Besides, this discussion was already over when Godwin's law was proven yet again.

So noted. Although applicable, I am not entirely convinced that's what derailed the thread.
I need to do a little research... not sure if what I am looking for exists, yet. I'll let you know.

I cite the comparison to Phil Cohen as unfair, in that, I have never declared the non-release of the Smile Sessions. I know it will be released. Joke noted.

The reference to spewing hate and paranoid delusions refers to comments regarding a news station.
Remember, when I started a thread about the Beach Boys charity work for tornado victims?

As a private citizen of the Smiley Smile community, I recommend the citation of the paradox corollary of the Wilcox-McCandish law of online discourse to the governing body in order to bring the thread back to it's original subject matter.

Did you catch the story on Kanye West turning Godwin's Law on himself last week?

[defamatory]

Has it been established yet that OBLiO is the Phil Cohen of this thread? 

Just another target to demonize. Leave Phil out of it. It's not the first time Real beach Boy has crapped on someone's porch spewing hate and paranoid delusions.

The law is there to protect people from people who crap on other people's porches.

"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum."

If it's ok with hypehat, I'd like to ask the other moderators here to leave this thread up without removing any posts in order to show how Real Beach Boy and rockandroll, by their own example, proved my point regarding what a true socialist nation looks like and why it will always fail.

Sorry your thread was crapped on there hypehat, I tried to help you clean it up.

 

1. I only stated what I wanted. I want unbiased neutrality in the news that is delivered. I know that doesn't happen in reality, therefore I sift.

It doesn't happen in reality because it is impossible for it to happen in reality. Unbiased news is a myth concocted by organizations intent on maintaining the status quo.

In my opinion if you are biased and you deliver news and use your bias to influence public opinion, you shouldn't be in the news business. I am talking about news, not opinion.

Again, back to square one - how does one in the media avoid being biased?

2. What facts? You haven't presented one fact.

Well, actually, what I said was if you disagree with my assertion then provide facts to back up your disagreement.

Regardless, that the left is disenfranchised at the political level is a fact. Can you name a politician who represents mostly left wing positions that has had any chance of holding office? Furthermore, you are aware that there were once significant labor parties in the United States that are now almost entirely off the map. There was once a very vibrant socialist party that no longer exists. These are all facts - care to disagree?

You say you are on left and the left is completely disenfranchised. Stop playing the victim and get out of the left so you can get to the middle and see the big picture.

Again, you don't understand the political spectrum. The "middle" is roughly the position held by social democrats, who are to the left of the Democratic party. Why would switching my political beliefs help me see the big picture? How would supporting a labor-centered government in a capitalist framework help?

I'm not playing the victim. I'm simply saying what is exactly true - the left is completely marginalized from political legitimacy in the US. If you believe the answer to marginalization is simply giving up and adopting the status quo, then you couldn't be a bigger sucker. I'm afraid I care too much for democratic values and freedom to simply join the group that has worked to eliminate my voice from mainstream discourse.

Why do you want to be on the left if you feel you are being held down?

Because I have principles.

Why put a label on yourself? It's such a general description isn't it?

Yes, it is. Of course, in this discussion, I never actually announced my position on left. You were forced to ask me, and when I answered honestly, you have held to it. If anyone is ardently attempting to put a label on me in this discussion, then, it's you, not me, and much hunch is that you have to do that since you simply cannot actually respond to my actual points. Of course the left is a general description. If you want to go deeper, I'm a libertarian-socialist and believe in anarcho-syndicalism. And if you believe that THAT is still putting a label on myself, then, I hate to tell you, but you exist somewhere on the political spectrum as well. You may realize it or you may not, but the fact is, you're there. And it seems to me based on what you've said so far, that you can be quite easily placed - though you may still surprise me. Either way, you are ardently in favor of supporting the status quo, which in all honesty, speaks to your desire for an unbiased media. In fact, the very idea that you believe that such a thing is possible speaks to your level of indoctrination toward the status quo. What you mean when you say you want an unbiased media is that you want a very heavily biased media that is slanted entirely towards the status quo - something that adheres to the accepted beliefs and truisms of your culture to such a strong degree that it appears to be completely objective.

So, yes, I can say where I stand politically precisely because I am honest with myself.

Isn't disenfranchised a term a capitalist would use anyway?

I didn't realize that economists were entitled to words in the dictionary.

From my perspective left and right are words only.

Well, they're not. The left represents a wide range of multiple political positions, as does the right and I think it would benefit you enormously to acquaint yourself with the political spectrum.

Hence... by calling yourself left, or right, you have taken yourself out of the whole.

I don't know what you're talking about. I hold political views that happen to put me on part of one side of a political spectrum. The view that I have are part of a rich historical tradition. The fact that you think that it shouldn't matter if this entire historical tradition were abandoned for the sake of being like other people who hold other views that have their own tradition is absurd to the point of hilarity.

4. rule of man vs. rule of law

The law is something that is imposed by force and is therefore illegitimate as far as I'm concerned.

5. the government has become a business, agreed... and they need customers. one problem... they also make the laws. we are all screwed, it isn't just you.

I didn't say the government has become a business. I said it is controlled by business interests.

[/quote]

1. Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. Not a myth. Not a concoction by status quo. What is status quo anyway except the state something is in which changes? It's a generalization. You can't presume to know what is in the hearts and minds of every individual.

2. I have said before I am not political. I am not on the political spectrum. Politics is greasy. So middle means "peak" so I can look down both sides of the mountain, or cross-section. A step back position. The Labor parties and socialist parties are unwanted by the people. I don't disagree they existed. I think people woke up and realized they could make it on their own. No one is eliminating your voice... your voice is here and I hear it and I am not trying to shut you down, am I? You can talk all you want or spread your message, but if people disagree with you or don't like what you say, you can't get all bent out of shape about it. I care about human values and freedom, but freedom from what exactly? You can never escape yourself, so that's where the effort should go.

You didn't force me to ask you about your political position. I asked to establish why you cared. The only reason to care is if you are in it. It's important to you and I get that. Can you be honest with yourself un-politically? Off the ride? I really don't get why you feel the need to be legitimized politically. Is it because you think you will have all-encompassing power to do whatever you want? You talk about culture and history. I say hold on to as much of that culture as you can. But if you want revenge for what happened in the past, the people who committed the dastardly deeds are long gone. And if you think the general population is unaware of what happened to the Native Americans, you need to re-think. Nothing can be done about it now because we are all trying to stay alive ourselves. At least you have a rich history to look back on. I am 3rd generation from other countries and can only go back so far for my roots. records lost and what-not, but so what. Is it frustrating? Sure, but all I have is now and what is before me. Pretty much everyone in this country comes from some form of displacement.

I think you need to take a step back and take a longer look. Get pissed off as hell if you want, but don't repeat the same mistakes. I was told by a friend once that man doesn't live long enough to learn from his mistakes. If you want to be pissed at someone, you have the Spanish to blame for their destructive ways long before Andrew Jackson. But again, that is in the past.

If you need a spectrum, how about the light spectrum? Light or dark? Positive or negative? Creative or destructive?

3. boy, these nuts sure are good. (straight man line, run with it)

4. The law is to protect people from people who crap on other people's porches.

5. The government should remain as moderate as possible and keep their hand out of the cookie jar.

1. I did answer it the first time. It doesn't matter how it is delivered, only how it is received. Key word: SIFT

I read that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you weren't contradicting yourself. If you are saying that it doesn't matter how news is delivered, why are you so stridently opposing bias? If it didn't matter how news was delivered, clearly it wouldn't matter if there was bias.

2. That is why you care about it. If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left. It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.

You have just wasted a substantial amount of my time deviating entirely from the subject. I stated that the left was disenfranchised at the political level in the United States. Instead of responding to that (either agree, or disagreeing with facts) you have spent the better part of the last ten posts trying to convince me that I only see that way because I'm on the left. I trust then that you are entirely incapable of responding to my claim?

More over, by ineloquently dodging my point, you made a staggering amount of ridiculous assertions. Such as:

That is why you care about it.

My guess is that by tangling up this discussion as much as you have, you don't even know what "it" even means anymore. Do I care that one half of the entire political spectrum has been eliminated from political legitimacy in the United States? Yes, and so should anybody with the slightest concern for democratic values. This has absolutely ZERO to do with where I stand politically. If I stood against the disenfranchisement of black Americans, would that have automatically made me black? Would I have to be? According to your mangled logic, yes. But since history is full of people who have stood in favor of marginalized groups whether they belong to that group or not, I fail to see how your suggestion regarding my political leaning as being anything other than entirely groundless.

If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left.

Or, if you live in reality, if you are on the left, you hold particular view points that are in keeping with some of the views held on the left.

It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.

You don't understand the political spectrum. I highly doubt you really mean "try the middle" - which would mean, try going a bit more to the left of the Democratic party, embracing the political and economic positions of social democracy. Since trying the middle would still mean "towing a party line" particularly in societies that have a vibrant social democratic political party, I can only assume that this is not what you mean. What I think you mean is embrace the status quo - which is typically what is meant when people who don't quite understand economics suggest that one should try the middle. Unfortunately, I know enough to know that the status quo is not something I am at all interesting in maintaining or preserving. If this is the middle, no thank you.

4. It is a republic using democratic mechanisms to decide outcomes. I never liked gangs even when my family lived on a street with two rival gangs. We moved, eventually.

What does this have to do with democracy?

The democratic party is not the same and it changes depending on who is in it.

The democratic party is now almost entirely controlled by corporate interests. It doesn't really matter who is in it - apart from some minor variations, it mostly expresses the interests of big business.

1. I only stated what I wanted. I want unbiased neutrality in the news that is delivered. I know that doesn't happen in reality, therefore I sift. In my opinion if you are biased and you deliver news and use your bias to influence public opinion, you shouldn't be in the news business. I am talking about news, not opinion.
2. What facts? You haven't presented one fact. You are not specific about anything actually. You play guessing games and hurl personal attacks like I am responsible for your victim status. You say you are on left and the left is completely disenfranchised. Stop playing the victim and get out of the left so you can get to the middle and see the big picture. Why do you want to be on the left if you feel you are being held down? Why put a label on yourself? It's such a general description isn't it? Same thing if you called yourself right. Isn't disenfranchised a term a capitalist would use anyway? From my perspective left and right are words only. Hence... by calling yourself left, or right, you have taken yourself out of the whole. I know there is a mystery full of meaning here. Find it. I can't do it for you.
3. I guess someone else will get the nuts and berries if you don't want them. I'll just give them to Real Beach Boy for free. Are you sure you don't want some?
4. rule of man vs. rule of law
5. the government has become a business, agreed... and they need customers. one problem... they also make the laws. we are all screwed, it isn't just you.

You are truly incapable of following a simple thread of discussion and it is becoming increasiningly infuriating having any sort of discussion with someone who refuses to actually read what I'm writing. Here's a simple task: try actually responding to what I write. Once you do that, you'll find that this conversation will be a bit more productive. With that in mind:

1. Um, when did I exhibit bias while delivering news? I am not in the news business.

I asked you to explain how someone in the news might overcome bias (Which facts? Who decides what constitutes a "newsworthy" fact and what doesn't? What order should those facts appear? How much airtime or space should a story get? These questions and many others require bias. So how would you propose overcoming that?). You proved immediately that you couldn't, since when I provided a series of questions of problems that a journalist would be faced with when attempting to eliminate bias, you chose not to answer it. You still haven't. Even when I cleared up the question the first time around, you didn't answer it. Consequently, I take your consistent refusal or inability to answer the questions I posed roughly ten posts back as a demonstration that bias cannot be overcome.

2. Do you consider yourself on the "left" of the political spectrum?

Yes. I can't wait to see where you're going with this one.

3. It's all I had room for in my pouch. I'll find someone else to trade with.

Good luck. Nuts and berries are pretty easily accessible.

4. The US is a republic.

It's also a democracy. These terms are not mutally exclusive. Regardless, so what?

5. Ah you mean manifest destiny! gotcha... yeah bad stuff that there.. agreed. It didn't just happen to the Native Americans.
But I didn't make that decision. I know it's wiki, but what the heck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
His followers created the modern Democratic Party.

Thanks - that took a long time.

Furthermore, to say that the modern Democratic Party as it exists now is the same one created at the beginning of the 19th Century is so laughably ridiculous, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

1. I did answer it the first time. It doesn't matter how it is delivered, only how it is received. Key word: SIFT
2. That is why you care about it. If you are on the left you will oppose the right. if you are on the right you will oppose the left. It's a set-up. Already laid out for you. I recommend trying the middle and focus more on problem solving instead of towing a party line.
3. And crunchy, too.
4. It is a republic using democratic mechanisms to decide outcomes. I never liked gangs even when my family lived on a street with two rival gangs. We moved, eventually.
5. That is because you are smarter and better than me.

The democratic party is not the same and it changes depending on who is in it.

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

England didn't eliminate slavery? That's surprising - maybe some slave owners from England could speak about it on this message board.

  The US declared all men equal when it broke free from England. That better?

What did I say to give you any indication that I didn't know that?

when you said supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.... kind of gave it away.  I think you are taking your anger out on the wrong target. I just wanted to understand where Real Beach Boy was coming from and make sense of why so many people think that a stinkin' news station is brainwashing everybody.  Change the channel!

1. If you are biased, you should get out of the news business.

In that case, what you are calling for is the abolishment of the "news business" since, as you yourself have demonstrated, it is impossible to not be biased when presenting news. Since being biased is inevitable, I suppose the only answer for you is no news at all.

The above was my attempt of getting us out of the circle you got us into.

2. It has everything to do with it. You have to join the camp before you are concerned about it's state.

Honestly, what are you talking about? Do YOU even know, at this point? The left is not a "camp". It is a space on the political spectrum that is made up of a variety of political points of view, none of which are tolerated at the political level in the United States, and none of which are articulated in mainstream discourse. Can you explain to me what on God's green earth does this have to do with joining the camp before being concerned about its state - aside from it being a boring deviation that has little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

3. I'll trade you some nuts and berries for a drink at the well.

Phewf - thank God! Because it is damn near impossible for anyone but you to find the nuts and berries around here in ancient times.

Seriously, please stop embarrassing yourself with this obscenely reductive description of previous economies.

4. Democracy is a mechanism used to decide an outcome.

No. Democracy is a system of government that is run as a consequence of universal equality and universal access to political decision. Again, this is fundamentally a value and a principle.

I have no idea why I am the way I am, I just now that I am.

And I just know that you're not that way because of inherent, essential qualities.

5. what else could you mean? explain, please.

Maybe the culture that was entirely displaced and then treated to a terror campaign as a result of America's call for independence?

1. Um, when did I exhibit bias while delivering news? I am not in the news business. Circle?
2. Do you consider yourself on the "left" of the political spectrum?
3. It's all I had room for in my pouch. I'll find someone else to trade with.
4. The US is a republic.
5. Ah you mean manifest destiny! gotcha... yeah bad stuff that there.. agreed. It didn't just happen to the Native Americans.
But I didn't make that decision. I know it's wiki, but what the heck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
His followers created the modern Democratic Party.

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

England didn't eliminate slavery? That's surprising - maybe some slave owners from England could speak about it on this message board.

  The US declared all men equal when it broke free from England. That better?

Funny you should think that I was talking about African-Americans - but either way, your explanation is absurd. The United States were stuck with slavery because it "was England's way"? If that's the case, why did the US hang on to slavery for another thirty years after England eliminated it?

The US wasn't the US until it broke free from England. England didn't eliminate it.

1. I do not propose to overcome it. I propose to sift.

I think you misunderstand. I mean, since you're calling for an unbiased media, I am asking how one in the media would overcome such questions that would require their bias.

2. Call yourself "left"... now call yourself "right" do you feel any different? now call yourself "left" again. any difference?

This is ridiculous and it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Until you are prepared to give an adult response, I will assume that you are incapable of responding to the fact that the left has been disinfranchised in the United States.

3. nuts and berries were the capital in ancient times before the mining began.

The quotation is enough to conclude that you don't have a clue about "ancient times" and I'm skeptical about your knowledge of capital.

4. a democracy is only as good as the people in it... ice cream vs. milk in a dirty glass... pick one. Human rights does not include my right to someone else's fruit. But if I pick the fruit, chances are I would pick enough for everybody because that is my nature. It's an individual characteristic.

Well...I think democracy itself is a principle to strive for. The fact that you can like what the people decide or not like what the people decide, based on your own subjective views on what makes an ideal society, does not undermine the principle. In that sense, to say that there are good democracies and bad democracies is absurd to anyone who genuinely supports democratic values.

More over, what do you mean, that sharing "is your nature"? Do you mean you were born with this characteristic that is inherent to your being? If so, what evidence do you have for that? It seems to me that individual characteristics are formed by immediate surroundings, culture, etc. This is why, for the most part, we have managed to entirely eliminate some of our most barbaric qualities - because we have the capacity to improve ourselves, not because of some inherent inner qualities.
 

5. I didn't think that... slaves come in 5 colors.

I wasn't thinking just about slaves either.

1. If you are biased, you should get out of the news business.
2. It has everything to do with it. You have to join the camp before you are concerned about it's state.
3. I'll trade you some nuts and berries for a drink at the well.
4. Democracy is a mechanism used to decide an outcome. I have no idea why I am the way I am, I just know that I am.
5. what else could you mean? explain, please.

1. just tell me the facts without bias

Which facts? Who decides what constitutes a "newsworthy" fact and what doesn't? What order should those facts appear? How much airtime should a story get? These questions and many others require bias. So how would you propose overcoming that?

2. the "left' disenfranchised themselves by calling themselves "left"

And how, prey tell, did they do that? How can calling yourself "left" get you disenfranchised if it weren't already illegitimate to occupy that position on the political spectrum? And furthermore, the whole range of political beliefs on the left aren't filled with people who call themselves the left - there have been a variety of political parties and political positions on the left that have been eliminated.

3. All tribes thoughout time have engaged in trade of goods and services

Maybe, but that's not the same thing as saying that "All tribes throughout time have engaged in free market capitalism." You can have a trade of goods and services under many economic models.

4. I want Government. It is needed. Just stop meddling.

I don't want government. But I agree - the government in the US is undeniably tipped towards favoring the wealthiest citizens and anyone with the slightest concern for democracy or human rights should oppose that.

5. It was only few states that didn't want to give up their servants/slaves, whatever you want to call it. The USA was designed to make all men equal. In order to declare independence from England a compromise was made in Congress.
The founding fathers realized that the situation they were born into was unacceptable. Slavery was England's way at that time.
So they designed a government that would free everyone, but they couldn't get everything they wanted. Chipping away little by little and along comes Abraham Lincoln. I believe he even stated that it was the founding fathers who freed the slaves.

Funny you should think that I was talking about African-Americans.

1. I do not propose to overcome it. I propose to sift.
2. Call yourself "left"... now call yourself "right" do you feel any different? now call yourself "left" again. any difference?
3. nuts and berries were the capital in ancient times before the mining began.
4. a democracy is only as good as the people in it... ice cream vs. milk in a dirty glass... pick one. Human rights does not include my right to someone else's fruit. But if I pick the fruit, chances are I would pick enough for everybody because that is my nature. It's an individual characteristic.
5. I didn't think that... slaves come in 5 colors.

Agreed all media could do a better job at remaining neutral.

What does that even mean? How does one "remain neutral"?

Agreed the party system has become a distraction. The whole left vs. right thing takes attention away from the subject matter.

The left has been utterly disenfranchised in the United States. In fact, it is an illegitimate political position to take.

Also, Sgt Smile pointed out that free market is the natural order of things. Agreed.

So once again, explain why it has been violently forced on just about every culture that has it.

Less Government = productive happy lives.

That's interesting, because you can have less government on the far left - in fact, that's really the only place where you can have no government at all, in the usual sense.

The US government was set-up with a basic set of rules. Like a message board. You have a community. A set of basic rules to determine etiquette. Moderators to govern. The Constitution starts out with "We the People..." not sure how much more social you can get than that.

Except that even then only certain people constitued "people" in the eyes of the founding fathers.

1. just tell me the facts without bias
2. the "left' disenfranchised themselves by calling themselves "left"
3. All tribes thoughout time have engaged in trade of goods and services
4. I want Government. It is needed. Just stop meddling.
5. It was only few states that didn't want to give up their servants/slaves, whatever you want to call it. The USA was designed to make all men equal. In order to declare independence from England a compromise was made in Congress.
The founding fathers realized that the situation they were born into was unacceptable. Slavery was England's way at that time.
So they designed a government that would free everyone, but they couldn't get everything they wanted. Chipping away little by little and along comes Abraham Lincoln. I believe he even stated that it was the founding fathers who freed the slaves.

Also, what happened to my thread?!! 

 

To Thought Police:
That bit was in response to this:  "greedy white American conservative penguins actually read a book (quite a daunting undertaking for Americans in general), the true definition of the word "libertarian" would strike fear in their hearts." ...and that statement actually illustrated my point regarding the targeting of a specific group or stereotype. You must admit, it is a bit of a harsh generalization. What is the proper response? Is there one?

Just so I have it straight... Rupert Murdoch is lining his pockets by using his news station to brainwash people using patronizing and bullying tactics to coerce people into phony agreements. Brainwashing techniques include parroting Republican talking points and dismissing moderate centrists as radical communists. .... Seriously? Think about that for a second. Deep down inside, do you really believe this?

Agreed all media could do a better job at remaining neutral.
Agreed the party system has become a distraction. The whole left vs. right thing takes attention away from the subject matter.

Also, Sgt Smile pointed out that free market is the natural order of things. Agreed.

John Stewart is a comedian. I liked the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn. The show was hilarious. The show now is just about John Stewart and his cheerleaders. Bill Maher is the same thing. It's Bill Maher and his cheerleaders. It just isn't very funny to me.

Less Government = productive happy lives. The US government was set-up with a basic set of rules. Like a message board. You have a community. A set of basic rules to determine etiquette. Moderators to govern. The Constitution starts out with "We the People..." not sure how much more social you can get than that.
 

To Sgt Smile: I don't have a formal education in Econ, but that is exactly what I saw happen. And then to make matters worse, so-called stimulus money was pumped into the housing situation to prop it up, but that only prolonged the problem. In some cases, banks were punished for not taking the stimulus money. The market was not allowed to reset.

I had to seek out the truth about who the Nazi's really were and yes they were socialists, in their own words, yet.

To noname: "...in a perfect world" - exactly. The world is not perfect and never will be. There is no such thing as perfection to begin with. The nature of this world is "dog eat dog" but we do our best to rise above it in spirit. Individual choice how to behave. Agreed. I had come to a conclusion about the song "Imagine". The title speaks for itself... the song isn't called Reality.
But, it is a song that delivers how a person can behave to make the effort worth it, but only if a person chooses that path in their own life and not a doctrine forced and enforced on a grand social level.

To Thought Police: Jesus was revolutionary in that he said individual salvation, not collective salvation, was the key to making it to heaven. What is heaven? What ever you want it to be, I suppose. I remember reading Yogananda's take on it and that the goal is to become part of the creative and positive force in the universe. You choose between light or dark. Again, an individual choice. Jesus also said that everyone makes it eventually by trial. By bearing your cross, making your mistakes(sin), and learning from it. Again, as an individual. You have to have something to bring to the table, not by force, but by choice. You can only do that by accumulating through experience and then you have something to offer. Can't squeeze blood from a sugarcube, right? Or a turnip... or whatever that saying is.

Based on your description of Libertarian Socialism, I suppose striking fear in the hearts of your fellow man will be the trend. I see that people who have money will be determined as greedy and what they have must be taken and spread around to those who do nothing to earn it. White people are out, too. If you are from the USA or believe in what the people of the country actually believe in, which has nothing to do with how it has been corrupted btw,.... these people are out too. If you are conservative, forget about it, even though conservative just means frugal and thoughtful about how you live your life. And if you are a penguin, I don't even want to think about what will happen to the penguins. Poor little guys ...or is it girls... maybe just the gay penguins will be allowed to thrive. Not sure. It's too confusing because there just seems to be too many rules who will be allowed to be in this new system. A system that has never existed other than in theory only. And when it is implemented or an attempt at implementation, the results are always the same no matter what -ism is chosen to describe it. People die. So you are correct in that it is about people - dead people and that has been proven time and time again throughout history. It's just not something I want to be involved in, but thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I was curious where you were coming from. I have one more question, though... what is the hidden agenda of Fox News? I see so many people saying they have a hidden agenda, but the agenda is never actually stated. Thanks.

I saw another interview with some of the looters in England... one guy got a whole Johnson Set for his kids and another guy got a High Definition TV. One kid even said it was just like any other day for him.

Wasn't there a legal thing that was delaying the release? Is it possible that through coordination between record companies that it was decided to release the Disney album first, so that both records could be released this year and be successful? Personally, I think the market could use a little Beach Boy and Brian Wilson saturation.

Can you give me an example of a true socialist nation?

I found this vid of a Barney Kessel Gibson that was owned and hand painted by April Lawton. I recommend muting the sound on this vid though. But check out that beautiful instrument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oXIpOQMaUI&feature=related

To Ebbandflow: I hear clarinets and harmonica on "...Ego". One of them could be a bass clarinet, but that lower register part jumps up to the higher register and it's behind the other part in the mix. There is a bit of a buzzy reed going on, too.

What's your point? As of now all I see is a bunch of rambling. Where did I even give any kind of reference to anything related to Judaism beyond the use of the word "Nazi"? I use the term "crypto-Nazi" the same way Gore Vidal did. Perhaps I should have used "crypto-fascism."

Perhaps. But I see fascism, naziism, socialism, marxism, statism, and communism as the same thing. Using the term Nazi does evoke an emotional response, but I used that quote to illustrate that it wasn't about the Jews. It was about socialists targeting a group of capitalists. You could replace Jews with "businessman" or "corporation" or "little kids selling lemonade in their front yard". "As socialists, we are opponents of little kids selling lemonade in their front yard, because we see, in these kids, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods."

Yeah that was an interesting exchange during that Buckley/Vidal debate.

I watched the vid of the Mr. Rogers thing. The news station was only reporting the story and in an almost sarcastic fashion. They camped it up. It was a Louisiana college professor that created the study and made the statement regarding Mr. Rogers, the news station only reported it.

Here is a story that popped up a few months earlier that year. Talk about messed up.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3553475
An example of leveling the playing field.

The silence to me is the sound of being so awe struck you stop dead in your tracks as she walks by.

It's tough to be a libertarian socialist with right-wing crypto-Nazi nonsense on Fox and Sky "news" that so many people take oh so seriously.

Hi Real Beach Boy,

The Nazi's were socialists. NAZI is an acronym or nickname for National Socialist and they were a political party. I believe it was Goebbels even wrote or said that there was very little difference between communism and Naziism. The only real difference I can see is that they did everything for Germany and in the name of Germany, hence the use of the term National. Here is a quote by Goebbels: "As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods." which leads me to believe that they did not kill the Jews because they were Jewish, but because they were capitalists. They killed anyone who didn't fall into the Socialist Utopian line and the Jews are deeply entrenched in tradition.

I heard some interviews of the people on the street doing the damage in London. In their own words they stated they wanted to show the rich they could do whatever they want and that includes attacking their neighbors and destroying their businesses. That they deserve what the so-called rich have and if they can't have it they will destroy it.

I'm not a political person or anything like that, but I see the misuse of the term Nazi and decided to throw my two cents in.

Peace.

Stay safe in London to those who live there.

Forget the economic crisis. Obama did not for nothing say that the USA still are an AAA country. F*ck Standard and Poor's, these are anti-cultural, underpriviliged, overpaid, tarot-card laying, tea leaf-reading, urine-watching, ball-gazing, and astrologically obsessed dimwits anyways, they do not merit nor will they have any place in the SMiLE saga at all. WE DO! THE REVOLUTION STARTS HERE AND WILL D*MN NOT BE TELEVISED!

And any self-respecting AAA country would release a $ 200 item of incomparable cultural significance. So will America. As Paul Williams wrote about the 1993 GV Box Set: eat peanut buttered sandwiches for a month if you must, this item is INDISPENSIBLE!

I am in my MOSES mood, folks. I will lead you out of Egyptian slavery, that ragged country where Kenny G. is Pharao's personal court favourite (but then, what does that diminutive sociopath Pharaoh know, har har???). I will lead you through the Red Sea, which parted after the mighty Mark Linett and Alan Boyd commanded it to do so. And together we will enter that Promised Land of Canaän, where our collected HI-FI SETS are set up. And I will see the back parts of THE LORD on Mount Horeb. and HE will give me a couple of thousand copies of that SMILE SESSIONS BOX SET!

Did ye hear me? DID YE HEAR ME?

So what you are really saying is that Thomas Jefferson was the re-incarnation of Moses. 

To Aeijtzsche.... I think you are right that I am wrong. And it's cool. I was thinking of a 6 string bass where you have the Low B and high C but that isn't what's happening here. But I do think the electric bass parts were treated as baritone or cello parts to expand the tonal palette, at least that's where my thinking took me.

I found this vid of Glen Campbell playing the Fender Bass VI... Wichita Lineman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qoymGCDYzU

To guitarfool: I found a couple of links:
http://theband.hiof.no/articles/fender_bass_vi.html
http://zeus.lunarpages.com/~jimshi2/service/

second link is a 1967 Fender service manual and there is other stuff on the site to look at, as well.

But I was thinking about that Bass VI and it is known as a Baritone instrument. Also, how the music on Pet Sounds is orchestrated and knowing that Brian was interested in raising the bar for popular music. Also, if we go by what the standards were for 1966, then we aren't thinking the way Brian produced. He was inventive and looking for new sounds and new ways to do things. So for now I am going with the Bass VI used as a cello or baritone instrument and the double-bass is the bass in the instrumentation. If I am wrong, I'm wrong, but makes more sense to me as to why there are two basses and still makes sense even with a Fender-P, but we don't have definite info, yet.

Listen to the bass work on Here Today. The double picking. Easier on lighter gauge strings, especially if you don't usually play with a pick. But! I did notice the highest note played is on the 1st string/19th fret on the 4-string.