Re: Power in the music (was Ticket Terrorists) aka buying the Batmobile

[Deliphus01@aol.com]

I'm content to let the record show that you'd like your assertion to be
taken as a given.

Alan:

Fine...I'm content to say that I view the varied antics of the human race 
from a psychological point of view, and in that realm it's a given of human 
behavior.
And spirituality is the cure for such feelings...and Who music is 
spiritual...and that's what draws me to it. Rise above the base feelings and 
you will free yourself...that's the message I'm getting.
> 
> But you did say it, and I even quoted it.  Here it is again:

"Making money," not the "temptation to make money." Fighting the temptation 
because it's not the proper motivation. 
I'll go with Siddhartha and say: "The true profession of man is to find his 
way to himself," and Townshend seems to lean in that direction too, and 
taking that a step farther I'd also say that with enlightenment comes the end 
of self interest. You may argue with me there, but that's how I feel when I 
get closer to the flame.
> 
> I agree, but I'll bet you think the government owes you (and me) more than
> I think they do.

I've already stated what I think they should provide, but I'd definitely 
argue the "owe" part since I'm paying taxes for these services.
> 
> Yep, sure 'nuff.  I am dead set against government-run schools.

An ignorant population is a danger to the rest of us. Plenty of data proves 
that. If you learned NOTHING else from the Clinton years, you should have at 
least noticed that when there's prosperity crime goes down. The easiest path 
to prosperity is education. Therefore it is certainly in the best interests 
of the population in general to educate itself. Private school is a fine 
idea, but by the very fact that it's "private" means it can exclude people by 
choice, and history tells us that means the people who need the education 
most.
There is no perfect solution, but public school is the best so far. However 
you have the right to school your kids at home or send them to a private 
school.
> 
> I certainly do believe it would fit. Nazi intellectuals justified the
> movement on the basis of subordinating the individual to the state.

But Kennedy was speaking specifically about public service to help others, 
like the Peace Corps, not subordinating ANYONE.
> 
> may recommend yet another book, _The Ominous Parallels_ by Leonard Peikoff
> does an unequaled job of explaining the philosophical roots of Nazism.

That I might check out, although I already know the general cause. It's the 
same as what gave birth to Communism: poverty. Non-prosperity, I could say to 
further my argument.
> 
> I'm tempted to ask for examples, but you could be right.

Two words: civil rights. I need go no further.
> 
> The problem was that his personal life was NOT separate from his public
> duties, by his own choice.

Yeah, I'm SURE he CHOSE to impeach himself...and the GOP is blameless in 
bringing it all to light and spending millions of dollars (wasted) to 
prosecute a crime that goes 99% unprosecuted all over the country every 
working day of the week (ever witnessed a divorce case?) and then putting it 
all on the Internet with torrid details for the world to read, so young 
children would be exposed to it.
Yeah, it's ALL Clinton's fault for trying to keep it quiet!

  Most troubling was that habit of bombing other> 
> countries to distract from his impeachment woes.

Except now they're saying he should have bombed MORE and Laden is all his 
fault for NOT bombing! MAKE UP YOUR MIND! How can you blame him for not 
knowing when NO ONE knew! Why didn't Bush Sr. get him? He was making noise 
when we went into Kuwait? Same reason, of course...I don't blame him. Either 
of them.
See, that is a prime example of the "blame Clinton for everything" school. 
It's effin' ridiculous! He made some mistakes, he did some good stuff. Just 
like every other President, present President excepted (so far).
> 
> I'd say that's up to each individual to judge for him/herself, so yes, some
> people could be found who would say they have enough.

I've never met one. All I have to do is mention how much cancer can cost an 
individual and they turn green...
> 
> criminal about the financial benefits they offered.

However junk bonds are a perfect example of not being selfless, which is what 
I mentioned it for. Enron is another fine example.
> 
> I don't think those become illegal in the '80s, they've pretty much been
> mandated since the '60s.

Yeah? Remember when they had to knock when they had a warrant and show it? No 
more, not since the 80's. And what about stealing all the property from a 
drug suspect (not convicted, mind you, but merely suspect), again starting in 
the 80's? For two easy ones...of course NOW they don't even need a warrant 
under "terrorist" rules, and drug use has been declared "terrorism" by Bush, 
as has environmental activism. So if you lay down in front of a bulldozer to 
stop a project being built, or get caught with a joint, you could be charged 
and convicted of treason (according to Bush). It remains to be seen whether 
these things will happen, but it's been my experience that if a thing can be 
abused, it will be.
> 
> Maybe they should.  Might lead to clearer communication.

What, and kill off all colorful expressions? Nah. I couldn't have even said 
"kill off."
> 
> Soviet Russia tried 70 years of making people work for the good of the
> people. You'll recall the result.

Good of what people? Not the population! Corrupt governments aren't a very 
good counter-example...
> 
> You may not think of it as wealthy.  Due to your attitude toward money, you
> might never wish to apply that description to yourself,

Not really, but no one would use the term for my income. Comfortable is more 
accurate. I can and do what I want. I can't, however, buy the Batmobile.
> 
> Well yes...the question is, are the contents true, not how strongly worded
> the title is.

So you're saying that a book named, say "Rush is a big fat idiot" might 
actually be a complimentary book?
> 
> Thanks.  As I mentioned in my private e-mail, I consider this a debate in
> front of an audience.  Not meant to be arrogant.

I understand now, but I don't see our place being to teach about anything but 
The Who. Here, anyway.
> 
> Where I come from, most light fixtures take only one bulb-

Kevin Mc:

What about Mardi Gras floats?

 
    "They have miscalculated me as a leader."
             George "Mr. Salty" Bush

         
               Cheers                 ML