| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
 Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:07:06
|
I really applaud FB/Charles for not diving into the political realm. It shows a really high level of integrity regardless of his political stripes.
He most likely doesnt think its appropriate for singers to tell people how to vote. But consider his stance from the 2 political spectrums. If he is a liberal, he is denying himself even more adulation and admiration from the vast majority of his audience (which seems to be liberal judging from this forum) for his ethical stance that he should not be telling people how to vote. It would be easy to jump on the entertainment bandwagon and be accepted by the majority of his fans. If he is conservative, maybe he thinks that he would alienate some of his audience with his views. Or that he would change the perspective and/or interpretation that people have of his music based on their reaction to the politics.
Either way, he is clearly putting his craft ahead of his personal politics. He may also be considering that his music should not have an overt context that has to do with his personal beliefs. That it instead should be based on the listeners place in life to add that context. I think its admirable. Its also the right thing to do. Why should someone famous have a bigger voice in the process than the rest of us holding our single ballots?
Hopefully I'm getting my point across, basically Frank good, Hollwood/Nashville poseurs bad. |
Edited by - Dallas on 11/02/2004 09:07:52 |
|
|
dayanara
* Dog in the Sand *
Australia
1811 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:10:11
|
He said several times that he voted Nader in the last election. I think he mentioned he always goes indy.
Around here, intolerance will not be tolerated |
 |
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:10:49
|
I agree.
"I'm Just Wild About Harry" was appropriated by Harry S. Truman's presidential campaign. What a waste. |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:12:32
|
| I'd love to see that dayanara. When asked here he only replied "Frank doesnt vote, Charles does". |
|
|
|
dayanara
* Dog in the Sand *
Australia
1811 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:16:53
|
Alrighty, I'll try to hunt it down sometime today. I know at least one was an online web chat thingy.
Around here, intolerance will not be tolerated |
|
|
|
KimStanleyRobinson
* Dog in the Sand *
1972 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:17:35
|
I applaud the man as well. Smart.
Have wondered - thought he might be a lefty with his general seeming dislike of the more 'normal' crowd coming thru the music, but we don't know.
Man of few words.
Some of us should take a lesson - me included. |
|
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7443 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:17:37
|
There's this French newspaper who gave a list of artists and celebrities supporting Kerry or Bush last week, and I was quite surprised to see the Pixies mentioned. Anyone knows if any of them said something about the election? It's supposed to be a serious newspaper and I wonder where they got this info.
FYI, the article (in French) is here:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=249364
Denis
"I believe in your perfect face..." |
|
|
|
dayanara
* Dog in the Sand *
Australia
1811 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:31:02
|
OK, I found it. This part is a little more than half way down the page.
http://www.musictoday.com/interact/chat/fblack.asp
Ivar Jonsson: What are your political views? Of course it is dangerous to over interpret lyrics to pop songs, but 'freedom rock' gives me the impression that you are an individualist and that you believe in personal freedom.
Frank Black: I always vote indy. Went Nader in November. I believe in the great land of Califa.
I think he might have been drunk when he did this thing. Some of the responses are pretty wacky, even for Frank.
Around here, intolerance will not be tolerated |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:34:29
|
Bo Derek is for Bush so much she's listed twice.
 "Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
|
|
|
Adam
= Cult of Ray =
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 09:48:48
|
How would you have any idea of his political beliefs. Maybe he doesn't talk politics on the forum or in public because he's not much into politics. Besides what does it matter who he does or does not vote for. Would anybody here seriously vote for someone just because CT votes more them?
Free the Heel! |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 10:02:07
|
| thanks dayanara. |
|
|
|
remig
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1734 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 10:32:15
|
In a Cult of Ray era interview in a french music newspaper, Frank said he could be listed as a conservative person.
***********************************************
So you have no point of reference, Donny.
You're like a child that wanders INTO THE MIDDLE OF A MOVIE! |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 11:03:13
|
"I believe in the great land of Califa."
Cue "California Uber Alles" by the Dead Kennedys.
 Penguins can be bitches too. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 11:07:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by remig
In a Cult of Ray era interview in a french music newspaper, Frank said he could be listed as a conservative person.
How ironic, considering the liberal garbage that is prevalant on this forum.
Seriously though, I also applaud Charles for not making a huge issue about his politics/religion etc... I think it is good business on his part, in my opinion it could only hurt his career regardless of his beliefs. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 12:09:16
|
Conservative does not equal Republican.
I don't think from the above quote you can assume Mr. Black is a Republican. Conservative has many meaning. I could at times say I'm a "a conservative person." I don't usually do new things. I usually like things the way they are. I often don't like "new age" liberals. I'm fiscally conservative - I don't run up debt and save some of my money. But, politically I'm a liberal and I'm a Democrat. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 12:17:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Conservative does not equal Republican.
I agree. And liberal doesn't always equal Democrat. I wasn't trying to imply that Charles was a Republican, just that if that quote was true and he considers himself a conservative then he would probably be at odds with a lot of the liberal viewpoints presented as the absolute truth on this forum.
But I really don't care what his beliefs are, and am glad he apparently understands that most fans don't care either.
|
|
|
|
dayanara
* Dog in the Sand *
Australia
1811 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 12:26:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Conservative does not equal Republican.
I agree. And liberal doesn't always equal Democrat. I wasn't trying to imply that Charles was a Republican, just that if that quote was true and he considers himself a conservative then he would probably be at odds with a lot of the liberal viewpoints presented as the absolute truth on this forum.
But I really don't care what his beliefs are, and am glad he apparently understands that most fans don't care either.
Just curious, how can you possibly deduce that he would "probably be at odds with the liberal viewpoints presented on this forum"?
If there's one thing you can get from this topic, it's that we don't have the foggiest idea what Charles thinks of politics. He could think like Fidel Castro for all we know. Or Jerry Fallwel.
Around here, intolerance will not be tolerated |
|
|
|
Adam
= Cult of Ray =
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 13:18:20
|
Preach on Dayanara. I agree with you completely. Nor does it matter his political ties or lack there of.
Free the Heel! |
|
|
|
PixieSteve
> Teenager of the Year <
Poland
4698 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 13:21:38
|
do americans think conservative = republicans, liberal = democrats?
the democrats are still pretty conservative from what i know. also, i think many americans don't really know what liberal means. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 13:46:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by dayanara
Just curious, how can you possibly deduce that he would "probably be at odds with the liberal viewpoints presented on this forum"?
I said "If that quote was true and he considers himself a conservative..."
Conservatives don't like liberal bullshit. Liberals don't like conservative bullshit. |
Edited by - harringk on 11/02/2004 14:06:32 |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 14:44:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Conservatives don't like liberal bullshit. Liberals don't like conservative bullshit.
And then there is that rarest of persons who actually considers the issues individually. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 14:50:00
|
Shhh...there are some among us that don't believe such creatures exist on this forum. No need to frighten the poor souls. 
|
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2004 : 15:19:25
|
Yes, I'm with you 100% BLT. I've been in so many arguments with people who just apply a blanket right or left wing philosophy to EVERYTHING as though there's one golden rule.
Makes me cringe.
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
|
|
|
Arm Arm Arm
* Dog in the Sand *
1037 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 01:27:34
|
Look out! It's Kerry and the Liberals!
Liberal has been pretty much debased by the mainstream media and Bush & Co. Looking at individual issues is the best way to go though unfortunately, there are people who simply always vote for their party regardless of candidate, issue etc.
Kerry is a conservative as well as Bush. Outside of abortion I don't know what the hell they really disagree on.
We need a viable third party. And a fourth. And a fifth and we need people in office who aren't a bunch of rich attorneys/businessmen.
Shit. |
|
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 04:37:55
|
quote:
Arm Arm Arm Posted - 11/03/2004 : 01:27:34
Outside of abortion I don't know what the hell they really disagree on.
--
But whenever, as scholars sometimes do, I turned my back on books, declaring them to be the graveyards of the language, and sought contact with the simple folk, I encountered the little cannibals who lived in our building, and after brief association with them, felt very glad to get back to my reading in one piece.
|
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 07:49:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arm Arm Arm
Kerry is a conservative as well as Bush. Outside of abortion I don't know what the hell they really disagree on.
What about environmental issues? |
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2004 : 18:38:26
|
quote:
Bo Derek is for Bush so much she's listed twice.
Maybe she voted twice, too!
quote:
do americans think conservative = republicans, liberal = democrats?
the democrats are still pretty conservative from what i know. also, i think many americans don't really know what liberal means.
Well, "liberal" can mean several different things, but I tend to see it as basically meaning "tolerant and open-minded." I've heard that some countries have Liberal parties that support economic policies that would be considered conservative over here, though.
I think the Democrats who come to power are generally pretty conservative, but less so than the Republicans.
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
|
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2004 : 13:28:44
|
I like this article so I post it here...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberty-lives.html
Liberty Yet Lives
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Not for the first time in world history, US voters on November 2 faced a choice between two varieties of statism, two forms of central planning, two types of duplicity, two approaches to rule by the central state. One won, one lost.
In this, our times are not unlike the 1930s, when during a crisis just about everyone believed that there were only two political options worth pursuing. You were either some variety of communist (a.k.a. socialist, Bolshevik, Trotskyite, etc.) or some variety of fascist (a.k.a. corporativist, national socialist, new dealer, etc.). To reject the idea of government control and centralization, it was believed, was to stand outside the main current of history.
In the presidential election, one central plan wanted to soak the rich, the other wanted to spend now and pay later. One had a plan for national life at home, and the other had a plan for the whole world. One emphasized bread and the other circuses, one wanted unilateral war while one wanted lots of consultations and more troops before doing the same thing, but neither knew or cared anything for the great tradition of thought which gave birth to this nation or which built the prosperity of our times.
The missing piece in all of this is the forgotten liberal tradition, which affirms the dignity of all human life, believes in the rights of all, and fights for freedom against the never-ending attempts by government, all government everywhere, to restrict and destroy it.
The liberal tradition believes that individuals and society can work out their own problems in the absence of top-down management. It denies to government any role in managing the nation or the world. It embraces private property, cherishes freedom of association, and sees peace as the mother of civilization.
The great intellectual strain of this liberal tradition spans 500 years and longer, and has survived every onslaught from left and right, and will continue to do so. It is the liberal tradition to which we owe the world's prosperity and well-being, all technological innovations, and improvements in health, housing, nutrition, and information distribution. The liberal tradition will continue to thrive, but with no help from the elites in power.
That this tradition is not represented as a political option is not particularly surprising. As Mises wrote in 1929, "government is essentially the negation of liberty." This is why "A liberal government is a contradictio in adjecto. Governments must be forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people; that they could voluntarily become liberal is not to be expected."
But elections such as this one present an opportunity for learning. We learn, for example, who the true friends of liberty are, and how to distinguish them from the partisan hacks who are glad to sell out in exchange for getting and staying close to those in power.
That's a pretty good description of just about everyone in DC who works to have "good relations" with the party in power. This is a tendency you find on the left, right, and center, and even among supposed libertarians. Concerning the latter, intellectual sycophancy towards power is always unseemly, but never more so than when it masquerades as a principled attachment to liberty.
We've also learned something about the nature of liberty's most formidable enemies of today as versus most of the 20th century. In 1989–1990, the party of liberty was witness to the thrilling fact that socialism around the world had collapsed like a house of cards. The ghastly intellectual tradition that had given rise to the bloody communist experiment suffered a blow from which it is not likely to recover.
How pathetic is the soft leftism of today's mainstream Democrat. For most of the election season, Kerry was the voice of this view. He went from place to place seeking dependents for the state among minorities, the aging, public employees, union workers, and anyone else looking for a favor from government. He dutifully invoked those tired soft-left themes about all the wondrous things government will do at home if we could just soak the rich a bit more.
So, Kerry's domestic program looked ridiculous. It seemed to be yanked out of the 1970s and transplanted into another economic world, one ruled by markets and entrepreneurship. We know these issues hurt him among swing voters because it was precisely on these grounds that the Bush camp ridiculed his entire domestic program. If there is a silver lining to the election, it is in the defeat of this program, once again.
However, it is about time that the friends of liberty realize the main threat to liberty in our time in our country comes not so much from the left but from the militarist and imperialist right, which has shown itself uninterested in fiscal discipline, peace, civil liberties, constitutional restraints on power, decentralist decision-making, privacy, or freedom of association. Pillars of Western law and justice have been broken and tossed aside by this regime, under the guise of national emergency and security against threats real and imagined.
So infatuated with power has the Bush administration become that it has bragged that it would place its stamp on the whole world. There is no place that would be or should be immune from its influence and control. It would remake the world, its spokesmen have promised, in Trotsky-like pledges.
This is quite a leap from the "humble" foreign policy Bush campaigned on in 2000, and a measure of how power and crisis can lead to corruption and even insanity.
Imperialism and war are forms of planning, as much as any domestic variety. They presume knowledge over time and place that is ultimately inaccessible to planners. In order to achieve the plan, they do not depend on consent and exchange, but on taking resources by force and imposing their use against the will of their subjects.
The manner in which resources are used is dictated by the will of bureaucrats and politicians, not markets and consumers. They end not in wealth creation and improved living standards – as with market exchange – but in the usual symptoms of government control: debt, destruction, and even death.
Bush started an unnecessary war that has killed tens of thousands of people, and ground into dust a country and a regime that had never done a thing to the United States and represented no threat whatsoever. We were told that this country had weapons of mass destruction. There were none. We were told that the Midas touch of the US government would bring civilization. Instead, it has led to mind-boggling calamity, as citizens flee, reporters hide, and death, abduction, and chaos are routine in what was once the most liberal Arab state.
The claim that the Bush administration provided this country security has no plausibility to it at all. The attacks of 9-11 came about during Bush’s rule, and were a result of policies favored by Bush. The response of the administration was to create bigger bureaucracies, put government totally in charge of airline security, impose draconian laws that violated civil liberties, and hold people in prison indefinitely without charge.
What's more, it does not take a foreign-policy genius to see that invading and smashing countries is not a very good way to go about suppressing terrorism, any more than plunging into snake pits is a good way of avoiding snake bites. Of course the analogy doesn't quite work because the government actually benefits from terrorism to some extent because it permits unscrupulous leaders to alarm the public into forking over more money and power, even as life becomes ever less secure.
As for Kerry, he never wanted to be the anti-war candidate. The Bush camp was right that he waffled, providing a sometimes-plausible critique of the imperial state and yet proposing nothing much different as a replacement. It wasn't until Kerry began to discuss the war that his camp made any progress. He gave series of speeches that affected ideological opposition to what Bush was doing. They weren't great speeches, and parsing them led to the realization that his plan was not that different from Bush's own. But activists poured their hearts into the campaign nonetheless, in the hopes that perhaps he would come around.
In the end, however, there was no great choice to be made. Voters were being asked to choose between two forms of central planning, one domestic, tired, and uninspiring, and another international and promising to conquer ever more countries until the whole region and world were bent at the knee. One plan required higher taxes and more economic regimentation, and the other required higher debt and more death.
At brief moments during the campaign, the regime trotted out the old rhetoric about how Bush was for freedom and for you, whereas his opponent was for the government. This goes beyond cynical. After all, here is an administration that inflated government spending at a rate that compares only to Lyndon Johnson at his Keynesian worst. Here is an administration that used government more than any other in memory. Those who thought Clinton favored big government can only look back nostalgically at a president who seemed to know the limits of power.
Then there are the so-called cultural issues. They are used by the two parties as get-out-the-vote mechanisms. One group runs to the polls to prevent the other group from making headway on a panoply of hot-button causes. But neither party has any real incentive to enact change in either direction, since the whole purpose is to stir people into donating their money and their time, and pulling the right lever at the next election.
The Bush administration views the results of the 2004 election as a mandate. But friends of liberty should know that conceding a mandate to anyone in power is always dangerous business. One form of central planning has been defeated but another form has raised its ugly head. It too must be fought, and on principled grounds.
But the party of liberty is so much better off today than it was in the 1930s. Our intellectual foundation is far stronger. Ours is an international movement with brilliant writers and activists in most all countries of the world, and in all sectors of society. We live amidst the greatest technological advances since the Industrial Revolution, all made possible through liberal means. The globalization of commerce is thinning out the ranks of the war party.
With allies from all walks of life, from many countries, and with passion for truth, the party of liberty works for and joyfully anticipates liberation from despotism – left, right, or center.
November 4, 2004
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
The Politics of FB
