U2

[JCL]

Guys really I am becoming slightly irritated with the weekly show and how David and Gene simply agree and agree with every guest. OK, so U2 have put their monies in The Netherlands, and this did not go down with the Irish people so you know, he was questioned and put on the spot about it. But really is this something new, people moving money around to avoid taxes since there's been taxes. Why do you think there are so many celebs living in Ireland in the last 25 years, research that and see the incentives they get. Anyway Bono was singled out of all the stars singing that song. Did you know that Bono's wife has spent so much time in Chernobyl that before they had their last child she was advised not to have anymore children because of her exposure to nuclear waste. Her work in this area since the Nuclear accident really is enough to get the entire family off the "What have you done lately .." list. And for the record I am a native of Dublin living in NY, and not a big U2 fan.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Guys really I am becoming slightly irritated with the weekly show and how David and Gene simply agree and agree with every guest. OK, so U2 have put their monies in The Netherlands, and this did not go down with the Irish people so you know, he was questioned and put on the spot about it. But really is this something new, people moving money around to avoid taxes since there's been taxes. Why do you think there are so many celebs living in Ireland in the last 25 years, research that and see the incentives they get. Anyway Bono was singled out of all the stars singing that song. Did you know that Bono's wife has spent so much time in Chernobyl that before they had their last child she was advised not to have anymore children because of her exposure to nuclear waste. Her work in this area since the Nuclear accident really is enough to get the entire family off the "What have you done lately .." list. And for the record I am a native of Dublin living in NY, and not a big U2 fan.

If you've listened for a while, I think you'd realize that we do not necessarily agree with all our guests. Quite the contrary, as reading this message board will indicate.

No, it's nothing new that rich people move to avoid taxes.

In any case, without denigrating Bono's charitable work, facts are facts. A recent article in The New York Times had a lot of information about this. And it wasn't just U2, but The Rolling Stones, but people don't criticize Mick Jagger and crew quite as much, as you expect them to be mercenary.

 

[interestedINitall]

Well, Gene and David certainly aren't the sort to "simply agree" with their guests. That said, there were aspects of that segment that were particularly troubling. When David asked Mr. Thomas what one can do about the para-political quagmire his answer was very disappointing.
Does he really learn all of this solely for a sense of self-satisfaction?

That reply was consistent with a political dynamic I alluded to on another thread. While I readily concede that small "e" evil exists on the Right and the Left and that money is often the real motivation behind political agenda of all stripes, I can't help but think that this "centrist" movement is not an attempt to learn any real truth (which yes, often lies somewhere in the middle/center) but is instead an excuse for political apathy and a self-congratulatory reason to disengage.

Are there any seriously politically active "centrists" out there?

 

[CapnG]

Are there any seriously politically active "centrists" out there?

*Raises hand*

Well, hang on, no, let me qualify that. I'm a dedicated centrist but not politically active because that's impossible. See the problem with being centrist is that it's a position, not a philosophy. Someone can have political opinions that are the polar opposite of mine and still be considered centrist because they don't align to right or left.

I notice however that the term "centrist" is quickly being co-opted by various factions within the US political process to try and deal with the sheer disenchantment people have begun to feel in earnest vis-avis the political process. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. Those are just names on a label that says "HELLO, my name is" above it.

In the end they're all the same thing, politicians. So now some of them have started to say "Oh well I'm with the _____ but I'm really a centrist." Sure... and when Pepe Le Pew paints over his white stripe with black paint he's not a skunk anymore...

 

[interestedINitall]

Someone can have political opinions that are the polar opposite of mine and still be considered centrist because they don't align to right or left.

Okay, that's interesting. Is everyone going around calling themselves a "centrist" simply because they don't share the entire world view of the Left or the Right? Again, that just seems like a badge that reads "Look at me, I'm insightful, I'm a rebel, I'm a Centrist!". Not to put too fine a point on it but it seems a little adolescent. I mean really, I consider myself Liberal to be sure but I certainly don't subscribe to everything on the Liberal agenda (How could any thinking person share every single ideal of a political party? ). I don't care for tribalism but I'd be lying (and unnecessarily so) if I said that my politics weren't decidedly Left. Does that mere recognition of nuance make me a "centrist"? I don't think it does.

I may be harping a bit but I'm still looking to find out why people are so reluctant to say that they identify with one group or another and then willing to be a voice of dissent in that group. Is it too difficult? Isn't that what keeps a political movement fresh and vital? This whole "centrist" philosophy seems dangerously close to the Libertarian creed of "I've got mine so leave me alone!".

I hope I'm wrong about that.

PS: CapnG is certainly correct when he says that politicians will stick any label on themselves in order to woo a torpid populace. My posts have concerned
private citizen "centrists."

 

[Aaron LeClair]

"Look at me, I'm insightful, I'm a rebel, I'm a Centrist!".

Nah, that's more like an "individualist", like me I can do without the attention seeking though.

 

[interestedINitall]

I think one can be an "individualist" and still identify with a particular political movement. Touting one's own "political agnosticism" just seems self-serving.

Is "political agnosticism" even a viable position? Theoretically - spirituality and politics can (and should) be mutually exclusive concerns so can applying the "I don't know." principle of spiritual agnosticism to public policy and legislation really work? It seems like a wonderfully objective place to start but should one hover there basking in the "self-satisfaction" that Mr. Thomas mentioned? What changes? Who is served?

 

[Lorrie]

Hi there. First off, just let me say that I love this show and have the greatest respect and admiration for both Gene and David. That said however, I do have to voice my opinion here about your comments about U2, Bono, and the rich.
Bono and U2 have given away more money to those in need than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes. Bono has done something about the state of the world and let many of us follow his example. He continiues to give so much of his money, time, heart, and soul into helping out with AIDS and world poverty. Just look at his RED or ONE campaigns. Look at Bono and his wife Alison's work with helping with nuclear waste management and Chernobyl.
He helps so much because he can. He can because he has money. Those people out there that bash the rich should look long and hard at themselves and think before they speak.

 

[CapnG]

Again, that just seems like a badge that reads "Look at me, I'm insightful, I'm a rebel, I'm a Centrist!". Not to put too fine a point on it but it seems a little adolescent.

First off, I only know about five people who consider themselves centrist and all of them did so before the term entered common parlance. The vast majority of my friends and associates are apolitical, they consider all politicians to be sychophants and crooks and most don't vote. I know maybe two die-hard liberals and one conservative. So if centrism (?) is a movement, it's got legs of stone...

Second, it's funny to me you consider it an adolescent attitude, because I consider it the opposite. To me latching on to Liberal/conservative viewpoints and declaring "I'm with them!" is essentially modified peer-pressure, the height of adolescent behaviour. But then again, I arrived at my centrism through years of consideration so I don't really have any experience with these "new wave" centrists.

I may be harping a bit but I'm still looking to find out why people are so reluctant to say that they identify with one group or another and then willing to be a voice of dissent in that group. Is it too difficult?

To me it smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. It's like going into a job you hate everyday with a big fat smile on your face. If you disagree, you shouldn't be there, otherwise of what value is freedom?

Isn't that what keeps a political movement fresh and vital?

No, armed revolution is. The political process is far beyond fresh and vital. It's not even stale and inert. It's more like a zombie, reanimated and kept alive through arcane and evil means...

This whole "centrist" philosophy seems dangerously close to the Libertarian creed of "I've got mine so leave me alone!".

I can understand why it might seem that way. Speaking only for myself it's more like this: Okay this guy on the left is full of crap and this guy on the right is full of crap. Hmmm... no place for me. Might as well stand here in the middle.

 

[interestedINitall]

The vast majority of my friends and associates are apolitical, they consider all politicians to be sychophants and crooks and most don't vote.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Saying that politicians are corrupt is a rather weak and obvious excuse (the operative word) for not being socially engaged or caring about what happens to the civilization. OF COURSE, they're corrupt that doesn't mean you just say "Whatever, I'm just not voting!" That's extremely childish.

Second, it's funny to me you consider it an adolescent attitude, because I consider it the opposite. To me latching on to Liberal/conservative viewpoints and declaring "I'm with them!" is essentially modified peer-pressure, the height of adolescent behaviour.

Again, this is a matter of self possession. One can identify as a Liberal (or even a Conservative) without toting the party line. Have you ever know anyone who identified as a Christian or Jew yet didn't go along with all the dogma of their respective faith? It's the same dynamic. The analogous teen however, desperate to forge his/her identity through what often amounts to acts of knee-jerk nonconformism or perhaps disillusioned by the hypocrisy of the establishment, usually renounces religion altogether while the divergent concepts of religion and spirituality never even occur to him/her. I think a measure of that goes on with the apolitical.

To me it smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. It's like going into a job you hate everyday with a big fat smile on your face. If you disagree, you shouldn't be there, otherwise of what value is freedom?

This is also absurd. If one finds that his/her politics lean one way or the other then why WOULDN'T that person want to try to effect change within largest governing body of the ideological bent?

No, armed revolution is. The political process is far beyond fresh and vital. It's not even stale and inert. It's more like a zombie, reanimated and kept alive through arcane and evil means...

Excuses, excuses. . .
If this were true, it would be so in part because of the apathy of the people you mentioned earlier.

I can understand why it might seem that way. Speaking only for myself it's more like this: Okay this guy on the left is full of crap and this guy on the right is full of crap. Hmmm... no place for me. Might as well stand here in the middle.

. . . and do nothing.
Why not actively present YOUR position instead of wallowing in the self-pitying narcissistic fatalism?


The philosophy of disengagement seems to be (like Libertarianism) the byproduct of the "Wellesian" excess of comfort of the American middle class. I've found that most self-proclaimed "apolitical" types are from a demographic for whom soft drinks and consumer electronics are tailored.

I suppose it's easy, while still no excuse, to opt out of the political process if your schools are well funded, you're afforded every social right of the land and the near homogeneity of your surroundings makes it so any injustices that aren't resolved in 40 minutes (an hour with commercials) can be banished with the press of a button on your remote control.

That's not to say that there aren't those in the thick of things who are equally apathetic but they usually don't wear it as a mark of their cleverness.

This "centrist" thing may just be a new trend, a label that people find it socially acceptable to use right now. I guess that's fine, but this apolitical malarkey should be called just what it is - laziness.

 

[CapnG]

OF COURSE, they're corrupt that doesn't mean you just say "Whatever, I'm just not voting!" That's extremely childish.

So you willingly vote for criminals despite knowing what you're getting? And this serves to improve things... how?

Again, this is a matter of self possession. One can identify as a Liberal (or even a Conservative) without toting the party line. Have you ever know anyone who identified as a Christian or Jew yet didn't go along with all the dogma of their respective faith?

So you're advocating lip-service? Doesn't matter if you actually go along with the party line but at least SAY you do? To what end?

If one finds that his/her politics lean one way or the other then why WOULDN'T that person want to try to effect change within largest governing body of the ideological bent?

Lack of finances? No connections? A realization of futility, perhaps?

Excuses, excuses. . .
If this were true, it would be so in part because of the apathy of the people you mentioned earlier.

It would be a closed circle, without beginning or end and barring any hope of escape. Not an excuse then but a well founded reason for apathy.

Why not actively present YOUR position instead of wallowing in the self-pitying narcissistic fatalism?

The foreknowledge that it would achive nothing. Did you happen to notice that prior to the invasion of Iraq there were a few protests? Like millions. Globally. Iraq was still invaded. Continuous protest over the past four years has achieved nothing. When change finally comes it will be for one of two reasons as it always is: a) it's no longer finanacially viable or b) it's politically expedient. That's it and that's all.

The philosophy of disengagement seems to be (like Libertarianism) the byproduct of the "Wellesian" excess of comfort of the American middle class.

Continued corporate outsourcing to India and China will soon solve that problem...

I've found that most self-proclaimed "apolitical" types are from a demographic for whom soft drinks and consumer electronics are tailored.

A curious comment, since you obviously possess electronics yourself and (presumably) have consumed at least one soft drink in your life. It's one thing to tar with a broad brush but to use one so large you get tar on yourself seems counter-productive.

This "centrist" thing may just be a new trend, a label that people find it socially acceptable to use right now. I guess that's fine, but this apolitical malarkey should be called just what it is - laziness.

For me, hopelessness is closer. How to exaplain... Ever give a cat a bath? They fight like hell at first, they just don't want to be in that water! Eventually however the cat tires of struggling and fighting and realizes that if it just sits there it'll be over soon, then it can run off and sulk for a while.

That is how I see the general public in terms of political discourse: howl all you like, you're still getting hosed!

 

[interestedINitall]

A curious comment, since you obviously possess electronics yourself and (presumably) have consumed at least one soft drink in your life. It's one thing to tar with a broad brush but to use one so large you get tar on yourself seems counter-productive.

*sigh*

It's clear to me that your superficiality and desire for riposte (like the attempt above) are, like your self-proclaimed political neutrality, just a means for displaying an imagined cleverness. It is also clear that this discussion has become circuitous and verges on bickering and that has no value.

I started posting on this thread because I would really like to understand a mindset that is able to disengage with so much at stake at this point in human history. So far, I've gotten nothing but a clumsy refrain of "They won't let me win so I'm not playing!".

I've made my point (more than once) and am satisfied.

Enjoy that demographic.

 

[CapnG]

It's clear to me that your superficiality and desire for riposte (like the attempt above) are, like your self-proclaimed political neutrality, just a means for displaying an imagined cleverness.

Hehe... always the subtle insult, it's so predictable...

It is also clear that this discussion has become circuitous and verges on bickering and that has no value.

Alas, the fate of all interent-based discussion. It really is an imperfect medium for debate.

I started posting on this thread because I would really like to understand a mindset that is able to disengage with so much at stake at this point in human history. So far, I've gotten nothing but a clumsy refrain of "They won't let me win so I'm not playing!".

I put it to you that that IS the mindset and you simply refuse to accept it or are unwilling/unable to process it. And why would you play a game you can't win? There's no benefit, it's completely illogical.

I've made my point (more than once) and am satisfied.

Fair enough. I can't help but notice a certain underlying smug, self-assured attitude in this discussion however. In particular, the notion that "Well, at least I'm doing SOMETHING." is somehow a note of intellectual and cultural superiority- It's egotistical nonsense. A hamster is "doing something" when it runs in it's wheel but it's not actually getting anywhere, is it?

The means to afford change is monetary, He that hath the gold makes the rules. There is no point in standing up if you haven't a leg to stand on, no point in speaking out if your words are ignored. In the end, given a choice of two evils and finding niether to be the lesser I prefer to stay in the middle.

Howl all you like. You're still getting hosed.

 

[interestedINitall]

Those people out there that bash the rich should look long and hard at themselves and think before they speak.

Lorrie,

I couldn't agree more. I'm fascinated by the hostility toward those with wealth. I suppose a resentment of those we perceive to have something we don't (yet desperately want) is as old as humanity itself but lately I've noticed an increase in the volume of that sentiment that reminds me of late 18th century France.

Do you think it's due to the much ballyhooed dissolution of the middle class in that its "buffer" function is disappearing along with it?

Is it indicative of the "You think you're better than me?!?!" cultural tenor?

Maybe it's just "one of those things."

 

[CapnG]

Greed and simple jealousy. That and the fact that money is power and power is freedom.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Greed and simple jealousy. That and the fact that money is power and power is freedom.

Then freedom is money, which enslaves us all

 

[CapnG]

Then freedom is money, which enslaves us all

Only those of us who have lack of it. Past a certain threshold, money becomes like a virus, making more of itself ad infintum. The trick comes in breaching that threshold...

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Only those of us who have lack of it. Past a certain threshold, money becomes like a virus, making more of itself ad infintum. The trick comes in breaching that threshold...

I know rich people who are enslaved by it. All depends on ones point of view.

 

[interestedINitall]

Having a degree of wealth is wonderful.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably one of those "middles" who is just treading water in order to maintain a semblance of a certain lifestyle - think McMansions and Hummer limousines. That sort thinks that the contemporary parody of wealth is wealth.

 

[CapnG]

I know rich people who are enslaved by it. On depends on ones point of view.

Therein lies the difference between being rich and being wealthy. I've always maintained that people who say "money can't buy you happiness" either don't have enough of it or aren't spending it correctly (possibly both).