Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
How Romney lost me.
It's cute the way Republicans keep trying to use popular music to campaign with and the bands always protest and say they hate Republicans and please stop using our music.
Don't stop believing cons ...
It's cute the way Andy R keeps posting comments here even though everyone protests and tells him to stop trolling our discussions.
Artistic integrity. Funny how a half mil makes it go away.Andy R. said...It's cute the way Republicans keep trying to use popular music to campaign with and the bands always protest and say they hate Republicans and please stop using our music.Even cuter how they'll bend over and do it for the Demos free of charge.As Bernard Shaw observed, "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
Nothing wrong with what Journey is doing, or the way they're doing it.I've been paid to play events sponsored by political groups that I don't agree with.It was just a gig.
That Journey is playing the gig (and Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh's most recent wedding) despite political differences is a great lesson in the power of capitalism and the free economic market.
It's cute the way Republicans keep trying to use popular music to campaign with and the bands always protest and say they hate Republicans and please stop using our music.Because nobody has opinions more worthy of expression than a collection of high school dropouts.
The right doesn't deal in good and evil, unlike the left.This incident proves both sides.
Apologies to Althouse conservative high school dropouts!
The triumph of money over ideology is the triumph of civilization over tribalist barbarism.
I wonder how the Dems do this - Does the talent donate its time for the good of the cause or do they get paid at roughly market rates as well?
Why are they bothering? Bring in the Beach Boys and win the geezer vote going away.
Maguro, probably the former, or else they probably wouldn't be supporting economically illiterate Democrats in the first place.
@shiloh, you're apologizing to yourself?
Big Mike thinks I'm conservative ?!?Bless his little heart!
Hold on. Do the members of Journey have political differences with Romney? I didn't see anything in there that said they did.Or are they saying "This is strictly a gig" in order to keep their music separate from their political views, if any?Or are they being careful to say that because they're afraid that if lefty fans think they support Romney, they will lose those fans?
An irresponsible waste of $500,000 donations.Get this band instead:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mzHAlwEK7a4
"Hold on. Do the members of Journey have political differences with Romney? I didn't see anything in there that said they did."I doubt that the members of Journey are unanimous in their opinions. That seldom happens in a band.One of the secrets to keeping a band together and working is to keep politics out of the business of the band. Unless the purpose of the band is political, it's silly to assume that musicians agree with one another.I don't have to agree with a musician's politics to play music with him. Unfortunately, quite a few liberals refuse to leave their politics out of the biz.
Bah. The real shocker was when I read that Willie Nelson was playing at the convention. I could have sworn he supported ol' Hopeychangey last time around. And you can say "A gig is just a gig," but this ain't shilling for an Indian casino...
Maguro said...I wonder how the Dems do this - Does the talent donate its time for the good of the cause or do they get paid at roughly market rates as well?I believe it's donated. Good street cred in the artistic community.PS The little animal is ever the optimist.
I hope they play "Wheel In The Sky" because I've never seen a Republican convention with a Buddhist theme.Or will the Mormons make it straight-up NewAge?Man, this thing is becoming more like the Wisconsin protests by the minute.Anybody think Ann Romney will mention Nutraceutical in her speech?THAT would make my day,...
It isn't the official Romney campaign, it's the American Action Network, whoever they are. Romney has enough sense to know he wouldn't make money at $2000 a head, esp. since most delegates have likely already maxed out.Still, all that for Journey? Did they get that in their heyday?
They're being good capitalists by demanding decent pay for their work. I wouldn't have it any other way. Now, whether they're worth that much is certainly open for debate.
It isn't the official Romney campaign, it's the American Action Network, whoever they are.I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. They are an issue-advocacy group affiliated with a "super-PAC" named American Crossroads.The Romney campaign isn't paying for this concert.
elkh1: That's a great song! Thank you for the link!
Well, when I worked for Best Buy, they hired John Couger Mellencamp to play at their corporate offices.Then Best Buy sent the jobs of 1,200 employees to India and first 1.2K workers. Does that mean that Mellencamp supports puting 1200 Americans out of place because the Indians work for peanuts?
Now that we've established their price.....Nasty capitalism.
Meh. Without front man Steve Perry it's basically a Journey tribute band anyways.
the band wants to make it really really clear that this is NOT a political statement, but "just another gig." Cowards.
Palladian, tell me you don't know any words to any Journey song.
It's not really Journey anyway, Steve Perry's no longer in the band and they've got some cheap foreign labor Perry sound-alike. I know because my liberal sister forced me to watch the Today Show earlier this year when they played on it. This will piss off another one of my lefty friends though who is a HUGE Journey fan and a knee-jerk liberal to boot who thinks Republicans are vampires that feast on the flesh of naked pro-choice lesbians at daily ritualistic feasts.
Nothing wrong with what Journey is doing, or the way they're doing it.Disagree. Insisting that they don't share their client's political values was unnecessary and unprofessional.
Acts take these kind of gigs all the time. A gig's a gig. Jimmy Buffett played Dennis Kozlowski's girlfriend's birthday. Josh Groban will sing at your birthday, too if you have the means. Most of them will if the price is right. A gig's a gig. What a country...
Was the Kingston trio already booked or something?I can't picture Mitt rocking out to anything beyond the early 60's, like Del Shannon's Runaway. Not because he's old, but because he's such a square. 'Bird is the Word' by the Trashmen is probably a little too edgy for him.
"We want to reiterate that playing this Bar Mitzvah is just a gig and NOT any statement of support for Jews. Please please please don't boycott us or throw us into the camps." - Journey, 1933Cowards.
Hey Journey, remember when Breitbart tried to push for your induction in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, saying you were overlooked because you had large Red State-appeal? Looks like you just shit the bed on that endorsement, assholes.
"Disagree. Insisting that they don't share their client's political values was unnecessary and unprofessional."Given how so many recording artists have politicized the use or non-use of their work, I think this sort of thing was unavoidable. I think too many people associate such performances with endorsements by default. Unnecessary? In an ideal world, maybe. But it's not the world we live in. Ours is a hyperpartisan, twitter-driven nightmare.
The band didn't read the fine print.Since the lead singer was replaced by a Filipino, they will be paid 500,000 Philippine Pesos, or about $11,838.Romney, I like the cut of his jib.
X-Factor Runner Up Josh Krajick just played our company summer outing for an undisclosed sum of money.
Unnecessary? In an ideal world, maybe. But it's not the world we live in. Ours is a hyperpartisan, twitter-driven nightmare.Do you agree that their Qualifier was made out of fear of a boycott?
because he's such a square.And you've spent so much time with him.
Waste of money... so much for being fiscal conservative.I wonder if entertainers worry being 'blacklisted' if they associate themselves with Republicans?
Decades ago campaigns had their own jingles? With all this cash, it would be a better use.
"whether they're worth that much is certainly open for debate."Supply and demand ie the free market er whatever mittens is willing to pay!>Besides, the story ain't true:Liberty Plaza, benefiting Citizens Helping Heroes, hired Journey to play outside the RNC convention at a private venueer a mittens spokesman says it isn't true! FWIW
Can't do fundraisers but they did the 4th of July with the Boston Pops a few years ago. http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/
Journey's plea to consider it just another gig shows they know that of course there is a lefty blacklist.
You know what really grinds my gears? This music war shit.Everyone NOT in country music won't let their music be played by the Republicans, or whines if it does. Country guys WILL let them use it, but....Anytime a Republican uses country, its 1) made fun of as dorky/honky/whitey; and 2) it's seen as "coded language" to racists.So fuck the left, in conclusion. And to the Republicans: don't bother using any non-country music, and don't bother explaining it away. Tokenism/appealing to centrists with the songs won't work, and don't be ashamed of promoting white issues in the face of the "Hate & Blame Whitey" Party---no, it's not coded, but why bother? They'll just call you an evil racist no matter what.
I'm not sure I want a Romney victory and four years of Crack's incessancy.
The GOP should just bring their own instruments and play the new Beck album.
American CrossroadsI believe that's Karl Rove's outfit.
"four years of Crack's incessancy."As mentioned to me earlier, no one is forcing you to be here.Along w/the sunshine, there's gonna be a little rain sometimes ... :)
I'm not sure I want a Romney victory and four years of Crack's incessancy. Oh we can have much fun with it.The Mormon Conspiracy begins Jan 20th, 2013Are you in?
"The GOP should just bring their own instruments and play the new Beck album."Nominated as thread winner."'We want to reiterate that playing this Bar Mitzvah is just a gig and NOT any statement of support for Jews. Please please please don't boycott us or throw us into the camps.' - Journey, 1933"Now THAT post took a special kind of crazy.
@Joe Schmoe, you haven't been keeping up with Romney's musical taste. One of his selections is to have the Killers play at the White House.Besides the obvious disconnect to public perception (yet again), apparently it's OK to hold popular concerts in the White House as long as a Repub does it. Haven't seen any objections to it here, not like the bile that comes out when Obama does it.
Journey is not a class act. Besides, they are old enough to know better. You didn't hear a peep out of Elton John when he played for Rush and Kathryn's wedding.
Asked why President Bush’s iPod featured songs by singers who’d campaigned against him, White House advisor Mark McKinnon dryly observed: “The fact is that any president who would limit themselves to pro-establishment musicians would have a pretty small collection.”McKinnon should have used the word "Republican" instead of "pro-establishment."
They should send a detailed statement with the check of the Obama vs Romney tax plans and their impacts on that half mil.
And you've spent so much time with him.Have any evidence to the contrary? I didn't say it made him a bad guy. He's just a square in the classic sense of the word.
@gadflyGiven John's recent statements about Israel, his playing for Rush, and his general demeanor, I wonder if he really isn't bisexual (as he used to claim), found a suitable male partner, and was "pushed" by gay rights groups to declare himself whole-hog faggot---gay groups really try to push gay identity with people, and now as soon as possible (pushing children---pre-puberty even---to proclaim their gayness). Elton John appears to want the kind of ordered, less-lefty society, less queened-out world envisioned by the left, given his associations, where he gets to be "flamboyant" for everyone. If everyone is queenified, he's no longer special. Elton John, weirdly, maybe the closest England has nowadays to a Noel Coward celebrity---a celebrity who has homosexual encounters, but keeps it private, is pleasant, witty, and entertaining, with no thoughts of pushing politics at every turn.
Bile? You mean like the anti-Bush remarks from Paul McCartney?I think you saw a reaction here to the public fellatio.
Harrogate: Now THAT post took a special kind of crazy.It stung. Else you wouldn't be whining like a little bitch.
but keeps it privateExcept for the young man he tows around. Or did you mean in the Prince Harry sense?
If Journey wants to be nonpartisan, they can donate the 1/2 mil to the Obama campaign or the treasury, which at the moment is the same thing.
It's cute the way Democrats keep trying to use capitalism and wealth to campaign against and then doing all they can to make and keep as much money as they can get their hypocritical little hands on.Of course when they fail, they claim they don't care about money, but when they succeed nobody holds on to it tighter.If you want people who are successful and compassionate just vote for the real thing: a conservative.
Have any evidence to the contrary?He mentioned Aerosmith and The Killers as two groups he would like to invite to the White House.
Palladian is an morbidly obese homosexual.That really says it all.
bagoh20 says:It's cute the way Democrats keep trying to use capitalism and wealth to campaign against and then doing all they can to make and keep as much money as they can get their hypocritical little hands on.That comment might have some merit if the Democratic Party campaigned against capitalism and wealth. But it doesn't oppose either, so the hypocrisy charge fails. But it's cute the way you keep trying to make insightful statements about culture, politics and public policy. In any case, as pointed out above, the real Journey ceased to exist when Steve Perry left the band. But a gig is a gig.
EMD,I'm not sure I want a Romney victory and four years of Crack's incessancy.Are you kidding me? We're going to have a WONDERFUL time together!Just a couple of things related to questions here:Part of why my music career slid to a halt was my finally being openly conservative. Word traveled *pretty fast* before I - a liberal darling - found my phone calls going unanswered.My last band proudly - and ruthlessly - abandoned me over it, after two months of strict twice-a-week, four-hour-a-day, rehearsals that got us about as tight as a band could get, simply because I refused to do anymore Hate Whitey material while planning to introduce more patriotic themes. My guitar player at the time - a Jewish liberal - just started saying, "I can't do it," and the whole thing started unraveling, until we were in a shouting match with me (the guy with the name who was paying for everything) on one side and the band on the other.A lot of people has asked me, if I'm such a talented this or that, why I haven't just picked up where I left off and, honestly, that's a big part of it - take my word for it:Life's no fun when you're alone, and seen as the Sarah Palin of Rock 'N' Roll,...
Lets be clear Somefeller thinks:1)That the Democratic Party does not campaign against capitalism and wealth.2)That pointing out that it's pretty much their whole playbook is somehow "insightful" rather than just obvious.3)I'm cute.Three strikes and you are out.Actually I'm more along the lines of ruggedly adorable.
Titus the clown says 'tits' and 'fab' and wears his effete gay clown mask, all the while hiding his utterly black heart.
Lace the dog to the car Pa' and gun it to Tampa...big doins thar.
bagoh20 said..."Actually I'm more along the lines of ruggedly adorable."hehe
He mentioned Aerosmith and The Killers as two groups he would like to invite to the White House.Hmmm. I suspect if Mitt were pressed for more details about either band, we'd have another moment like when Obama professed his love for the White Sox without being able to name a single player. At least he knew they played at Cominskey (sic) Park.To me it smacks of standard-fare pandering and a desire to appear younger at heart. On a range of Ward Cleaver to Steven Tyler, Mitt hews hopelessly to Beav's dad. Which is fine with me. Just own it; don't be a poseur.
Lace the dog?Lace?Wha?
I'm not sure I want a Romney victory and four years of Crack's incessancy.I have full confidency that Crack will find some new obsession to natter on about endlessly no matter who wins in November. :)
Ah, bagoh20, I said that you try to be insightful, not that you are. Support for a mixed economy and a return to Clinton-era tax levels isn't opposition to capitalism or wealth. The former is part and parcel of American public policy since the days of Alexander Hamilton and the latter is obviously not a return to soak-the-rich taxation policies. And there's quite a bit more to the Democratic playbook than those issues. After all, you are one of the ones who starts waving his hands and saying "irrelevant" when social issues are mentioned.But keep on pointing out what doesn't exist and claiming that it's just pointing out the obvious. Maybe you'll be able to convince someone. Fake it until you make it, right?
Romney wants The Killers to perform at the White House?Starting that Mormon conspiracy awfully early, and at all levels.
Anyone familiar with this business? What sort of venue does a group have to play to clear 500 grand?
He mentioned Aerosmith and The Killers as two groups he would like to invite to the White House.At the risk of sounding like I'm in Crack Emcee's camp, the Killers reference might have something to do with the fact that the lead singer of the Killers, Brandon Flowers, is a Mormon. So that may be a reason why he's on Romney's radar screen. Nothing wrong with that from where I'm sitting, but that might explain why he went with the Killers instead of some other 21st century band. At least it's not anemic indie-rock.
Here's a short list of acts that I would've given to Mitt:REO SpeedwagonLittle River BandABBAAir SupplyBarry ManilowBreadStarland Vocal Band
Oh wow, we need "a mixed economy", that's some deep stuff there, somefeller. Did I miss the memo where Romney was going to shut down the government and preside over total anarchy? Perhaps it was released at last Saturday's meeting of "The Pentavirate" that I had to bail on due to prior committments.
Support for a mixed economy and a return to Clinton-era tax levels isn't opposition to capitalismThere are a few things wrong with that sentence.1. Obama doesn't support a return to Clinton-era tax levels. He supports retaining most of the Bush tax cuts indefinitely.2. Obama does favor jacking up the tax rates on the highest-income Americans, who of course already pay most of the income taxes as it is. There is no economic or fiscal basis for this action; it is purely political. Describing a political decision to soak the rich as "hostility to wealth" seems fair enough.2. Saying Obama advocates a "mixed economy" is meaningless. Outside of a handful of anarchists and die-hard Stalinists, everybody on Earth belives the economy should have some amount of capitalism and some amount of government regulation. The question is how much of each. Obama favors more government, less capitalism -- so describing him as hostile to capitalism is entirely accurate.
That last one should be "3." :)
Oh wow, we need "a mixed economy", that's some deep stuff there, somefeller. Did I miss the memo where Romney was going to shut down the government and preside over total anarchy?Well, considering many of your compatriots say that Obama's policies are an attack on capitalism and the beginnings of socialism, liberal fascism or the coming of the Eye of Sauron, it is worth pointing out that Obama is just engaging in pretty standard mixed economy public policy. After all, the comment I was responding to was saying that the Democrats are against capitalism. Given the level of that sort of comment, I thought it necessary to start with the basics. Pardon me for being simplistic, but it was an attempt at a teaching moment.
"After all, you are one of the ones who starts waving his hands and saying "irrelevant" when social issues are mentioned."Absolutely. I don't look to the President for my social values.If you don't see class warfare as a major tactic of the Democratic party, then I just don't know what to say. I'm even surprised that the Republicans are standing up for wealth and capitalism for a change. It's very clear to nearly everyone who is talking honestly that this debate is about capitalism versus social democracy, unless you are actually getting fooled by the rhetoric which isn't even trying hard to disguise it on either side.
At the risk of sounding like I'm in Crack Emcee's camp, the Killers reference might have something to do with the fact that the lead singer of the Killers, Brandon Flowers, is a MormonI believe they've already met. And The Killers have played an Obama/White House event.
Revenant,I have full confidency that Crack will find some new obsession to natter on about endlessly no matter who wins in November. :)I love that, when it was Obama, my stance made sense. But now that it's your "celestial" buddy, for many of the same reasons, I'm the focus of ridicule. I'm pretty sure my consistency will reward me - again. Today The Economist said about Romney:"Nobody knows who this strange man really is."And yet you're all cheering him - just like the Obots did four years ago - when they, too, were desperate and didn't know who that "strange man" was either.You'll learn,...
The interesting thing about Crack in the last 6 months or so is to witness the online mental disintegration of a person. I've seen it once before with Charles Johnson of LGF.
Revenant: Obama's taxes on upper income levels are basically going to the Clinton range. They aren't going to the sort of soak-the-rich levels one found before Reagan came to office, and that's a good thing. And saying that "Obama favors more government, less capitalism -- so describing him as hostile to capitalism is entirely accurate" is not accurate at all. Calling for more government activism or social policies that, once again, aren't some new, unheard of policy change (support for national health insurance has been a part of standard Democratic - and some Republican - public policy prescriptions for decades) isn't hostility to capitalism. For that matter, there's a pretty strong argument that some sorts of government action (securities regulation, banking deposit insurance) support capitalism. I realize those two issues aren't (for the most part) up for debate right now, but their existence undermines your argument that more government = hostility to capitalism.
it is worth pointing out that Obama is just engaging in pretty standard mixed economy public policy.Eh. Every society on Earth makes concessions to gender differences -- we all favor a "mixed" approach to gender equality.Logically, then, if a candidate proposed stripping American women of the right to vote, that could not be seen as hostile to women. He would just be proposing a policy that is standard to many countries that take a mixed approach to gender equality.somefeller, "mixed economy" means a mix of capitalism and government control. Wanting more of one by definition means wanting less of the other. Obama wants more government control over the economy; QED.
Renee said... "I wonder if entertainers worry being 'blacklisted' if they associate themselves with Republicans?"Remember Brad Pitt's mom? Her coward son wouldn't even defend her rights to "Freedom of Speech", and is probably "blacklisted" by her son as that crazy old woman whom we don't talk about in polite society.
somefeller... I'll trade you letting the Bush tax cuts expire for opening up American oil/coal/gas production to it's fullest extent. Sounds like a decent trade to me!
The interesting thing about Crack in the last 6 months or so is to witness the online mental disintegration of a personI can't say I've noticed any difference. You can take that as a defense of Crack or as an indication of my original impression of him. :)
If you don't see class warfare as a major tactic of the Democratic party, then I just don't know what to say.From what I've seen, most of the class warfare these days comes from certain sectors of the Right. It isn't liberals who championed the work of this fellow, for example. And the less that is said about people like Sarah Palin and their attacks on the ee-leets, the better.
somfeller - define "class warfare" as engaged on by the right. Does the right demonize the working class? Can you point out any such rhetoric?
Lace the dog?Lace?Wha?8/26/12 8:40 PMI think Lindsay was trying to be cutting and clever.It's like watching Elaine dance on "Seinfeld."
somefeller, "mixed economy" means a mix of capitalism and government control. Wanting more of one by definition means wanting less of the other.Support for more of one thing at a particular moment doesn't automatically entail hostility toward the other option, as is being suggested here. And as I pointed out, in some public policy situations, the tradeoff isn't as zero-sum as you suggest.
I love that, when it was Obama, my stance made sense.It did? Can you back that assertion up with actual quotes from me? :)
"And yet you're all cheering him - just like the Obots did four years ago - when they, too, were desperate and didn't know who that "strange man" was either."We didn't know much about Obama because he never did anything. Hell, we just wanted to see his college performance. That's like what you look at for an entry level job.Romney has a long resume and it's well known, he can't have the records sealed. We do know much more about him, because he actually worked, accomplished things, had an effect.Crack, I hope you and lots of others do stay on the vigil with him and make sure your fears don't come true. I see a man with some skeletons, but actually fewer than most who get this far, but I'm not willing to just say ignore it all.The fact is there are only two guys running, and all thing considered, I'd much rather have the qualified guy with the better ideology, and weird religion. That doesn't mean your totally wrong about him. The right doesn't worship it's leaders, so we can take him down if needed. I think he knows better than to put his religion ahead of the country, unlike his opponent.
somefeller - funny that you think more socialism means that it isn't a zero-sum effect. But when Austrian school proposes tax cuts and less regulation it's a zero-sum effect according to Krugmanites.
Support for more of one thing at a particular moment doesn't automatically entail hostility toward the other option, as is being suggested here.It does when the two things are mutually exclusive -- which, of course, government control and invidual control are. Either you can do something without government approval... or you cannot. And as I pointed out, in some public policy situations, the tradeoff isn't as zero-sum as you suggest.You didn't point it out; you claimed it. Give an example of a government regulation that does not take away freedom from the players in the market.
What I meant to say is Crack is so deranged at this point, he would smear his own feces all over himself thinking he's bathing.
Give an example of a government regulation that does not take away freedom from the players in the market.Well, regulations against (or at least - regulations allowing civil suits in cases of) fraud or breach of contract come to mind. In a situation of absolute freedom, we wouldn't have such regulations and it would be a total world of caveat emptor without recourse other than the theoretical idea that sooner or later people would stop doing business with the bad actors. But their existence helps create stability in the marketplace. Also, deposit insurance laws helped restore confidence in the banking system after the Great Depression, which was helpful to capitalism in general. Ordered liberty as opposed to license is supposed to be what thoughtful conservatives (and thoughtful people in general) support. Such ordered liberty also will entail government regulation or intervention in the economy, and once again, that regulation or intervention isn't by definition an act of hostility towards capitalism, which is what's being claimed here by you, which I actually find surprising.
somefeller,At the risk of sounding like I'm in Crack Emcee's camp, the Killers reference might have something to do with the fact that the lead singer of the Killers, Brandon Flowers, is a Mormon.Oh yeah - and you guys better get used to that kind of thing:Bain Capital is a Mormon enterprise, packed to the gills with 'em, and they'll be moving in when Romney enters the White House. When Romney needed the laws changed for his supplement business, Orrin Hatch was his go-to guy for DSHEA. When the Mormons wanted to steal the land for their main temple in downtown Salt Lake - a Mormon judged fixed it right up. Doping scandals (from what? Supplements!) during the "successful" 2000 Olympic Games? Bribing Olympic officials by paying their kids' way through college? Not a problem - Orrin Hatch and the Mormon judges to the rescue again. And so on.It's coming, y'all. Let me tell you a story:I used to sell cars for a Mormon-owned dealership. Sold a Cadillac to a pretty big name in town. Everything went smooth - he had more than enough to pay - but, once it was time to sign the paperwork, he called in the calvary:All of a sudden I was looking at a lawyer, an insurance agent, a used car expert (to determine the price for his trade) and one for Cadillacs (to look over the new car) as well as various "friends" who knew the owner of the dealership who just wanted to "talk" - privately.I was the only person involved in the deal who wasn't a member of the "church."But hey - think nothing of it.Just because they've been predicting their eventual take-over of the United States government for over 100 fucking years means nothing.Mitt will never let that happen,...
To build on my previous comment - there are things you can say are infringements on the freedom of one party that actually are protections for the freedoms of other parties. And in the wash the society and the general market economy end up better off as a result of those government actions. That's what I mean by state action not necessarily being zero-sum anti-capitalism.
Well, regulations against (or at least - regulations allowing civil suits in cases of) fraud or breach of contract come to mind.But those aren't regulations of the market. Those are punishments for fraud and theft. Fraud is not a form of capitalism.Also, deposit insurance laws helped restore confidence in the banking system after the Great Depression, which was helpful to capitalism in general.There are many things wrong with that statement.The first is that deposit insurance isn't a regulation. Banks aren't required to carry it; they just DO because it is government-subsidized and therefore a great deal for them.The second is that I asked for examples of regulations that did not reduce market freedom. "Customers liked it" is not the same thing as "it doesn't reduce market freedom".Thirdly, you appear to be using the phrase "helpful to capitalism" to mean "helpful to bankers and people with money in banks". That is not what the word "capitalism" means. Finally, the net effect of bank insurance on economic freedom was clearly negative. Taxpayers have their money taken from them (reducing their economic freedom) to protect the wealth of people who deposit their money in irresponsible banks. This is why we ended up with crap like the S&L scandal.
The Clinton era tax hikes were highway robbery. They had nothing to do with economic growth and in fact killed-off what could have been a more sustained period of growth. Clinton's tax hikes are not the holy grail.The idea that the government (and a corrupt Solyndra type government filled with waste and cronyism ) can or should take more than 1/3 of anyone's private property is an idea we must discard.Also, Obamacare is our new tax. It's filled with taxes, including a sales tax.
I find the Tiger Beat treatment of candidates unseemly and unnecessary. I don't care who their favorite bands are, or what their favorite movies are, or what their favorite ice cream flavor is.And any president should leave band bookings to an event coordinator. The White House should not be used as some personal concert venue. It's time to stop acting like fucking royalty and get back to being a civil servant.
That's what I mean by state action not necessarily being zero-sum anti-capitalism. I think the problem is that you're using terms you don't know the meaning of.The term for a market where contracts are enforced and fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc, are punished, is "a free market".A mixed economy is one in which, in addition to the above things, the government bans, taxes, or otherwise controls consensual and non-fraudulent economic activity between parties.The regulatory activity in a mixed economy by definition resticts freedom of market activity. That is what makes it "mixed". If it didn't restrict market freedom, it would just be called "a free market".
Fraud is not a form of capitalism.As practiced in this country, it isn't. (Thankfully.) Because capitalism in this country, and every other country in the world that I'm aware of, has always been predicated on some degree of state involvement in or regulation of economic activity and not total license for the market participants. And such involvement or regulation often ends up acting as a backbone for the larger system. But one can imagine a market system in which fraud or other bad behaviors are unchecked by the state and simply are responded to by market processes, like people not doing business with the bad actors. Trust me, I've heard some libertarians suggest such things. That wouldn't be a good system and opposition to that form of a system, which would be a sort of capitalism, isn't opposition to capitalism in general. Once again, we're going back to the mixed capitalist economy here and not some libertarian or socialist utopia/dystopia.
A mixed economy is one in which, in addition to the above things, the government bans, taxes, or otherwise controls consensual and non-fraudulent economic activity between parties.In other words, an economy like the one we've had in the United States for our entire history. Under that definition, we've never had a truly capitalist economy. Needless to say I beg to differ.
Man, this thread is boring.
Said the Bergier Commission, "Those deposits expropriated from Holocaust victims were just ordinary accounts."
somefeller,Fraud is not a form of capitalism.As practiced in this country, it isn't.Man, you guys are so naive. (BTW - look at the date on that post, in case you think I've only been a Mitt/Orrin fan since the election)
Makes me glad I never gave a nickel to the RNC or Romney.
I thought the main argument for electing Romney was (1) he's not Obama and (2) he's good with money. Makes you want to vote for Ron Paul (okay, I was going to anyway).
As practiced in this country, it isn't.It isn't, period. By definition, free markets involve consensual transactions.As for the rest of your comment, I see you still aren't paying attention. "Mixed economy" does not mean "government exists". It means an economy where the economic choices available in the market are restricted by the government. E.g., in our economy, you cannot NOT choose to "invest" in a Social Security retirement plan if you work in the private sector. You cannot choose to purchase cigars from Cuba. You cannot choose to work for four dollars an hour. You cannot choose to have sex with a stranger for money, but you can for free. And so on. THAT, dear fellow, is what a "mixed economy" is.I would also note, in closing, that you're being disingenuous. Your examples of the kinds of (supposed) "mixed economy" principles that Obama supports are things like "laws against fraud". The reason people cite him as hostile to capitalism are because of the actual mixed-economy ideas he has, like "you may not increase the size of your home repair business unless you buy birth control for all your female employees" and "you may not hire a person unless you agree to pay for the surgical procedures of his 25-year-old 'child'".Those things, I'm afraid, are quite obviously hostile to free markets and capitalism. :)
In other words, an economy like the one we've had in the United States for our entire history.Oh good, you've finally caught up to me. Yes, "mixed economy" describes every economy in the world, save a few communist die-hards like North Korea.Under that definition, we've never had a truly capitalist economy.We've always had a mixed economy in which some consensual economic activity was banned or restricted by the government, yes. Although for most of our history this consisted of little beyond tariffs on imports and exports.Needless to say I beg to differ.I wasn't soliciting your opinion. My description of what "mixed economy" means is correct; feel free to disagree and be wrong.
I thought the main argument for electing Romney was (1) he's not Obama and (2) he's good with money. Ssh, you'll upset Crack. He thinks we're supporting Romney because we actually like the guy. Don't spoil the surprise.
The ever disturbing Crack Emcee said this "Bain Capital is a Mormon enterprise, packed to the gills with 'em, and they'll be moving in when Romney enters the White House."as he made his normal dissent into complete logical confusion - as he always does after posting like - you know - a one liners that might make a good Tweet - Hey Crack - what about Harry Reid and his son being Mormon big shots in US Government - you know (or maybe - truthfully - you probably don't know) Harry Reid - the leader of the Democratically controlled Senate under the Obama regime - that guy who called tourists "smelly" and the one who has been greasing the palms of all the AFSCME and SEIU and Las Vegas casino workers since Obama has been elected to push the outrageously union-centered agenda of the past three years?Crack - Harry Reid the Mormon? Are you just OK with him or what?
"Artistic integrity. Funny how a half mil makes it go away."*Artistic* integrity is "it's just another gig." What's been going on is a mad rush to declare yourself and your "art" nothing more or less than propaganda hack-work.Is it about the music? No. Never. And you know what? There is a reason that "message" bands suck. "Message" art sucks. "Message" books suck. No one would pay $500,000 for a "message" band.
"The triumph of money over ideology is the triumph of civilization over tribalist barbarism."Yes.Very well put.
Is the report of the fee coming from the fundraisers (which seems unlikely) or Journey (who has two incentives for inflating it)?
Kathy,Crack - Harry Reid the Mormon? Are you just OK with him or what?Kathy, I'm a conservative, so why you'd think I haven't been on Harry Reid's case - or Mormonism's - for years is beyond me. Actually, no it's not:You just showed up out of the blue, saw a few posts of mine lately, and think you know everything - making you think you can catch me flat-footed - when I've been here for years.Check the dates,...
The Archies would be perfect for mittens. Hey Sugar, Sugar was the the #1 song of 1969, the year Willard and Ann tied the knot.A year before he was riding a bike in Paris dodging the Vietnam War.A cartoon group for cartoon nominee ~ perfect!
I think Romney should embrace his squareness and hire a Glen Miller tribute band to play. If he wanted to be a little edgier, he could hire a Lionel Hampton tribute band to play Flying Home. (Lionel Hampton was the last black with hipster credentials to self identify as a Republican.).....I don't know anything about Journey as musicians, but they're not very good as whores. If a john pays you a half million, don't tell him you're only doing it for the money. Their comment was snooty and off putting......It explains so much to know that Crack was a used car salesman on a Mormon lot.
Synova,"The triumph of money over ideology is the triumph of civilization over tribalist barbarism."Yes.Very well put.Not really. I dare you to read this entire report and tell me that sentence is true.By ignoring, and/or poo-pooing the religious/spiritual hucksters in quackery and pseudoscience - which now are costing us billions of dollars since this report was written in 2001 - all you've done is allow tribalist barbarism to be capitalized. Here's a taste:Dr Jonas co-authored a book on homeopathy in which he makes it clear that he is certain of its effectiveness but is only doubtful about its mechanism. The pattern of nonexistent molecules "must be stored in some way in the diluted water/alcohol mixture" he wrote, suggesting that all manner of occult energies, imaginary "biophotons" or New Age quantum effects could be involved. Of late, Dr. Jonas has become frustrated with homeopathy research, perhaps because of the obvious truth in one medical scientist's observation that such research is nothing more than "a game of chance between two placebos." Dr. Jonas has suggested that validating homeopathy "may require a theory that incorporates subjective variables," which is to say, how the thoughts of patients, doctors, and perhaps their next-door neighbors might influence the effects of a homeopathic remedy. This is in line with mystical beliefs in "nonlocal effects" caused by "intentionality," or, in other words, psychic powers....In June of 2001 Dr. Jonas was on the Program Committee of a conference in San Diego touting the reality of UFO's, paranormalism, Qigong, Orgone Energy and other pseudoscientific claims. His preoccupation with aberrant methods appears to be thoroughly ideological if not religious. At one of the hearings of the WHCCAMP, of which he is an appointed member, he stated: " a number of groups are now getting into this field from the orthodox community, because there has been some money available. How can we go about sorting through which ones are truly going to capture the spirit of whole person health or how many are looking really at the bottom line, which is getting redder and redder by the year?"Dr. Jonas left the OAM at the end of 1998 some two months after its conversion to the NCCAM. By that time many eminent and accomplished scientists had called for its defunding, including former presidential science advisor D. Allan Bromley. Especially shameful was the allocation about that time of $1.4 million to the work of Nicholas Gonzalez and his bizarre coffee enema and psychic hair analysis cancer treatments. Even Barrie Cassileth, PhD, Chief of the Integrative Medicine Service at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, called Gonzalez' claims and methods "voodoo magic silly Not scientific. Worse than not scientific. This is pure ridiculousness.""The triumph of civilization over tribalist barbarism"?Give. Me. A. Break.America is now so inundated with (and used to) tribalist barbarism, I sincerely think few on Althouse could spot signs of civilization if they appeared.You know, like me,...
Man. When Crack brings the crazy, he has to make multiple trips.
Imagine that -- taking a gig at a Republican event is...transgressive.
somefeller said...Give an example of a government regulation that does not take away freedom from the players in the market."Sure thing. Class I, FDA approved drugs. That set of regulations require that there be extensive testing of drugs and that they have specific uses among other things. Nearly every company accepts the regulations and complies with them. Those regulations, although some might find them onerous, are necessary for a quality control standard if nothing else.fly by night companies find it almost impossible to meet these standards and are essentially regulated out of business. But they have no right to be in business.These regulations offer a level playing field, safety for the consumer, and policing out of bad players.I think that there are literally thousands of such examples.
Sure thing. Class I, FDA approved drugs.Linds, I'll allow you to assume, for the sake of argument, that the FDA causes a net increase in consumer safety.What I find so amusing is that you think "safety" and "freedom" are synonyms -- that if the government is increasing safety, the things it does to achieve that end can't possibly count as restrictions on freedom. So (for example) the fact that a sick person can be thrown into prison for buying effective (but FDA-unapproved) medicine somehow doesn't qualify as "restricting economic freedom" because, hey, omelets and eggs and all that.Perhaps most amusing is your statement that companies not big and rich enough to afford the FDA approval process (average cost: $153 million) "has no right to be in business". Forbidding people with less than $150,000,000 in their bank accounts from developing medicines is, in your words, "leveling the playing field".But you're certainly right that there are thousands of examples of this sort of thing in modern American business. Many more than just "thousands", really. :)On a closing note -- you also make the mistake, in your first paragraph, of assuming that "existing pharama corps like the regulations" means "the regulations must not restrict economic freedom" and "the regulations must not be anti-capitalism". That's a common mistake for people unfamiliar with the business world. The reality, of course, is that big, established companies are often enthusiastic supporters of expensive regulations, because expensive regulations prevent competing companies from forming in the first place.So sure, it is possible that the FDA makes us safer. It is undeniable that it makes us less free -- and, of course, gives us access to a much smaller selection of effective medicines, sold at much higher prices.
The Mormon Conspiracy begins Jan 20th, 2013Are you in?Four More Wives!
Thanks for sharing the blog and keep on update the blog.sprzęt wędkarski
"Why are they bothering? Bring in the Beach Boys and win the geezer vote going away."At this point, hiring Journey will win the geezer vote...the later generation of geezers!(Though they're not at all the kind of band I enjoyed when I was younger and a much more avid music fan, they do have a number of songs from their Steve Perry days that I like quite a bit.)
I've never understood why rock musicians and professional athletes aren't Republicans, at least for tax issues.They get screwed in the tax department. They pay federeal, state and local taxes in the community where they maintain their legal residences. Plus, they pay state an local taxes for every city and state in which they perform.For athletes with multi-million dollar contracts, their income-per-game is huge, as are their tax bills.You and I don't have this double taxation. Let's say we are salespeople for a company that makes software used by banks. We earn a commission for selling software to a big bank in NYC, but pay no NYC tax on that commission. We just pay our regular income tax in, say, Wisconsin.Athletes and entertainers aren't that fortunate. They pay the local and state taxes.My accountant friend and I once did a back-of-napkin calculation for a hypothetical NY Yankees player. We added federal, NY state, NYC and borough taxes, state and local sales taxes and taxes for every state in which the Yankees played a game during one season.The result: The player paid about 60% of his income in taxes (before any deductions).I don't mind their paying a lot of money in taxes, if that's what they want to do. But you'd think that they'd want to lower that tax burden, given how short an athlete or entertainers high-income years are.
edutcher said...Artistic integrity. Funny how a half mil makes it go away.Andy R. said...It's cute the way Republicans keep trying to use popular music to campaign with and the bands always protest and say they hate Republicans and please stop using our music.Even cuter how they'll bend over and do it for the Demos free of charge.As Bernard Shaw observed, "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".Came here to say this ^ but wouldn't have done it as well.All the people in popular music are either apolitical or industrially (as in culturally) Left-leaning but it's funny how fast those beliefs get tossed when you offer them $500,000 for a hour's work.And don't get me started on that asshat, Ry Cooder; what a farking idiot.
The reality, of course, is that big, established companies are often enthusiastic supporters of expensive regulations, because expensive regulations prevent competing companies from forming in the first place.Shorter for two-degrees-from-Michigan Lindsey: "barriers to entry".
Crack: You just showed up out of the blue, saw a few posts of mine lately, and think you know everything - making you think you can catch me flat-footed - when I've been here for years.No, Kathy is right. I've been at Althouse since Sept 06. Crack has never posted anything here critical of Harry Reid's Mormonism.
They get screwed in the tax department. They pay federeal, state and local taxes in the community where they maintain their legal residences. Plus, they pay state an local taxes for every city and state in which they perform.You might be persuaded by Adele:""I'm mortified to have to pay 50 per cent!", she said. "[While] I use the NHS, I can't use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are shit, and I've gotta give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [her album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire."
Crack keeps mentioning Orin hatch and the nefarious vitamin conspiracy of the Mormons and the insinuates a prid pro quo type relationship with Romney and hatch we he has yet to establish even worse though he suggests that it's a uniquely Mormon trait. Has crack never heard the phrase "one hand scratches the other"? Because that's kind of how govt gets stuff done, and it's not usually illegal. Every industry from vitamins to milk to microsoft ha gone to govt to suck at its teat. A why should the vitamin industry be any different.
Michael Haz wrote:I've never understood why rock musicians and professional athletes aren't Republicans, at least for tax issues.What about the song Taxman by the Beatles? They were definitely inconsistent as far as their values went, and I think it's tied into the amount of money they made. As they made more and became fiendishly rich, they could then fall back on things like "All You Need is Love" and "Imagine" and Harrison's forays into mysticism. Because, when you're as wealthy as the Beatles became, little things like realistic monetary matters are for other people. Lennon can have an entire floor in the Dakotah and still sing about "imagine no possessions". But early on, The Beatles were in fact consummate capitalists. IN fact Paul McCartney said that Eight Days A Week was written so that Lennon could add a pool to his house (he was being semi facetious of course):Speaking exclusively to British rock magazine Mojo, he recalls, "Around the HELP! time he'd be getting an extension on his house or something, and the joke used to be, 'OK! Today, let's write a swimming pool.' It was great motivation."You've got to be able to take it lightly. But then, in the next three hours, Help! appears from nowhere, you'd suddenly get the idea this'll be a hit, this is a good one. You became aware what you were doing was making money. Making good money."Obviously, these were the jokes we made to keep ourselves sane and comfortable. We were actually writing what we considered to be art... We weren't just writing s**t for a swimming pool." http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/mccartney-+-lennon-wrote-swimming-pool-songI think the issue is, performers who are used to railing against the inequities of society feel very guilty that they are in fact what many would consider royalty and live lives (achieved throug commerce) that the average person never would live, and thus have to pretend that they are no part of the system. WHich is why you have people like Tilda Swinton making million dollar movies while saying she is an avowed Communist.
Fen,Kathy is right. I've been at Althouse since Sept 06. Crack has never posted anything here critical of Harry Reid's Mormonism.Because here is where I have to say everything for it to be valid, correct? Obviously all those links on Harry Reid and/or Mormonism don't matter or have meaning - because they weren't here - correct? Fen, you're a fag.
Crack Emcee wrote: Because here is where I have to say everything for it to be valid, correct? Obviously all those links on Harry Reid and/or Mormonism don't matter or have meaning - because they weren't here - correct? How about discussing Anthony Weiner's judaism when we discuss his sexting scandal? Becaause maybe his judaism is part of the reason why he can't help but show his shlong.Because, you know those jews right?That's pretty much the extent of your mormon argument.Harry Reid certainly is a douche, but he'd be a douche if he were christian, jewish, or an atheist. DOn't really see why his mormonism, in and of itself is all that relevant.
jr565,How about discussing Anthony Weiner's judaism when we discuss his sexting scandal? Becaause maybe his judaism is part of the reason why he can't help but show his shlong.Because, you know those jews right?That's pretty much the extent of your mormon argument.jr, I can see that ignoring you isn't going to dull your momentum for following me around, so I'll ask you:After all the arguments I've given you (like one difference between Judaism and Mormonism is I can find newspaper reports about what a con man Joseph Smith was) why would you outright lie and say what you're telling the truth about "the extent" of my case? I have a theory:Because, as a cult apologist, it's more convenient than admitting you could give a damn about the full extent of my argument and will merely say any damned thing as long as nobody will stop you?Harry Reid certainly is a douche, but he'd be a douche if he were christian, jewish, or an atheist. DOn't really see why his mormonism, in and of itself is all that relevant.Take it up with Kathy, the latest person in what's becoming a pretty long list of folks who are accusing me of leaving something out. Look here on my blog - just like Kathy assumed I've never spoke about Harry Reid, here's somebody saying I never talk about other religions. Pure crazy talk. Now I ask you:Just like your useless and wrong, but incessant nattering, do you know how tiring it is to keep answering such ignorant accusations? You provide no evidence, no links, no nothing. It's just you saying "DOn't really see why" something should be and you actually think that's good enough. Well it's not, Kemosabe - you have to actually PROVE ME WRONG. And if you can't, then shut up. Don't come back repeating the same bullshit, or just rephrasing it, which seems to be your favorite tactic. And don't come back to me to state that, just because you don't understand something, that doesn't make it true. I've told you - countless times - you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so your lack of comprehension is something you might want to eventually own. It's not my fault. Blame your parents, blame your teachers, but most of all, blame yourself:You're a moron.
Nice Article! Thanks for sharing with us. Buddhist Tour India
Thanks for this good blog. It is very informative one. I am share it to my friends. Keep up the posting.get twitter followers
Post a Comment