but millions in profits from various clothing item, brand licensing deals, television and media rights, ticket sales and other events...it adds up to a very large sum for the school's coffers and for those connected to the school. Factor in alumni trust funds, donations, estate gifts, fundraising events, along with many other money-making deals in and around the campus and campus life.

Where does that affect the student who may have to spend upwards of 500 dollars on a textbook for one semester of one course or subject, a textbook which may be used a handful of times during actual classroom activities?

I know this because everyone who goes to college gets the same required book list and the same associated bills.

So if the problem is not being able to pay for school, can we start looking at "Big College" as a for-profit industry in some ways not far removed from "Big Pharma", and ask them to either reign in the costs to the students or institute some form of price-control so the average student's bill per semester does not outweigh what they may be expected to earn at a professional job for those first years out of college with a degree? Instead we are focused now on somehow lessening the burden on the students who were forced to borrow over their heads and beyond their means in order to attend the school - it seems like as much focus could be placed on the costs themselves before addressing how much debt a student is saddled with after several years of schooling.

Looking out for one another and using force to make me look out for you are two entirely different things. I do not understand your appeal to the majority...just because 50% + 1 agree on something or desire something, doesn't make it legitimate to force others to go along. My entire point is that people ARE giving, and do many good deeds for the poor or less lucky, or whatever, without the state forcing them to...why would this stop? How does a monopoly on power and violence lead to healthy interactions?
    I understand anarchism means no rulers...but under your definition (as I understand what you are saying) I would still be responsible for someone who doesn't want to, or cannot, work. Naturally that is absurd. I can choose to help him if I like, but how, without rulers, would I be compelled to help him? As for property, I'm sure we can agree that I own me and by extension my deeds and that which I create using whatever scarce resources I have available to me ("The basis for this extension of self-ownership to one's property is John Locke's argument  that mixing of labor with an unowned resource makes that resource part of one's self"). I guess we agree that the state is the source of most of the violence of the last 10,000 years
(nearly half a billion deaths during the last 100 years alone can be attributed to the state) but I don't understand the philosophy you follow.
  To be clear, my entire premise is based on my adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle or Axiom. No force or coercion is legitimate between any individuals, no matter what suit they wear or what their job title is. Defense is the only time violence could be justified. Other than that I think folks should live however the hell they want, just don't hit me or take my stuff.

Anyway, as predicted, the Bruce thing has blown over. End of this titled thread.

agreed,,let's shut this down... ;D