The Smiley Smile Message Board

I got a free subscription to a Dutch magazine called Nieuwe Revu a while ago and in last week's issue I found an interview with Bruce that ends with a somewhat painful mistake.

A few things Bruce mentions throughout the interview:
- He not trying to make anyone happy or sad with his music, he just enjoys singing, that's all.
- It doesn't really bother him that there are a lot of people that are unemployed, he thinks it's always been that way.
- It doesn't bother him at all that She Believes In Love Again didn't make the record.
- He thinks Summer In Paradise is a pretty good album.
- The only CD he's bought this year was 'Duets II' by Tony Bennett.
- He loves Lady Gaga and expects a whole lot from her in the future.
- He loves modern pop music. If he'd be young now, he'd want to be like Bruno Mars, or like Adele if he would've been a woman.

So far, so good. But when the interview is over, Bruce apparently forgets to put down the phone properly and the interviewer hears what he says to someone from Capitol Records. I'll translate it:

Bruce: "Hey, were you listening to the interview?"
Capitol guy: "Yeah, of course."
Bruce: "The guy is a dick!"
Capitol guy: "Haha."
Bruce: "Those Europeans are so... So indoctrinated by socialism. They don't realize that they just hate success. He tried to push me in a social direction the whole time. I figured him out, you know. So I kicked his ass for ten minutes, with a smile on my face."
Capitol guy: "That's why we always listen to the interviews, so we can interfere when people ask indecent questions. But it sounded like you two had a good time."
Bruce: "We did. But he tried to drag me into some negative story about our country. And that pisses me off!"

I'm not sure what pissed him off, the interviewer just asked if the band was trying to cheer people up with the new album in these difficult times, and apparently he didn't like that...

Maybe... just maybe... Bruce is a bigger dick than Mike.  :lol

Umm...Bruce is weird. 

I get a "Bruce Johnston: Conspiracy Theorist" kind of vibe from that conversation.

Thanks for sharing that with us. I guess the Capitol guy was on the line too, and after Bruce thought the interviewer had hung up, he said all that stuff to the Capitol guy.
Not really surprised, since this board has had it's share of Bruce stories over the past year. I almost wish I didn't know all this stuff, it clouds your judgement. Everything should be based squarely on the music, but in this day and age that's an impossibility.

Nothing new (about Bruce). But interesting anyway.

The Boys are all kinda crazy, in their own respective ways. I don't need to actually like the musicians I listen to (though if I do, it's obviously a plus).

Bruce seems rather unpleasant and unusual behind his happy-go-lucky warm front unfortunately...

Brian,Al and David are the most normal BBs. ;D

If he's pleasant, he's real pleasant, I suppose. You just shouldn't cross him with certain topics or favours.. it's like that with a many old gentlemen.  ;)

Well, he's right about Europe. I know that's a bitter pill for some, but hey.

So what, not every country needs to be the USA. Bruce didnt expect a european to act european?

Bruce is just.....weird..

I was watching some interview him and Mike did on youtube today during the promotion for the "Warmth of the sun" comp. He really likes selling the Beach Boys as a surf/car band. "The only four letter words we used in our music was, 'surf', 'girls' and 'cars'". He goes on to slam drugs and just give off the stereotypical version of The Beach Boys, the image Brian tried hard to shred.

He's an incredibly dorky guy and a bit of a dick too it seems

Maybe more Republican but not a bigger dick.

Socialism is bankrupting the EU and is about to bankrupt the USA. But that's a topic for the Sandbox. Let's keep this on topic as best we can.

Yeah, well lot's of European countries aren't based in socialism at all, anyway. But that's indeed Sandbox-talk.

The fact that Bruce gets pissed when a simple question about how great music can be comforting in hard times is asked, is shocking. That's not a political question, in my book. If it's true, because we know only one side of the story. Release the interview-tape and we can decide if Bruce was right or not.

The topic itself is confusing; it is BJ or politics?  I will just say that Europeans are always trying to get Americans to say something to acknowledge our role is creating social injustice, so BJ is right.  I always find that Europeans will inject some scorn and provoke self-criticism from us--it's certainly true in academia.  So BJ was trying to escape that trap, which I appreciate, maintaining the apolitical nature of spiritual music, though he may not have made a complex, Maharishi-inspired explanation of spirit and music, as Carl would have. So, let's not fight about politics or call BB names; I have tried simply to gloss the event by identifying the cultural paradigm it reveals.  Good for you Bruce to resist the silly Euro-trash-trap.

I don't think Brian cares about image. He's making music that he wants to make but let's the public business to others. Except for the short Derek Taylor periode I can't think about any time where I would say he actively tried to "shred" the image the band had at that certain time. Brian more than once jumped on that train, most recently with "Beaches in mind".
That said, I think Carl and Dennis (mostly Carl though) had the biggest issues with the surfer image.




BTW, could we get a transcript of the complete interview (in english), pleaese ?

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just a matter of a different cultural background. Americans don't like losers, Europeans don't like braggers.

I like how one of those isn't a four letter word.  :lol

You lost me at 'Europeans are always trying'...we are not that united! That's part of our problems!
Most Europeans (see what I did there?) love the USA and the American culture. Look at me, I'm typing in English on a Beach Boys-forum!
Let's all just kiss and make up, and laugh at Bruce's pants!

It might have been "Girl", either way, he needs to shut up  ;D



Good point but Brian did reach incredible heights with this music, music that should be appreciated and acknowledged..

If I had 10 minutes allocated to talk about the Beach Boys the last thing I would want to discuss is politics! As was said, it would be great to hear the whole interview to see who bought the subject up.

Really? For as far as I know, my country has been ran by a conservative, a christian and a right-wing party for the past few years.

Bruce is like one or two people on this board who can't let politics drop out of a single conversation.  Jezuz, people, it's not all about politics.  I'm not even sure if the interviewer brought up politics, since we don't have a transcript.  It could have been Bruce who introduced it when the guy talked about the Beach Boys making feel better about bad times.  I don't know what country YOU live in, but a lot of Americans are having bad economic times. If that makes people "jealous" because they lost their jobs or their houses, so be it. 

Bruce can stuff it.  Talk about being born on third base and believing you hit a triple.  Too bad Joe Blow from the wrong side of the tracks didn't adopt him instead of some drug store heir in Beverly Hills, or his impoverished single mom had kept him instead of giving him away.  Then perhaps he'd have a more nuanced view and be more respectful, no matter what side of the political spectrum he wound up on. I'm not jealous of your success, actually, Bruce.  I'm much happier with the parents I was born with.

This really doesn't belong here, but somebody who states something like "Socialism is bankrupting the EU." clearly doesn't know much about politics. ^^

Ugh, this guy's fancily-worded BS continues to annoy the heck out of me. Especially when he think he's some kind of moral and intellectual superior and then throws in that arrogant last line as if it's the last word on the subject. Ugh, people bring out the worst in politics and vice versa.

Anyway, yeah I don't understand Bruce, his attitude or his politics but I enjoy his music and voice. I'm just too small a human-being to let the trivial things not bother me.

Too much geographical generalising already. Stereotyping bordering on dangerous territory. All Europeans are Socialists, all Americans are Republicans? Hmm...

Let's get the complete transcript and wash this thread clean.

Is Bruce at all aware of the fact that his success is due in a massive part to the fact that an ALREADY successful band basically just let him hop on the bus for life with only the most minimal of contributions necessary from him?

In all fairness, "I write the songs" had nothing to do with the Beach Boys and that's where Bruce probably gets more money from than of the tours

PR sensitive inner sanctum person to BJ: "OK, when your onstage, plug in your mic and unplug your keyboard. And when your offstage, unplug your mic and we won't care what you do with the keyboard."

Yes, but being a "former Beach Boy" probably didn't hurt when he was shopping the song around nor did the fact that he didn't have to worry about getting a job thanks to the kindness of The Beach Boys.

And socialism may indeed be bankrupting Europe, but look at the Economy over here? Because Capitalism does very well for only the smallest sliver of the population, it's just fine?

OK, OK. I'll stop. I'm just saying Bruce could try a little humility.

The Beach Boys never really came close to putting over a "counterculture" image...the closest they came to that was in the Rieley years. Carl was probably on board the most with the "political aesthetic" that dominated the rock world from 1966-75 (or so), with the primary evidence existing in "The Trader," which clearly shades toward the "new left" view of colonialism. Bruce clearly left the band because of a profound antipathy with what Carl and Rieley were doing in the immediate post-Surf's Up era...there wasn't going to be much room at that time for tunes like "Disney Girls," which pretty much telegraphs the direction Bruce's politics would take in the ensuing years.

I do love KittyKat's comment about Bruce have been born on third base and thinking he hit a triple...some of the folks who've been the most fortunate have a strange inability to acknowledge that fact.

As a young person having lived in DC, London and Norway, I can tell you that when you try our 'social democracy' which is not socialism, its pretty good. Our moderate right wings are about as right as the democrats are. At least our terrible democracy works in the sense that parties work together, and everything is more conformed, transparent and honest compared to the US. Who on Earth would vote for a president, then take away all his powers by getting the other party into a house majority? I lulz at America all the time, it happens to be we are all in the sh*t right now... Actually, we aren't. Damn southern europeans pull all the sh*t down. Germany, Benelux and Scandinavia are doing great, especially Norway. Btw I go to free top-notch university, all paid by tax payer money.

heard of poverty? ye, lots of it in America. Poverty is unknown in Norway, the same with unemployment, Norway has full employment (and no I am speaking the truth, not some government indoctrinations jargon, take a look at how this country handled the idiot mass shooter last year....?)

America is great, I really admire the industrious nature of it and it's ideals. I don't think I could really enjoy living there in the long run.

Well that's sort of a low blow.  Just because someone uses intellectual and intelligent language doesn't mean they're trying to act superior to anyone else.  If you're an academic, you're going to speak and write like an academic, because that's the language and style you apply when talking among your peers.  Why would someone dum down their lingual style just so people like you don't get "annoyed"? And to think the Professor spews "bs"? Have you read any of his posts? He only talks about how he wishes for the Boys music to be spread to the far corners of the world to be enjoyed and recognized. Now I'm sure the professor can defend himself here, but I enjoy his contributions to this board and such a ridiculous statement such as yours really "annoyed" me.

He cared from 1966-1967  ;D, after that he never gave a sh*t  about the Beach Boys, but he could not bear to not be a beach boy....

Ok, whatever. I'm a clever guy but I don't feel like being overly verbose to prove a point. Anyway that wasn't my intention, it was his last line I took issue with. Anyway I don't want to weigh in anymore, things get awful touchy when politics get involved.

So, are you saying he should talk up drug taking? If slamming drugs is stereotypical Beach Boys talk, then that is cool with me. Also, talking up the old music; what do you expect him to say? It is what they play in concert, which in essence is what he is talking up.

Bruce knew the BBs sound in 1965 because spent the previous three years making BBs knock off songs that pale in comparison. His whole "couldn't find a replacement bass player for Brian Wilson" story sounds like bunk too. I honestly don't get why he is so nasty, he should count his blessings that his role as touring replacement for Brian Wilson led to so much more in his life with being the 6th beach boy (out of the classic lineup) that everybody knows. 

I disagree.  None of what I highlighted strikes me as good.

As a apparently politically savvy dude, I would expect you to know what socialism actually constituted, and that that concept is exceedingly far from whatever the hell is going on with the eurozone. Are you perhaps suffering from the American POV that anything left of centre is socialism?


In case no-one has noticed, America does not have the exclusive rights to having an obnoxious capitalist 1%-ing shower of bastards at the reigns. I am, after all, faced with the horrifying prospect of finding work under a Tory government.
(Oh yeah, Sandbox)

Disney Girls makes more and more sense when I read that Bruce Johnstons political compass and scope is utterly f***ed by being a wealthy SoCal resident who does not give a sh*t about anybody. He can get f***ed, honestly.

I just get generally tired of people having very strong political opinions based on adopting a very narrow and surface ideology which they apply to nearly every issue, without really knowing that much about the nuts and bolts and realities of the things they feel so strongly about.  Real life is complex and people who only see those with other opinions as strawmen or characatures are not wielding knowledge -- they're shielding themselves from being intellectually challenged and really engaging with solutions.  I tend to lean a bit left of center but I have no problem with thoughtful conservatives who can state their case with intelligence -- what few of them seem to be left now that moderate ideas -- you know, the idea that you can discuss something and reach a mutually acceptable agreement -- have been purged or discredited by the right.  (I know some will jump in and say the left too, but look...there are still moderates and even conservatives in the Democratic party, so it's not the same thing at all)

When people start throwing around words like "socialism", however, my eyes glaze over.  Labels like that are just a way of trying to win an argument without really earning it.  So yay to Bruce as guy who sticks to his guns, boo to Bruce as lazy thinker.  Or anyone else for that matter, left or right.  People throw out labels when they don't want to listen and figure out where other people are coming from.  Not down with that, and there's way too much of it all 'round IMHO.

Aye. (Even if my prior post might not bear it out, I agree with all of that)

That's my Bruce. A lazy thinker indeed.

Hey Bruce, make sure you clap really hard for the European socialists. Get 'em on their feet during the Car Medley. That's your job. You're a cheerleader. Not a musician. Not by a long shot.

What a jackass. And yes, I'd say that to his face. Good voice, bad attitude. A real piece o' crap.

Bruce doesn't surprise me because I've been told for years what he is like. I'm surprised he is becoming so public with his flaws, but not that he has them. He just isn't a straight forward guy. I know for a fact that Brian or Al or Dave would never bad mouth people like that. Even Mike is far more pleasent in truth. Oh well, but hey he did some cool stuff from 1963-72.

Well we should probably be reminded that the recent times he's been caught saying very controversial political comments was when he thought he was speaking in private.  The Obama/Socialist comment he made a few months back was caught on tape by someone recording the conversation unaware by Bruce and now this phone conversation as the OP describes, was accidentally heard after Bruce hung the phone up incorrectly.  Doesn't take Bruce off the hook, but it's no way him actively pursuing this type of attention.

I realize the Beach Boys are human, and, like other popular musicians, can at times be a little reckless. But, did you ever see a group of guys who were as self-destructive as the Beach Boys?

We all have a right to our political views and we have a right to share them if we so choose to. You guys in here have no problem voicing your own political views. You should give the courtesy to Bruce to express his, as well.

Absolutely true. But it's who he is. It's how he thinks. Because that's how he behaves when no one's watching.

Sure! Vamp on, Bruce. You are free to make a kielbasa out of yourself. Freedom.

Yeah, after I posted, I felt bad I did not point this out as well.  How many times have we said stuff in this kind of situation that we really would put differently if we knew we were being overheard?  Sometimes after you've been diplomatic with someone you disagree with, you just have to vent. Neither attitude might be the whole truth of how you feel about something.  As I said above, real life is complex.

Not surprised about this at all. I don't think there's anything evil about Bruce, I just don't think he's very genuine. He says things because there's cameras or microphones in front of his face and you can tell when he's being phony. I think a lot of what he says in interviews about the Beach Boys is because that's what looks good for his or the band's public persona.

The more stories like this that come out the more it proves that to me. Oh well, I guess being contrived is better than just being a dick all the time.

Bruce is a prick. So am I. Bruce is free to speak his mind, we're free to form our opinions about him based on what he says.

Bruce is alright in my book. Stuff like this really does not bother me. I am entitled to my opinions and he is entitled to his.

Now there are journalists here and I wonder the ethical -and probably legal- ramifications of printing, unauthorized, somebody else's private conversation.

About Bruce badmouthing, I really would not pass judgement. I am capable of that and more in my life... and I have the benefit of not being a public persona and have the world scrutinize every minutia of my doings.

I tend to lean toward the right, but only because I throw and swing from the left. ;)

They both may have trouble competing with yerown self for that

I wonder if there are any iconic bands out there that are known for such wildly divergent (re: political) personalities. I'm sure there are, but none come to mind. Most are shades of grey.

This is part of the wild, wonderful, tug-o-war that is Beach Boys fandom. And yeah...Mike Love is astute enough to not say something that stupid. Even in an off-the-record conversation with a label wonk.

Badmouthing is what most of us do here: backslashing others while having our asses covered by a monicker or near  anonymity.

As far as the Smiley board, yeah I suppose. But I get into some pretty heated political conversations with friends (some since departed friends) on facebook, where the name et al is on display for all to see. It is what it is and if you drop discretion, be ready to face the music.

Bruth is a very boring person who is bored with life and has obviously been around Myke Luhv far too long. :p

An interesting question. What matters in a case like this is not what the speaker (Bruce) intends; it's how the listener (reporter) got access to the conversation.

In other words, if the reporter somehow hacked Bruce's private phone line, or planted a bug on him, that would be not only unethical, but probably in violation of eavesdropping laws. However, what happened instead is that Bruce simply didn't hang up the phone correctly. You can make a direct comparison to cases in which politicians talk to each other in front of "hot" microphones, thinking they're actually turned off.

In each case -- Bruce and the politicians -- they're absolutely fair game.

If Bruce wanted his conversation to be truly private, he would make sure a phone was truly hung up. If someone on a street corner doesn't want you eavesdropping on them, they shouldn't be talking loudly out in public. And so on.

I'm not a journalist but it seems dickish to me to include off the record stuff. Bruce is entitled to his opinions based on his experience and I'm entitled to agree or not agree.

On the other hand, if the call was over, why didn't the interviewer hang up? Tells you how good this reporter is; his eavesdropping was the bigger story than his own Q&A.

A very logical and reasonable point. Bruce may or may not be two faced, perhaps it was just a way for him to get off his chest how he felt about that particular interview. It is what it is, you would only hope someone speaks to Bruce about being so careless and reckless regarding his media encounters.

Oh God. All these revisionist theories on whether or not the reporter went too far.

Bruce is entitled to his opinion. And when we hear it, we're entitled to think 'my God...what an entitled t@at.'

No harm, no foul. Bruce is just Goin' Public.

[edit.  Eh. I talk too much]

It's not off the record. "Off the record" has a specific meaning in journalism -- it is something a source and reporter agree to in advance. It is not something that applies retroactively (you can't take things off the record after you say them) and it does not apply to things that are said unwittingly in public (like the politicians and the hot mic I mentioned earlier).

Dickish, maybe. But if Bruce came across as insulting or cold, the fact that he then badmouths the reporter (and the reporter's country!) immediately after the interview is definitely newsworthy. It's not the reporter's job to do PR for the tour or make anyone look good.


Sounds to me like Bruce went off almost immediately after finishing the conversation. A reporter is doing a million things while interviewing someone -- sorting through questions, taking notes, thinking up follow-ups, attempting to build a rapport -- it's quite easy to imagine a scenario in which it takes the writer a few seconds before he hangs up.

For that matter, you can hardly call it eavesdropping if someone is still talking on the phone line you were interviewing him on.

Why are you laughing??

So yeah, not that anybody cares, but I think Bruce is a jackass, mostly because of his ever-so-fake happy-go-lucky persona when he obviously is just a classic older white guy who's mad at President Obama because he might have to pay a few extra bucks in taxes. He likely has no f***ing clue what socialism is, judging by the fact that he thinks the President is. If the President is indeed a socialist, he's one of the worst ever, because this country is nowhere near socialism. He also has never had to worry about money, and apparently since he can afford to send his children to the "socialist" overseas countries, we all must be able to. The "born on third, thinking he hit a triple" thing sums up Bruce Johnston.


Uh, what? I don't think so. The thing is, a lot of the European countries have been practicing extreme austerity has made their economies stall out. Please don't state your opinion as fact, and then expect us to move on. And if socialism is bankrupting us, what do you call for? Stopping Social Security and Medicare for the older people who don't work anymore? Get rid of more cops and teachers? Get rid of DMV employees, so the lines are even longer? Nobody gave a damn about spending and all this garbage until Barack Obama took over. Never heard of any teabaggers having tea parties until 2009, how convenient. They had no problem with the former President spending money out the wazoo.



I agree with you, NuttinAtol. I also would add that "the professor" is probably not a real professor, as most "conservatives" aren't very fond of that thing called "college"? It's for snobs, you know? And anyways, I think this jingoistic "America is number one" thing is ruining America. If we would stop telling everybody how great we were, maybe then we could get back to the business of making ourselves number one.

THANK you, sweetjim.

I think a lot of the reason liberal policies have gotten a bad rap is many of them have worked so well that we take them for granted, and only notice the flaws.  I'm thinking specifically about advances in civil rights, clean air and water, workplace safety (heck, the 8-hour workday and overtime), stuff like that.  We don't think of these things as "liberal" anymore, but just as the way things are -- even though back in day these changes were fought tooth and nail -- and it's hard to visualize them rolling back so you figure, hey, why not ditch this or that regulation, what harm will it do?  Not thinking about why those laws were enacted in the first place, or the very real effect they had.  The public tends to think of "liberalism" in terms of the much talked about downsides -- overregulation (does definitely happen), taxation, restrictions on liberty, etc.  Valid concerns, but it isn't the whole picture.

Anyhoo.

Oh god! Not again

Great point. Look at Social Security and Medicare. Hardcore teabagger conservatives saying "keep your government hands off of my Medicare and Social Security" not realizing that they are liberal/socialist programs. And about the regulation, right on. It's cool apparently to hate unions these days, but I'm sure if they knew the truth, they'd thank those horrible unions for helping to implement the five-day workweek, child labor laws, etc.

Right. Webster's: "given or made in confidence and not for publication". It was off the record and the reporter was dickish and apparently unethical and at the very least unprofessional [if they claim to be professional]. Bruce opining on something he thought the reporter was doing but not to the reporter, in private apparently he thought. Bruce could be wrong about it, doesn't matter.

Cam: Please don't argue with me about this.

As you admitted earlier, you don't know what you're talking about, and the more you post, the more evident it becomes. Bruce's comments were most certainly not given in confidence. They were freely said out loud into a telephone receiver. There was no deal made that anything Bruce said wasn't for publication, either.

So by your own definition, nothing Bruce said was off the record.

If a presidential candidate says into a microphone that he thinks is turned off (but that isn't) that he thinks a reporter is a "major league asshole," should that be considered off the record? It's almost exactly like the case of Bruce and this reporter here. The would-be president certainly thought the microphone was off.

http://www.salon.com/2000/09/04/cuss_word/

And yet, most major news outlets thought this was a story. And it's because such a comment is not in any way, shape or form "off the record."  Given that Bruce is a public figure and saying things directly applicable to the reporter, his country, and his readership, it would have been unethical of the reporter to suppress that information.

You see, Cam, that's the way journalism works. We do not keep secrets to spare people's feelings or to do public relations. We do not care what famous people think about us, either, because we do not work for them. We work for readers and for communities. And that sometimes involves publishing things that people would really rather we didn't.

Do people really think that if we did away with food stamps, welfare, social security, pensions, government employees, unions, unemployment insurance we'd REALLY suddenly be paying less taxes? Perhaps Bruce would, but I don't even think so. Bruce is rich but he's still just a proletariat musician.  We'd all just be paying more so that a very select few would keep more of their money. Taxes are, for the most part, pitiful attempts at paying back the SEVERE debts we owe elsewhere in the world.

To paraphrase George Carlin "OSD, they're coming for your social security, and ya know what? They're gonna get it!"

Well I apologise because I do argue with you and will continue.

Jeeeezus. he couldn't have said a worse thing if he was trying to promote the band. Western Europeans take criticism from Americans even worse than Americans take criticism from Europeans. Holland, too!! He just f***ed one of the band's best markets! Or maybe not. Maybe at this point no one takes him seriously and the fans will still enjoy the Beach Boys regardless.

Johnny Ramone was a staunch conservative, leading to lots of bad blood between him and Joey.

Listen I think the point is being missed. Politics isn't the issue because Bruce is entitled to think what he likes as are you. The problem as I see it is Johnston holding himself so far above others. He honestly thinks he's better than most people and that's why I think he's not cool.  He has a star attitude which makes him seem small and petty. Sorry Bruce may be well known to some folks, but most people don't know or care who he is. He needs to get over himself. Ego can be a good thing when wanting to be sucessfull, but I still generally don't like how he at times treats others.

I think there really is an interesting grain of thought here.  Bruce's comment (which is another cliche) about people in Europe "hating success," is a way of interpreting a viewpoint that would probably be stated by the other side as "being disdainful of people taking up an inordinate amount of resources at the expense of the rest of society."  I'm not taking a moral position, just pointing out how semantics makes a difference.  It's an effective way to shield oneself mentally from engaging the actual question being asked, which requires self-examination.  I'm not singling out Bruce, this is just something I think is a natural human thing to do when one's beliefs are called into question.  Which is exactly why the reporter went there, that desire to break through that wall...and why Bruce wouldn't take the bait.  I don't blame him one bit, but I also don't blame the reporter, either -- though I'm somewhat sympathetic to Bruce's other point that it's not a political interview and it may not have been entirely appropriate.  I wish more people got asked these kinds of questions, though, in general.  If folks have strong opinions, I think that's great.  Defend them under aggressive but fair questioning!  That happens so rarely anymore.  And consequently people get away with believing and saying the most outrageously dumb sh*t, and these ideas take hold.  Perhaps, though, a musician in a rock band who isn't particularly outspoken politically isn't the right target for that.

So, anyway, whatever.  Bummer for Bruce that he didn't hang up.

Yeah, stuff like:

* Civil rights
* Social Security
* National parks
* Clean air
* Clean water
* Minimum wage
* Worker safety
* Consumer protecton
* And much more

But Brucccccce doesn't care about that. He'd rather not pay his fair share of taxes, sit in his comfortable Montecito home overlooking the ocean knocking back Pacifico's, and think about the next time he meets Mike at a concert so he can walk across the stage in his white shorts smiling and clapping his hands.

Of course Bruce has the right to believe in whatever direction he sees fit, and to broadcast those opinions in whichever matter, again, he sees fit. I can't speak for others, but for me, It's not his views at all that made me feel the way I did when I read it, but it was the "I figured him out, you know. So I kicked his ass for ten minutes, with a smile on my face" thing. None of us have read the whole interview (with the possible exception of the OP), but it doesn't seem like the reporter was being specifically rude or pushy in that area for Bruce to have made a comment like that. Like someone else had mentioned above, it makes Bruce's "on" persona seem so false that it makes it hard for me to not think of that when I see him within the context of the band I love. The two should remain seperate, but it's just not that easy.

Yes, that's it.  Bruce seems rude and disrespectful.  It also makes me wonder why he had a Capitol records person in on a conference call for a simple interview,and whether he let the journalist know someone was listening in or not.  Is Bruce that paranoid?  There was that other incident that someone reported of Bruce going off on them backstage after a show, telling them that his time with them was "over" and they needed to save their pennies for the next Beach Boys compilation.  The remark about the fan needing to save his pennies made me wonder if he has contempt for regular people who are of more modest means.  He's proof that money can't buy class.

I've been thinking about it more, and it seems to me he's kinda always been like this. He acts like he's a rich, famous rock star that understands things more than us middle to lower class minions who don't understand the record business, and are led astray by liberals, since we don't know any better. Honestly, minus the famous rock star part, it sounds like many of my parents friends. My parents have a few couples they are friends with who talk politics with me like I'm some immature kid that doesn't understand how things work like they do.   

Like all those years  before SMiLE was out, he would say stuff kinda like "yeah SMiLE is cool, but it's better if we keep it unreleased because it'll keep the myth going" or something, and yeah sure, it's a lot easier to say that when you could probably down to Brother Studios at the time and ask to hear a mix of "Do You Like Worms". But us little stupid fans, we don't need it. Or how he told Peter Aames Carlin something like "you are more into the band than I will be in one thousand lifetimes." Its very snobby and off-putting. And now that this attitude is showing up in public more, it's getting harder to take.

Overall, I just think his behavior is that of somebody who was lucky to be a rich kid, and then lucky enough to be picked up by a great musical group, and knows his luck, but instead of being modest about himself, it seems he tries to rub our faces in it, instead.

Right it's his attitude not his politics which are the real problem.

Again bingo!

So just to recap, The Real Beach Boy, we're not allowed to post 'nonsense' topics and threads on this board, but we are allowed to xenophobic... Good to know thanks!

(As a socialist European myself, can i just point out that at least we don't still execute people over here, nor do we have small-minded and dangerous gun laws...)

Can you repeat that in English, please?

On behalf of myself and the other Smiley Smile members that aren't American or British, I would like to apologize for not speaking your language perfectly.  ::)

Come on, shouldn't you be above provocative comments like that, especially considering that you're a moderator?

Just as well Bruce can sing. What an ill-mannered dick.

Bruce can take his stiff attitude and f*** himself with it.

That really put me off him on a personal level. Forget politics, the man is just a mean-spirited prick.

Why bother to help people in their real lives, when i can get up on stage and play fake keyboards to Kokomo and make them all happy again.

Hilarious comments here about what a journalist claims Bruce may have said during what he thought was a private conversation.

Not so funny because it jibes with what many of us here know is his attitude problem. If it didn't I would be the first to say he's not like that.

Well that solidifies Bruce's standing as a grade-A, unintelligent asshole imo. Also, I'd just like to say that the Eurozone isn't the best place to look when looking for examples of where left wing politics have worked. I instead invite you to check out Australia's low inflation, steady growth and low inflation rate and tell me that efficient fiscal policy regulation is such a bad thing. Stimulus packages, welfare and medicare are what act as a buffer to keep the cycle spinning when things are showing signs of slowing down. Has everyone forgotten the famous Keynes quote that one man's spending is another man's income? The poor are the ones who are most likely to spend an increase in their disposable income down at the local shops, subsequently creating  jobs and improving the standard of living for those who need it most - how is that such a bad thing? Low taxes on the rich enhances the capacity to outsource jobs exploitatively, throw money out of the economy on risky, inefficient investment decisions/overseas holidays/etc. It's truly a recipe for disaster and I'm astonished that people truly believe that going down that route is what will be best for America, truly.

.

Well, I'm a Western European (though not Dutch) and someone Bruce would probably call a socialist (I'm not one -- I'm a radical liberal -- but even some quite educated Americans seem unclear on the distinction, and Bruce seems completely ignorant of politics), and this makes no difference at all to my appreciation of the band. I don't agree with Bruce's political views just like I don't agree with, say, Mike's religious views -- I think both are factually incorrect on a very basic level and the world would be a worse place if more people shared those views -- but that's not going to make me stop listening to him singing.

As for him being a bit of an arsehole on this occasion (and on others) -- well, yes... but I'd be very surprised if there was anyone here who hadn't done more or less the same thing at some time.

Lost amongst all this madness is the fact that Bruce apparently thinks SIP is a pretty good album.  :shrug

  We've learned a bit more about each of The Beach Boys throughout this 50th Anniversary Tour/Reunion. Bruce would seem to be the only member coming out of the experience with a diminished rep.

Yeah, well Bruce doesn't like Friends or Love You. His taste is obviously pretty strange.

Bruce said what he did off the record, when he thought the phone was down. He's done it before, he'll do it again, as we all will. To my mind, the dick is the journalist who wrote about it.

Oh, and Bruce reads this forum.  ;D

Quoting something that was said off the record is, of course, not very nice. But neither is calling someone "a dick" and "indoctrinated". So I'd say they're even.

He would be kind of a bad journalist if he hadn't. Including that part in his article is justifiable since it happenend within the situation of the arranged telephone conversation. It would be expected of Bruce to behave himself in a professional manner. He did, but only as long as he thought the journalist could hear him. Making that mistake is Bruce's responsibility only. There's nothing more to it.

Bruce is the new Mike Love!
He assumed the Mike previous role: be an asshole.
Even Mike now changed his attitude and now he's being a nice person, staying with his ego in off mode.
BJ attitude is dick, not the journalist.

I don't think the journalist did anything wrong in reporting this, but really -- have you *never* been friendly to someone you had to work with and then grumbled about them behind their back? Have you never said something about someone when you thought they couldn't hear and then found out they could?

Bruce seems to have made the same effort as the other band members not to publicly say anything stupid or embarrassing, he's just been unfortunate enough to have a couple of slip-ups recorded. It happens to all public figures and doesn't make him a bad person.

Without having read the last three pages of this thread I apologize if this was mentioned before. What is noticeable is that on this whole reunion/anniversary event nothing like a "scandal" from any of the guys happened. People were probably looking at Mike so that they could talk him down for every little thing he said. But only Bruce had his Obama video and now this. I think management should make sure that that kind of stuff doesn't happen.
And I agree, the other guys seem like cool dudes and you wouldn't expect such things from them. They may indeed share the same feelings, Idk, but seem too down-to-earth to let it slip out like that

I wonder though what Mike, Brian, Al and Dave think about Bruce's behavior. I remember an interview of all of them togetehr where the interviewer asks if Bruce is always like that and all the other guys are quite bored and say "yeah, he's always like that".

On the other hand this led me to remember a 60s magazine where about each Beach Boy a short piece was written and about Bruce all they could say was "he's awfully rich" or something like that  ;D


Anyway, as long as he sings well and doesn't clown around too much at the show in Berlin I'm fine

That's lovely, let's stereotype just as Bruce did and label conservatives as not being fond of collegiate education. Jeez...

It does surprise me to see people attacking the reporter for doing his job, and writing about a story that's just been handed to him, especially since the story tells readers quite a lot more about its subject than it would have done otherwise.  And surely if nobody was ever allowed to write about things that they weren't strictly meant to have heard, then (a) the entire history and reputation of the Beach Boys would probably be somewhat different, and (b) quite a lot of threads on this board would fall foul of the same rule.

http://www.chrislkeller.com/aps-guidelines-for-off-the-record-background

The Associated Press's guidelines are the standard for the industry.

Bruce did not ask for or expect anonymity in the interview. The fact that he continued to speak on a line that the reporter could hear means that he wasn't speaking off the record. It's embarrassing for Bruce, but quoting him in such a situation is in no way breaking a confidence or behaving unethically.

Exactly.

Stuff like that happens all the time. Let's move on.

I think we have all called people names under our breath and off the record. We all blow off steam in different ways. You should hear the stuff I say about some people in here who post some stupid stuff. We all do it. Get over it.

You are good. I love reading your posts. Now I know why; you are a saint. We don't know for sure exactly how things went down, but if it is understood that the interview is over, you hang up. You don't stay on the line and listen in hopes that that you will hear something extra. That to me, is unethical. It's a social thing, you know. This guy is granted an interview by Bruce and I'm sure all he (Bruce) expected to be reported on is the interview. That is fair and what was agreed to. The reporter is a weasel for letting it out. There was really no other reason than he got his feelings hurt and did it for retribution.

No one seems to have considered the possibility that Bruce knew the phone line was still on and wanted to have a dig at the journalist "behind his back" so that he'd hear.


And why is it so hard to avoid a "scandal" during the tour? It's simple... don't insult an audience of millions who kept the group's career alive during the late 60s/early 70s.

It's funny that he reads it. But he obviously would never post (if just to clear things up) because we're not a Johnston kiss-ass club like BBB. I think it would win him some fans back if he wrote on here and tried to smooth things over.

However, we are the fans he doesn't care about. We're like, way too into the band (way more than he would EVER be) and we don't appreciate the hits (most of which he wasn't even present for). Even though we are among the few who even know what "Disney Girls" is. Or even his name for that matter.

I love this band and I love Bruce's voice in the mix. I love SOME of his songs, but this is naive at best and ignorant at worst. That desperate attempt at macho swagger ("so I kicked his ass for ten minutes, with a smile on my face")... Well, Bruce, dude, didn't know you could be so awesome...

We probably would be if he would post here, though.  ;D

Bruce should have been more careful, but he let his true thoughts show, thoughts that are shared by many.  Europe is broke and in trouble because of its huge social welfare state.   

Bravo to the reporter for having the guts to share what he heard. Bravo. I would've done the same thing. In fact, once it goes online, I'm going to share the link with every Beach Boys fan I know. Wake the world and let them know what this entitled Santa Barbara jackass thinks about them.

He opened his mouth. He deserves full blow back.

Well America is broke and in trouble but at least we all get healthcare :)

Once again, to most of us, it's not about politics. It's the fact that he is such a goody-two-shoes when he knows the camera or the microphone is on, but when he thinks we're not paying attention, he's ignorant, pig-headed, egotistical, etc.

Now obviously, none of us are on perfect behavior at all times. But the thing is, especially when approached by fans, and people who are interested in his music, he comes off as a dick, which is odd. I, myself, make music, and any person who comes up to me and tells me they like my stuff, I feel so grateful and make sure to give them the time of day, since they gave my work time. Instead, he seems to think those who are extremely interested in his group are lame.

Lastly, I think the guy should believe in whatever politics he wants. However, he would do better to know what he's fucking talking about. He obviously has no understanding of what socialism is, and therefore should shut the f*** up about it, until he learns what it is.

It's great thinkers like you, that gives us the journalism or lack thereof, that we have today. Pretty bad when what you print from something off the record makes better copy than your own work which was on the record. Fine journalism, indeed!

What we should really do, then, is abolish journalism as a job altogether. After all, if what a journalist's job should be is simply giving us the information that his or her subject wants us to know, then really, the subject could do that without the presence of the journalist.

Actually, crazily enough, Bruce's favorite channel, Faux News, does that exact thing!

funny/interesting story - definitely worth sharing. But this is definitely NOT worth 5 pages of comments!!  He didn't say anything shocking. And this is from someone who was snubbed by Bruce at the meet and greet which had a serious impact on my enjoyment of the concert! Like someone else said Al and David (definitely not Brian!!) are probably the only normal ones. And I wouldn't doubt that there's a whole bunch of stuff about those guys that we wouldn't want to know about it either. They're wacky and crazy and that's why we love them.

They, the jounalists, are asking the questions. He should have asked the question if he really wanted to know, not print something that was said off the record. Most journalists today take the easy way out. It is sloppy, lazy, and sneaky work.

This whole exercise is not about whether Bruce is right or wrong in his thinking, but rather was the jounalist being unethical or at the least, displaying lazy journalism in printing something that was not part of the original interview, because Bruce hurt his feelings and ego.

So I assume when the mic picked up President Obama talking to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about "his next term" you stuck up for him because these comments were meant to conveyed in a private, not public manner. Or is this instance different because President Obama is a "liberal" and therefore you don't want to stick up for him?

So the journalist should have asked whether or not Bruce thought he was a socialist dick on the off-chance (or, apparently, on-chance) that Bruce would say yes? The ethical thing for a journalist to do is to find some way of tricking the subject into saying something that they would otherwise not reveal unless they thought the journalist wasn't listening?

Taken to the extreme, if a journalist is having an interview with some kind of anti-government nut who after he thinks he's off the phone talks to an associate about blowing up some local Federal building, should the journalist just ignore it because it was "off the record"?

You didn't mention it before, so how could I say anything  either way? To answer you though, that was wrong in my opinion, as well. What was said was meant to be said in confidence. The broadcasters should have honored that and not release it to the public. There is a real lack of integrity in  journalism today, I am sorry to say.

If Bruce reads this forum, may I remind him that Bluebirds over the Mountain got to #9 and Tears in The Morning to #4 in Holland!
 ;D

Exactly! The guy was pissed because Bruce called him names. As for your last paragraph, no, you don't broadcast it, but for the general good, you notify police or authorities who can do something to prevent it.

Just a little bit of difference there with blowing people up and calling someone a name. Can you see the difference there?

Cool. How high got Brian in Holland....?  ;D

So then doesn't this really become a question of what is "for the general good" rather than a question of journalistic integrity? Isn't that what really should be up for debate? It seems to me that if in one case a journalist is outright obliged to reveal the things he overheard, then simply the act of revealing overheard conversation obviously does not in and of itself constitute an ethical or moral breach.


Yes, why else do you think I prefaced the sentence with "Taken to the extreme"? Can you see that both the examples are "off the record", which is how I was comparing them?

I have no idea, probably very high. I do know that he must have had his most damaging drug experiences in the USA.

I don't think that it's news to anyone that the Beach Boys have always been at least 135 degrees away from the prevailing "politics" as espoused by the "rock'n'roll universe." Clearly that distance has drifted further as the polarization in the US has increased since the advent of Reagan (let's not forget who championed the boys at a point when it clearly helped them). I think it's safe to say that many of us here (clearly not all!) love the BBs in spite of their politics (or the signals that individuals in the band send out on occasion).

What's primarily at issue here is not politics, however. It's two-facedness. I don't know how to quantify that behavior, but it seems increasingly commonplace today--hardened in place, perhaps, by the escalation of social turmoil and the increasingly rapid changes that barrage all of us. Of the members of the group as presently constituted, Bruce is the one whose true personality seems most at odds with his image. And that's not something new, either: the reporter merely stumbled into a most unusual "moment of revelation."

That said, it must be awfully hard for any of the group members to continue devoting so much of their time to an "endless summer" of publicity and all that goes with it. They don't call it "the frenzy of renown" for nothing. I think we have to excuse Bruce for having those feelings, but it's the nature of his remarks about the way he interacted with the reporter that are so astonishing. If it had happened to one of us, even with our past knowledge of Bruce's tendencies in that direction, I suspect it would have been a jaw-dropping moment.

I honestly don't know what I'd have done if I were the journalist...but I understand the temptation to reveal something that astonishing, as it's rare to have such two-facedness on display in such a pure and unconcentrated form.

Bruce is kind of like one of those old country club ladies who play-act at being pillars of the community but turn around and say nasty things behind other people's backs. It probably stems from some basic insecurity that's developed over the years, a deep sense that he's not really worthy of being where he is. Having come and gone and come back to the band may have heightened this push-pull for him and made it increasingly difficult for him to self-regulate this type of behavior. He's had analogous moments on the Mike & Bruce tours, but the rigors of this reunion are several orders of magnitude greater in intensity.

Let's just hope that no one asks Mike about this incident...he'd probably go on record saying that "something like this would NEVER happen in America"!!!  :p

No, you  tell me if printing Bruce's comments were for the general good? How many lives were saved in Holland yersterday by the jounalist printing the non-interview comments? Again, it comes down to integrity and common sense. The fact that you and I constantly argue this stuff reminds me that I sometimes lack good common sense, especially in this forum. ;)

Seems to me that it's fairly arrogant for me to presume what is "for the general good" except to say that you don't need to save lives to do something for the general good. Raising awareness and presenting information that would otherwise be hidden is typically "for the general good."


It certainly does not "come down to integrity" which I believe I have already explained.

I see a pistol whipping in my future.... :o

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23949584.jpg)

Genius :lol

We all talk about others when we think we're not being heard.
I think the journalist should have told Bruce that he had the conversation on record, or written down, and that he would publish; or at least give him the chance to speak openly about those issues as part of the interview. You can be a dick without violating any code and that's what this journalist just did.

I will agree to disagree. We always do. :)

Actually, I majored in journalism, and the journalist in question didn't violate any codes. You don't ask a person for permission to publish what they said unless you feel you absolutely have to. In this case, it's unlikely that the journalist will ever talk to Bruce again, and the information doesn't really compromise Bruce's safety or job or anything like that, so it's fair play.

Bruce should know how phones work and be more careful. What if the reporter had put on Bruce on speaker phone because he needed to jot down notes while Bruce was talking, and he simply hadn't been able to press the button to hang up in time to miss Bruce's comments? Or what if he had assumed Bruce had hung up instead? Bruce should be aware of such possibilities.

I hope that European journalists jump on this whenever they have the opportunity to speak with Silver Spoon Johnston. Don't let him off the hook. Don't let him spin it. Make him face up to his own personal bias. Get him. 

Hardly breaking news. Man Known To Be Dick At Times Acts Like Dick. He's having a bad enough year with this whole Mitt Romney thing, plus it must be exhausting to waddle from 4 star hotel to 4 star hotel in that socialist hellhole! Maybe he'll be fine after a nap hopefully unburdened by nightmares of estate taxes and death panels.

(http://chb.live.mediaspanonline.com/assets/341998/image-2-column---new-bruce-johnston.jpg)

Bruce "Historical" Johnston: America's Cranky Conservative Uncle.

Should you be moderating a message board if you can't read English?

I can't believe people are debating whether this is decent journalism. It would be horrifying journalism if he didn't mention it! The man is not The Beach Boys' press agent, after all. Why is this up for debate?

Also notice too, that some in here who do write, did not agree with the tactics that this journalist practiced. To me, there is a fine line whether he did the correct thing in publishing the remarks or not. When it comes right down to it, the person had a personal choice to make; print it or let it pass. I think he was pissed and took retribution.

All the discussion is all well and good but no one here really challenges the underlying tenets of government: the initiation of force. Is it really ethical to force someone to ¨but into¨social security at a point of a gun? Is it safe to assume that no one would want clean water and air if the government wasn´t there? 

Can someone explain how we can trust an institution with a monopoly of violence to satisfy our wants when such institution has killed more people, not counting war, than anything else? How can we ¨give¨them a monopoly on providing clean air and water? Think of how much pollution governments create. Think of all the waste created during the housing bubbles on both of sides of the Atlantic. The untold trees savaged, and vast strectches of land clear cut to satisfy a speculative bubble. 

Not to mention the nuclear waste dumping, the wars, all the emissions from military and government vehicles. How much they spend flying around taunting you with ¨free¨goodies only to force someone else to pay and use inflation to backstop the rest.  While many intentions seem good natured, I can´t justify violence to achieve an end however good intentioned it may be.

I just can't get to where this is journalism. The interviewer sought him out. The interview was over. The journalist knows it is not part of the interview or even intended to heard by the journalist. Bruce was off the record, he was not dialoging with or responding to the interviewer and it was not the interview. Bruce is a private citizen and not an elected official. Does celebrity really make him fair game? Just because it is said and overheard doesn't mean it is journalism and should be reported.

Journalism would be even more of just straight copying of press releases if that were the case!  

If this were a French deet-doot techno act sh*tting on America and mocking the journalist for asking a polite question, that sort of arrogance would certainly be part of the story!

Off-the-record has a very specific meaning in journalism, it's if Bruce, say -- were talking to the journalist to give him context about something but didn't want that context published. "off the record, so and so was so and so," things like that. It doesn't mean an overheard comment due to forgetting how to operate a phone properly.

This journalist is under no obligation to make them look good to preserve his sources or something since it's obvious Bruce thinks he's an asshole and it's pointless currying favor by slanting the story. He doesn't need to provide "the official story" in exchange for the rights to use photos or somesuch.  He is under no obligation to smooth things over PR-wise for our favorite band. He's got us talking about it, he did his job!

Lesson for Capitol: don't just eavesdrop on the interview, be in the f***in' room and interrupt with a nervous laugh. "Ha ha ha that's very funny Bruce, um we're running short on time..." Or just issue a press release: "Just to reiterate... he's always like this. Sincerely, Capitol Records."

What sort of a lame journalist hears their interviewee making controversial comments and then doesn't include it in the subsequent story? Of course he should've reported it. If you don't want it reported, don't say it - and that's that.

Cam - I tend to agree with you and Andrew.  A three-way call can be tricky.  Sometimes the third party line does not disconnect after the conversation is technically "finished." And a party can take advantage of the position of "eavesdropper" and that is what I think is this situation.  And, even if this journalist is not bound by professional ethical standards, he should have some personal ethical standards.  No one told him that "discretion is a part of valour."

That said, as an occasional visitor to Europe (where my grandparents are from) I have always found it interesting that people jump at the opportunity to have a political discussion, whether it is at the hotel desk, restaurant, car rental agency, etc.  Maybe I'm different because I love a political discussion, and as former teacher, first, marvel at how well Europeans know what goes on in the States, and, second, put the US to shame because our kids don't know as much about Europe or their own county for that matter.  

The sharpness with politics is to be applauded even if the conversation should not have had a political turn, and perhaps should have been confined to music exclusively.  

How many of us can say we have not made a gesture at the phone during a conversation or made faces at the phone receiver?  "Hot mics" are a fact of life.  Lots of celebs and public officials have moments which were not intended to become public.  And they happen but, I find they show that person's humanity.  I often find their candor is "part on their charm."

Three-way calling...yuk! Who knows, maybe there was some way that the line was intentionally left "open?" (stranger things have happened!)  

The reporter was unscrupulous in listening as an eavesdropper and publishing what he said he heard for pure sensationalism.

The journalist is NOT a dick. Note that Bruce asks if the Capitol employee heard what was said, and the employee said he did listen.  There was nothing wrong with what the reporter did because the writer discovered a third party was monitoring the entire conversation from the start.  Did Bruce even inform him that there was another person listening?  The writer may have heard breathing on the line or some other type of clue and figured it out and didn't hang up right away for that reason.  Since the Capitol employee was part of the interview from the start, whether that fact was announced or not, whatever Bruce said to the employee was fair game and part of the record to be reported.   It was the Capitol employee who was guilty of eavesdropping, and Bruce by association, if Bruce was the one who requested he listen in to the interview. 

Yes, the journalist heard it and has the right to publish it.  But there are unwritten rules in journalism, especially in entertainment journalism.  It's not as if Bruce was ducking interviews and the press was trying hard to get some quotes from him.  Entertainment journalists often do not write about what they see and hear off-the-record, because the understood ground rule is you don't write about such things.  If you do write about off-the-record events, then access is reduced or cut-off completely.  

I'll translate, type out and post the full article within an hour or so.

I'm not sure having access cut off to Bruce Johnston is a bad thing.  He's not Brian Wilson.  I don't get why he's such a prima donna that he needs hand-holding by record company employees in case questions go in a way he doesn't like.  What, was the employee supposed to intervene and suddenly pipe up and tell the reporter not to ask certain questions?  I'm surprised Capitol Records even has the resources to do that. 

Exactly, this journalist doesn't care about reduced access to Bruce Johnston so he printed it. He's not doing a book, he doesn't need more from them, he doesn't want to stay for a weekend in Mike Love's guest house. He's not going to run into them socially every weekend in public like the insular LA/NYC media worlds... Plus he was personally mocked in a tacky way by two folks who thought they were reaaaaal clever and "kicked his ass." Off course he's not going to go back and write a puff piece.

Bruce will continue being Bruce, I wonder if that poor bastard of an employee gets fired over something dumb like this, tho.

OK, this is the full article, I translated it from Dutch. Forgive me for any bad translations.

Source: Nieuwe Revu No. 29, 2012

'That interviewer is a dick'
Aging Beach Boy curses at Nieuwe Revu

The Beach Boys celebrate their 50th anniversary this year with a new album and a reunion tour. Does that make band member Bruce Johnston happy? No, there are no good vibrations. What was supposed to be a sunny talk about surfing and California Girls, ended in quite an unexpected way.

It all started so nice. Bruce Johnston calls from California and asks if it isn't dinner time here. We answer that we don't mind delaying dinner for him, and Bruce laughs out loud.
There's still nothing wrong when he answers the (admittedly) cliché question how it is to be back. 'It's no different from when I'm not with these guys, because Mike Love and I do about a hundred performances a year as The Beach Boys. So we tour constantly, whether it's with or without Brian Wilson, David Marks and Al Jardine. My voice is always warmed up.'
Johnston doesn't want to speak of a reunion, he rather compares the situation to that of the Rolling Stones. 'They also get together every now and then. Just because they're happy to still be successful. So I'm always ready, that's the good part of the story.'
Again there's that loud laugh. Is there also a bad side? Now Johnston reacts a bit irritated for the first time. 'Should there be one? What are you looking for?'
Nothing at all.
'OK, then let's continue.'

The new album That's Why God Made the Radio sounds familiar, sometimes a bit too sentimental and nostalgic, ends nicely melancholic, but never gets truely brilliant. But of course we couldn't expect that anymore from a few pensioners in Hawaiian shirts. Johnston, who turns 70 this month, doesn't intend to reach a new audience. 'I hadn't thought about that yet. The recordings were a piece of cake. Singing is what we were born to do. Even if there wouldn't have been a microphone, we'd still be singing.'
Founded in a time of optimism, the early sixties, The Beach Boys made the soundtrack for a happy world in which the big consuming began and everybody started babybooming. How different is the world in which That's Why God Made the Radio came out, with it's implosion of the real estate market and high unemployment rates? Just don't tell Johnston that the new album was made as a remedy for the recession. 'Why would I do that?' he asks with a mixture of surprise and resentment. 'Go buy Sound of Summer if you want to be cheered up. I'm not trying to make anyone happy or sad. I'm not trying anything at all. I just do what I've always done in the studio: I sing.'
But aren't these depressing times, Bruce?
'For who? Not for me. I live near my surf spot in Santa Barbara, I do everything exactly the same way I did it fifty years ago. I play piano every day, I sail, I have tons of friends. We've always had unemployment, that's nothing new. This is just a Beach Boys album, not a record to save the planet. I don't have enough ego for that, to think that I can do something like that. I'm just a tiny dot in the big picture. I've got my own charity for clean water, that's my humble contribution. Many people in arts unfortionately use their position to preach. They often become instant experts on all kinds of issues. Maybe I sound like a spoiled child that lives in his own protected little world. That's not true. But I only know about music, and I'll leave it at that.'
All clear, so we let the subject rest. For now, that is, because after the interview Johnston will return to it in a rather agressive manner.

Bruce Arthur Johnston was born Benjamin Baldwin, on June 27, 1942. He joined the band in 1965 as the replacement for future country star Glen Campbell. The Beach Boys were already a household name by then.
Bruce may not be part of the original line-up, he did play in role in pop music history. At a young ago he was already in a band with Phil Spector. Later he wrote I Write the Songs, a Grammy-winning massive hit for singer Barry Manilow. And in 1979 he sang backup on Pink Floyd's The Wall. The past ten years he's been writing for tv and movies. And still, the sole Johnston composition that was recorded for the new Beach Boys album, She Believe in Love Again, didn't make the cut.
But before we can ask if the re-formed band is entirely a Brian Wilson show, Johnston interupts us.
'Brian is great and he gets more and more fun out of touring again. We already released She Believes in Love Again in 1985. Now we recorded it again because I wanted to improve it. But do you think that I mind that it didn't make the album? No, I stand above that.'
Johnston praises the new album, which he likes a whole lot. He tells how quickly it was recorded (in two months), and how het was mainly recorded with real instruments. In response perhaps to the flop Summer in Paradise (1992), one of the first albums that was mainly recorded using Pro-Tools software? Johnston, slightly mocking: 'You interviewers think too much. We're not as clever as you guys. Things in this world just happen. We don't plan Einstein-ish formulas. By the way, I did like Summer in Paradise.'

Well, journalists. Johnston will probably never understand them. We can't always blame him. The Beach Boys were for some time "not done", but now it's OK to consider them to be brilliant again. Their classic Pet Sounds (1966) has been on all the lists of best albums ever in recent years. 'Well, I've been having that discussion for as long as I can remember. I recall a review from 1968 that started with the line "The washed up band The Beach Boys...". Yeah, back then already. But I can't really recall a specific revival.'
He would have declared anyone insane in 1965 if they would've told him that at seventy he would still be touring. 'Do you know what changed my mind? When I got older, I realized that I still surfed, cycled, sailed, ran, all the things I always used to do. I'm just like my dog, who has no idea that he's already 104. My biggest heroes, who opened my eyes, are B.B. King and Tony Bennett. They also just go on. Than I thought: why not me? It's that simple. I was afraid that I would start to sound like an old man, but by keeping my vibrato tight I prevent that. What also helps is that Mike, Al and I never used drugs or alcohol. Never.'
The only cd that Johnston bought this year was Duets II by crooner Tony Bennett. 'The first song on that he sings with Lady Gaga, and she's amazing! She's trashy, flashy and cool, but through the years I think she will become very elegant. And her beautiful voice will be surrounded by orchestras. It will be really exciting to witness that happening.'
Which raises the question: what does the 70 year old Beach Boy think of today's pop music? 'Are you kidding? I love it, of course! If I would be young, I would be right in the middle of it. I would wear Bruno Mars's jacket that he had on at the Grammy Awards and do all those dance moves. And if I would be a woman, I'd be Adele. There's no difference from when The Beach Boys started fifty years ago. Talent is talent. I may have my rinkles, my music doesn't.

Then the Capitol Records contact person breaks off the conversation by saying that time's up. Bruce and him say goodbye and so do I. I wait for the "click" but it doesn't come. I hear the two do some small talk, about EMI being taken over, apparently under the impression that the journalist is no longer there. Then Bruce Johnston says to the Capitol guy: 'Hey, were you listening to the interview?'
Capitol guy: 'Yeah, of course.'
Bruce: 'The guy is a dick!'
Capitol guy: 'Haha.'
Bruce: 'Those Europeans are so... So indoctrinated by socialism. They don't realize that they just hate success. He tried to push me in a social direction the whole time. I figured him out, you know. So I kicked his ass for ten minutes, with a smile on my face.'
Capitol guy: 'That's why we always listen to the interviews, so we can interfere when people ask indecent questions. But it sounded like you two had a good time.'
Bruce: 'We did. But he tried to drag me into some negative story about our country. And that pisses me off!'
Then they hang up. A bizarre ending to what seemed like an innocent conversation. An incident from earlier that weeks explains a lot; Johnston, unaware of being filmed with a mobile phone, called president Obama a 'socialist asshole'. There aren't any wrinkles on his music, but in Johnston's mind America is still in a cold war with the Soviet-Union.

Don't get the cold war against the Soviets comment.

Thank you Shelter. Information is power.

I'd love to hear Bruce on Howard Stern's show. After several Pacifico's, I'm sure he'd let out his inner-Bruce.

Thanks for posting, shelter.
Glad to see we weren't jumping to conclusions...the interviewer's questions were not belittling nor rude - though it clearly seems Bruce took offense to the "are there any bad things about the reunion?" question. So what? That's a fair question. He could have said the travel, luggage, closely-booked dates.....but, no. Not every reporter has to be fishing for gossip. This guy clearly wasn't.

I think you misstate the case.  What you call "force" is really what most of us would call "civilization."  For people to coexist there have to be limits on each person's behavior, unless we all want to live in caves with clubs.

The facts of life are "all power abhors a vacuum" and "people are selfish."  Without outside regulating control, the strong will take what they want and absorb all the resources -- people may "want clean air" but history has shown us they'll dump pollution on someone else to make a buck.  Individual inspiration creates ideas, but collective action executes them.  For all the talk about individual power, in the real world, individuals who have no constituency are generally powerless.  You have to have organizational institutions.  If government is not making laws and enforcing them, a corporation will.  The only way people can truly be empowered is if they have institutions in which they are vested and have a voting say.  Government is what we make it.  Ours isn't working that well, but it's still more responsive to popular will than business or financial markets are, who have a fiduciary duty to make a profit and generally only consider the public good when it's perceived to help their bottom line or are forced to do so.  They HAVE to, that's their job.

I think it's a sad commentary on our times that the above probably "sounds socialist" now, but it's basic civics and simple common sense.  We've lost touch with the fact that, to quote that great liberal Rush Limbaugh, "with rights come corresponding responsibilities."

I think what the journalist means is that Bruce still seems to see socialist threats everywhere.

The journalist is a terrible writer. Even more, a crappy interviewer. I can't blame Bruce for being a bit perturbed by the whole thing. As I said earlier, the eavesdropping bit is the best part of the article. Though, now I understand why he just didn't hang up after the interview.

Not really. He's a well-respected music journalist and for the past few decades he's written for pretty much every Dutch magazine that matters. Maybe the article got a bit screwed up because I translated it while I was typing.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it seems like you went into reading that being on Bruce's side and nothing will convince you otherwise. Remember, the article is originally in Dutch. Shelter was kind enough to transcribe. What may seem like "terrible writing" to you may be due to the translation.

Furthermore, what is wrong with a single one of the questions the interviewer asks??? Bruce seems stuck-up about being interviewed by a European in the first place, he seemed to almost WANT to be offended so he could go off like that.

Can you imagine Al at the other end of that interview? Dave? Mike? (even) Brian? There would be no hostility there, I'm sure.

I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but Bruce in this interview sounds like a rich braggart who is so superior that it's un-neccesary for him to have knowledge about the plight of rest of the world. Nothing matters as long as he has his beach house, gets some surf and sun, and rakes in the $$$ for his compositions.

Despite all of these feelings.....I still like Deirdre.  :)

I agree, that was uncalled for by this Real Beach Boy guy who has some larger-than-life image of himself and his country.

Amen! Bruce is no stranger to journalists and I think he can more than handle our little opinions on this board. The Beach Boys are full of crazy people and we've long ago come to terms with this fact. At LEAST Bruce called Romney a merdahole!!! Let's not be too hard on the guy.

Journalist DOES sound like a dick, and went in with an agenda. The Beach Boys never been an overtly political band, they've always avoided that and have every right to (just the same as people have the right to wear their political hearts on their sleeves). Yet this guy can't help himself from trying to steer it into some pointless political cul-de-sac.

I mean, he can print whatever: it just makes him classless to listen in to a conversation not meant for him (for a prolonged period, apparently).

Seriously, I could care less about the whole thing. Funny, how you can get drawn in to threads like this. One thing though, I always got the impression that Bruce was very up on Europe and their fans. There had to be something that happened that the author is quite not spelling out that got the interview off to a rocky start. It seemed to stay that way throughout. There are journalists out there who are quite full of themselves, as well.

As much as I'd like to enter the political debate, I'll instead just note that Bruce said that they had a good time.  I've never met Bruce, but I get the idea that he's one of those people who would throw around some of these terms, even to a friend.

"Hey there, Robert, you big dick, how you doin' old pal?"

"John, you old' socialist asshole–great to see you! I'm lookin' forward to kickin' your ass for the next 10 minutes."


You know what I mean?

Not that it makes it OK--but we'd really have to hear this to make sense of it, completely.

OK, I can't resist:


I would say that government is no better than business, and government generally considers the public good only when it's perceived to help its bottom line or is forced to as well.

Particularly Federal government which is totally liberated physically and practically from the people it's representing.

I agree with all you just said, with one exception - Dierdre is totally mundane.

Fair enough.  Point being, magically eliminating government does not magically eliminate the problems inherent in managing a society.  Some kind of institution needs to be in place to regulate, enforce laws, etc.  Any powerful institution, government or business, unchecked, has the potential to be abusive, and all other things being equal power (and abuse) tend to follow the money.  My basic problem with libertarian and much mainstream conservative thought is the inability to grapple with that reality -- and that government "not being better" than business is a good argument in favor of having each as useful counterweights to one another, rather than weakening one to such a degree that the other takes over.  Once you get to that reality, then you can start to have a civic discussion over how to order that balance and arrange those institutions better, but until we see the whole picture and acknowedge it, we can't have a realistic debate over what form of government or society works best.  Otherwise, reflexive anti-government (or anti-business) rhetoric is all fantasy talk to me and I can't take it seriously.  Fair?

Plenty of high quality journalism has been made from the things that people do not want made public. Journalism in its purest form operates solely in the public interest. I shouldn't need to provide you with examples.

I follow you for most of that. Much of it is probably true. But what Bruce said was (as I've written over and over) given common journalistic understanding of the term, not off the record. It wasn't something he necessarily wanted the journalist to hear, but that doesn't make it "off the record." It makes it embarrassing for Bruce.


If you are a celebrity, you seek fame in front of the public. You are a public figure. Of all people, the Beach Boys should know that.

Well, yeah. The point being the journalist really should not be attacked for making this information public. I'm with you on this.

I dunno.  Bruce comes off a bit defensive to me, kind of like someone who's ready to take offense because they themselves have a pre-conceived notion of what they're dealing with and it annoys them...like when you have an argument with someone in your head that pisses you off, rather than the person that's standing in front of you.  Projection.

OTOH, the guy wrote the article and spun it as he saw fit.  So who knows.

I found the mostly thoughtful tone of the muted political discussion really inspiring, by the way.  If only that was the rule and not the exception.  *sigh*

Well, Bruce and the Capitol guy eventually did hang up, so they must have noticed that the interviewer had been able to hear their little discussion. They could have called him back to apologize and to ask him to not include it in the article, and I'm sure that any decent journalist would have respected that. But they didn't, and the journalist just did what a journalist is supposed to do: he picked up something that he thought was interesting enough for his readers, so he wrote it down.

I don't think that would have helped much - it's like being caught in a lie. I doubt an "I'm sorry" to the reporter 1 minute after he called him a dick (without having known he could hear) would have meant much at all.

Pixlet for the win!

Wow. Do you make generalizations about "Asia" like this, too? As a professor of political economy, I would suggest that your generalizing about the more than 40 countries, with an incredible range of policies on taxation, social welfare, state intervention, etc, support my earlier assertion about the "biologically predetermined ideological tendencies" (that perplexed you in an earlier thread), which inform both political beliefs and opinions about the relative merit of various Beach Boys.

Thanks though; I'm getting a really cool idea for a journal article.

Why isn't this thread in the Sandbox where it belongs? Why do I feel like I'm reading a typical Shut Down board 'other topics' politics thread from a few years ago? Why are people firing of snide xenophobic comments off at each other, including a moderator? And most important of all, why doesn't Bruce know how to hang up a telephone which would have saved all this goshdarn nonsense in the first place?

Having now seen the article, Bruce was clearly doing a press junket. A PR rep is almost always on the line during phone interviews to make sure the interviewer keeps to his or her allotted time with the guest. I've done a bunch of these (in fact there was a PR person on the phone when I did an interview with Brian and there was one on the phone yesterday when I spoke with another guest who was doing about 10 of these interviews in a row).

Whether or not, the reporter crossed a line by including an overheard conversation into the body of his interview is another story. Personally I wouldn't have done it but then again I've never overheard someone call me a "dick" so who knows how angry I'd get. I have had plenty of conversations with artists/musicians that took place after I had wrapped up the interview but the tape was still rolling. I've never included any of that stuff because it was understood by the guest that the interview was over..but that's just me.

Nothing painful here, really. Bruce is a Republican. Who cares? Moving on.   

Add Some Politics To Your Day
South Bay Socialist
Our Capitalist Club
She Believes In Welfare Again
Give Me A Handout Rhonda
I'm Bugged At My Old Man (because I hate success)
Girl Don't Tell Me You're A Socialist
Busy Doin Nothing Except Adjusting My Mike And Clapping
Never Learn Not To Hang Up The Phone

Why the hell are you on a fan forum to begin with?

He's stating his opinion like we all do.

Ugh, I thought my song-title puns would have killed this thread......

Well said!

:lol, esp. the last two

Likely because he's a Beach Boys fan and likely was drawn in by the writing of Brian Wilson and the performances of the group. And he also realizes Bruce Johnston is one of the least essential Beach Boys, and he thinks he's a d*ckhead. Any questions?


Ooooo I love this. This is like when a magazine gives The Beach Boys a bad review: "That magazine has always stunk. Stupid hack writers!"
Then another magazine gives them a good review: "Man, I always knew the writers at that magazine did good work!"

Why is this guy a jerk? Because he wanted to know if Bruce thought that music had healing qualities in times like this, like other members of the group do? What a horrible question. Maybe he should have asked him how it feels to be making a bunch of money doing f***-all besides wearing short short and clapping! And playing his obligatory solo number that most of the crowd doesn't give a sh*t about (even the hardcore fans).

Ha! No.

And a few more things:

1- kudos to shelter (great nickname!) for translating the article.

2- with all the difficulties of translation, it still sounds like a somewhat tense or antagonistic interview.

3- Bruce sounds deffensive and/or aggressive. And the interviewer comes off as a dick, although his tone must have been arrived at after the facts and may not reflect the spirit of the actual conversation.

4- I can't and I won't backslash Bruce for his words after he thought the inerview was over. He did not misbehave as long as he thought the interview was going on. Just like any of us.

5- I have no idea why Mike's name has been brought into this thread. I don't think he's misbehaved in interviews... well EVER, probably. Surely, he's said things that some people may not agree with, but that's an entirely different matter.

6- this thread proves that KittyKat may not be Bruce after all.

Can the 30 or so people who have written here just agree to let the other two people on this thread who think that the interviewer was a dick and did not have the right to print this have their opinion so we can move on.

I wonder if the reporter repeated the whole interview? What was written certainly doesn't sound like a full ten minutes worth of conversation to me.

Seems fair enough that Bruce gets grilled for direct quotes on tape if it's cool to crucify Mike for 45 years over some heresay ;)

If this guy published these comments because he was offended he seems even more like a dick. This still seems like an off record situation rather than a not for attribution situation.

Bruce could care less. He is not shy with his opinions. And I know this first hand by him sticking his head in my car with my family aboard and admonishing me for actually running into the band when they were checking into a hotel in KC. Remember Bruce? I'm sure you do. Come to think of it, I've had several personal contacts with BJ. In a bar after a concert in Austin in 1969. The car thingy in the mid 80's, and for a long time before a concert in Wichita in the early 90's, when he pleaded with me to get the weather report as storms were threatening. Bruce, if you do read this board then I have two words for you. EAGLE, NEBRASKA.  June 1989. We nearly all perished that night. So I can say with some confidence, Bruce could care less what you think.

Because I love the Beach Boys, and I'm not screamingly biased in Bruce's favor. Like you, mensa. What an ignorant thing for you to say.

Post of the month!! :pirate :happydance :woot :woot :thumbsup

Bruce's 'flubs' have become pretty entertaining. it's always good to have a little controversy. maybe the guy was being a dick. sometimes, people make pretty extreme 'liberal' comments with the assumption that they are 'objectively moral' or something.

Well said. More folks should be as content as Bruce clearly is.


I'm not going to bite my tongue due to my position on this forum or because others don't like my opinions. Never have, never will. I'm entitled to an opinion as much as anyone else. It's nothing personal. If anyone wants to make it a personal issue, I'll happily take it to PMs. Folks had their shots at me and that's fine. People aren't going to agree on everything. Let's keep it that way. The board will be better off.


I really don't, but you can think whatever you want. :)

Dave. Whenever the topic is Bruce and his weird ways, I always come back to your car story. Classic!

Completely fair.  I particularly like that you say "inability to grapple" because I think it should be a grapple.  The answer isn't obvious.  And you're right, that we can't have a good, honest debate about things with which people aren't willing to grapple.  There's a strain of Utopianism in mainstream politics, be it the left or right.  But it's never going to be pretty.  Like James Madison wrote, people aren't angels.

Certainly Bruce isn't an angel...

So true...he really doesn't.

Wanted to read the whole article before commenting. Now that I have...it's Bruce being all too typically Bruce. Enough said. I'd rather read thousands of words discussing a painful interview with Daniel Johnston. Or even one with Freedy. Let's just settle down and wait till Bruce does something worth devoting a gigantic thread to. Like wearing Speedos onstage. Which he'll probably do this weekend.

I hate getting involved in such a soap opera, but I can't hold my tongue. I haven't read the whole thread, but drbeachboy (if you're even a real doctor), you're really making yourself look silly here. And I'm quite surprised AGD is on the same side as well, I would think you would be for journalistic integrity more so than anyone else.

As much as I respect AGD, I'm pretty sure he knows right wing Brucie pretty well, and doesn't wanna rock the boat. I don't blame him.

For me the point I am making is that it doesn't hurt to try to be kind and understanding no matter what business you are in. I liked seeing Bruce on this tour, I don't feel he has the talent of the others, but Disney Girls and his energy worked as part of the show. It isn't that I really care about his politics, it's just that I think people shouldn't rush to judge, be so quick with a putdown, or feel they are above others. With my job I have met many musicians and most of them are cool. Most of the people in and around the Beach Boys are also very cool, but Bruce just doesn't seem to care if what he does is hurtful. That's what I find to be sad. If I am hard on him it's because I don't think it's ever too late to improve ones self. I think the Brian, Mike, Al, and Dave of today are much more mature and thoughtful than say their 1978 selves. Bruce just hasn't shown the same growth.

Bruce may well indeed read this, and my two cents might mean he'll trash my book, but I'm honestly not concerned. I'm not trying to be an insider or hang with the band, I just want to fairly tell the story of their music. I don't go into my personal feelings about him ethically in there, and feel I am fair to his work, but hey I would rather him think about the things he says than like me personally. Frankly I doubt he will care what we say, but maybe he needs to stop looking at us as Beach Boy to Beach Boys fan. Maybe just maybe our study of his life and career may provide some insight on how he makes people feel in a personal situation.

I have had someone bad mouth me on the phone (nothing to do with Beach Boys or my work) without thinking I could hear them and it's not a good feeling if they have just been seemingly kind. Nobody's made of stone Bruce.

Shut Down can't hold a candle to this board.  No control freaks here and people state their opinions freely without an Admin breathing down their necks and threatening them all the time. That's why Shut Down's dead now.  Welcome to the First Amendment, Paulos!

I can't say, since I don't know all that much about the guy, but once again I think the reason he is so petty and mean-spirited has to do with the fact that he's never really had it tough. Brian, Mike, Dave, and even Al have between them all dealt with family issues, emotional problems, people using them, etc., whereas Bruce has seemed to just kinda skate through life with no real strife. And I think the fact that the others have had to overcome more adversity makes them more sensitive to other people's feelings.

I think that's it. I mean, I was never rich by any sense of the word, but I used to live comfortable, and as much as it shames me to admit it now, there was some arrogance. Now as I have been having severe financial troubles over the past few years and am about to be homeless in a few weeks, I know the meaning of humility.

+1

Love it.  *handshake*

I gotta say, this also rings true for me too.  I was born of well-to-do, basically conservative parents, though it was the northeastern pro-business strain and not the social conservative strain that some of my family has brought into.  I was thoroughly exposed to those ideas in my formative years and still respect them...in fact, a lot of my "liberalism" these days comes from basically conservative values of civil, personal and fiscal responsibility...I just see those things in much broader terms than many modern conservatives do.  But anyway, what I meant to say was as a young adult without having had any really bad experiences, and not wanting for anything, I definitely had a lot more insensitivity and "let them eat cake" sense of entitlement.  If you're in that situation you don't necessarily want to grapple with people with other life problems, because it makes you uncomfortable and feel guilty.  There's also the very real fear people have of something bad happening to them -- and a way folks cope with that is to tell themselves that they are superior and nearly all of the bad things that happen to people are the result of moral failings and bad choices (I was, in fact, taught this).

What woke me up was being a newspaper reporter and having to see, and weigh, multiple sides of an argument.  Well, and Bush's invasion of Iraq making absolutely no logical sense to me on its face, but that's another story.  But I think there's really an upbringing factor that is key here, whether it's adopting the environment that you were brought up in, or rebelling in it.  Thinking for oneself, and reaching one's own conclusions, is very difficult and also not encouraged in our society (individualist ideas notwithstanding, we get blasted the same messages over and over by a tightly controlled media).  It requires effort and (most of all) self-questioning, which makes most folks uncomfortable, particularly if they're insecure.

It's interesting that the one really bad experience I've ever had in a band with someone with "showbiz" disease was with an ex-minor rock star who was as it happens a strident, judgmental hard liberal.  Even though I agreed with him on a lot of issues I found his black and white stances extremely hard to take.   I think his stridency was a result of deep insecurity, of lashing out so that his core ideas (and self) would not be threatened.  He also had a habit of shooting his mouth of publicly in ways where he had no concept of how it was coming across, which is one of the reasons I stopped working with him.  I think it's that bubble factor that fame and/or wealth can create if people allow themselves to get sucked into it.  Hardship forces a lot of us into that self-questioning.  But if it doesn't happen, it's easy to create a reality that reinforces what you want to believe about yourself.  Some people to do it anyway.

The "kicked his ass for ten minutes" part is the worst part of the comment, in my opinion. It's not even arrogant, it's downright bragging, like he's some macho tough guy. Shades of rocky pamplin.  >:D

Dave, if you don't mind my asking, what did he do at the bar in 1969?

Two problems with this point of view:

A).  The more socialistic countries like France, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. are doing the best economically.

B).  The US was far more socialistic (progressive taxation, strong labor unions, etc.) in the 40's, 50's and 60's) than it is now.  And we were also in far less danger of going bankrupt back then.  If Bruce doesn't like socialism, then he should be pretty happy about things nowadays compared to how they were when he was a kid/

That's all I will say about this topic. 

Good stuff, Adam. Would only that more folk evolve in that direction of thought. It's important that we step out of our own perspective and listen to others.

Even if it's on a phone line that has been left open by accident...  ;)

BJ has a Grammy on his shoulder.

So you can read English then...

I agree with some of you it's clearly PR press talk by Bruce.
Therefore he wanted only positivity, cos you wanna sell the latest record and promote the latest tour, don't you?
I would take much of the interview with a grain of salt.

"By the way, I did like Summer in Paradise."

Really, Bruce? Earlier comments, I remember reading them somewhere on the net, said the contrary.
I think Bruce dislikes SIP as much as his own Pyama Party lp from the 60s, of which he admitted to be awful in his own view.

 No strife in Bruce's life? That's a huge leap, don't you think? EVERYONE has problems, even Bruce Johnston.

Exactly. Have we all forgotten --  or are we simply unable to sympathize -- that his baby mama moved out up to Europe with his kid, and packed her warmth and took her soul? That's enough to make me hate those socialist assholes any day.

Just confirms what I've suspected all along....Bruce Johnston will kick your ass, and he'll do it with a smile on his face.  :lol

I have been dismissing Bruce's opinions on Europe ever since I learned that he thinks it rhymes with "sure of".

"Just confirms what I've suspected all along....Bruce Johnston will kick your ass, and he'll do it with a smile on his face."

Wearing shorts and clapping at the same time.

Bruce isn't going to read this.  I asked him after the soundcheck at Red Rocks whether he reads or posts to this board, and he emphatically said that he doesn't read or post anything on this or any other board.   If I were an artist, I wouldn't read the boards either. They're filled with ignorant, personal, negative crap.

 I attended the soundcheck at both the Dallas and Red Rocks shows, and Bruce was very friendly and gracious at both, and he went out of his way to engage the crowd who bought the VIP packages.  During the Red Rocks soundcheck, I yelled "Bruce, you sound great!" (which he did), to which he said, "Brian's the guy to thank, he wrote it, I just sing."   That doesn't sound like an egomaniac to me.  I know he has his bad moments, but he's 70 years old, and he and his mates gave me 3 hours and 10 minutes of fantastic entertainment (2:45 of actual playing + 25 minute soundcheck, 6 soundcheck songs + 51 show songs). I can overlook his faults.

I am a Democrat and a fan of Obama, but I don't have any problem with people who think he's a bad president. In a comment a couple of months ago (secretly taped by a fan), Bruce said, "we're f***ked if Obama gets re-elected. But our guy (Romney) is bad too."   I don't have a problem with that comment, and I do recognize that he could be right.  I do have a problem with people repeating right-wing lies, such as "Obamacare gets between you and your doctor" (rated FALSE by politifact.com), "Obamacare is the largest middle class tax increase in history" (rated PANTS ON FIRE), "Obamacare is government takeover of healthcare and/or socialized medicine (2010 politifact.com Lie of the Year)", Obama was born in Kenya (according to Trump and Huckabee, rated PANTS ON FIRE), Obama apologizes for America (repeatedly rated FALSE), etc.

News to Beach Boys Britain, then! Wonder why he lied to you. Because if he actually said "or any other board," then yeah -- no misunderstanding there. Just an outright lie or somebody on there has a very rich fantasy life. Maybe he doesn't want 'mericans stinkin' the place up, or maybe he wanted to do his I-can't-believe-you-care-so-much-it's-just-a-job-to-me shtick.


Yeah, I'm way too oversensitive and would be crushed. But I'd also be morbidly curious and would check at odd moments, then snarl "oh what the f*** do THEY know!" and close the browser after a bit.

baba booey baba booey beach boys rock baba booey baba booey

I think that was part of his "in your face" attitude towards the interviewer.

Bruce has always struck me as an "odd duck" but honestly...did he say anything we didn't already know about him?  I think everyone on this board is aware of his political stances.  He probably should have made sure the line was dead before he shot his mouth off, however.  I've read several "interesting" Bruce stories on this forum...and I'd love to hear more!  He really is a good fit for the band...dsyfunctional like everyone else (except for Alan)!

Bruce lied to you.  He reads and posts on the Beach Boys Britain message board.

Can we morph this into a list of Chuck Norrisesque type statements?

Bruce is really striking out here.  Now he's blatantly lying to folks!

Bruce Johnston doesn't read messageboards. Messageboards read Bruce Johnston's mind

http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1343294268&user=bellagio


and he doesn't read or post to any board??? (scroll down past the photo)

He was shocked that a fan had tracked him down in the back room of a bar. He politely signed my Friends album and then quickly said goodbye. By the way, Bruce and I talked about that meeting a few years ago and he remembered everything exactly as I did. Even the pretty lady with Indian feather headband he was with. One additional note: Back in 2003, Bruce had his wife come out to sing FFF with him. That was surprising. Nobody knew who she was but the tip off to me is when she walked out on stage, I read her lips. "Hi baby!" And she too is a pretty lady.

Over and over Bruce Johnston flies...


Uncover the cornfield.

Someone (can't recall who) on this board recently stated that Bruce and his wife split up many years ago.

I think all we've learned here is that Bruce is a living/breathing human....

What's the Eagle, Nebraska story?  Details please.

Wrong Erik! We are here discussing Godz! OK, maybe not Bruce; he's more of a disciple. But, really the whole BB's saga is a bit like Greek and Roman mythology.

Maybe being anointed "Bruce Historical Johnston" has gone to his head!

I'd sure be full of myself if such an honer befell me!

Sure. It was a very hot and humid Friday night show at the racetrack in Eagle, NE, just East of Lincoln. It was a Chicago/Beach Boys show, with the BB up first. After their show and during intermission, the sky turned very ugly and the sound of distant thunder could be heard. My wife said, no way am I leaving now that Chicago has started; we drove like crazy to make it here! Bad mistake. After about 3 songs and us running for the car, the sky opened and flooded the place out. The winds were horrific. We were stuck in the now mud-filled parking lot until a tractor pulled us out at 3am. The next day in Lincoln on the news it was reported that Chicago almost lost their lives and the Beach Boys equipment was ruined. The BB thought they were safe in their trailers and we thought we could make it out in time, but that last song cost us a chance to get out of there. Oh Bruce remembers Eagle alright! And I'll never forget that horrible night either. That following Sunday as we were driving home, news of Tiamenen Square came out.

Surf's Up wasn't obvious enough to you?

If it were  a Disney movie, it'd be this

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/376908_342959665787180_881740154_n.jpg)

LOL i really don't get why anybody on this board is surprised. Have you ever in your lives talked to an elderly person by chance?

Bruce Historical Johnston Presents: I Re-Write The Songs:

Disc 1:

Socialism Safari
Communist Fair
Ten Little Liberals
Chug-A-Liberal
Little Girl (you're my miss Democratic-Socialist)
$409 (in food-stamps)
Surfin the SS message board
Capitalism I Win - Socialism You Lose
Obama-time Blues
Cuckoo Communist
Moody Old Dog
The Microphone Shift

Disc 2:

Surfin USSR
Farmer's Liberal Daughter
Miserableinterviewlou
Stoked (because my welfare check came)
Lonely Commie
Shut Down SNAP Dammit!!!
Noble Capitalist Senior
Honky Hand-Out Tonk
Liberal Lana
Republican Senior Jam
Let's Go Trippin On What A Dick That Interviewer Was
Finders Keepers (In An Off-Shore Tax Haven)



Ugh, I have way too much down-time at work.


  

This is the funniest thing I have read all week.

I've had a recent run in with Bruce's sass and I have come out of it loving him all the more. I appreciate his all-business approach and if we're looking at the Beach Boys as a representation of riding the American Dream wave in the 20th century, his story is as poignant as any others in the band.

And his face reminds me of a chocolate chip cookie.

That explains Bruce's favorite Muppet, then.
(http://www.memehumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Cookies.jpg)

Note: The above views expressed by Cookie Monster do not reflect the views of your humble moderator.

Surf's Up was written during the Derek Taylor era I mentioned. If you talk about the album, that is not Brian trying to shred any image but just him giving the boys a few of his songs. Carl was in charge though and him and Rieley decided where to go.

Do not call Bruce Johnston "BJ". Just don't. No one should be named that, no one should be nicknamed that, it should never be used as an initialization to refer to someone. Same goes for "DJ".

Just refer to him as Bruce "F***in'" Johnston!  Nobody, and I mean nobody can ham it up on stage like the Bruce-meister!

Mods, where are you? Please filter "Bruce Johnston", "Bruce", or "BJ" all to say "Bruce Fuckin' Johnston", please.

Bruce Historical Johnston, or even BHJ, are also perfectly acceptable

Agreed. It makes me wonder what Bruce could or could not have said have said in order to make the interview somewhat less painful to anyone who felt pain as they read the article. It's comical.

:lol

That was one of the great all-time botched translations...love it

I suppose, depending on the issue, we all tend to sit on high-horses sometime or another. ;) I'm with you, I found the whole thing quite comical, as well.

Just don't mention socialism and you'll be okay.

To me, Bruce looks like Ernie. And here he is about to pistol-whip his rubber duckie:

(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/chewbacca7/ernie.jpg)

good stuff my friend...!

agreed, Bruce greets people this way these days.

   The Best of Bruce:

 1) Disney Girls  2) The Nearest Faraway Place  3) Deirdre  4) Tears in the Morning  5) I Write the Songs  6) Pipeline  7) Endless Harmony  8) She Believes in Love Again  9-12) Some of his pre-Beach Boys surf music.

 Makes for a pleasant listen, but if you are looking for rock & roll, move on.

 If I were a songwriter and came up with something like "Disney Girls", I'd know that I had picked the right profession. That tune will survive as a Beach Boys' classic and as a pop standard. 

 Funny thing about Bruce circa 2012 is that this reunion and its attendant publicity have revealed Bruce to be as eccentric as anybody else in the band save Brian. Sail On, Bruce.

 Post deleted by Moon Dawg.

Bruce sings his ass off in the new album. Most specially the chorus to Isn't it time.

That he does. As much as a doofus as he is, he definitely proves his worth as a Beach Boy on the new album.

Too bad he that in the 19 or so years since Summer In Paradise he couldn't come up with one song worthy enough of working on for a Beach Boys album.

He definitely does!

Absolutely. On other songs you can hear his high and clear voice as well. He did a great job on the album

As hard as I am on him in this thread I agree he did a good job on the album. He also sounded good in the blend during the tour.

Admittedly I haven't read through this entire thread but after reading the first post, I'd have to say I stand by  Bruce Johnston in this instance.  While I fervently believe in the freedom of the press, I feel the media in general today is far too familiar in their discourse regarding certain topics and that includes in their interviews of subjects.  There was quite obviously something said by this reporter that caught the ire of Johnston and while I would have preferred that Johnston had put the reporter back in his box directly, I don't begrudge him for his sentiments regarding the interview.

+1

Bruce is the man. Gotta love him.

It caught the ire of Johnston because the guy was talking about poor people and the fact that music can even make those of us who didn't grow up rich feel great. But Bruce has made it clear that he is more special than the rest of us, and that he doesn't give a flying f*** if people don't have jobs.

It's not like the guy attacked Bruce for being a teabagger or anything. Didn't even bring up his politics. He talked about music being spiritually helpful in tough times, ya know, like that Brian Wilson guy has. Unfortunately, Bruce apparently has no spiritual side, he's just a materialistic piece of sh*t; note his constant referencing of his part in the band as "his job", always talking about chart success in relation to artistic merit, etc.

Agree to disagree. :)

Was looking at Bruce's latest posts at the BBB board, and I have to admit that whenever he really gets to the point where I figure I've lost patience with him, he'll write something so damn funny I have to forgive him just this once...again.  This time, he was replying to a post from Tony Rivers (a British vocalist on the scene since the '60s, who Bruce met when he was in London in '65).

 Rivers asked about the differences between the US setup and the Europe one. Bruce apologized for the band not bringing along their soccer pitch...and skateboard ramp....and wave pool....and Brian's living-room furniture and sandbox for the piano.  

OK, now I know what I want for the stage decor for the tour next year.  All of that. Dogs can be optional.

Bruce also informed somebody that no, it wasn't true the band played Mona and The Night Was So Young in Rome.  I get the feeling Love You is gonna follow 'em all the way to the Albert Hall.

Yup.

Double Yup. I support Bruce's right to have political views, what others think that way doesn't bother me, but it doesn't hurt to be cool to people. Even if he thought the guy was off it was a dickish thing to do that reminds me so much of junior high school BS.

Every time this thread pops up I think about the guy who posted earlier that had a negative experience with Bruce at a VIP Meet & Greet. After a fan lays down hard cash for a Meet & Greet during the 50th Anniversary Tour, NOBODY should be treated like that.

Especially by a guy who continues to hold onto coat tails.

Disagree about the coat tails bit but agree with everything else.  I see the situations as two separate issues and I do think that Johnston was out of line for how he treated that fan.  It's already been much discussed so there is no need to rehash it again.  As I said at the time, if nothing else at least fans are forewarned that Johnston might not be the most approachable member of the group.

I chatted with Bruce backstage - NO VIP $ involved.  He was way cool.  We talked England, surfing, Kona, his kids.  I totally disagree with his politics X 1000000000 but I found him nice.

Bruce on England: "England is a socialist nightmare. If only Thatcher was still alive!"

Surfing: "I didn't surf. None of us except Dennis surfed. Surfing is a great way to get yourself injured or - worse - killed. Who actually still surfs?"

Kona: "Oh God, who wants to trek all the way to the Kona coast? Are you kidding me?! Everything is happening in Honolulu, anyway, and there is plenty of nature to take in on the mainland. Although, you know,  I do wish Hawaii had more of an economy than siphoning off rich white men and the Japanese. I just feel so filthy when the natives talk to me. It's like, here's $5 bill, now go away."

His kids: "I don't know why I ever had kids! Headaches and money."

Some guy.

One point to consider with all of this surrounding Bruce's comments:

Has any of this had any kind of visible effect on The Beach Boys in 2012? His comments from a few months ago were featured on TMZ and posted/copied on other blogs, yet how many remember it now? These current comments...apart from the handful of folks posting here, who else would actively seek out this particular issue of this Dutch magazine? And is there really that much disdain over what Bruce said that it may drive some fans to say "f*** it, I'm done with that band!" because Bruce's comments didn't sit well?

It hasn't meant a thing to The Beach Boys' current activities. I haven't heard examples of groups of liberals protesting the band's concerts, nor groups of conservatives demonstrating their support at the venues. The first story was a non-starter, it came and went as a one minute segment on TMZ, then they were back to covering Kanye and the Kardashian family in the next breath.

The lack of any kind of reaction outside the niche market of fans discussing it here might show just how unimportant these things really are in the big picture. In this instant news cycle, it's gone in a matter of hours unless there is something more substantial for the media to latch onto and keep alive.

And he'd be absolutely right, there.

How many kids do you have?

Wonderful.  I never care about such trivia; even though the professor is an arch conservative and a well-known opponent of liberal academia, BJ's politics does not make me listen to or love the BB "more," just as many liberals will not (if they are true music fans) love the BB "less" because BJ opposes Obama and the jejune longings of Utopian socialism.

It's well known that Dave is my favorite BB, and I strive to support him as a fan; his song "1969," about the US war in Iraq, satirically referencing a "party on the white house lawn" may be a liberal, anti-Bush and anti-war sentiment, but I do not oppose Dave nor the song because of the political stance it takes; I am open to artists speaking on occasion about events in their own time; that is an artist's role, and I will never dismiss an opus nor a song because of the personal politics of the author. In fact, I would never want artists I like to subordinate art for politics overtly; I would die of shame if the BB did an anti-socialism song, and I am more likely to to tolerant of the opposition than of advocates of my own political views. Reconsider the quotation from Shelley I posted a while ago.

I bear no one malice; let's keep listening and enjoying this endless corpus of complex musical beauty, which itself often engages with the chronicle of human history, both culturally and politically.

Judging from many of the reactions here you'd think Bruce was the first person ever to criticize the Dear Leader or the EU...

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Well, at least he's kind enough to be open to artists speaking "on occasion" about events in their own time. It comes as a great relief to the artistic community, I can tell you. Some of 'em are grumbling about scheduling conflicts and want to iron out the exact meaning of "on occasion," tho.

Liberals like when people speak about sh*t they agree with, conservatives like when people speak about sh*t they disagree with "on occasion", libertarians like when people speak their mind, PERIOD. :)

What professor is an arch conservative and a well-known opponent of liberal academia?  Who are you talking about in this sentence?

Good Question:  To "the professor" On occasion means when events inspire a just artistic response that will transcend the specific historical moment, such as the great song "Eve of Destruction," which I stood cheering to hear when BM played it at a coffee house in Pasadena in a concert last year.  I am in no position to permit or deny anything; I am speaking of what works in the larger literary tradition of artistic engagement with history.  "Bonzo goes to Bitburg" is an example of a failed attempt (by a great band) to speak to history; "Eve of Destruction" is a success, thematically and artistically.

Thus listeners and readers will determine whether the "occasion" was just and proper for artistic treatment. I am judging the results, not creating laws and rules for what can or should be done.

I am very busy now, so pardon me if I no not respond to you all further on this matter; my point should be clear.

best to all.

Professor S.I. Hayakawa ? He's been dead for twenty years, but the sentence describes him rather better than any poster on this board...

:thud

Gimme a break.


These days, most libertarians are also former Bush voters who realize it's uncool to be perceived as "Republican" or "conservative". Many "libertarians" are pro-war and anti-drugs, so yeah, for the most part American libertarianism is bullshit.

I'd just like to make a quick point. If Bruce was very left leaning, and bashed the Republican party left and right and was vocally outspoken against corporate America and made his views very clear and well known to the Beach Boys community as he has done lately, be it inadvertently, no one would be making much of a fuss. It's because the general music community is left leaning and always has been.  Just look at the anger from this thread. There have been what, three conservative posters who have expressed their support for Bruce and voiced their opinions? Look at the responses to those people.  Everybody likes to say they respect people's opinions and political views, but  you have the professor make a mildly conservative remark and we have four or five people making sarcastic remarks. It's almost as if the conservative posters here dare not speak out against liberal sentiments because, well, how can you possibly be so ignorant, you Republican jerks? It would be nice to see more of what Adam was posting: open, constructive, respectful discussion without all the snide remarks.  Conservatives can be nice people too, ya know.  I know that seems hard for many of you to believe, especially in light of Bruce's somewhat asinine comments, but the "you're a moronic conservative" attitude is really in opposition to the "openness" everyone claims to possess.

Lovely. To prove my point, the above post.

The truth is the exact opposite of that. Eve is a hilariously overbaked attempt by a bubblegum songwriter to emulate Dylan. Bonzo is a truly impassioned, moving, unexpected, catchy topical song that outruns the Clash on their own turf.

I would imagine that the conservatives who don't like crazy left leaning musicians would be making a slight fuss, right? I mean, by fuss standards it'd be a tiny fuss. Say, equivalent to the fuss over this. I'm sure it wouldn't be highlighted on say, Hannity or anything. Fox News wouldn't dream of attacking a left-leaning musician and right wing groups would never dream of organizing a boycott.


Right. It's so brave to face this overwhelming wave of... tepid early afternoon liberal sarcasm. Somehow they manage to dare speak out against the oppression, tho. Profiles in courage!

Look, you make provocative comments, you'll get the same back! Twas ever thus.

Way to generalize. Libertarians are very much anti-war and pro-liberty, that includes drug use. Come back when you have a leg for your argument to stand on.

I fail to see what was so provocative about Bruce's remarks. I guess opinions are fine as long as they're in line with the angry mob's opinion.

I was talking about the per'fesser. I don't think Johnston has been provocative for decades. Ever since that summer when he taught me the true meaning of being a woman.


Right, I'm holding a pitchfork and EVERYTHING! I hate free speech! Once in a while, I even post on a message board.

No, I made very relaxed, in my mind neutral, observations.  You responded with more sarcasm and petty jibes.  I never said anyone is facing overwhelming waves of oppression, but you felt the need to exaggerate my words and blow my observations out of context.

Furthermore, in regards to your references to Fox News and Hannity, I was speaking only in context of this board.  You can't tell me the majority of people here aren't left leaning, and those who may disagree with left leaning sentiments are seemingly chided whenever they voice their opinion, i.e. "gimme a break".

Aren't conservatives rampant liberals when it comes to gun rights??

I think these two stupid as Fu$k words (Liberal/Conservative) need to be wiped from the English language. The powers that be have us all down here believing that our enemies are our friends and neighbors and poor people. Can you even imagine????

Well, yes. Because all this talk of angry mobs and liberal orthodoxy is a bit exaggerated as well. Nobody is claiming that "conservatives can't be nice people" just as nobody is claiming liberal oppression.

I'll bow out here, I think the Bush years pretty much killed my interest in these sort of conversations and I'm not getting paid enough money to make conservatives feel properly persecuted. Sorry for the vicious sarcasm, but I need to find a thread about stereo remixes to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.

I'd rather trust the fraction of a second it takes to stop someone breaking into my house than the ten minutes for the police to arrive. That's not liberal or conservative...that's called self-defense.

Well, here's  the thing. Posters here have insinuated, through their remarks, that conservatives/Republicans are naive, arrogant jerks.  Very clearly.

The Bob Dylan bio I recently read has a funny story of Bob making fun of PF Sloan with a gag involving David Crosby, topless women and Zorro.

I would just like you to know that, from the perspective of a society where guns are an alien concept, talk like this sounds absolutely insane.

So...in your society you favor criminals over those who abide by the law.

Let's not even get into the gun control argument  :lol

I will say this. I completely understand where hypehat's coming from. Unless you're from the United States, I can imagine why it seems insane for so many Americans to possess weapons.  But, as a nation of 270 million guns, it goes to show for American gun culture that what happened in Aurora is really an anomaly.  Yes, violence is rampant in the United States, but with that many weapons floating around you would think more Aurora-esque incidents would occur.

Just FYI to all...moving this to the Sandbox.

Right!?

Switzerland trains its citizens to use guns, gives them ammo, etc. Their yearly homicide rate is an average of 90 people. The city of Chicago alone (since the beginning of this year) has had 280+ killings. I think this speaks for itself.

I wasn't making a judgement regarding gun rights (I am pro 2nd amendment), just the passion and ferocity behind those right wingers who scream and cry about their right to bear arms and then turn around and bash "liberals" and condemn gay marriage, unions, poor people, etc.... It's not hard to spot the irony.

Washington, DC banned guns in 1976. Their crime rates SKYROCKETED as a result. The Supreme Court overturned the ban over 30 years later...and crime did something unthinkable - it decreased.

Oh, of course...that's not so much conservatism as it is "compassionate Christianity". :)

I think you'll find that many libertarians, myself included, support personal, individual liberty. This includes gay marriage, the right to organize, and so on. I don't agree with unions myself and would never join one, but I would never say they should be banned or otherwise inhibited.

Agreed, I had to listen to Sean Hannity in my dad's car for two hours yesterday and almost went insane.

I've called upon so many fake "conservatives" in Christianity to explain why issues like poverty, same-sex marriage, and so on are somehow an attack upon their liberty...and they have no response for that question. I think we'd all be better off if we stopped making special interests out of people and stopped waiting for the government to take a stand on everything.

Ah, just a few of 'em....

Bruce Springsteen
Willie Nelson
Faith Hill
Lady Gaga
Tim McGraw
Barbara Streisand
Buster Hymen
Carol King
Boyz to Men
Cher
Diana Ross
Green Day
John Bon Jovi
Melissa Etherdige
Luther Van Dross
Natalie Cole
Patti Labelle
Stevie Wonder
Neil Young
Black Eyed Peas
Eminem
Madonna
Jackson Brown
Dave Matthews Band
J.C. Fogerty
John Mellencamp
Bonnie Raiit
Perl Jam
REM
James Taylor
Sheryl Crow
Mary Chapin Carpenter
Pam Tillis
Matraca Berg
Rodney Crowell
Emmylou Harris
Nanci Griffith
Kathy Mattea
Maura O'Connell
Garth Brooks
Trisha Yearwood
Kris Kristofferson
Marcus Hummon
Carrie Underwood
Raul Malo
Allison Moorer
Steve Earle
Rosanne Cash
Todd Snider
Adrienne Young
Alison Krauss
Merle Haggard
Dolly Parton

Damn, the Bruce Johnston part of this thread shoulda stayed. A LOT of good worthwhile retorts are now in the seldom-read Sandbox.....

But it's OK. Deep Pockets Conservative Bruce Johnston will shoot himself in the foot again one of these days and another thread will start.

Guys like Bruce always confuse me......

Wouldn't it seem more logical to become MORE liberal once you're 70+ and with more money than you will ever spend in the time you have left. Wouldn't this make you more sympathetic to the plight of others because you are well off and safe and will die with piles of money?

DC's high crime rate was far and away the product of the crack epidemic, not because of a change in gun laws. Further, the crime rate has been falling steadily since the mid-90's. Not arguing either way about gun control -- just saying that your particular example doesn't hold up.

The crack epidemic could have been easily solved by legalizing crack. No use trying to legislate when people are going to do it anyway. Just allow folks the tools to defend themselves.

I wonder is Bruce is well armed. Or if he's ever done crack.

good interview questions... :lol

Well, but in fact, Switzerland has a fairly high firearm-related death rate in comparison to other European countries. Finland is another exception but they too have a larger access to guns than most countries in Europe. The fact is there is a pretty strong correlation between access to guns and deaths related to firearms.

Republicans aren't conservatives.

True that.

Uh... they do. They're just not on this scale and you don't hear about them unless they happen to specific people and/or you live in a specific area. People are killed with guns every single day, and that's not even including gun violence not including fatalities - accidents that don't result in fatalities, threats made with guns (such as a relative's friend being threatened with a gun, raped, and then carjacked) and injuries without death, sometimes ones that disable people.

I was halfway joking, but why does it matter? Are you saying that even the most devoted, loving parent doesn't suffer headaches and money loss from having children?

Not to the extent where they would be questioning their decision to have children, no, which is what that quotation (yes, a humorous one) was saying. I mean, that might be true in some cases, but probably not the majority. And also I might question "money loss" to an extent - I mean, really one experiences money loss for the sheer reason of being a living human being.

I don't favour killing anybody. There are many ways to deal with criminals in your house rather than shooting them, and when I got robbed I didn't think the way to deal with the dude rooting around my kitchen was to pull out my .44 and blast him away. And I got rid of him, nothing was stolen, and because I didn't have a pistol and he didn't have an automatic weapon, no-one is dead! I must love criminals, right?


It really does make it SO much easier to live in an impoverished inner city area without the worry that everyone could walk into a supermarket and buy a gun. Did you ever think about that?

Yep. A society with less access to guns makes it far less likely that that criminal in your house is armed.

You guys are nuts!

Even if that's true: there are no Liberal conservatives or Liberal Republicans, so what's the difference?  >:D

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody. ;)

In a nation where nearly everyone owns a gun this doesn't surprise me. However the death rate is incredibly low for a country with nearly 8,000,000 citizens (whom all have the means to defend themselves, their families, and property).

I'm almost sorry to bring it up, but do I really need to point out the problems of a nation where almost everyone owns a gun? As in, did you see Batman this weekend and keep looking over your shoulder?

Well, really, Republicans are a lot more liberal than conservative in many ways. And the difference is that the more people realize the policies they are voting for rather than the party name, the faster change will actually happen. But most people who are fervent Democrats and Republicans don't really know for sure what those parties represent. So we end up with a conservative who votes Republican because he or she believes they are the party who represent his or her values, when in fact, they don't. So knowing these things are important.

Nearly everyone does not own a gun in Switzerland. There's about 45 guns per 100 residents, which is nearly half the amount of guns, per capita, in the United States.

I agree with you here, wholeheartedly.  My statement was generalizing, thus the slash, I wasn't necessarily saying that Republicans and conservatives are the same.  However, many times, those two labels go hand in hand, though not all the time.

WHOEVER MOVE THIS AWAY FROM BB FORUM PUTS THE PENIS IN MY EAR OK

My views polarize liberals and conservatives alike - both sides would agree with half of my positions, and the halves would be different. I support freedom of speech almost to a fault (Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist Church, neo-Nazi groups, Nation of Islam, Holocaust deniers), the right to bear arms (including self-defense and castle doctrine), free markets, limited government (no government would be preferable), gold standards, legalization and deregulation of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, free market private health care and education (no one has a right to those; you don't pay, you don't play), private marriage/civil unions, elimination of taxes...

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

Here's the thing though, liberals and conservatives would likewise say the same thing - that they prefer liberty. And as far as I'm concerned, the faux-libertarianism of Ron Paul and his ilk is about as convincing on this matter as the liberals and conservatives are.

I can respect your views TRBB but no government would be chaos! People like to talk about anarchy, anarchy, but there will never be such a thing because the minute anarchy becomes a reality it would be the police and the military beating the hell out of everyone because they "got the guns, man" AND they got the numbers. Just what is the concept behind a sovereign nation in the first place? Do people really go off and die in far off places for free markets, private health care with no rights whatsoever to anything? The concept behind education and health care is to produce smart, viable citizens to FEED the free markets! Sure, no one has a born right to anything, blah blah, no one is owed happiness or a living, but we certainly behave as though people are owed pain and suffering, so why not try and balance it a bit. It's like: a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged, while a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested  >:D ...... There is only liberty under SOME sort of organization....

The thing with the bit I highlighted just seems unbelievably callous to me - it certainly sounds like you never had to worry about providing for your education or healthcare, tbh. And seeing as you've had one (either that, or you've spent too much time on 4chan where this sort of bedroom libertarianism is popular last time I checked), it seems remarkable that you would feel so cavalier about denying real human beings these things because of something so unimportant as money or 'ideology'.

 I mean, you wouldn't have 'free' people under your ideological constraints. You'd have a lot of dying, uneducated people who would have no hope for achieving a better life. That would barely be a society.

To put in a plug for anarchism (different from anarchy), I will say that you raise some very good points that I think are answered more convincingly by genuine libertarianism than the faux-libertarianism espoused above by The Real Beach Boy. Incidentally, I don't use the term "faux-libertarian" in order to disrespect TRBB. In fact, I highly respect TRBB for both his intelligence, and his opinions. I don't have that much respect for the libertarian movement in the United States, though, and I feel like highly intelligent people who could otherwise be very productive activists are being swayed by what is essential a right-wing pro-corporate organization.

You're right that under the faux-libertarian movement, you have a kind of unchecked and unbridled hegemony by what is already the overwhelming power authority in our society and Ron Paul's libertarians do nothing to account for this. Under a genuine libertarian movement, the focus would be on undermining precisely that overwhelming power authority so that people could exert some real control over their lives. Anarchism does not necessarily mean abolishing government. It may mean abolishing the government system as we know it, but if you want to look at aproposal for a truly organized society, you need to look no further than anarchism. This is because anarchism is not simply a social system but also a political and economic system and it is one that is far more complex than simply some chaotic lawless system. As I've said elsewhere on this site, anarchist societies would be highly organized, including socialist workers councils in industry and direct, full participatory democracy in communities. Socities would be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations.

To be honest, my views are more in line with anarchism than libertarianism. I'm basically a free-market anarchist.

Fair enough. My question at this point, then, (and again, this comes out of genuine curiosity and concern) is what does this mean? I ask the question because it seems to me that the notion of freedom that has been at the core of anarchist thought from Proudhon to Bakunin has held that man cannot truly be free as long as the means of production are privately controlled. Even the individualist strain of anarchism (which I disagree with and consider it ultimately quite dangerous) typically opposes rights to private property.  More over, anarchism is very much about social organization rather than merely economic structure. It seems to me that a free market anarchism, whatever that might be, doesn't take into account how society can organize itself free from institutional constraints and, rather, simply protects the interests of business owners to do whatever they want without government intervention - something, in my opinion, that has nothing to do with anarchism or what anarchists stand for. In that sense, it seems to me that free market principles don't jive with anarchism but perhaps I don't know enough about it.

"Free market anarchist" sounds like a virus to me. A virus kills it's host, thus itself, simply because that's what it does.......

My feelings, and thank you RocknRoll for articulating anarchy beyond the cliched version I "know" from my days as a young stupid punker, are.... why can't this be a capitalist system as far as free markets are concerned yet there be room for more socialist-like institutions as well. Like, this apartment building can be run as a co-op if that's what it's owners/managers want? Same thing with hospitals and schools. Why does EVERYTHING have to conform to a system that simply does not feed or nurture it's well being and functionality? Would this sort of free for all ideology, structure be a form of anarchism?

Good questions.

I don't think I would necessary describe what you propose as "anarchism" though I will say that "anarchism" as a political/economic/social philosophy is a bit more open than other philosophies in that it doesn't have an over-arching well-defined theory, and that's by design. Anarchism wouldn't be anarchism if there was some overarching authority telling you how to "properly" run your anarchist society.

With that in mind, it seems to me that you do not have a society free from constraints if there are some people who are subordinates to a power system, and it seems to me that that's what you have with a free-market system, as I understand it. Also, an organization in which "owners/managers" decide that the organization will be run co-operatively still presupposes a power structure. In an anarchist society, those decisions are not made by owners/managers but by the people within the organization.

I should say that in principle, I don't entirely oppose the kind of system that you are outlining here. In practice though, I am unconvinced that entirely free market societies can be at all successful. Capitalist success stories are not free-market success stories - they are stories of massive intervention and protectionism.

I think we need to differentiate between capitalism and cronyism, as rockandroll and Erik seem to be describing the latter with the name of the former. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Free-market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism, as Murray Rothbard called it) is basically what it says it is. It's a society based upon mutual agreement and voluntary transactions; this is known as the free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, every good or service (as opposed to some, which is where we are now) would be offered by the free market. In the absence of government, individuals are responsible for enforcing their own rights. Their behavior must not infringe upon the rights of others - the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Some on the left have claimed that free-market anarchists are merely CEO types who would rather see the rich become richer and the poor poorer, but nothing could be further from the truth. The current system of mixed economics, or "socialism with American characteristics" (in a little play on what China does), is responsible for the current plight of society, as the rich become richer and the poor poorer. The government has become a tool of these crony corporatists (they aren't capitalists, so let's get that out in the open right away) to enact laws based on what is beneficial to their corporate interests. In essence, the state and the corporations end up making all of the money and everyone else is stuck scraping along. In the 1930s, this was called fascism. The United States, Canada, almost all of Europe, Israel, Australia, and Southeast Asia are DEEP into fascism.

The other problem is that an individual entity sets the monetary policy. This is counteractive to the free market. The value of currency is determined based on supply and demand. With current fiat currencies, there is no standard (like gold or silver) to back up those pieces of paper. Combine central banking with bankrupt governments, and you have yet another explanation as to why money is nearly worthless and gold is over a thousand dollars an ounce. Free-market anarchists believe in competing currencies; we would NEVER accept "paper" as a means of payment unless that paper was backed by some means like gold or silver payable to the bearer of the note. We would also accept a barter or free trade system as well, with your goods worth the current market value. Individuals can also choose to accept a personal method of currency in their transactions.

You'd probably ask how this is productive towards social organization; the answer is simple. Mutual transactions mean people get what they want in a timely fashion at a fair price and everybody's happy. There is room for charity in such a society. If people wish to provide their goods or services at no charge, then that is on them. A system like this would be across the board - education, health care, human services, infrastructure...you name it. In this society, if people wish to organize into socialist or communist groups, that is their right as long as they do not force others into it.

Everything is based on mutual agreement. Nothing would be prohibited as long as it does not infringe upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other individuals. Murder would not be condoned; self-defense that may result in the death of another would be - everyone has the right to defend his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by any means necessary, even if it means the assailant's death. Education and health care will be at a price because no one has a "right" to the liberty and pursuit of happiness of others unless they wish to provide those services for free. Any form of marriage would be condoned. Any form of religious belief would be condoned. Alcohol, tobacco and drugs would be completely unregulated - no amount of laws have stopped people from using them, so if people want to dope themselves up, let them do it.

But if the means of production are publicly controlled, who pays for it? How is it paid for, and with what? Social anarchists have never come up with a workable answer to that question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

This explanation by David Friedman is about the best you'll ever find.

VERY VERY well put TheRealBeachBoy!!!! :)

Now how about them Moodies? How come they won't come anywhere near Cali??

Take a look at their website. How much do you wanna bet they all live in Florida?  ;D

Doesn't a certain Mr. Pinder live in California? ;)

Yes, he does and he has framed pictures of the various collage components from U2's: Actung Baby all over the walls of this studio for some reason!!!!

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m explaining capitalism as it was understood by the very framers of the philosophy and have barely touched on the “special relationship” between government and corporate power.


But you are drawing the connection between the free-market and capitalism. In other words, I am assuming (as I have been assuming all along) that you don’t mean the kind of free-market system that was discussed by figures like Proudhon with publicly-owned enterprises entering into some sort of free market system. Since you use the term anarcho-capitalism which, in my opinion, is a contradiction of terms, I believe you don’t mean this system and will continue to operate with that in mind.


Except that not every individual gets the same rights in an anarcho-capitalist society. After all, in this society there are still owners that require a subordinate and subservient class and there is still an unequal distribution of wealth as a result of this relationship between owners and labor. Now, what follows from this, obviously, is a power dynamic wherein there remains a small class of people who not only control what the larger population does, but also have the ability to make purchases that others can’t, and make decisions about what the population at large will or won’t pay for. Theoretically, these are decisions that everybody in the society could make – that is, if they somehow manage to get into the privileged class of owners – but this, of course, would be highly rare in a society that depends on a large subordinate labor class. Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, but none of this resembles an anarchist society, namely because of the very distinct power relationships that is an inherent consequence of the system.


I don’t know if they are “CEO types” and I’m sure they would not “rather see the rich become richer and the poor poorer” but that doesn’t change the fact that that is an inevitable consequence of the system you are describing.


First of all, America’s economic system is not “socialism with American characteristics” unless the “American characteristics” are so pervasive that they void anything that resembles socialism.

Second, obviously whatever economic system the US has had is responsible “for the current plight of [their] society” but this does not mean that government intervention is responsible for “the current plight” – in fact, quite the opposite. Now, the United States has never been a free market society. Ever. There has always been a fairly high level of government intervention and protectionism. Consequently, it is impossible to say exactly how the state would be without what amounts to an enormous welfare state for the rich and powerful but given the general economic history, it’s pretty safe to assume that it wouldn’t be good. We know, for example, that the economic boom in the US really beginning at the end of the 19th century but hitting unparalleled levels post-WWII is pretty much a consequence of publicly funded industrial development. And, in fact, this is the typical story of the first world nation – enormous wealth was typically generated as a result of a strong interventionist government.

Now, if you look at the third world, you get a different story. There, free market capitalism has been violently shoved down their throats. These countries, like Nicaragua and Haiti, don’t have the luxury of protectionism because they are the third world, typically producing for the interests of the first world and therefore have little say about how their economy operates. Consequently countries like Nicaragua and Haiti have become the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Other countries have been luckier – so, for example, South Korea managed to pull themselves out of economic crisis by reversing course on the Western-imposed free market system and upon refusing the advice of the IMF and the World Bank, incorporated a state-oriented Japan-inspired model which led to the creation of their highly efficient and successful steel industry and saved the South Korean economy from the brink of disaster. Free-market systems have typically been disastrous which is why no first world country has ever allowed them. So, it seems to me, that if we are genuinely concerned about the plight of our society, then economic history tells us that the last thing we should do is embrace free-market capitalist system because it has been an abhorrent disaster just about everywhere it has been put into practice.


Well, in fact, it’s mostly the corporations, not the state.


Not really – I mean, there’s a bit of truth to that but it’s overall incorrect because you’re missing a vital aspect of “fascism” and that is the undercurrent of “mass mobilization” that is always there. Fascists see the nation, including many of the people in it, as representing some kind of ideal. This is why no genuine fascist government would ever accept globalization, NAFTA, or any other policies widely accepted by the countries that you claim to be “DEEP into fascism.” It seems that you are using words like “socialism” and “fascism” for their pejorative value rather than to accurately describe what you see as happening in the world. It’s unfortunate because I think that it’s a real roadblock in your thinking through the political situation, as I’ve followed your political posts.


Value can’t ever really be “determined based on supply and demand.” Supply and demand can cause prices to fluctuate around value but what gives a product value is the necessary labor time that went into it. This confusion between price and value is a consequence of capitalism and, in fact, conceals the very nature of how we create things and why. If we truly understood what made an item valuable, we would recognize the inherent exploitative nature of the capitalist economy.


But, of course, nobody would because to do so would mean risk losing their privileged place in the power dynamic.


Who pays for what? I really don’t understand the question.

"Value can’t ever really be “determined based on supply and demand.” Supply and demand can cause prices to fluctuate around value but what gives a product value is the necessary labor time that went into it. This confusion between price and value is a consequence of capitalism and, in fact, conceals the very nature of how we create things and why. If we truly understood what made an item valuable, we would recognize the inherent exploitative nature of the capitalist economy."

This is something I think about a lot. If you stop and take a look around: how often is it really that one is paid for/compensated fairly FOR the amount of work/labor they perform? Whatever scale this is built upon is beyond faulty. Therefore the free market is a sham in many respects because it rewards grandly those who perform basically no labor or contribute nothing to society. Ironic then that main edict of socialism is that one reaps from society EXACTLY what they put into society. It strikes me as suicidal to believe in a system that values position and privileged over function in society. This is nothing new of course, but it something that I could never defend.

Yep, you're echoing Marx here whether you like it or not!   ;)

I'm not entirely on board with all of Marx but I do agree with this point, that the capitalist system is necessarily exploitative in order for it to function and inevitably leads, as John Stuart Mill understood, to a world of unequal distribution of wealth and capital.


It is difficult to measure it exactly, but as close as possible. Seems to me that this is the fairest possible system.

This is perhaps the most asinine thing I've ever read on this board.

How so? I'd say it's logical. No amount of laws will stop people from doing stupid things.

You must have skipped my posts then.

Rocknroll, I can't keep up/contribute with these politics threads because I hate talking about it on the net, but you are absolutely killing it ITT as usual.

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime. And "gun-free zones" in concealed-carry States
(like movie theaters in Aurora, Colorado) have proven to be government-enabled death traps for the law-abiding.

In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans. You do still see a great deal of gun related fatalities in Chicago because of gang crime and it seems to me that gangs can carry out their criminal activity precisely because of their access to guns, which are still easily accessed outside the city and criminal outfits have always been able to arm themselves in places where it is easy to access guns. Again the issue here is access and there is plenty of access to guns for Chicago gangs. Like I said, if you look at places with less access, you find less gun-realted deaths. Furthermore, Chicago's murder rates are far lower than major American cities with looser gun laws, such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelpha, etc.

Now, regardless of this, I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime. There are lots of reasons why crime happens and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the population at large is armed. Crime is typically class related and if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes, though we're really only supposed to hate the crime that poor people commit. But, while I'm certainly unconvinced that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime, I'm equally if not even less convinced that you get rid of crime by arming the population because it seems to me the overwhelming majority of cases show exactly what I said, a society with less access to guns results in fewer firearm related deaths, and Chicago is no exception in this regard.


In fact, just about everywhere is a death trap in the United States, including one's home, precisely because what hasn't occurred in the US are tighter restrictions on gun-access. You can have all the "gun-free zones" you want, but as long as people can still easily get ahold of weapons, you'll have firearm related deaths.

I have to call a flag on the play...
(http://www.icsmmblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/IMG-referee-flag.jpg)


Those stats on Chicago are insignificant at best,total nonsense at worst, and it leaves me wondering what sources those are coming from.

Using 1992 as a statistic in 2012 on anything sociopolitical relating to a major US city? Seriously? I used to visit family just outside North Philly, still considered in the Northeast but just a few blocks between what was a dividing line between safe and not-so-safe (sorry to be brutally honest, that was the reality). Those neighborhoods in 1992 were somewhat safe...as of 2012 I wouldn't park a car on any of those streets due to the threats of violence and crime, and whatever family was there in '92 packed up and got the hell out. The whole area changed, and it was a radical change that happened within a matter of 10 years or so. The tipping point for one of my relatives was when she was walking home with groceries from a neighborhood store she had gone to for years, and found herself on a street where two rival pieces of sh*t in the drug trade opened fire on each other from either side of the street, and bullets flew everywhere. Fortunately she was not hurt, but that was the end of the road for her living in the "old neighborhood" and her family moved her out.

1992 stats mean nothing to the current debate.

Now, onto Chicago's crime rate, murder rate, etc.

As of today there have been 308 murders so far this year in Chicago. We have just started the 8th month of this year, that averages out to 44 per month, more than one murder on average every day. This murder rate is up nearly 27 percent from last year's totals. Some are projecting that by the end of the year, the total number of murders could be around 500.

In July 2012, Chicago had 49 homicides...which they say is one of the *lowest* monthly totals in 25 years. is this something to be proud of or tout as a victory of some kind? 49 people were *killed* in a month's time in a single city, and that's the lowest such figure in 25 years?

Tell me that this in any way shows something positive on what's going on relating to crime and murder in Chicago.

And a majority of these crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons, wanted felons with active criminal warrants, or people who have no legal right under even the less-strict gun laws to purchase, own, or have access to in any way a firearm. And a majority of the guns are not "legal" guns, and were either black-market purchases or thefts. The guns used in this street-level crime are not the type which you'd go to a gun shop and fill out a background check to be cleared by the government to own that gun.

I just heard Philly police commissioner Ramsey on a radio interview yesterday. Philly is plagued with gang and drug related crime. As much as you could enact any number of new gun laws, those laws would not have much effect on the people who are living in spite of the law in general, and living where the gang is the way of life and the drug trade is the source of income...and it's a life being lived on the basis of illegal activity.

Tell me a new gun law would break up the gang problem in Philly. Certain organized gangs have access to guns smuggled from Asia, Latin America, etc...they are as organized and perhaps as tough to penetrate as the mafia was at various points in history. Gangs from LA, Latin gangs, Asian gangs...some very powerful, well-known gangs from across the US have been setting up shop in other areas like Philly, and organizing more chapters to expand their business. Laws mean *nothing* to the gangs.

So explain again how crime is somehow down in Chicago, or that there is anything positive to spin about 308 murders so far this year in that city alone?

I'm not sure whose post you are reading but surely it can't be mine since you haven't grasped the slightest inkling of what I've said. The one thing that you brought up that had the slightest character of an engagement with my points is the part where you questioned my statistics, which you can find here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago)

and here:

 http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Looser-Gun-Laws-More-Murders-164748976.html  (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Looser-Gun-Laws-More-Murders-164748976.html)

and here:

 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934323.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934323.html)

Otherwise, I suggest you go back and re-read what I actually wrote and maybe even take a look at the point I was responding to, in order to discover that what you write in your own post reinforces what I say against that point.

You're pulling from the same playbook as you've done in the past, with all due respect and no malice intended. I did read, re-read, and quote directly your post. Honestly I've seen you reply with that same line of "you're not understanding my post", and it's distracting from the actual issue.

Your first statement of fact: "In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans."

This is irrelevant, quoted in part to argue a point against the fact that Chicago is in the midst of a murder epidemic in 2012 despite gun control advocates and all of the attempts to shift the blame away from the root cause, which is ultimately the person actually pulling the trigger of a gun, or pulling the knife, to commit a majority of those murders.

What I also find irrelevant are the three sources quoted: One is from a blogger, one is a Wikipedia entry, and the other is a page showing statistics from 2005. In the realm of a big city which is changing year to year, showing stats from 2005 does nothing to address what is going on in 2012.

And that is the main point: 2012...308 murders so far, and there are 5 months remaining in the year. 49 people killed in the month of July alone, and they're almost celebrating the fact that it's a lower rate? It ignores the issue at hand, which is the murders in 2012 are the problem which needs to be addressed. It's not about more or less than 5, 10, or 25 years ago, it's not about stats from 2005, and it smacks of wanting to draw attention away from the current problem of homicides in Chicago in 2012.

Is the issue of those 308 homicides as of August 2 2012 going to be affected at all by comparing that number to previous years, previous decades, or even at this point previous generations of Chicago residents? It's designed purely to take the spotlight of blame away from those persons committing the crimes, whether they use a gun, a knife, or if they get behind the wheel of a car after getting drunk and kill an innocent person on the road.

My issue is the gun in and of itself is no more to blame than a knife, or than either the booze or the vehicle in a drunk driving death. It's the person committing the crime.

I value a debate, I enjoy the back-and-forth, but at the same time the tactic of saying "you don't understand what I wrote, re-read it" has been played in the past. Let's talk about the present issue of homicides in Chicago, and start placing the blame on the individuals responsible for those homicides instead of blaming objects.

The numbers I quoted were from Chicago TV station WLS, the news report on ABC 7, reported earlier today - current, factual numbers. The headline is a 'drop in homicides', and I think it's a pure diversionary tactic to get away from the issue that 40+ homicides in one month in one city is obviously too many, and no amount of gun control laws or comparisons to previous decades will solve that current problem. And the various solutions which have been tried have not worked - anyone with half a brain can look at the number 308 and realize something is not working.

How difficult is it in a civilized society to realize that it is simply *wrong* at the most basic level of society to shoot up a city block in the name of a gang, a drug turf war, or any rationale beyond the conclusion that anyone who would choose to shoot up a city block is a piece of sh*t. If a person is incapable of realizing that such an action is wrong...would that person most likely already owning an illegal gun and engaged in illegal activity care anything about or be affected at all by a strict gun control law? I doubt it.

Ultimately the people who are breaking the laws now will continue to ignore and break any future laws on guns, and those gun owners who are following the law will continue to follow the laws yet will continue to be indirectly blamed for the homicide problem. That, to me, is wrong.

Well, what’s distracting for me is having to re-word my points and the points of others. See below:


It’s not irrelevant if the person I was responding to argues that less guns equals more crime in Chicago. In that case, examining crime rates since the gun ban (1982) and assault weapons ban (1992) were put in place is not only relevant, it’s the only logical thing to do. It’s not as if the gun laws in Chicago were put into place this year or even last year.  Had the gun ban been put in place December 31st, 2011, I would agree that we should be focusing on the crime happening this year. But since that's not the case, I'm afraid I don't understand why you need me to talk about it.


Well, take it from someone who has a lot more experience with scholarly research than you – the sources are fine. Wikipedia is a perfectly valid and legitimate resource. The only time it isn’t is when someone is using the unverified information on the site. I wasn’t. The statistics that I pulled from the site were sourced to FBI documents and Chicago Police Department news releases. I can’t think of any more legitimate sources of information than that. If this was an academic essay rather than an internet forum, I would go the extra step and quote directly from the sourced material and cite it and there would be absolutely zero problems with it. But this isn't an academic essay and since the material itself is verifiable and from legitimate sources, I never would have assumed in my wildest dreams that anybody would consider it problematic.

I would agree that simply taking a blogger at his or her word is dangerous if you can’t verify the evidence. This is why I posted the statistics from 2005 to show that the blogger’s word is indeed verified by documentary evidence. Now, again, the year shouldn’t be the issue here. We’re talking about a gun ban that was put into place thirty years ago. Now, the blogger was clearly using more updated statistics that I couldn't find doing a quick search but given that Chicago's homicide rate is up less that 40% from last year (which, yes, is still a bad thing) I can't imagine they would have bursted their way to the top of that list, especially when their murder rate was quite small in comparison to, say, Baltimore, which had a murder rate of 42.0 in comparison to Chicago's 15.6. The spike in homicide rates this year is hardly enough to put them into that category, which is why the findings of the blogger are impossible to really seriously question once you see where Chicago stood in relation to other cities a mere seven years ago.


Erm, you do realize the poster I was responding to never mentioned “the current problem of homicides in 2012.” He said that “Less (legal) guns = more crime.” But, again, not to sound like a broken record but unfortunately I have to, there have been strict gun laws in Chicago for decades. So I’m not “drawing attention away from the current problem” since the issue was not really raised until you brought it up. Now if you want me to address the utterly inane premise that the gun ban in 1982 has nothing to do with what amounts to a declining crime rate and a declining homicide rate but is somehow directly responsible for the crime in 2012, you’re right I won’t do that because it’s stupid. Now, I don’t particularly believe you are actually asking me to do that – I decided instead, to respect you, and assume that you simply hadn’t been following the conversation.

Now I’m perfectly aware that crime and homicides occur in Chicago and I’m perfectly aware that it’s a significant problem and it is important to deal with it, which is why I spoke about it in the thread above, noting that if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes. Again, like I said in that thread, I don’t think the criminal activity and the homicides in Chicago would be alleviated by lifting the ban on guns and assaulted weapons, as is made obvious by pre-ban statistics. Again, that’s where those statistics do come in handy, for that particular discussion, but it is clear you have no interest in that discussion, though why your lack of interest should lead you to divert the conversation we were having is, quite frankly, beyond me.


There, I repasted so people have the benefit of seeing your points twice. But, I’m afraid, it has nothing to do with what I was talking about with the exception of one point: "would that person most likely already owning an illegal gun and engaged in illegal activity care anything about or be affected at all by a strict gun control law?" Again, that's a question, I've already sufficiently answered. The rest of it has no bearing on my points at all.

Stellar post guitarfool...but I've stopped responding to "R&R" myself. I've found that it's an exhausting waste of time to try to argue with doctrinaire Marxists. What surprises me is to find such a choice specimen of  V. Lenin's "useful idiot" brigade on a Beach Boys site (but I suppose that their 'Smile/Smiley Smile' period is politically-correct for Lefties to enjoy now that it's been canonized by all the mainstream pundits who previously ignored it). Dear 'Rock & Roll'...please correct my Lenin reference. Please...please...pretty please. I'm waiting.

That's all I needed to read. It's been fun, but I'm not getting into a pissing match and that's just childish to play that card. And I don't need someone waving academic credentials in my face when I never questioned anything personal but rather questioned the sources.

I apologize for saying it in a way that was offensive but if you want the honest truth, it stung that after all our exchanges that you wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt regarding sources, especially when you know that it's how I make my living. That's why I phrased the statement the way I did - not to "wave my credentials in your face" but rather to explain that I felt that you should know that I would know better. Likewise, I assume that you are not trying to "pull something" when you give your information. And it is quite clear that from the moment you "called a flag on the play" that you thought I was trying to pull something. I hope this makes sense.

For those interested in Chicago's crime problems, here is the most current headline from the Chicago Tribune this morning, please take a minute to read it for yourself and then make up your own minds about the issue of legal versus illegal guns and gun control in general, among other topics:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-one-dead-one-wounded-in-west-side-shooting,0,7397706.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-one-dead-one-wounded-in-west-side-shooting,0,7397706.story)

Here is this morning's headline:

4 killed, 10 wounded in 10 hours across city

Four people, including two 16-year-old boys, were killed and at least 10 people were wounded within 10 hours Thursday across the city, according to Chicago police.

By Peter Nickeas

August 3, 2012

So after I posted my ramblings, after everyone went to sleep and did whatever from yesterday to this morning, this is what happened in less than half a day in Chicago. Tell me one new gun law which would effectively end this sort of thing in that city...please. if you have 16 year olds being gunned down in cold blood by gang bangers, and other assorted law-breakers, please inform us on which new gun law would affect those people committing these crimes when the fact that many even own a firearm is against the current law.

Read the article, the news speaks for itself.

And may I please direct you to this quotation from me before you entered the discussion:

tick...tick...tick

I can get a bit carried away too, so apology accepted and one offered in return. These debates can get heated, but at least we keep it civil and I'd like to think we keep it to the words in front of us and not resort to name calling and the like.

The referee was just an attempt at some visual humor, I do that often but it wasn't anything but a visual joke in reponse to what I read as something I didn't agree with.

As far as the sources, again with all due respect, if I were to have quoted either here or elsewhere a set of data or facts which came from Fox News, some conglomerate associated with Murdoch, or anything else that was at all considered coming from a questionable right-leaning source if your viewpoint may lean more to the left, I'd be called out at best and nailed to the wall at worst for using sources which aren't "solid" or "good" compared to others.

It's that slippery slope of which news one may put on a higher scale of trustworthiness over another, and I think at this point there can't be and is no "gold standard" for news delivery and factual reporting in 2012. Both sides have so polluted the waters, anyone who is interested and cares about current events and news has to read multiple sources on the same thing and filter out all the crap to get what they need from the reporting. It's a burden on us the public rather than a burden on them the news media reporting this stuff.

I felt I was responding to a quotation from WikiPedia (where anyone can add or enhance the data in those entries and where some data can be shaky at best), and a reference to a left-leaning blogger whose writings as a blog are considered more opinion than reporting by the sheer fact that he is writing an opinion-driven blog and not a news report at that link.

And concluding that I have seen folks in very similar circumstances add references to similar sources and get hammered for doing so, again at best they got questioned for referring to something like a Fox News report even though the facts may have been 100% correct...it wasn't valid to use Fox News as a basis of reference no matter how accurate the reporting in whichever case was addressed.

But again, there is no malice and I always welcome a good back-and-forth debate!

Thanks – feeling is mutual and I quite enjoy our discussions.

Your post opens up an area of discussion that, in fact, is interesting to me but is perhaps interesting to no one else, which is sourcing, citing, and researching. I’ll speak my piece on it here with the understanding that it is probably nothing other than sleep-inducing for everyone else.

So, let’s take your central example – Fox News. My personal point of view is that I would have absolutely no problem at all if someone on here used a reference from Fox News to bolster their point and, in fact, would believe it to be nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that a point would become de-legitimized simply because of the source rather than some justified reason, like the reference was not factual or the reference was taken out of context or the reference itself is based on specious reasoning or inaccurate/poor use of facts.

Now, if one were doing some serious academic essay, for instance, I would argue that using quotes from the US mainstream media is good for mainly one purpose, namely media analysis. In other words, I don’t think that in a serious intellectual forum, that you can seriously or credibly use a mainstream media source without acknowledging first that it is an ideological construct. You note in your post, for example, that “Both sides” of the media have “polluted the waters.” It seems to me though that what a media analysis shows is that from Fox News to MSNBC to the New York Times, there is only shades of opinion that can be found on one side of the argument, that in fact there are no “both sides” in the US mainstream media. Ultimately, it reflects one central ideological position, and the narrow differences of opinion that one can have within that position. Now this may be a debatable issue but to prove either side, one would need to show a series of quotations from these mainstream media sources to make their point, either way. And, to me, that’s really, the only serious way to make use of say quotes from Fox or the Washington Post, or whatever.

If you’re looking to make points to reinforce a certain political argument, I think it’s always important to go to the source. Again, though, this means from the outset that you are taking the conversation seriously. If one is simply interested in engaging in the rehearsed “crossfire” arguments that take place on cable news shows, then as far as I’m concerned, he or she will never get beyond the most trivial observations about politics. If one is serious though, they look closely at policies, at things like national security council reports, Pentagon reports, etc. In the case of say, crime, you look at the statistics typically accumulated by some official committee, you look at police reports, etc. Looking at the mainstream media for this information can help you to see how they are processing this information, how they are presenting it, how they are contextualizing it, etc. But again, that’s media analysis. If you’re looking to see how others are issuing facts, then you look to the mainstream media. If you’re making a case yourself, then you look to the original primary documents.

Again, all this is important for serious, formal, intellectual inquiries. In an internet forum, I assume there is some leeway. In a paper that will be read by other academics and that will construct my reputation as an academic, the above is unquestionably my research method. The standards in an internet forum are different, and rightly so. This is a place where one can post, and post quickly. If one is looking for a response for me, I don’t have the luxury of spending a month like I could with a publishable paper, to carry out the kind of research project that I describe above. I certainly don’t expect that of anybody nor do I think it is really expected of me. In that case, I go to the places that are fairly reliable and if they aren’t reliable then I verify the information I am reading. Importantly, though, I don't privilege one format over the other. I certainly don't consider the academic research paper or book to be more important or worthy of attention than an internet forum - and, I mean that quite seriously. If this where a message board for academics (particular liberal arts academics, a group that I begrudgingly belong to at times) you'd find that I would have some very serious criticisms about what we do and how we do it (and, in that sense, I would probably be an outsider figure) despite my otherwise happy participation in the pursuit.

You bring up a point with Wikipedia which is interesting. You note that a problem with Wikipedia is that “anyone can add or enhance the data in those entries” and that “some data can be shaky at best.” As for the latter point, I have yet to see that Wikipedia’s data is shakier than any other data source but that might be a case of personal opinion. The first criticism though is I think partly what can make Wikipedia a valuable resource. Remember that for important topics, Wikipedia entries are very closely monitored and erroneous information is typically removed in quick fashion and information that is uncited is documented as such. I think that the benefits of this sort of system, in which one person doesn’t get to be the authority on a subject, outweighs the negatives.

The real problem with Wikipedia for scholarship is, in my opinion, not these issues that you raise. The problem is that undergraduate students use it as if it counts as a legitimate secondary source, and it isn’t, but students go to it a lot because it is so easy to access. And therefore it is necessary to drill it in that you shouldn’t go to it. A legitimate secondary source is a source that itself presents a particular argument – something that you can engage with, work with, interrogate, compare with other arguments, etc. Wikipedia is not that – it’s a glorified encyclopedia or dictionary. It’s not necessarily wrong to use Wikipedia as a source in a paper but it is useless and it displays a lack of understanding of what intellectual inquiry and critical engagement really is. This, to me, is the reason why undergraduates are discouraged from using Wikipedia as a source and this discouragement has somehow seeped into the popular consciousness where it doesn’t really matter so much.

So, yes, I will probably continue to use Wikipedia in these kinds of posts because not only is it reliable, it also presents information from the very same primary material that I would probably engage with anyway if this were a more academic format and I had the time to spend researching it. I hope some of you made it through this without falling asleep.

can we move this discussion away from guns?

I think it's a very simple and very human situation. With the gun debate, it's not about preventing homicides or crime: it's simply NOT WANTING TO GET SHOT!!!!

People hear a story about someone shooting up a place and they simply don't want to get shot. Then about a week later, they go back to their lives. It's like if you just get finished watching The Day After, you're suddenly all riled up about nuclear disarmament, but then you realize you just have to learn to live with certain realities.

I try not to let B.S. propaganda dictate my behavior.
God Bless Bruce Johnson...the underrated Beach Boy.

You don't want to get shot, and that's fine. I don't want to get shot either. However, if someone breaks into my house, I will shoot before asking questions. Granted, I don't want to get shot, so I won't be breaking into anyone's house.

I know this may sound quite draconian to the uncivilized folks on here (specifically the "oh, I'll just run away because criminals are welcome in my home" Europeans) who would rather have criminals defend themselves over people who actually obey the admittedly ridiculous laws.

I honestly don't see any correlation between owning a gun that you keep in your home in case the Manson kids break in and need to be shot and gun crime in the U.S. So, I really don't understand the debate in the first place. When someone shoots an intruder and is found innocent of any/all possible charges: is that considered gun crime, or is gun crime things like guys shooting up liquor stores or movie theaters or shooting someone while carjacking. THAT'S gun crime, right? I can't see people who keep a gun in a closet or under the bed or in a gun cabinet in the basement as anyone to worry about...... Now, their insane/emo/mass shooting planning kids who have access to those guns, on the other hand......

If there's a will, there's a way. I'm sure someone could beat someone else to death with the Sunday New York Times if he really cared enough and put forth the effort.

As far as someone following castle doctrine laws, that's not considered a "gun crime" unless the liberal media decides that the "victim" is a member of some "special interest" group. For example, the Trayvon Martin case. Total self-defense on Zimmerman's part. But don't tell the liberal media and the liberal community that same information...they'll call you a racist. Liberals want castle doctrine laws repealed because they believe criminals should have the "right" to do as they please on someone else's PRIVATE property. They won't say that outright, but they also believe that we should trust the ten minutes it takes for the police to arrive as opposed to the tenth of a second it takes to pull a trigger. To be fair, Dear Leader Obama is more into gun rights than the same brain dead liberals who voted him into the presidency.

The liberal media likes to paint the gun rights crowd as people who would support idiots like the guy who shot up the Sikh temple or the dude who shot up the Aurora movie theater. We don't. We do believe that if people in those situations were allowed to carry a means of self-defense, including a gun, that those incidents would never have ended up like they did.

Oh, come on, man! This "liberal" "conservative" sham is getting older than the Myke is evil line of thought. Might I remind you that this  "liberal media" is the same one who cheer leaded both Pappy Bush and Shrub into Iraq. For every liberal outlet there is a conservative polar opposite. However, if there are more liberals than conservatives in the media, it might be simply because liberals are generally better educated, so I rest my case.....

The Travon Martin thing is MUCH more shaded than you're pretending and you reek of a gun fanatic who's jumping on a situation as you'd like to see it because you love guns. Martin was NOT armed, and you mean to tell me a 17 year old and a 27 year old is a fair fight anyhow, even without a gun? Certainly not! But, oh, George had a gun and he used it. A big bad 27 year old bully won a fight against a 17 year old kid because he was a big man and shot him in the chest..... C'mon! Nevermind the fact that all Travon seemed to be doing wrong was walking home at night while black.

Yea, shove that in your bug out bag! It's a good thing that our global moderator is only that and not a judge or lawmaker.

Hey, I think liberals and conservatives alike are rather poorly educated and unable to see past the ends of their noses.

The Trayvon Martin case has nothing to do with me "reek(ing) of a gun fanatic who's jumping on a situation as (I)'d like to see it because (I) love guns". I am well aware that the kid was unarmed, yet the kid also attacked the gunman first. Yes, you read that right. No matter who was walking where the fact of the matter is that Trayvon Martin attacked first. Sorry, but walking in a neighborhood with a gun on one's person IS NOT A THREAT. George Zimmerman defended himself; sadly, it cost the life of a 17 year old kid.

What, do you think just because it was a 27 year old against a 17 year old that Zimmerman should have just let Martin beat the f*** out of him? In the same situation, I would have defended myself the same way. Florida has a stand-your-ground law. This means one does not have to retreat if he finds himself to be in danger. Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin.

And if you really think it's just because of that classic race issue (not so coincidentally a favored liberal AND conservative ace when they have no other argument), listen to the 911 tape of Zimmerman's call. I say "liberal media" because it was a liberal network (NBC) that deliberately edited the recording to make this issue of self-defense into a so-called bit of "racial profiling" which led to a "murder". This was not done to "report the news", it was done in order to smear George Zimmerman by pegging him as a "racist". Give me a break.

Nothing constructive to contribute?

You really believe Travon just went and attacked Zimmerman? And yeah, since when is two guys having a row OK without one of the two having to defend himself with a gun? In fact, the only reason this was a "I had to defend my life/stand my ground" type of thing  is BECAUSE ZIMMERMAN HAD A GUN. Otherwise it would have (maybe) been a 27 year old getting his ass kicked by a 17 year old. If HE accosted the kid with all his "Hey, what are YOU doing in THIS neighborhood?" bullsh*t and wouldn't let him pass or leave or run away and pursued some type of action, didn't Travon have the right "man to man" to get pissed off and retaliate? ESPECIALLY because since he wasn't doing anything wrong and WAS NOT armed? What was he going to do, beat Zimmerman to death with his pack of skittles? Nope. YOU love guns therefore the gun wins, and in this case the gun won! You should be happy.

So by your quite flawed logic, I'm on the side of the Aurora shooter and the Sikh temple shooter? Just because those individuals had the guns? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be where you're going and it couldn't be further from the truth.

No, I'm talking about this particular situation where a 17 year old kid was minding his own business and walking to his dad's house and was confronted by an armed 27 year old who couldn't figure out a way to defend himself without shooting the 17 year old kid in the chest. It's what you would call a polarizing issue. Gun fanatics assume he had to defend himself with deadly force: the rest of us are simply not sure.... I'm not even trying to say that this guy shouldn't have had a gun. And if you'll recall, I was agreeing with you that responsible gun owners are not the problem, or even A problem. Do I think that self-appointed neighborhood protectors should not be allowed to wander the streets with guns and shooting unarmed people? If they come upon someone actually doing something wrong and who poses a genuine threat to the neighborhood? No, I do not. But such an individual should be able to use proper judgement to identify a threat. If he just goes up to an unarmed kid and accuses him of this or that and a scuffle ensues, I'd think it possible that another outcome rather than him shooting the kid to death should be arrived at. That's all.

Here's a peace offering, Real Historical Pistol-Whippin' Beach Boy:

http://youtu.be/vCLkN1wYCxs

A little off-topic here, but what's the story behind Bruce and the pistol-whipping?

You are obviously unfamiliar with the evidence that is now available about this case. Neither party was blameless in this tragic incident.

People need to lighten up around here a little:

Q: What's the best thing about the Travon Martin shooting?
A: Bob Dylan will never write a protest song about it. (What could he say? "Zimmerman took his gun and shot that poor boy down...")


Q: What kind of gun did that skinhead use in the Sikh temple massacre?
A: A "Sikh-shooter".

To those who find my belief in gun rights offensive...I'll be sure, on the off chance we ever meet in person, not to use my gun to defend you when you're assaulted. You'll probably end up dead but you'll go to the grave with a clear conscience.  :lol

No one finds your belief in gun rights offensive. There is a difference in believing in run rights and being a gun fanatic who will take the side of the gun no matter what. Not that this describes you..... Hey, I wonder if Bruce Johnston is stocked up on guns for the coming Socialist revolution....

GreatUrduPoet, don't be so sure about 'ole Bob!

The Ballad Of Travon Martin! .... I can just hear it!

Boots Of Travon Martin

When Travon Paints His Masterpiece

And you are also damn correct that neither party was clear of blame in this incident. I spent a good time researching it last night. You are right.


And Real Historical Pistol-Whippin' Beach Boy, I happen to work for NBC and you'd be happy to know there are many many raging right wingers employed in this building. There are liberals too, as well as moderates, some Socialist leaning folk and some outright commies..... Just like real life.... One producer actually keeps a pair of antique pistols on the wall in his editing bay to remind everyone that they are on the clock :)

I know this is not the place for this post, but....whatever. My senior most boss at Capitol Records collected Nazi memorabilia. There was but one Jewish vice president in the whole company and that person was not in the record division. It was scary there. In one marketing meeting, just before Made In USA came out, a senior executive made a cruel joke regarding Dennis's drowning; there was scattered laughter at the round table. Another time, right before the holidays, they marched all of the employees down to a refrigerated truck parked in the back lot. We lined up and and one by one, as we passed the side door of the truck, we were handed our gift for that year. a Christmas Ham.  At the end of 1986, a new regime, headed up by Joe Smith, was finally brought in. Many of the okies and good ol' boys were sent packin'. Worst of all, was the Tower itself. If there were bad vibes somewhere in the building, they would not escape, they could only swirl around from floor to floor.
PS - a VP of promotion once used a live cattle prod on one of his promotion directors. That same VP also made some despicable remarks about the promotion guy's disabled child. I think the guy was sued over those incidents. I hated it there; I really did.

lets take a break from arguing about useless wars and racial strife and take this quiz: http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz?from=48016023

it will tell you which candidate your views most align with. curious to see peoples' results and where they stand on the political ladder

Mine align with Ron Paul, but that's not a surprise to me.

Re quiz: Gary Johnson for me.

I'm all thumbs. Green, that is.

Who??

Jill Stein for me!!!!????!!!!

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

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

That would be the ticket to beat, regardless of who was in the Presidential and Vice Presidential slot. I'd also like to see a Justin Amash/Dennis Kucinich ticket next time.

The Stein lady. I didn't know who she was.

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

Lots of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul/Gary Johnson responses. Freedom is POPULAR!

I agree quite strongly.


Too bad it isn't going to translate into enough votes to win the election. Sucks, because I've never favored a candidate as strongly as I do Johnson.

I remember this little pearl of wisdom that Gary Johnson let out at one of the GOP debates...he was the only other reason (besides Dr. Paul) to watch them.

Yeah, that is up on his Wikipedia page. Saw it and :lol'd

Just quick, cause I'm on vacation:

It is obscene that of the candidates running, not one of them is a labor party candidate. It is this anti-populist sentiment at the political level that makes the United States distinct amongst developed nations.

I guess the organizer-in-chief isn't as populist as his lemming supporters would have us all believe. That's not a shot at you, by the way. I think most Americans are generally stupid and willing to believe that their party of choice has their best interests at heart. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I'd rather see political parties ended. George Washington warned against them and remained steadfast until his death.

Why would it be? I never supported Obama and never thought that he was a populist. I would say though that all the parties have their indoctrinated followers not just the Democrats. The Libertarians are certainly no stranger to this.


I don't know about that. A poll from a few years ago found that something like 80% of the population believed that the parties represented special interests rather than the interests of the populations. I think Americans are smarter than they are given credit, and I think they realize that their options are limited. I think, for example, that the sudden surge in the Ron Paul style libertarianism that is around these days is an outgrowth of real genuine concerns that are important. People are feeling excluded, they are feeling marginalized, and they feel that they don't have any real, meaningful control over their lives. This is what is at heart, for example, in the popular segment of the Tea Party movement. And, I think, these are absolutely reasonable concerns. Maybe the most reasonable. But because concentrated wealth and power have a certain kind of control over information and the way society works in general, these people don't get the right options available to them. No political group, as far as I'm concerned, is explaining how people can gain some kind of meaningful control, and so they grasp onto whatever options are made available to them. That's not a consequence of there being a problem with the American people - that's a consequence of their being a dramatic functional problem with the system that is denying these people genuine, meaningful options. And I don't mean options in terms of parties, I mean options in terms of ways to understand one's own place in the world.

 
That would be all well and good for the enfranchised, but for no one else. Yes, in some ideal society where something resembling populist and collective action was possible, and people had the opportunity to freely associate with social-cultural groups, then I would be on your side. And that is possible. But until that day comes , there needs to be more options not less.


Well, George Washington was a tyrant himself, so I wouldn't take him too seriously in terms of how a political system should be organized.

Absolutely. I disagree with the Libertarian Party on MANY issues. They've been hijacked by progressives and socialists. I may be a Ron Paul guy but I HATE the Tea Party, which is nothing more than a neoconservative/radical religious right movement now...


Well, those of us who advocate a free market system do not and would never support corporatism. As corporations control the media, it's not much of a wonder why information is so limited outside of the internet. As I've said before, a free market would never have such a concentrated divide between the poor and the wealthy. I believe people should have every option at their disposal.


I agree with you, but it would never pass societal norms. I do believe that people have an absolute right to freedom of association and should not have to explain why they do or don't wish to associate with people. To use the politically-incorrect example, I'll defend the right of racist individuals to assemble as long as said assembly is voluntary and not designed in such a way as to potentially infringe upon the rights of others.


You won't hear any dissent from me on that. I was merely using his remark about political parties to illustrate my point.

This is all so easy to fix! All we have to do is stop going to work and stop buying things.... Well, things. other than Capitol Beach Boys products.

Oh, of course, I am certainly not lumping you in with the dutiful and often blind followers of a political party. One thing that I should add though is that libertarianism, quite apart from the US Libertarian party, is very much a socialist political philosophy. That is, I think, in order to accept the conventional libertarianism, you must first accept that workers should be in control of their own resources. If you're not going to accept that, then I don't think it's fair to use the term libertarian.


Depends what you mean by "such" a concentrated divide. Surely, there would be a divide if you're talking about a free market system based on a capitalist model. And, in fact, it seems to me that under this model there may be a far worse divide. You might not see the kind of extreme wealth that you do today in the US (that's debatable) but you could very well see a far more extreme poverty precisely because you've taken away government intervention but left a system that functions to favor the powerful and wealthy ownership class. And, ultimately, it seems to me the question should not be whether or not we're in favor of free markets, but whether or not we're in favor of free people. And I think that if one is in favor of freedom and fairness, then the focus needs to be about people not about markets. To me, it's been a basic understanding of traditional thinking, that people cannot really be free if they are ultimately wage slaves with the inability to control the work they do, unable entirely to profit off the fruits of their labor, unable to have the same leisure in the economy as the gentry class. All of this is a consequence of any capitalist system, which seems to be the reason that anything resembling a genuine free market capitalist economy has been fairly disastrous. This, to me, is the very opposite of a free society and I am unwilling to accept that, based on what is I think a fairly groundless assumption of the inherent "rightness" of free markets. It ultimately seems to me that the best way and probably the only way to eliminate the "divide between the poor and the wealthy" is to entirely eliminate the distinction between the two and you simply cannot do that in a capitalist system.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.


I think that's fair enough and I don't disagree but again, this speaks to what I was talking about above. I agree that the right for people to assemble and say what they want should be a goal and one that applies to everyone. However, it's certainly not an end-goal if what we are left with is the statement that "even racists should be allowed to assemble and say what they want." I mean, yes, of course they should. But isn't it a better end goal to create a society where not only everybody can say what they want, but where there is very little racism too - where the question of whether we allow racists to assemble or not shouldn't even be a significant issue. It seems to me that the modern American libertarian is really limited in this respect and this example in many ways shows that their worldview is a bit off-kilter - as if racists having the right to speak and assemble is itself some sort of shining example of a society that's really free. To me it might show that a society is freer than others (or it could just show that it is institutionally racist) but it doesn't tell me in any way that this society is free. I mean, racism just like sexism and classism is ultimately a consequence of power hierarchies and class/social stratification. It seems to me that if you eliminate that, the question over whether racists have a right to speak and assemble because something of a non-issue. And, to me, if one is serious about real political change and creating a world that favorable, then that's the best possible outcome.

You are aware that "Bob Dylan" is the stage name for Robert Zimmerman, right?

It's a mathematical fact that Barack Hussien Obama's 2008 candidacy was largely bought and paid for by "big labor" (as well as by Wall Street). How has that panned out for America's younger workers? Personally, I'm as tired of union influence in U.S. elections as I am of corporate influence in U.S. elections. Have you ever considered moving to a smaller, more 'progressive' country like Britain or Sweden where the fruits of your socialist dreams will actually impact your civil liberties and quality of life? Just don't get sick, or have need to call the police.  

"As well as by Wall Street" is hardly a side note since they contributed just as much as Big Labor, and consequently, it shouldn't be surprising how it turned out. Obama, of course, never ran as a labor candidate, he ran as a right-wing Democrat with a vague message of "hope" and his platform was unsurprisingly pro-business, which is why he received more corporate donations than McCain. It was no shock then that Obama's policies should be fairly anti-union, passing the FAA Re-authorization Act, making it harder for workers to form a union. If this tells us anything it's that there really is no union influence in policy whether they support politicians or not.


Well, in reality, socialist-libertarian influence is very much responsible for some of the most important achievements in the United States. Anarcho-socialists are the reason Americans have an eight hour work day, for one. That's a major achievement.


Considering that the United States has the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the industrialized world, I would be far happier to "get sick" anywhere other than the US. The police is a different issue - they mostly exist to protect private property and so their function in general is questionable at best.

Rockandroll, you are awesome!

My goodness..."Socialist-Libertarian"?!? Why not "Black-Klansman" or "Muslim-Christian"? Word salad is such tasteless dish. What kind of academic bubble do you exist in? Have you ever been sick in a foreign country? Called the police to report a rape? Held a responsible job in the non-academic (i.e: real) world? Lived away from your parents for longer than a semester at a time? Spoken to an actual "worker" (not an academic or Party member) who has had the misfortune to have lived under a Marxist government? I'll wager not. But then again you probably think that Adolph Hitler, the Westboro Baptist Church and George W. Bush are all "right wingers" too. Old Joe Stalin's surely laughing in his grave over that. His work is complete.
 

Gee whiz.

With all due respect, this kind of statement bothers me and may be indicative of a larger issue of perception versus everyday reality. It assumes way too much about "Americans" in general, and puts into place a generalization that either everyone works a standard 8-hour shift with lunch and breaks, punches a time card, and basically exists on someone else signing and giving them a paycheck.

It completely disregards those who either run a small business, those who work for themselves or are getting a business off the ground or trying to maintain one which is already running, or any form of self-employment in general.

The 8-hour work day with mandatory overtime compensation if that 8 hours is exceeded may exist in certain government offices or at General Motors, but there are so many Americans who work beyond 40 hours a week to make such a blanket statement about American workers irrelevant if not laughable.

Find anyone successful in the restaurant business who has to make a payroll and ask them about an 8-hour day. In many industries or in the often-overlooked areas of self-employment in general, whether it be a general contractor, a musician, a chef, a barber, or any field where someone is pursuing a trade or offering skilled labor under their own name, the 8 hour work day doesn't exist.

It's just a reality check. I run into it all the time when someone asks if I'm taking a vacation.  :-D

Since you refused to respond the last time I dealt with your erroneous interrogation of my use of the term “socialist-libertarian,” I will simply re-paste my last response here:

I'm using the actual term "libertarian" rather than the perverted and bastardized version of the term that is en vogue in the US right now. The term itself dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine the possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and this mischaracterization of real libertarianism has been sort of consistent like that ever since but only within the confines of the United States. Outside of the US, libertarianism is still understood for what it actually is - namely a sort of shade of of anarcho-socialism.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

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


I’m quite sure you don’t even know what “work” you’re referring to, given your penchant for knowingly applying quotations to Russian leaders that they never spoke. Is all this smoke that you’re blowing a consequence of me calling Obama right-wing? Well, he is. It may be useful to look at this political compass to see where candidates stood in the last election and consider the methodology used to place them where they did on the political spectrum:

 http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008 (http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008)

The Westboro Baptist Church, as heinous as they are, are not a political organization and as far as I’m aware, don’t really take serious stances on serious political issues. So I couldn’t even wager a guess as to where they stood politically. Hitler and George W. Bush are uncontroversially on the right, but knowing that means knowing what it means to be on the right.


I have two responses to this:

1.   All you’re doing here is simply privileging a particular kind of experience over another in order justify your ideologically-driven beliefs. It's nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

2.   This is my last response to you. I find your sad desire to question my position in the “real world” to be disgusting, quite frankly. The reason is because I have had experiences so “real” that they are most likely unimaginable to most people and I should not be placed in a position where I have to explain those experiences to justify my political beliefs to someone like you. Now the fact is that you couldn’t have possibly known that I had these experiences because of the simple fact that you don’t know me at all. Yet, that didn’t stop you from arrogantly making claims about my life. But the fact that you made these claims with the experiences I have had not only makes you ignorant, it also is insulting. I’m not interested in telling you what my experiences are because, for one, I don’t like you and this is privileged information and I certainly wouldn’t share it with you. More importantly, unlike you, I would not stoop so low as to use my life experiences to question YOUR relationship to the real world, though I probably could. 

Now the fact that you should be so insulting probably means little to you, since the underlying principle in most of your posts directed towards me has been to try to insult me for my lack of intelligence, my lack of wordliness, etc. In that sense, I’m sure you’ll take the fact that this particular insult was effective as some sort of victory, since insults have been your chief weapon from the moment you entered the discussion with me. Consequently, I find that there cannot be anything productive that could possibly come out of having a discussion with you. Early on in our debate you asked me whether I was “a Canadian citizen, a public-employee union member or a currently enrolled student at a University?” As it turns out, you were asking me those questions in some sort of desperate attempt to find something about me personally to target since you couldn’t actually engage with the substance of my posts. This has become perfectly clear given that since you subsequently learned that I worked in academia, you’ve used that as I way to try and discredit my points. Now this pathetic tactic is not nearly as disgraceful as the one I discussed above but it is enough to suggest that you are not worth the time it takes to correct the mistakes you keep making, as they are draped in the most pathetically insulting rhetoric. You can respond to this as you wish, but you should know that I’m not like you who announced on page 15 that you “stopped responding to R&R” because “it’s an exhausting waste of time to argue with doctrinaire Marxists.” I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing you could say from this point on that I would feel worthy of a response.

I'm completely aware that there are MANY people who work more than 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. I'm one of those people. But that's not the point. I wasn't making "a blanket statement about American workers" as you have taken it. I really don't think I'm leaving myself so open so that I deserve this kind of response. If I did, then you would have a field day with your own statement that having an 8-hour work day was true only for certain government employees and people who work at General Motors - something I don't even believe that you yourself believe. All I would need to do is show you any worker who was not government employed or working at General Motors, yet worked 8-hour a day shifts and your point would collapse. But of course, you didn't really mean that, and critiquing your overall point because of that statement would be silly.

The achievement of the 8-hour work day was not that imposed a schedule on every American but it worked to reduce the ability for owners and bosses to exploit their labor, or at least place confines around how much they could exploit their labor. And, yes, this does apply to every American. Whether a person is self-employed or running their own business or not, there is a rule that protects them from being exploited in the way described above, which is why if they are working more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week, they are doing so because they CHOOSE to do so, not because they are forced to do so, and in many ways that was the whole point of the activist movement to get an 8 hour workday.

My points stand and I stand by them - referencing the 8 hour work day is referencing something from a bygone era, let's say a mid-20th century mentality that assumed things about the American worker based on what you saw around you in your community and in your immediate circle of family and friends. It's as irrelevant as saying a majority of workers at any given factory or plant lived within 5-10 miles of that plant, if not in the same town, and most of the wages earned in those towns went directly back into stores and merchants from that town when goods or services were bought. That was explicitly true in the 50's...it's laughable now in 2012.

The notion of exploitation of labor is a common thread in a lot of these talks. No one denies the horrors of child labor and the mining industries and unsafe factory conditions and "company stores" and all of that...and I will definitely, 100% give credit where credit is due and say those who fought to reform and change that should be credited and thanked.

That, however, is a far cry from what happened to one very particular industry which was one of the major economic players in my state for several generations, and which ultimately shut down.

The steel industry.

At one point the organized labor workers in the steel plants included in their demands a 13 week paid vacation as part of the contract. Ultimately there were other factors in the demise and the exodus of plants like Phoenix Steel, Bethlehem Steel, any number of plants around Pittsburgh, those closer to my hometown, etc., but a major factor was that the cost of maintaining a labor force after pension and benefits and followed by ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation created a no-win situation where the costs outweighed the profit made from selling the goods, and it destroyed the steel business in Pennsylvania.

As far as a reference point, I'm using my father's own firsthand experiences of his generation of friends and the people around him who worked for places like Bethlehem Steel and saw this play out...a 13 week paid vacation even in 2012 seems like a joke, like a put-on, or like a totally manufactured number posted to sway a debate one way or another. But that is the fact, and it crippled that company.

So the full-circle point of this is: Would anyone consider the fight for safe work conditions, reasonable work schedules, and a liveable wage anywhere near the same universe as demanding 13 weeks of paid vacation from any employer?

13 weeks!

And again, the notion of an 8 hour work day with paid vacation and paid benefits and pension plans and all of that is no longer reality for an ever-growing number of workers, and while most of what we do in life is ultimately a choice, as in the choice to work for yourself or work for someone else or even to join organized labor wherever you do work, there cannot be a generalization about the American worker in 2012 which is relevant to the times. The game *has* changed drastically, and what was relevant for a manufacturing-based workforce decades ago is irrelevant in the era of telecommuting, internet start-ups, and non-traditional, developing fields of work which require working days beyond the former standard of 8 hour shifts with breaks and paid vacations.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Should we get rid of the 8 hour work week?


That's not quite what I'm talking about. I mean, yes, the things you talk about are horrific and that's what happens in capitalist systems where the ownership class is unaccountable (the system the US Libertarian movement seems to want put in place) but all labor where the laborer receives a wage is exploitative. But, of course, there are forms of exploitation that are worse than others.


I don't know the specifics about Bethelehem steel but I do know that in the early 2000s, steel companies like Bethelehem were using bankruptcy courts as a way to break contractual obligations and cut pensions, benefits, and wages. Ultimately what happened to Bethelehem is that they were bought out by International Steel Group, making them the continent's largest steel company until they themselves were bought out by MittalSteel, which merged with Arcelor and become the biggest steel mill in the world. Consolidations liked these allowed for US steel corporations to compete with the European and Japanese steel industry at lower cost. If you think this bankruptcy was about vacations, and the greediness of organized labor, then you really need to investigate further.

This bit about vacation time does not come up so much in discussions of Bethelehem’s bankruptcy (the bit about the pensions does), from a cursory glance at online discussions on the matter. This may be more of a personal issue then, which isn’t all that surprising since many workers tacitly accept the parent-child model as a way of understanding the owner-laborer relationship rather than understand it for what it is – an inherently antagonistic relationship between power and labor, wherein labor power is at the disposal of ownership and ownership will buy as much labor power from workers at the lowest price possible. But it is crucial that people don’t see it that way – therefore this concept of parent-child gets put in place where people are reduced to showing off how good they are being and how good they are doing. This is why it is so enraging when people who actually understand how labor works, don’t follow this model and actually get something out of it because of their deviation.


This, in fact, is not true. What we do in life is not really "ultimately a choice." People have more flexibility and are able to make more choices, the higher up they go in the economic hierarchy. Comparatively speaking, the United States is particularly bad for people having the ability to be upwardly mobile relative to where they start out, which indicates there is not much in terms of choice for a large portion of the population and this indicates to me that this means that the 8 hour work day is as important than ever. It seems that this idea that people have lots of choices is an idea that is held mostly by people who have the luxury to make these choices but this simply does not reflect reality in any serious way.

I don't know how many times I've repeated it in this thread but American libertarians ARE NOT corporatists.

This has nothing to do with corporations - it has to do with the owner-labor model in any capitalist system whether it has corporations or not.

Thank you for the great post. Very entertaining and revealing. Adieu.

Point 1: You can't get rid of what is already an antiquated model that affects a much smaller minority of employed American workers than existed when the concept of an "8 hour work day" was commonplace. It's not even relevant in 2012 to mention it in a discussion of labor any more than it would be to make a direct reference to child-labor issues in American factories which were regulated many decades ago in a discussion about labor in 2012.

Point 2: The Bethlehem Steel issue is far from a personal one, in fact there is absolutely no shortage of information available online, anecdotal, debates, factual, etc...to get a thorough idea of the situation that helped speed the demise of many steelworkers' jobs when Bethlehem and others collapsed under the weight of operating costs and began shutting down American factories and moving operations elsewhere.

Your research is most often thorough and often interesting to read and soak in during the debate, I'm surprised there wasn't much on Bethlehem and the 13-week vacation issue, because it's pretty well documented. It should not be difficult to search and find plenty of talk on both sides. I happen to have a dad who lived in the area and knew personally some of these workers, including his uncle (my great-uncle) who worked at Bethlehem Steel in the 30's and contributed steel which went to build the Golden Gate Bridge. The plant(s) in this area closed, many, many jobs were lost, and a lot of the blame still goes (in my opinion, rightfully so) to the demands such as the 13 week vacation (after five years on the job, mind you, but still an absolutely ridiculous request).

The organized labor negotiators had an opinion that an industry giant like Bethlehem Steel was at that time in America "too big to fail", meaning they would more than likely concede to more and more demands instead of closing the doors and massive layoffs. The demands kept increasing, the 13 week vacation was one of the last straws, and the company pulled up its stakes and went elsewhere, laying off thousands...and the workers were what some would still consider a victim of that particular labor organization's bloodlust when negotiating the contracts.

The fact is, for the historical points about that vacation, the current entity of Bethlehem Steel has to be separated from the way Bethlehem Steel existed decades ago leading up to the massive closings and layoffs. A lot of people still blame the demands, and it is a sore spot that gets referenced often - again, I'm a little surprised at the lack of information when I found a bunch of Google entries on a simple search.

It was a classic negotiating strategy where an assumption was made that the place employing the workers would  A. never close and B. never lay off that many workers. And the strategy fell flat on its face at the expense of those workers, but then again when most places I've ever worked require 5 years of service to earn a few more days of paid vacation, that 13 weeks was probably very relaxing. If they didn't double-dip and grab some work elsewhere during those weeks (and that happened too...)

So the ideas of big corporations versus big labor have several facets, and the abuses of big labor should be reported just as often as the evils of big corporations, again when the criticism is warranted as many feel it is with the example of Bethlehem Steel.

(Note: The former site of Bethlehem Steel was the site of the Lehigh Valley's "Musikfest" concerts just a few weeks ago. They try to pump it up, it's a nice music festival which by all accounts is a lot of fun, but selling funnel cakes and corn dogs to music fans doesn't do a fraction for the local economy as having a steel plant running 3 shifts every day did for years.)

Point 3: The choice versus not a choice issue...I just fundamentally disagree with that in many ways, too many to list them. But when my choice to work and get paid for doing something I love to do and am skilled in doing versus my choice to punch a time clock and report for work which I hate but am forced to do for whatever reason should no longer be available, I'm done, I'll give up, and I'll pull an Eden Ahbez and go f*** off in the f***ing mountains or something with a hickory walking stick, unkempt beard, flowing robe, and my trusted dog Spot.

If you suggest "we" or people as a general concept have no choice, it plays directly into the worst elements of existentialism, collectivism, communism, relativism, and whatever other -isms define a philosophical bent that subscribes to that train of thought. It also seeks to remove *any trace of personal responsibility* for one's actions, and opens up a scenario where, when convenient, it's possible to assign blame to everything except that which is ultimately making the decision to do or not do something. If you tell me that someone 18 years old has no choice and is either predestined by environment, family history, or some other societal influence to choose a life of crime and despair over a life of education, work, dedication to a craft or skill, etc...I will right now agree to disagree and not travel further down this road. And to somehow suggest the United States as a country is somehow less conducive to someone becoming a success out of their own choice and hard work is too far outside my beliefs, I won't argue it any further because we're a few million miles apart.

For all of the success stories, for all of the people who have come to America and have carved out whatever piece of the pie made them happy, formed their legacy, and made their little corner of the Earth that much better as a result, to suggest the United States is somehow less than that...I don't see that at all and can't argue what I consider to be incorrect on basic principle.

Or, perhaps if someone - anyone - can point to a country or a society anywhere in the world where someone can become successful after arriving with barely anything in their pockets, no bank account, etc - and end up building or developing something successful from scratch - please point me in that direction.

I think those folks who would suggest America is somehow flawed in this way have not spent enough time speaking with people who have in fact built up something from nothing, as recent as immigrants who fled places like Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, China, parts of the Middle East, and who now own and operate successful businesses. They may not be glamorous, they may not be as high-profile as being a fashion editor in Manhattan, but to come from nothing and run a successful business...again, find me another place in the world where it happens more than in America.

I'm a sucker, I still believe in the so-called "American Dream", and no amount of philosophy or "-ism" is going to change that. No sale. :)

I wanted to extract this part from my overly long reply and zero in on it, if nothing else of value comes from my long-winded previous post.

The part in bold really upsets me, and if reflecting realty is the goal, again I'd ask anyone to point me to a country or society in 2012 that offers more in this field than America.

I was very moved and inspired by a story I saw on CNN about Snoop Dogg, who is now "Snoop Lion" but that's beside the point. It focused in on his humanitarian efforts and dedication to various charities and programs to help not only kids in his own neighborhood, but also charities around the world.

If you were to apply the philosophy of little choice, little opportunity in the United States to Snoop, we might have concluded that because of his neighborhood and his childhood around gangs and street crime, he was predestined to be a criminal or a failure. Society dealt him a losing hand before he could even play it, and his was a criminal life in the making.

Yet, look at him today. He is independently wealthy, he created a successful enterprise built around his image, he employs other people and has made others wealthy as a result, he was a talented rapper and musician who created what is now considered a classic body of work through his albums, and he's just one of those pop-culture guys who is always a presence. And his work in his neighborhood through his kids' football league has produced at least one pro player and has inspired and influenced many kids who, like him, may have been thought to be predestined or had no choice but to live in poverty and crime - in short, he's taken his good fortune and is passing it on to others who can do the same thing.

I used to think of Snoop as a novelty, as a joke almost, but one who was very talented at his art...recently I see him more as a truly *American* success story and one who can inspire others to make certain choices in life and try to carve out whatever piece of the pie they'd like to take and run with it.

If there is another country or society in the world that could take someone like Snoop Dogg from a criminal existence in his youth to create a humanitarian millionaire through not much more than his talent and drive, again point me in that direction.

Fortunately, I didn't bring it up "in a discussion of labor" nor did I bring it up in a discussion of 2012 labor. I brought it up to explain how anarcho-socialist political groups can change things within the United States. Nevertheless, I don't find your discussion about how much has changed to be at all convincing.


Remember that I said I had taken only a "cursory glance" at the facts, which is why probably little turned up. I have done a bit more looking around since. It seems as if you are somewhat confused on this issue. Here is a former quote from yourself:


If it is true that it was the "ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation" that seem to put the nail in the coffin for "the steel business in Pennsylvania", how do you account for the fact that Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt in 2001, roughly twenty years after Bethlehem steelworkers gave up the 13-week vacation plan.

In all you have said, I do ultimately agree with you on one point: That the union made a fatal flaw in assuming that the corporation would put people ahead of profits. In a corporate system run on a profit-model, you throw out your labor. So what ended up happening with Bethlehem is that to cut costs, the bosses made massive job cuts and as a result, they ended up creating for themselves a system in which they were paying a pension plan to 600,000 retirees while only have 124,000 employees, which was down from the 300,000 they employed in a given time in their heyday. Now, if this were a publicly-run system, there would be other options available than simply cutting jobs but that would be unthinkable to a privately run business.

This is far from the fault of labor. Like I said, in a system of an antagonistic struggle where the system is always already structured to disadvantage labor since labor power is at the disposal of ownership, then labor needs to get as much as they can from this relationship as possible, while knowing that they will never be able to get as much as is fair.


I never said people had "no choice." That being said, the choices that people have are essentially socially constructed ones. So, for example, in the United States, the way the economic system works, there is a far greater need for a large, subservient subordinate class than there is for an ownership class. In that sense, it would simply be impossible for everyone in the country to choose to not be a subordinate, working-class person. That choice is simply unavailable to everyone and if it was available, then you'd be looking at an entirely different economic system at work. So, again, let's take the United States as an example where there is something of a middle class between wealth and poverty. Well, why is that? Well, for one the 20th century was a period of unparalleled economic growth in the country and this is primarily the result of publicly subsidized industrial development - whether we're talking about the automotive industry, the steel industry, aviation, technology, computers, the internet, advanced weapons, etc. Now, because of this enormous growth, the US was able to take in a lot more money via taxation and shift some money into things like education, social welfare programs, etc. (I don't want to overstate this, the welfare state in the US is unquestionably for protecting the powerful but there has been some directed towards the population at large.) Now, because you had a more educated class, you had more people that were able to have some sort economic mobility, had a greater ability to run their own businesses, etc. Now this has nothing to do with personal responsibility - it has everything to do with economic policy and the general economic structure of the country. The reason why you have a particular class hierarchy in the United States is because the country is built that way. And there are some people who have the sort of freedom to navigate to and from the socio-cultural positions created by the structure of the country, but that freedom is typically held more by those who are already in a higher class position.

This might beg an important question which is, do you believe Bill Gates would have been as successful had he been born and lived his life in Sub-Saharan Africa?


Well, on this we're talking about a matter of facts and the facts are that the United States has comparatively low relative economic mobility. Now you can not like the facts, but that doesn't alter their existence.


Well, it would be true of France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, to point you to seven countries with greater relative economic mobility than that which exists in the United States. The major achievement in the US is the fact that people are so heavily indoctrinated to believe otherwise.


Well, remember that a lot of people come from these countries justifiably because they are tired of being under the thumb of the oppressor and so move to the land of the oppressor, as there is no easier way to get out from their thumb!

Or is there? After all, studies typically show that the wages of first generation immigrants typically fall relative to non-immigrants in the United States. So this idea that people come and build "up something from nothing" is something of a myth too.


How about the facts?

How about those facts? You don't understand what happened with Bethlehem Steel, and the facts about bankruptcy and all of that ignore what was the street-level reality of the situation. And that reality is that a major contributing factor of the plants being shut down in this area specifically was the union demands. However long the business itself survived under its name isn't the issue: They could have operated for decades longer in name and with non-American plants, it's irrelevant. The issue here was the plants in Pennsylvania could not be sustained when the costs of providing the level of benefits and perks which that particular union was pressing for, and the general opinion decades after all of this actually happened is that the union overstepped its bounds.

Of course there are plenty of blogs and whatnot from children and grandchildren of those workers who would suggest otherwise. People who remember this know what happened and can see the results whenever we drive past empty factories that previously ran 3 shifts a day.

Again, a simple request:

Please spell out a logical justification that any factory worker, or any salaried worker in general working for a paycheck coming from a larger business or corporation, should be entitled to as a condition of employment a 13 week long paid vacation, plus sick days, plus regular salary, plus overtime, plus pension, plus benefits. Please justify that, because to be quite honest about it, anyone who would think this sounds "fair" or "just" is painfully ignorant about the way everyday, ground-level business is done.

If this is considered a "fair" compensation for someone working an 8 hour shift on a production line, then the concept of such a worker's paradise will triumph over the actual opportunities to find this kind of work, because there is no business, short of a fraud like Solyndra which could exist on government handouts and bailouts, that could sustain itself under such a system. The labor costs alone, not to mention raw materials, would create a system where the cost of the finished product would need to be inflated to the point of pricing it right out of the market.

Of course in America the joke for years has been the willingness of the government to pay 100 dollars for a screwdriver which could be bought at a hardware store for 10, so maybe big government running the whole show is more of the goal than we ever dreamed.

This...

So this idea that people come and build "up something from nothing" is something of a myth too

...is total and complete bullshit, and I'll now without apology call it for what it is.

Either you have lived in a bubble, or have not spoken to or even have seen enough people who have in fact done EXACTLY what you said is something of a myth. Do I really need to list specific names or businesses? Do I need to gather a list of what we would call "successful" people in business or entertainment or sports or whatever other field we choose who literally came from nothing and became successful?

And feel free to interject the now-prominent topic of "you didn't build that yourself" into the words because much like that bit of nonsense, it again offers an image that those who have not been exposed to enough people whose life story may differ from their own have little understanding of what it takes to get a business running. And yes, damn it, they do it "from nothing" in many cases, and without the help of a government program.

It comes down to this: Suggesting that building something from nothing is something of a myth is closing your eyes to a number of people who did indeed start from little or no means, no benefit of a family name or trust like the Kennedys, and who in fact struck out in life perhaps many times before finally hitting on the right combination and becoming successful.

A story of someone starting a business "from scratch" does in fact go against many of those who believe that anyone successful attained that success from something other than their own work and dedication.

Why is it so difficult to see the reality and witness actual successful Americans who started out very low and worked their way up? Is it too painful to accept that something other than a government program or a big-state sponsored employment system could produce a successful and happy worker? Is it something about the inherent *freedom* and *choice* for someone to decide to follow a dream, become a success, and do it *on their own terms* rather than following someone else's plan?

I think it is a beautiful notion that exists more in America than anywhere else, including Europe, of someone taking a chance on their own and doing it. Simply doing it - on the notions of dedication, talent, innovation, instinct, street-smarts, passion, or the most basic concept of someone being *better* at a given trade than someone else...any combinations of those which have led to success beyond what sociologists would chart out based on background and environment. And one of the most common threads of those who we may consider successful is the fact that many of them failed, and failed miserably, yet got back up and tried it again, with the ultimate lesson being "LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES AND DON'T REPEAT THEM".

I just get really pissed off when someone suggests that something I have seen firsthand, and something which is readily available if examples are needed beyond common logic, is called in any way "a myth". It either suggests a basic misunderstanding of the individuals whose actions would prove such a statement false on the most basic level, or an unwillingness to accept that what can be deduced in theory and through certain philosophies is not the way it works on the street, in everyday life.

I have been very inspired recently by Daymond John, the founder of FUBU and a multi-millionaire businessman. I encourage anyone who doubts the ability of the individual to make "something from nothing" read his story. It is truly inspiring for those who believe in the American Dream as something more than mythology.

In short, part of how he built his business, coming out of Brooklyn the child of a single mother, involved hard work, innovation, and instinct.

This guy who some would call a "one percenter" worked at a Red Lobster, then would come home, sew his hats and clothing by hand, take orders and do marketing at home, sell some of the hats on the streets or in front of venues, then go back to Red Lobster the next day to work his shift. Hours of work, both for a paycheck and to build his own business - dedication and drive, pure and simple. Then later at a certain big trade show - where he and his co-workers could not afford to rent a booth but worked the rooms anyway - his brand FUBU was taken to the next level by those who saw the potential, and success followed from there.

So I might suggest at least looking into the life story and history of how Daymond John became so successful, and how he did actually build something from nothing. To be so cynical as to suggest this is something of a myth is living in a vacuum, I'm sorry to say. And there are many more Daymond Johns out there doing their own thing and working their asses off to be successful, on both small and large scales, and doing it on their own terms. The person taking your order at a restaurant or bar may be the next Daymond John, or may carve out a niche as the best server in that area and be successful in that field and be in demand for his/her skills - that's the American Dream.

I respect and admire that, and it's actually offensive to me and people I know personally to suggest the something from nothing in any way small or large a myth. That is simply wrong, and wherever that mindset originates I'm going to say it's just not correct.

I'm small time, I'm not on any lists of prominent citizens or anything like or close to that, but I did in fact build a full time business opportunity which sustains me, and it was built out of several other failures and a layoff, done on my own terms and doing what I am good at and enjoy - free of any bosses, and with the only requirements and tradeoffs being my taxes and buying my own health insurance.  So I did strike out on my own, and made something sustainable out of failure and a layoff on my own terms. If it were all a myth I wouldn't have been able to do either.

Unless, perhaps, I were to take advantage of the thriving economy in Europe and hang my shingle there... :-D

But the union was not pressing for a 13 week vacation. I repeat: the steelworkers gave up that perk in 1983 as a sacrifice for the survival of the company and this was a good 18 years before the company went bankrupt. To in any way suggest that it was the 13 week vacation that led in part to the bankruptcy of the company is flat out false no matter what you claim the "street-level reality of the situation" was. I reiterate, Bethlehem Steel was one of a handful of steel companies that used bankruptcy courts in order to renege on contractual obligations and cut pensions, benefits, and wages. This, then, allowed for a very profitable buy-out - a 1.5 billion dollar deal - that was very good for the owners of Bethlehem Steel and very good for the new owners, and meant absolutely nothing to the hundreds of thousands of people formerly employed by them, and the even greater number of retired people who put in hard hours for the company. This incidentally, was during the period of increased profits for the steel industry with Bush's increase in tariffs on imported steel. The steel industry reacted to this by shedding more jobs despite the increased profits. All of this incidentally, is a common business move - it's referred to as accumulation by dispossession, wherein the assets of workers are taken away and placed into the concentrated hands of private industry. This was exactly what happened with Bethlehem Steel and its a routinely played out game in the business world. But unions have little to do with it. They can occasionally pose a difficulty in the company carrying out these actions, which should be illegal, but unfortunately in this case, they seemed to be complicit with the ownership of Bethlehem Steel.

Again, if this was "the general opinion" which I'm doubtful it was, then it's wrong, but if they existed would do so for some of the reasons I've already illustrated (the parent-child/owner-labor relationship). But it seems to me that the central motivating factor in all of this is profits and had nothing to do with "the union oversteppings its bounds." Indeed, there were solutions available to Bethlehem Steel, but unthinkable since they didn't allow for immediate profits.


The way "everyday, ground-level business is done" is shameful and exploitative. What the worker should be entitled to is the fruits of their labor but that's not how a capitalist system works. In a capitalist system, a worker sells their labor to an owner who buys their labor from them at the lowest possible price so that they can make the highest amount of profit and the only people who are in a legitimate position to decide the terms of this relationship are the owners/shareholders, while the laborer gets absolutely no say, despite the fact that the owner is appropriating the product of their labor and selling it on the market for their own personal profit. This is textbook exploitation. There are ways to make this less exploitative - so, for instance, there might be mechanisms put in place where labor has some kind of bargaining power (i.e. unions). This allows labor to play some role in deciding the terms of the relationship but whatever they get (pensions, vacations, etc.) the relationship will always be a shameful, exploitative, and altogether barbaric one, as long as labor does not get to profit off their own work. So, in that case, like I said, whatever labor can get is an achievement since until they actually get to control their own work, they will never exist in a fair system and they will always exist in a system that favors the owner at the expense of the worker. So, as far as I'm concerned, this question about what benefits a worker should be entitled to, when in fact they should be entited to the entire company, is so grossly insulting, I don't even know how to really answer it.


I think that's debatable but if that's the case then it makes you wonder why owners are so resistant to letting employees take control over the companies after they've been shut down.
As long as we're talking about steel, the US Steel Corporation in Youngstown, Ohio is a strong example of that.

I'm afraid, again, you've misread since you go on to talk about people like the Kennedy's and Daymond John who were not immigrants, which is what that quote was addressing.


I am aware of the stories that the media latches on to and spits out relentlessly in order to keep the myth going, so no, you don't need to "gather a list."


As far as I’m concerned there is a befuddling contradiction at the heart of your claim. The first thing you claim is that it is in America more than anywhere else where people can build “something from nothing” (a claim, incidentally, that is blatantly false no matter how strong the rhetoric is that you choose to use because again, in the United States, people are less able to have economic mobility than people who live in other industrialized countries) and the second thing you claim is that they do this “without the help of a government program.” I might ask you then, if these things are achieved only by personal, independent struggle without outside help, then why is it that they are able to do it in America more than anywhere else? Doesn’t your very premise suggest that the economic structure of a society is what creates opportunity or lack of opportunity, rather than some story about individual get-up-and-go-ness? So, let me ask you the same question again and use the example you give – Daymond John. Would Daymond John have been as successful had he been born and lived his life in Sub-Saharan Africa?

America is not perfect, it has its share of problems as does any society or any person, that's common knowledge: I simply get tired of reading posts, specifically your posts, that are trying to convince the general readership of this forum that the United States is rotten to the core. Statistics, studies, and reports do not usurp living people and their words and experiences. I have seen too much good in America, and have seen, heard, and interacted with too many good Americans to allow someone to endlessly bash and degrade America without a challenge.

You still insist that certain aspects of the so-called "American Dream" are false, are a myth...do you get this from news articles, from data, from academic studies and analysis of such data, or have you actually known or spoken with anyone who has in fact come to America from somewhere else in the world and found success or what they would consider part of the "American Dream"?

I also knew you would shoot down the Daymon John example - To be frank about it, any time a specific example is given that directly contradicts any of the so called facts coming from that anti-capitalist philosophy, every attempt is made to shoot holes in the example and discredit it rather than discuss the actual *point* of the example. Classic tactic of shifting the discussion or discrediting the example instead of discussing it. I'll call bullshit on that every time, as I do and did here.

I guess if the sheltered academics, social engineers, and raving anti-capitalists were to have found Daymon John sewing his FUBU hats late night at his place in Brooklyn back in the early 90's, they could have told him not to bother pursuing a dream because he already has the sociological deck stacked against him - single parent background, poverty-stricken neighborhood, etc.

I think for him and all of the people who he employs, it's a great thing he ignored all of that bullshit and followed his dream.

As far as Europe - the end of the day financial reports Thursday headlined the failure of European leaders to act on the impending financial meltdown of the European economy as a reason for uncertainty and a drop in the markets overall. And we have Romney on the campaign trail blaming Europe's "socialist" system, and Bill Clinton campaigning for Obama blaming the plans of "austerity" in Europe for the impending financial doom...

In this case the thing they seem to agree on is that Europe is on the brink of a financial collapse. So at least the reality of the problems with the European economy are one issue where the R's and D's would seem to agree. So I'd be careful about looking too out-of-touch with the realities of the present global economy when suggesting Europe offers something greater at a time when their own economic infrastructure is teetering on collapse.

To conclude, I'm curious: What exactly is the end game here? We could easily zero in on any number of societies in the world and point fingers at a long list of mistakes, digressions, and outright violations of basic human rights. Yet it's always the cliche "blame America" or better yet "blame capitalism" for whatever is wrong.

I'm familiar with that, it's a mindset that I have encountered often and beyond postings on a message board.

However, the part about suggesting there is no American dream with continued claims like this: "The first thing you claim is that it is in America more than anywhere else where people can build “something from nothing” (a claim, incidentally, that is blatantly false no matter how strong the rhetoric is that you choose to use because again, in the United States, people are less able to have economic mobility than people who live in other industrialized countries)"

What is the greater purpose of this tactic? Is it an attempt to convince others who may have a notion of creating their own success that it's all a myth, and not to bother? Is it an attempt to again tarnish an image of America which some hold very close for personal reasons or subscribing to a larger movement trying to influence those ignorant of the facts? Is it playing into those methods prescribed by Alinsky or the Cloward-Piven strategies, among them creating and maintaining a permanent dependency within society where the solution is assistance and aid?

Again, what is the ultimate goal of trying to convince people, anywhere but specifically here on this forum, that a notion of the "American Dream", or creating something from nothing, is a myth?

Your opinion is *not* fact, and again it is continually contradicted by real people in America (not numbers or data) who did exactly what you suggest is a myth, and created something from nothing.

Well, we can do one of two things here. We can either believe the empircal and extensively documented facts on relative economic mobility which I've been discussing and which can be easily verified (if you want the statistics, I'll provide them) or, what guitarfool says he heard from somebody. Which can't be checked. And to be honest, I think it's telling that you're trying to move this to a discussion that uses unverified anecdotal information as the primary evidence to reinforce our points because at that point it simply becomes a game of rhetorical prowess or who can feign the most righteousness, rather than a discussion about real facts.


Perhaps you could explain how the example contradicts any of the facts I gave?


I'm perfectly aware of what's happening in Europe and I agree that austerity in the midst of recession is economic suicide, as well as a brutal form of neo-colonialism. If the Republican camp is blaming Europe's socialist system then they simply don't have even the most elementary understanding of basic economic principles. But none of this changes what I've said. The question is, will it? Will there be a time in the future when American economic mobility is higher than it is in much of Western Europe rather than lower, as it has been almost permanently for years. It might but that doesn't change the fact that Europeans, for decades upon decades, have had far greater opportunities for economic development than American citizens. Personally, I have my doubts. After all, the European austerity plans basically do what's being done in the United States - shift the burden onto the working population. So, in the United States, corporations are recording record profits in the last year while simultaneously slashing jobs in the name of financial crisis. So, it seems to me that in both cases you have societies that typically shift economic burdens onto the working population, while concentrated wealth and power gets to reap the rewards. So I ultimately would find it hard to believe that the average US citizen is going to be faring much better than the average European citizen. And more over, this would hardly be a great success since the economic mobility in the States would essentially remain the same, while other countries would drop (in this hypothetical scenario that hasn't happened). The point should be for the US to raise the economic mobility numbers to be as high as we know they could be.


For me, it's a simple one: telling the truth.


Well, I'm not interested in manipulating the factual evidence so that we can be more fair in handing out blame. If you want to "zero in", be my guest. It seems to me that one, however, has a moral obligation on "zeroing in" on the things that he or she has the capacity to do something about - otherwise, it's just vacuous back-slapping. We could zero in on the crimes of Genghis Khan but it hardly matters.


Again, simply: to tell the truth and you can learn a lot about people who don't want you to tell it.


It's not my opinion that Americans have lower relative economic mobility than many other industrialized countries. Those are indeed the facts. And like I said earlier, you can like the facts or dislike them but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Furthermore, I suggest you look back on the last few pages of the thread since you seem to think that I've said somewhere that no one could ever create something from nothing in the history of time in all of America ever. Since you'll find that I never actually even alluded to a remark that stupid, I hope we can put this matter to rest.

Do you expect me to list names and addresses and contact information? Seriously? So don't take my word, as someone who you've actually interacted and dialogued with, but rather believe your anonymous "statistics" over an actual person describing real people.

Seriously, are you that stubborn or that distrusting of people that you'd doubt the accuracy of something I'm posting here? Do you seriously suggest I'm making this up?

If that's the case, let me know now and I'll have a two word response that begins with the letter "F" and ends with the word "you".

I hope that's not the case, because if you want to call into question my honesty or truthfulness I'll respond in kind.

I'm sure it does sting a bit to see firsthand evidence presented to challenge one's notion of "the truth" as found in data and statistics, so I'll duly note that your opinions are exactly that - opinions, and any notions of the truth will continue to come from what I see directly as an American citizen interacting with Americans who have shown your "truth" to be somewhat less than advertised.

Short of listing by name and contact information a sampling of the people who would immediately disprove this notion that the "American Dream-something from nothing" concept is a myth, why not go to the direct participants? In my area, I can easily find businesses owned by and/or staffed by immigrants from Egypt, China, Vietnam/Cambodia, Cuba, India, Greece, Poland, England...pick a region. It's a phone call or a drive away to interact with someone who actually did "the impossible", according to the previous posts. Personally speaking, I have had co-workers in the past who had come from several of those areas, in one case a company who employed a number of Vietnamese workers, and saw who managed to carve out a decent American existence and have a steady job with benefits and a good salary. Some were first generation immigrants, some were their children. Go to any major city, find areas like Chinatown or Little Havana or areas with a large Haitian, Cambodian, Greek, or any number of areas where immigrants who have settled in America have chosen to live and work, a good number of those having arrived with little or no money.

Add my own background to the list, my grandfather actually arrived in the early 20th century from Poland not speaking English, and we were able to track his name to a ledger from the boat he took to arrive in America to where he would eventually reside in Philly. So part of my own existence as an American is due to a man who - literally - started something from nothing in a new country.

Of course if this is not a life experience that is shared by everyone, or if a major city in America that has specific areas where residents settle after immigrating from specific areas is not nearby and not a part of everyday life, then I suppose it would not be as easy to see firsthand examples of this "American Dream".

But I wanted to restate that my strong reaction to certain comments might be more understandable if seen from the perspective of reacting to someone telling me that these things I have seen firsthand and can verify with a few phone calls or emails are somehow untrue, or a myth, or anything else other than what I know to be true, and what I know to be an experience shared by more than a few individuals. So this "reality" I have seen multiple times, firsthand, is in fact reality and not mythology as suggested.

So congratulations on once again shifting the discussion from the topic to questioning my word. I thought you were above that but maybe protecting the beliefs of one's political ideology does in fact win out over the idea of a robust debate between acquaintances.

In other words, feel free to put statistics and numbers over individual people as a general rule, it would make Saul Alinsky and any number of collectivist thinkers proud.

My name is Craig, btw.

And if I get out of line, someone please remind me that "the truth" isn't what I have seen, heard, or experienced firsthand, but rather what someone who has reviewed pages of statistics and data has told me from afar.  ;D

Ahh, the glorious state of political discourse in 2012.

Do I believe that you know enough people to show that the facts are wrong and that America, in fact, has the highest economic mobility in the world despite what studies have shown? No, I don't believe that and you certainly haven't given me any information that would lead me to reasonably consider such a position.


It doesn't sting at all since I don't find your anedotal evidence to be at all convincing.


What precisely did you see in Denmark?


Don't forget it also does proud anybody who respects factual evidence.

Nor do I find your reliance on statistics enough to lessen my personal "anecdotal" evidence. So, once again, I suggest if you don't want to take what I say as truthful, shame on you for not trusting what someone else says and casting doubt on their word, and I'd appreciate it if my "word" were at least given some level of respect in the discussion and not dismissed as "anecdotal".

I suppose to take it outside of my word which you seem to look down on, I could copy and paste a few dozen online articles with immigrants to America telling the story of their experience and success in America, but what's the point? You have the blinders on, and your statistics are the foundation of your wishing to believe or not believe a real person who tells you something other than what the numbers suggest.

How many stories from people would it take for you to not only listen but *hear* these things? At this point, it feels like nothing would outweigh the data.

I believe there is a fundamental difference in outlook at work here, and a reliance on statistics and numbers as part of a greater mindset that much of society can be engineered through use of data and statistics. I'm not against the concept or the field of social engineering in all cases, but at the same time I personally feel it too often reduces individual human beings with vastly different personalities to numbers and lumps them into groups or demographics, and seeks to remove the concept of individual behavior and individual choices when confronted with a certain situation.

We could, through statistics, attempt to assemble the ultimate team in any given sport. Take into account previous performance, future potential, physical fitness, skill sets, etc. and engineer a "dream team" that would ensure success. On paper, running all the numbers in as scientific a process as would be possible, such a dream team could in fact be created.

However, I feel that you cannot engineer such a process to ensure results, or even predict results. The human factor will always be the key part of the equation. No matter what statistics are analyzed and calculated, the ultimate factor becomes the performance and actions of the individual. You cannot engineer the possibility of the individuals in that group to either outperform or under-perform the expectations.

I believe - and I know many will disagree - that the main flaw I see with attempting to engineer anything where humans are involved, from society to forms of government to sports teams, is that people are not numbers and cannot be managed in a controlled scientific environment. And I see that such social engineering appears to be a component in a number of solutions or plans for change being suggested by those who disagree with a capitalist system.

If the suggestion is offered that statistics suggest the improbable notion of, say, creating something from nothing, it dismisses and ignores the drive and desire of the individual, and suggests failure is the expectation over success.

It is fortunate that many who are successful were inspired even more after being told they couldn't succeed.

Statistics and analysis have their place, but in more limited ways than I think some apply them to real life.

Indeed, since a few dozen online articles in no way would be comparative to a major research study that examined income mobility by nation.


No, it's is simply understanding what is perfectly true - that I alone cannot compare economic mobility amongst nations without carrying out a major research project. Certainly no firsthand observations would allow me to come anywhere near finding anything of substance nor would it give me anything resembling an accurate represenation of reality.


Stories wouldn't tell me anything. I would need to measure the income of a sizable chunk of people over a period of time to measure to movement between economic quintiles and then compare it to the same chunk of people in other countries. But since doing that would more than likely give me the same results as shown by the data, I hardly see the point.


Okay. I can't really say much further to you on this point. If you don't like the factual evidence, then fine. It's up to other people to decide for themselves what they think. I certainly don't need to explain the value of legitimate, factual evidence that comes as a result of major research programs being carried out. All I can say is that before when you didn't like the statistics you tried to undermine them by undermining the source. This time, you have simply chosen to undermine statistics as a valid form of proof altogether. It's fairly clear that you simply don't accept proof if it happens to prove you wrong and you resort to discrediting the source or discrediting the proof entirely as a counter-argument. But the facts are what they are, and like I said above, you can learn a lot from people who don't want you to regard the facts at all. I don't think there's much more productive that can be said in this particular discussion but I'd be happy to talk to you about other matters.

For anyone interested, there are some very good articles/reports on the matter:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/05/useconomics-morton (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/05/useconomics-morton)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all)

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf (http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf)

The art of undermining a source of news or information instead of confronting the issue is something you've done so often on this board, I remember a few cases of "Fox News" being cited and denigrated around an older man who shot a burglar, I guess it's a new tactic to now point the finger at someone else with the same accusation. I'll repeat what I said earlier: If I were to post such an eyewitness, firsthand report from an outlet like Fox or the Washington Times that challenges your own data, the immediate response would be to attack the source of that report and make *that* the issue over the actual topic at hand.

Trust me, I've seen enough political hacks from James Carville to Donna Brazile to Karl Rove to Ed Rollins do the same thing over the years while working the media circuit.

I all but gave up on the notion of finding any trace of a willingness here to see beyond the fact sheets and the research, or anything of the sort in favor of listening to people and what they are saying. Because there is often the scenario where hearing from actual people contradicts what the extensive studies and polls and research-grant funded think-tanks can conclude on pages full of data.

Ultimately it feels like the end result is more about changing minds and shaping opinions among the small minority of readers here actually following this stuff in this thread. If that's the case, do it no-holds-barred and go all out - full disclosure. Reveal what is at the heart of the attacks on the American way of life and government, what is behind the attempts to talk up anything around the notion of an anti-capitalist agenda. Spell it all out, from the pages of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals text to the Cloward and Piven strategy for expanding a welfare state in America. I'm not being facetious, I'm being 100% serious: I wish instead of discussing ideology and expressing view after view criticizing the American structure and capitalist system in general, maybe an attempt to educate the audience on the specifics of a viable alternative would be more welcome.

Anyone can critique and criticize from afar - let's suspend personal biases for a moment and hear what exactly would happen under either an anarchist, socialist, communist, or any other form of government to replace the capitalist system in America. Specifics are good - I don't think we hear them enough. Again, it is easier to point fingers and criticize than it is to offer viable solutions which would make the lives of the masses of Americans living under capitalism better.

I attempted to present examples - they were derided as "anecdotal" and dismissed in favor of research projects, statistics, and data. Very, very disheartening, and again I'll repeat that if I were to put 3 dozen people on a plane, fly them to your house, and have them explain one after the other how they started something from nothing in America, you (rockandroll) would still not believe it happens that often, so hard and fast are you dedicated to the statistics and words on a page based on numbers, it's not possible for you to open up to the possibility that research, polling, and analysis of data does not tell the whole story.

Remind me to see how many entrepreneurs or self-made successes who built something of their own have originated in any of the European countries listed above and have told their story, compared to those in America.

And I stand by the idea that facts and data are only more important than the individual person within an ideology that seeks to transform the individual into a statistic, a number, or part of a demographic.  Ring a bell?

Most likely what you saw in Southeast Pennsylvania.  :)

My grandmother traveled to Denmark in the 70's, and brought back a pencil case which I remember taking to kindergarten. That's my connection to Denmark, although I'm sure it's a very lovely country.

Unfortunately it doesn't offer much to me if there isn't a thriving popular music scene for me to make a living, Italian-style hoagies made on Amoroso rolls to eat, or a local baseball team to follow. And I also like to keep more than half of what I earn to spend as I please, unlike what the average tax rates take from workers in Denmark.

Although, if there is a popular band from Denmark, let me know if they have an active message board and fan community and I'll post there regularly with comments bashing their system of government, their economic structure, and pointing out all their flaws as a nation while blaming them for various problems facing Europe.  ;D

That’s patently false. In that case, I was not dismissing the story on the basis of the source. And I suppose the perfect evidence in this case is that the story that you bring up was not a Fox News story. It was from an online zine called The Stir, and I never once said a single, solitary thing about The Stir, online zines, or anything about where the story came from.

Here’s the thread in question:

 http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12554.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,12554.0.html)

If you read the thread you’ll note that the basis of my critique of the story had nothing to do with the source but rather that the story was, in my opinion, rhetorically disingenuous. This is why I wrote this:


Now if that to you looks like undermining a source rather than “confronting the issue”, then you simply don’t know what it means to either undermine a source or confront an issue. What I did do in this case was suggest that this kind of rhetorical acrobatics is conventional for Fox News, which is why my first post in the thread was “Classic Fox News Story.”  But that doesn’t mean that I was dismissing the story because it was a Fox News Story (because it wasn’t) or even because it sounded like a Fox News story, as should be perfectly obvious when reading the rhetorical analysis that I did on the story, which I provided in the quotation above. It should be absolutely clear that it was the things that made the story sound like a Fox News Story that I critiqued, not the source.


I urge you then to find one real example where I’ve done that. Just one.


Not at all. I respect people enough to believe that they can make up their own minds on these issues. However, I do believe that in order to make up one’s own mind it is important to look at a variety of perspectives and I am offering one. This is why I’ve urged others on this board to contribute here if they want to because the more voices there are the better. So all I’m doing is offering my perspective and if people want to come away reading this agreeing or disagreeing with that perspective, that’s perfectly fine. If they want to investigate the things that I’ve said for themselves and make up their own minds based on those investigations, even better. But my goal is certainly not to shape opinions.


It’s actually quite simple. In both my personal and public life, the lion’s share of my political and activist work does not concentrate on the United States at all because I feel my responsibilities lie elsewhere. I talk about it here because I happen to be joining conversations (never starting any) that are talking specifically about American politics and the political culture in the U.S. I happen to have done a lot of research on that subject and therefore lend my voice because I feel it might be useful in the discussion. Since the majority of the posters posting political information seem to be most familiar with the political situation in the United States, it seems that it is far more productive to discuss those matters than to discuss matters in which people would not be able to participate to a large degree because of their general lack of information on the subject.

Furthermore, it is a central anarchist principle to interrogate power and authority, holding it accountable to the people, and finding out whether or not it provides the burden of proof to justify its existence. Now, if this is a central principle then it makes sense first to concentrate on the power you can do something about, and second to concentrate on the power that is dominant. In terms of the latter, it seems to me that the dominant power of our times emanates from the capitalist structure and it also is apparent that the most powerful country in the world both in terms of wealth and strength is the United States. In that sense, there is a certain moral obligation to make that a focus of my attention if I am at all serious about interrogating power.


I give alternatives all the time. For instance in this very thread, in the discussion on Bethlehem Steel, I gave one very obvious alternative – let the workers run it. Now here I run into difficulties with you because it is impossible to give that alternative and not be simultaneously critical of the capitalist system. The very alternative is itself a critique of capitalism.  But regardless, I give alternatives frequently. There was a discussion on the drug war where I gave nothing but alternatives (legalization, education, etc.) and you, while producing no alternatives of your own, systematically attempted to dismiss all of them. So, yes, there are alternatives, I am quite open about them, but you don’t like them, so therefore they don’t count.


Again, that’s something I’ve discussed elsewhere too. But here’s the thing, it’s not up to me to specifically draw up a proposal of an anarchist society. The very thought of doing something like that is entirely out of line with anarchist philosophy. What is far more crucial than one guy explaining what society “should” look like, is working together with as many people as possible through communication and community-building to work out a system that is agreeable . This is really a crucial step. I am not so egotistical as to think that it is I who have the best idea for a society and that everyone should listen to me and do it. Rather, I have a basic belief in genuine freedom and independence and believe that people should ultimately work together to decide the kind of society they would like to see and that doing this would demand from everybody (not just a select group of rulers) ongoing day-to-day work in terms of organizing that society on just about every level.


So, your last suggestion was copying and pasting "a few dozen" immigration stories to counter the statistics and now you’re suggesting that flying 36 people to my house will work to undermine the statistics? You can’t possibly believe what you’re saying here.


You’re right – because the American Dream myth is a familiar narrative – it is as entrenched in American culture as the cowboy story – it is a narrative that audiences are receptive to and thus gets told a lot. Other countries do not care about this narrative as much, it’s not part of how they identify themselves, these imagined communities were not based on these narratives, and as and thus they have no need to flaunt these stories as relentlessly as they are flaunted in the United States.  But again, I reiterate that self-made success is impossible, at least the kind that you are describing. I will ask the question again: Would Daymond John have been as successful had he been born and lived his life in Sub-Saharan Africa?


Exactly. However, I’m not the one claiming you need to have firsthand experiences of something before you can talk about it legitimately. I’m saying that using the very methodology you privilege, you are entirely incapable of making the suggestion that it is “more in America than anywhere else” where people can build something out of nothing, since in order to do that you would need to have firsthand experiences of a large variety of nations, not just the United States, including countries like Denmark that have better economic mobility than the U.S.

And, of course, the ultimate point should be that no one on planet Earth can possibly ever have the kind of firsthand experience to objectively make claims about comparative national upward economic mobility – not me, not you, not anyone. That’s why in cases like these it is crucial to examine the facts that are available, not to simply trust the interpretations of our limited experiences.