Good Articles That Don't Deserve Their Own Threads

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,425

fxh

OG Party Suit Wearer
Supporter
Messages
6,814
I wouldn't have gone to see the Stones in the last 30 years - wasn't interested- if they came again I would - it starts to get interesting. Neil Young - yes - . Cohen was great - Bob I've always seen - hes never let me down. Always fresh
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
3,947
I wouldn't have gone to see the Stones in the last 30 years - wasn't interested- if they came again I would - it starts to get interesting. Neil Young - yes - . Cohen was great - Bob I've always seen - hes never let me down. Always fresh
My dad saw them in ‘67 in LA and thought they were amazing, and again 1977 at the WACA and thought they were already a joke. I told him that if they tour again, we are both going.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,602
^With regard to phone usage surpassing TV usage, I think that it's partly a function of people using mobile phones more of the time now. People use them on public transport, while eating, while sitting on the couch, while in bed, even while sitting on the toilet. You can be almost anywhere and use your mobile phone, but the only place you can use your TV is when you are in the room with the TV in it.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,425
I wouldn't have gone to see the Stones in the last 30 years - wasn't interested- if they came again I would - it starts to get interesting. Neil Young - yes - . Cohen was great - Bob I've always seen - hes never let me down. Always fresh
Watched the Rolling Thunder Review documentary by Scorsese on Netflix. It's almost frightening the cultural differences from then '75 and '76 to now. Yet Dylan's performances transcend that. He looks back in bemusement at his old self and has a little dig at Allen Ginsberg for being very far from a ''father figure'' and Joan Baez when she got in with the wrong crowd and was self-identifying as Bob Dylan because of whatever she was taking.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,425
This is an interesting article:

This be the the sentence: ''The truth is that globalisation, the central political dream of Clinton and Blair, Obama and Cameron, was never real. It was a process by which advanced Western economies unilaterally surrendered their manufacturing capacity to a rival, growing power, China, which instead of reciprocating according to the Panglossian calculations of the neoliberal theorists, practiced a traditional and ruthless mercantilism in pursuit of its own interests.''

Neoliberalism, now in a very decadent Woke phase, looks like the rock USA status and influence will perish on. In the poetry of W.B, Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


And in the words of the Clash: it's Armagideon time!
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,602
This be the the sentence: ''The truth is that globalisation, the central political dream of Clinton and Blair, Obama and Cameron, was never real. It was a process by which advanced Western economies unilaterally surrendered their manufacturing capacity to a rival, growing power, China, which instead of reciprocating according to the Panglossian calculations of the neoliberal theorists, practiced a traditional and ruthless mercantilism in pursuit of its own interests.''
This makes it sound as though the whole thing was some sort of cunning plot by China.

In fact, it's simply capitalism. Owners of capital will seek out opportunities to obtain the best return. Prior to China, companies moved production around various other countries - southern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and other places. China offered low wages, low safety regulations, secure and stable investment environment and a massive, well-educated workforce and so capital flocked to invest.

If India, Nigeria or similar countries could offer the same things but at a lower price than China, then capital would move there.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,441
This makes it sound as though the whole thing was some sort of cunning plot by China.

In fact, it's simply capitalism. Owners of capital will seek out opportunities to obtain the best return. Prior to China, companies moved production around various other countries - southern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and other places. China offered low wages, low safety regulations, secure and stable investment environment and a massive, well-educated workforce and so capital flocked to invest.

If India, Nigeria or similar countries could offer the same things but at a lower price than China, then capital would move there.
Three cheers for capitalism! The best system humanity ever devised. Good for people, good for the planet and great for your pocket.
 

formby001

Well-Known Member
Messages
660
l
A good piece for our econo-centric members like formby001 formby001 Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith and doghouse doghouse


its a long read but its worth it
I'm not eco-centric. In fact one of my pet peeves is the crude reduction of complex cultural/social phenomena into simple economic arguments.

You, like Guero, seem to completely misunderstand my position.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,425
A good piece for our econo-centric members like formby001 formby001 Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith and doghouse doghouse


its a long read but its worth it
I would describe that article as desperate. Mostly unreadable.

It's all about hierarchy, but not human endeavor, progress or innovation. Then you have risk, health, luck, tenacity and lots of other chances and elements that effect your income. It's way, way too complex to reduce all of that down to your place in the hierarchy. You move on up and down.

The hierarchy is not a caste system.

Interesting our auditors have lots of rich clients here in the Netherlands those that are in the top 500 and those who are out of it because of using trust and foundations to secure privacy, etc. I've asked about the demographics. These are individual are earning well above Euro 500,000 (take home) a year, who have built up 20 million plus++++.

What I am told is that there is equal number of university education people at Masters level and above, and those who achieved little academic success at school. The common denominator is that they're all selling massive amounts of widgets, or volumes of products that are not that expensive, engineered or bespoke and are very off the shelf type stuff. The exceptions are those involved in bio-fuels and those ex-directors of oil & gas majors who own shares in oil fields in north Africa.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,441

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
3,947
What about people desecrating Churchill? Isn't he the greatest Briton?

The Romans were none too kind to slaves of all creed and colour so we should knock down the Colosseum too.
Really? Whataboutism?

it’s a simple litmus test, really. What is Churchill’s fame or significance related to? And the Romans?

Whereas what did Lee do to deserve monuments? I’ll give you a hint: he led an army that defended a failed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now, he was a great general and, by all accounts a gentleman, but that isn’t so remarkable in that era.

also worth remembering the context of all these Lost Cause statues in the South. They weren’t erected after the war, when people recognised they had lost and did not want reminders of a painful past. They were put up in the 1930s at a time when Southern whites were using Jim Crow laws to turn back the clock and strengthen segregation. These statues are a very real symbol of oppression to black Southerns today.

If you honestly can’t see the difference between the symbolism of a Lee and a Churchill or Cesar statue then... I give up.
 
Last edited:

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,441
Really? Whataboutism?

it’s a simple litmus test, really. What is Churchill’s fame or significance related to? And the Romans?

Whereas what did Lee do to deserve monuments? I’ll give you a hint: he led an army that defended a failed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now, he was a great general and, by all accounts a gentleman, but that isn’t so remarkable in that era.

also worth remembering the context of all these Lost Cause statues in the South. They weren’t erected after the war, when people recognised they had lost and did not want reminders of a painful past. They were put up in the 1930s at a time when Southern whites were using Jim Crow laws to turn back the clock and strengthen segregation. These statues are a very ya gable symbol of oppression to black Southerns today.

If you honestly can’t see the difference between the symbolism of a Lee and a Churchill or Cesar statue then... I give up.
Cecil Rhodes in South Africa. Stalin's embalmed corpse in Moscow.

I happen to think people's energies should be focused on the future and not trying to apply 21st century principles to the past. It doesn't change anything. It's history. Does it make a difference in the future going forward if we took a Men in Black pen and wiped everyone's minds of whatever past horrors?
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
3,947
Personally, I don’t want shrines to our enemies in public spaces. They belong in museums and history books, not the town square.

When Eastern Europe was liberated in 1989-90, they toppled the statues of the occupiers and stuck them in museums where they belong.
 

formby001

Well-Known Member
Messages
660
Really? Whataboutism?

it’s a simple litmus test, really. What is Churchill’s fame or significance related to? And the Romans?

Whereas what did Lee do to deserve monuments? I’ll give you a hint: he led an army that defended a failed rebellion to preserve slavery. Now, he was a great general and, by all accounts a gentleman, but that isn’t so remarkable in that era.

also worth remembering the context of all these Lost Cause statues in the South. They weren’t erected after the war, when people recognised they had lost and did not want reminders of a painful past. They were put up in the 1930s at a time when Southern whites were using Jim Crow laws to turn back the clock and strengthen segregation. These statues are a very ya gable symbol of oppression to black Southerns today.

If you honestly can’t see the difference between the symbolism of a Lee and a Churchill or Cesar statue then... I give up.
I'm afraid this will be your problem. It isn't.
 

Mattrick

Well-Known Member
Messages
95
Personally, I don’t want shrines to our enemies in public spaces. They belong in museums and history books, not the town square.

When Eastern Europe was liberated in 1989-90, they toppled the statues of the occupiers and stuck them in museums where they belong.
You say "our enemies", but clearly your enemies aren't shared by everyone. And that's the real problem here: America has become too divided.

I don't want statues of Nelson Mandela or Marx in London, but I wouldn't be especially enthusiastic about ripping them down. I would be surprised if indigenous Brits will allow them to remain in place in the coming decades, though.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,064
of course none of these guys protested when sadaam's statue was pulled down in the public square
 

formby001

Well-Known Member
Messages
660
of course none of these guys protested when sadaam's statue was pulled down in the public square
I asked you a question in another thread about this topic, you didn't answer it.

So, I'll ask you again.

Out of interest, where do you stand on statues of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington & James Madison?

And secondly:

Where do you draw the line?
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,064
I asked you a question in another thread about this topic, you didn't answer it.

So, I'll ask you again.

Out of interest, where do you stand on statues of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington & James Madison?

And secondly:

Where do you draw the line?
What is the line? Are you asking me if i think people are going to want to pull down martin luther king jrs statue next? Because thats obviously ridiculous.
I am perfectly good with the protesters doing whatever damage they feel is necessary in service of their struggle.

Since we're here, whats your stand on the iraqi's pulling down sadaam's statue?
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,441
King Tut married his sister but I don't burn down his sarcophagus because he practised incest.

Humanity's principles have advanced and evolved. We should learn from the past and continue to aspire to ever loftier ideals for the future. That's worthwhile to spend energy on rather than practising revisionism until there is nothing left to look back to anymore or everything is sanitized to the nth degree.
 

formby001

Well-Known Member
Messages
660
What is the line? Are you asking me if i think people are going to want to pull down martin luther king jrs statue next? Because thats obviously ridiculous.
I am perfectly good with the protesters doing whatever damage they feel is necessary in service of their struggle.

Since we're here, whats your stand on the iraqi's pulling down sadaam's statue?
OK, so you support the destruction/removal of statues of Jefferson, Washington and Madison. Let's extend that a little further. Would you be happy renaming your capital city, and removing Washington's image from your currency, and his name from any building, street name, memorial &c?

As for you question on Saddam's statue. Ans: What did it acheive? Very little, Iraq in fact fell into a savage civil war that probably left more people dead than died under Saddam.
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
3,947
King Tut married his sister but I don't burn down his sarcophagus because he practised incest.

Humanity's principles have advanced and evolved. We should learn from the past and continue to aspire to ever loftier ideals for the future. That's worthwhile to spend energy on rather than practising revisionism until there is nothing left to look back to anymore or everything is sanitized to the
Are you saying that the pyramid is just a monument to King Tut’s relationship with his sister? Or maybe it means just a bit more than that?

So the Germans shouldn’t have pulled down all those Swastikas and Hitler statues at the end of the war? The Reichstag shouldn’t revise their history by taking down the eagle and swastika? Eastern Europe shouldn’t be so ‘revisionist’ by getting rifle of the Stalin statues? Saddam Hussein should take pride of place in the center of Baghdad?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom