Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning fascism leads to democracy

On Sunday 02 January 2005 05:03 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> This is really confused.
> Fascist states did well cause they were dealing with Democracies as
> their market.
> Our capitalism has been only possible by the intervention of over
> throwing democracies to make them fascist states.
> China is a communist country and it is growing faster than anyone.

Unfortunately, China has been allowed to function because it is our trading
partner, but it is still a brutal and large human-rights violator.
The U.S. would do well to boycott China, because it would be consistent with
our rhetoric. China would *not* grow without US help.

> Russia collapsed from the arms race with the U.S. not because of their
> system .
> It was much richer than under the fascism of the czar and is poorer now
> that it is more democratic
> We really know nothing about communism since it has never had the
> opportunity to exist without outside forces undermining it.

We do know that wherever it *has* existed, it has done so by the will of a
brutal violent elite (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Caucescu) that leveraged the
working class angst against an aristocratic elite, and then ignored that same
working class and became the next elite. Stalin and Mao never lived like a
peasant lived. True communism is a pipe dream, it defies human nature.

> not that it is a real system, cause it has no method to run things

...except violent repression, which it does better than anyone. Stalin killed
20 million of his own citizens.

> Capitalism is what leads to wealth when it happens.
>
> But basically all capitalistic countries are much poorer than before in
> that the citizenry has much less.
> this trend can do nothing but continue until resources are completely
> exhausted.

This is an complete error, a complete leftist-propaganda falsity. The world
population has doubled since 1960, and the percentage of people who live in
poverty has been cut in half (see "The Pentagon's New Map", by Thomas P.M.
Barnett, page 32, end of first paragraph)

At the same time the World Bank has noted the emergence of new Globalist
economies, roughly 2 dozen (read 'Capitalism') since the 1980's--including
South Korea, Brazil, India, and China.

Also, the transformation of Germany and Japan post-WWII *worked*--they are now
part of Globalization's 'functioning core', to use Barnett's term. I hate to
say it, but Bush may be setting a successful transformation in motion--the
same risky gamble Truman's administration made post-WWII to transform Nazi
Germany and Imperialist Japan into Birkenstock, leftist Germany and
ultra-capitalist Toyota making Japan! My largest critique of Bush would have
to be in the area of being a symbolic figurehead to a cultural 'dumbing-down'
and sponsoring 'bad science', as well as destroying the environment. But it
may be to early to judge the success of the neo-con agenda in the
Middle-East, just as people thought transforming Germany and Japan was a pipe
dream.

Basically, the areas of mass poverty and violence in the world are the very
same areas that refuse to play by the new rules of globalization--meaning
their leaders suppress contact with the 'core', have no free press to speak
of, no real free trade, have abundant, particularly Islamic, religious
fundamentalism, or suppress all religion ala Maoist Communism, and no
emerging women's rights movement.

>
> Capitalism is Suicide by environmental means

I think the way America does it is flawed and short-sighted, yes. But there
are other models of environmentally responsible Capitalism. Perhaps the
answer lies with a tempering of Capitalism by some socialistic ideas.

> At a certain stage in life, if one keeps growing, we call it
> Cancer-James Hillman

This would also be true of the political left as much as it is of the
political right.

The 'Truth' is always down the middle, and never with the radicals of either
side.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>On Sunday 02 January 2005 05:03 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>This is really confused.
>>Fascist states did well cause they were dealing with Democracies as
>>their market.
>>Our capitalism has been only possible by the intervention of over
>>throwing democracies to make them fascist states.
>>China is a communist country and it is growing faster than anyone.
>> >>
>
>Unfortunately, China has been allowed to function because it is our trading >partner, but it is still a brutal and large human-rights violator.
>The U.S. would do well to boycott China, because it would be consistent with >our rhetoric. China would *not* grow without US help.
> >
yes this was my first observation. Fascist need systems like ours to buy there goods so a self contained fascist state will not improve economically

> >
>> Russia collapsed from the arms race with the U.S. not because of their
>>system .
>>It was much richer than under the fascism of the czar and is poorer now
>>that it is more democratic
>>We really know nothing about communism since it has never had the
>>opportunity to exist without outside forces undermining it.
>> >>
>
>We do know that wherever it *has* existed, it has done so by the will of a >brutal violent elite (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Caucescu) that leveraged the >working class angst against an aristocratic elite, and then ignored that same >working class and became the next elite. Stalin and Mao never lived like a >peasant lived. True communism is a pipe dream, it defies human nature.
> >
Well stalin didn't set up russia and the problem of any totalitarism is that it does not have any safe guards to deal with "bad" leaders. I do think Lenin forsaw more trouble with Germany and put in the man he though was up to that task. which he was. remember , they made it to Germany and Berlin way before us.
Most tribal societies are strongly communistic as far as shared economy, so i am not sure that it is defies human nature. Possibly all political systems defy human nature. Fascism seems more so.
But all these terms are confusing because the measure of a society is better measured by the amount of freedom of it citizenry. Under this criteria, communism and fascism in many cases so far are no different. Possibly now that Democracy has little rivalry in Ideology, it is possible it could become the same way.
The latter though is better suited with dealing with bad leaders, or easily can be modified to do so. for this reason , it is the best choice

> >
>>not that it is a real system, cause it has no method to run things
>> >>
>
>...except violent repression, which it does better than anyone. Stalin killed >20 million of his own citizens.
> >
Yes capitalism is better at making individuals economic sacrifices, which i guess is more "humane" on some level.
> >
>>Capitalism is what leads to wealth when it happens.
>>
>>But basically all capitalistic countries are much poorer than before in
>>that the citizenry has much less.
>> this trend can do nothing but continue until resources are completely
>>exhausted.
>> >>
>
>This is an complete error, a complete leftist-propaganda falsity. The world >population has doubled since 1960, and the percentage of people who live in >poverty has been cut in half (see "The Pentagon's New Map", by Thomas P.M. >Barnett, page 32, end of first paragraph)
> >
It was my own observation as it is not something i have heard so
Left propaganda is a bit of name calling. Possibly i was just looking at thing here

>At the same time the World Bank has noted the emergence of new Globalist >economies, roughly 2 dozen (read 'Capitalism') since the 1980's--including >South Korea, Brazil, India, and China.
> >
The world bank has it s own propaganda, what they call economies are those who owe them allot of money, hence they are well satisfied with this type of "progress' Which is basically their own

>Also, the transformation of Germany and Japan post-WWII *worked*--they are now >part of Globalization's 'functioning core', to use Barnett's term. I hate to >say it, but Bush may be setting a successful transformation in motion--the >same risky gamble Truman's administration made post-WWII to transform Nazi >Germany and Imperialist Japan into Birkenstock, leftist Germany and >ultra-capitalist Toyota making Japan! >
But these countries were just as big BEFORE the war, we did nothing but have them rebuild to what they where had they had not been in a war.

>My largest critique of Bush would have >to be in the area of being a symbolic figurehead to a cultural 'dumbing-down'
>
I think it is cultural suppression, no different than it was under Stalin.

> >and sponsoring 'bad science', as well as destroying the environment. >
i addressed this one below

>But it >may be to early to judge the success of the neo-con agenda in the >Middle-East, just as people thought transforming Germany and Japan was a pipe >dream.
> >
I don't think any one thought it was a problem, we had barely won the war against them and maybe at the beginning
we might have Naively thought they were nothing, by the end, we felt what they were capable of doing.

>Basically, the areas of mass poverty and violence in the world are the very >same areas that refuse to play by the new rules of globalization--
>
This violence is fed from the outside in order to set up future slave markets

>meaning >their leaders suppress contact with the 'core', have no free press to speak >of,
>
i am sorry , there is no free speech here of any importance. It is suppressed by economic means. I find it almost impossible to get real news.
those alternative sources lack the economic ability to cover except the most blatant events.

> no real free trade
>
what you call free trade , i call slave labor

>, have abundant, particularly Islamic, religious >fundamentalism
>
the most fundamentalist are the saudi arabians. Iraq was the most secular, and the most free for the women of any society in the region.

>, or suppress all religion ala Maoist Communism, and no >emerging women's rights movement. > >
The woman's movement is possible will be dealt the final blow within the next four years.
The only thing they have been allowed to "accomplish" is to be forced upon the job market via the economic pressure
that made a one person income in a family insufficient

> >
>>Capitalism is Suicide by environmental means
>> >>
>
>I think the way America does it is flawed and short-sighted, yes. But there >are other models of environmentally responsible Capitalism. Perhaps the >answer lies with a tempering of Capitalism by some socialistic ideas.
> >
Well this is what Marx could not foresee that gov't could by intervention hold economic power in check ( not that at this moment , it hasn't gotten the other hand.)
In turn this interventionism could becomes as much as an oppressor as capitalism ran wild. It requires a check and balances between any and all forms of power, otherwise it is only a matter of time before one will be indistinguishable from fascism.

> >
>>At a certain stage in life, if one keeps growing, we call it
>>Cancer-James Hillman
>> >>
>
>This would also be true of the political left as much as it is of the >political right.
> >
I wasn't speaking of the right or left. these terms are meaningless. either you have rights or you don't and this is the real issue.
It was a reference to uncontrolled capitalism. It is not short sided . It is quite deliberate and they know damn well what they are doing and when the time comes , you can be sure that they will already have the pieces in place to preserve the position they enjoy.

>The 'Truth' is always down the middle, and never with the radicals of either >side.
> >

It is the radicals that have fostered the revolutions that so far we have benefited from. It is true that all revolutions if successful become institutionalized, it does not take away from the source. The founders of this countries were radicals. The great Compromisers failed miserably to prevent the civil war

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Sunday 02 January 2005 05:30 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> >> Russia collapsed from the arms race with the U.S. not because of their
> >>system .
> >>It was much richer than under the fascism of the czar and is poorer now
> >>that it is more democratic
> >>We really know nothing about communism since it has never had the
> >>opportunity to exist without outside forces undermining it.
> >
> >We do know that wherever it *has* existed, it has done so by the will of a
> >brutal violent elite (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Caucescu) that leveraged the
> >working class angst against an aristocratic elite, and then ignored that
> > same working class and became the next elite. Stalin and Mao never lived
> > like a peasant lived. True communism is a pipe dream, it defies human
> > nature.
>
> Well stalin didn't set up russia and the problem of any totalitarism is
> that it does not have any safe guards to deal with "bad" leaders. I do
> think Lenin forsaw more trouble with Germany and put in the man he
> though was up to that task. which he was. remember , they made it to
> Germany and Berlin way before us.

Stalin was also up to the task of brutally supressing and killing more than 20
million people. He was far worse than Hitler when you measure it by body
count.

The problem of any totalitarianism is simply that it is totalitarian.

> Most tribal societies are strongly communistic as far as shared
> economy, so i am not sure that it is defies human nature. Possibly all
> political systems defy human nature. Fascism seems more so.
> But all these terms are confusing because the measure of a society is
> better measured by the amount of freedom of it citizenry. Under this
> criteria, communism and fascism in many cases so far are no different.
> Possibly now that Democracy has little rivalry in Ideology, it is
> possible it could become the same way.
> The latter though is better suited with dealing with bad leaders, or
> easily can be modified to do so. for this reason , it is the best choice

Well I'm glad we agree that Democracy is the best of all possible choices,
even though H.L. Mencken observed that "as the population gets dumber, they
elect a dumb-ass" (I paraphrase), a built in problem. (e.g. the 2004
election.)

> >>not that it is a real system, cause it has no method to run things
> >
> >...except violent repression, which it does better than anyone. Stalin
> > killed 20 million of his own citizens.
>
> Yes capitalism is better at making individuals economic sacrifices,
> which i guess is more "humane" on some level.

Show me a more humane economic system than Democratic capitalism *in
practice*, and I'll show you Maoist/Stalinist propaganda.

> >>Capitalism is what leads to wealth when it happens.
> >>
> >>But basically all capitalistic countries are much poorer than before in
> >>that the citizenry has much less.
> >> this trend can do nothing but continue until resources are completely
> >>exhausted.
> >
> >This is an complete error, a complete leftist-propaganda falsity. The
> > world population has doubled since 1960, and the percentage of people who
> > live in poverty has been cut in half (see "The Pentagon's New Map", by
> > Thomas P.M. Barnett, page 32, end of first paragraph)
>
> It was my own observation as it is not something i have heard so
> Left propaganda is a bit of name calling. Possibly i was just looking
> at thing here

Well, yes I was name calling, sorry. But my facts are true and on the record.
And such a growth is due to globalization's advance, in spite of all the
leftists' protesting. Many of these left-leaning political activists have no
objectivity when it comes to simple facts like that, and always have an
agenda to skew them in their favor. Ditto the Right Wing (the Bill O'Reilly
viewers and the Rush Limbaughs). One should always be a scientists and tend
to think the truth is in the sober middle of things.

> >At the same time the World Bank has noted the emergence of new Globalist
> >economies, roughly 2 dozen (read 'Capitalism') since the 1980's--including
> >South Korea, Brazil, India, and China.
>
> The world bank has it s own propaganda, what they call economies are
> those who owe them allot of money, hence they are well satisfied with
> this type of "progress' Which is basically their own

Well, this is the crux of capitalism: enlightened selfishness. You would still
have a hard time arguing that the standard of living in these countries has
not improved. So, don't blame the world bank for profitting or needing to
profit. Ultimately its profits go back into nation building anyhow--improving
the social and economic situation in emerging global markets.

> >Also, the transformation of Germany and Japan post-WWII *worked*--they are
> > now part of Globalization's 'functioning core', to use Barnett's term. I
> > hate to say it, but Bush may be setting a successful transformation in
> > motion--the same risky gamble Truman's administration made post-WWII to
> > transform Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan into Birkenstock, leftist
> > Germany and ultra-capitalist Toyota making Japan!
>
> But these countries were just as big BEFORE the war, we did nothing but
> have them rebuild to what they where had they had not been in a war.

You are choosing conveniently to ignore my point, which is that we *changed*
the very fabric and flavor of their Fascist cultures! We turned one of the
most dangerous nations in the world, Germany, into a tame dove. Ditto Japan.

> >My largest critique of Bush would have
> >to be in the area of being a symbolic figurehead to a cultural
> > 'dumbing-down'
>
> I think it is cultural suppression, no different than it was under Stalin.

Please. You wouldn't last a single day under Stalin. You do no justice to real
suffering when you engage in such reactionary hyperbole.

> >and sponsoring 'bad science', as well as destroying the environment.
>
> i addressed this one below
>
> >But it
> >may be to early to judge the success of the neo-con agenda in the
> >Middle-East, just as people thought transforming Germany and Japan was a
> > pipe dream.
>
> I don't think any one thought it was a problem, we had barely won the
> war against them and maybe at the beginning
> we might have Naively thought they were nothing, by the end, we felt
> what they were capable of doing.

...which is why people thought turning hawkish Germany into dovish Germany was
a pipe dream. My point exactly.

> >Basically, the areas of mass poverty and violence in the world are the
> > very same areas that refuse to play by the new rules of globalization--
>
> This violence is fed from the outside in order to set up future slave
> markets

Not at all. The countries which are 'slave markets' are willing to benefit
from joining the advance of globalization. Just look at China, which is in
transition to become *more* liberal. Indeed, 'behaving well' on the world
stage is becoming more and more the clear prerequisite to being welcomed into
the fold of wealth.

The countries which reject this want to return to the 11th century. (Saudi
Arabia, many of the "blah-blah"-stans: Afghanistan, etc.)

> >meaning
> >their leaders suppress contact with the 'core', have no free press to
> > speak of,
>
> i am sorry , there is no free speech here of any importance. It is
> suppressed by economic means. I find it almost impossible to get real news.
> those alternative sources lack the economic ability to cover except the
> most blatant events.

It's not the best press in the US, but it is neither the worst. Considering
the 'inhomogenousness' of the population, it rates quite high. Although there
*are* some really disturbing trends (corporate monopolies ala Rupert
Murdoch's Clear Channel)

> > no real free trade
>
> what you call free trade , i call slave labor
>

Again, show me a better way instead of more leftist rhetoric.

> >, have abundant, particularly Islamic, religious
> >fundamentalism
>
> the most fundamentalist are the saudi arabians. Iraq was the most
> secular, and the most free for the women of any society in the region.

For Ba'athist Sunni women perhaps. Not Kurds or Shiites. Man, it seems like
you ignore a lot of basic facts about the world stage!

Do you remember hearing about those Northern Iraqi gas attacks?

> >, or suppress all religion ala Maoist Communism, and no
> >emerging women's rights movement.
>
> The woman's movement is possible will be dealt the final blow within
> the next four years.
> The only thing they have been allowed to "accomplish" is to be forced
> upon the job market via the economic pressure
> that made a one person income in a family insufficient

Well, I think our culture of consumption is to blame. Keeping up with the
Joneses is to blame. Plus, women who don't chose to work, to be stay-at-home
moms are shamed now, a downside of the movement. A women's movement that
shames a portion of its populus is a failed movement, IMO.

> >>At a certain stage in life, if one keeps growing, we call it
> >>Cancer-James Hillman
> >
> >This would also be true of the political left as much as it is of the
> >political right.
>
> I wasn't speaking of the right or left. these terms are meaningless.

No, they are not meaningless. They have a definite definition and a definite
connotation.

> either you have rights or you don't and this is the real issue.
> It was a reference to uncontrolled capitalism. It is not short sided .
> It is quite deliberate and they know damn well what they are doing and
> when the time comes , you can be sure that they will already have the
> pieces in place to preserve the position they enjoy.

I think that it's possible to be wealthy and a responsible individual. i don't
demonize wealth. I hope to be quite wealthy someday. Money can buy lots of
neat musical tools, and comfort, and I think it's wrong to shame people for
wanting that.

Good for them who succeed! They are smart, they played the game, and won. As
long as they do no harm to others, more power to them! Plus, philanthropy is
and always was the greatest contributor to the growth of all of the arts.
Wealthy people often have the means and power to contibute to the betterment
of humanity. Bill Gates has given more money than any other human being ever
to various causes.

I still don't like/use Windows though. Do you?

> >The 'Truth' is always down the middle, and never with the radicals of
> > either side.
>
> It is the radicals that have fostered the revolutions that so far we
> have benefited from. It is true that all revolutions if successful
> become institutionalized, it does not take away from the source. The
> founders of this countries were radicals. The great Compromisers failed
> miserably to prevent the civil war

Good point. Perhaps the exception might prove to be radical believers in free
market Democracy. History bears this out so far, in that it has 'won' on the
world stage.

Best,
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>On Sunday 02 January 2005 05:30 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>> >>
>
>Well I'm glad we agree that Democracy is the best of all possible choices, >even though H.L. Mencken observed that "as the population gets dumber, they >elect a dumb-ass" (I paraphrase), a built in problem. (e.g. the 2004 >election.)
> >
I still do not accept nor believe he was elected.

> >
>>>>not that it is a real system, cause it has no method to run things
>>>> >>>>
>>>...except violent repression, which it does better than anyone. Stalin
>>>killed 20 million of his own citizens.
>>> >>>
>> Yes capitalism is better at making individuals economic sacrifices,
>>which i guess is more "humane" on some level.
>> >>
>
>Show me a more humane economic system than Democratic capitalism *in >practice*, and I'll show you Maoist/Stalinist propaganda.
> >
Many of the fascist atrocities would not have been possible without our intervention. see central and south america over the last 200 years.

>
>Well, this is the crux of capitalism: enlightened selfishness. You would still >have a hard time arguing that the standard of living in these countries has >not improved. So, don't blame the world bank for profitting or needing to >profit. Ultimately its profits go back into nation building anyhow--improving >the social and economic situation in emerging global markets.
> >
The standard of living in this country has done anything but improved

> >
>>>Also, the transformation of Germany and Japan post-WWII *worked*--they are
>>>now part of Globalization's 'functioning core', to use Barnett's term. I
>>>hate to say it, but Bush may be setting a successful transformation in
>>>motion--the same risky gamble Truman's administration made post-WWII to
>>>transform Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan into Birkenstock, leftist
>>>Germany and ultra-capitalist Toyota making Japan!
>>> >>>
>>But these countries were just as big BEFORE the war, we did nothing but
>>have them rebuild to what they where had they had not been in a war.
>> >>
>
>You are choosing conveniently to ignore my point, which is that we *changed* >the very fabric and flavor of their Fascist cultures! We turned one of the >most dangerous nations in the world, Germany, into a tame dove. Ditto Japan.
> >
no i am not. the point was that you believe that fascism leads to economic growth. these two countries did well under fascism. their taming has nothing to do with this has nothing to do with capitalism

> >
>>>My largest critique of Bush would have
>>>to be in the area of being a symbolic figurehead to a cultural
>>>'dumbing-down'
>>> >>>
>> I think it is cultural suppression, no different than it was under Stalin.
>> >>
>
>Please. You wouldn't last a single day under Stalin. >
It is a question if i am surviving now. If i exist as an artist here, it is despite the system , not because of it.
Even with larger shows , it cost me more than i am paid.

>You do no justice to real >suffering when you engage in such reactionary hyperbole.
> >
true it is on a different scale than physical torture, things could change in this regard too.
but you have no idea what i go through and what it has cost me and what it cost others.
95% of the people who i played music with when i started no longer play or if they do play , it is not what they are the least bit interested in.
Partch as an example
But he could not exist today.
He would not be able to house his instruments anywhere, he barely could while he was alive.

Rod Poole recently gave up performing publicly

How many places are there for you to present your work where you are and how often can you perform there?

Right now if i put on a concert, it is cheaper for me to present someone from sweden cause , if i send them a letter , funding is taken care of at that end . I
cannot afford to present american artist. This is exactly how spaces here in La.. are run. Even NY state has more funding than California which makes it cheaper to present NY people
than those here.

> >
>>
>
>...which is why people thought turning hawkish Germany into dovish Germany was >a pipe dream. My point exactly.
> >
I don't know of anyone who thought it was a pipe dream. they were all scared to death of Germany and it took half a century before they would let them reunite

> >
>>>Basically, the areas of mass poverty and violence in the world are the
>>>very same areas that refuse to play by the new rules of globalization--
>>> >>>
>> This violence is fed from the outside in order to set up future slave
>>markets
>> >>
>
>Not at all. The countries which are 'slave markets' are willing to benefit >from joining the advance of globalization. Just look at China, which is in >transition to become *more* liberal.
>
Oh really , how is this

> Indeed, 'behaving well' on the world >stage is becoming more and more the clear prerequisite to being welcomed into >the fold of wealth.
> >
Does Tenamen Square qualify as 'behaving well', does threatening Japan with repercussions if it gives the dalai lama a visa to go into their country, or driving a nuclear sub into one of their harbors, their threatening of to attack Taiwan? No 'behaving well' is nothing more than providing cheap labor or out right slave labor.

>The countries which reject this want to return to the 11th century. (Saudi >Arabia, many of the "blah-blah"-stans: Afghanistan, etc.) > >
Allot of it is that they don't want to be overrun either culturally or economically which is what would and probably will happen. They know they will end up like central or South america. Unfortunately regressing to golden age never works, not for us either

> >
>>>meaning
>>>their leaders suppress contact with the 'core', have no free press to
>>>speak of,
>>> >>>
>> i am sorry , there is no free speech here of any importance. It is
>>suppressed by economic means. I find it almost impossible to get real news.
>> those alternative sources lack the economic ability to cover except the
>>most blatant events.
>> >>
>
>It's not the best press in the US, but it is neither the worst. Considering >the 'inhomogenousness' of the population, it rates quite high. Although there >*are* some really disturbing trends (corporate monopolies ala Rupert >Murdoch's Clear Channel)
>
> >
>>>no real free trade
>>> >>>
>>what you call free trade , i call slave labor
>>
>> >>
>
>Again, show me a better way instead of more leftist rhetoric.
> >
What is so free about Free trade , the people are not free at 17 cents an hour . this is capitalistic rhetoric.
go into a sweatshop and look at the bloodied hands of those at sewing machines there are actually a couple of these here within 1/4 of a mile from where i sit.
> For Ba'athist Sunni women perhaps. Not Kurds or Shiites. Man, it seems > like
>
>> <>you ignore a lot of basic facts about the world stage!
>
Not quite, The Iraqi women have not had to hide there faces in quite a long time. In fact it was the only country in that area where this was true

>Do you remember hearing about those Northern Iraqi gas attacks?
> >
the evidence I have seen points to this was done by the iranians

> >
>> Well, I think our culture of consumption is to blame. Keeping up with >> the
>
>Joneses is to blame. Plus, women who don't chose to work, to be stay-at-home >moms are shamed now, a downside of the movement. A women's movement that >shames a portion of its populus is a failed movement, IMO.
>
> >
>>>>At a certain stage in life, if one keeps growing, we call it
>>>>Cancer-James Hillman
>>>> >>>>
>>>This would also be true of the political left as much as it is of the
>>>political right.
>>> >>>
>> I wasn't speaking of the right or left. these terms are meaningless.
>> >>
>
>No, they are not meaningless. They have a definite definition and a definite >connotation.
>
> >
But they do not represent the true struggle

>>either you have rights or you don't and this is the real issue.
>> It was a reference to uncontrolled capitalism. It is not short sided .
>>It is quite deliberate and they know damn well what they are doing and
>>when the time comes , you can be sure that they will already have the
>>pieces in place to preserve the position they enjoy.
>> >>
>
> >

>I think that it's possible to be wealthy and a responsible individual.
>
> i don't >demonize wealth. I hope to be quite wealthy someday. Money can buy lots of >neat musical tools, and comfort, and I think it's wrong to shame people for >wanting that.
> >
obviously there are good and bad in every group. It is the endless appetite , the "hungry ghost" which no matter how much they get, they want more.

>Good for them who succeed! They are smart, they played the game, and won.
>
People when the game for all types of reason, often intelligence has nothing to do with it.

> As >long as they do no harm to others, more power to them! Plus, philanthropy is >and always was the greatest contributor to the growth of all of the arts. > >
What companies are giving money to the arts these days, and i don't mean museums, i mean who gives money for the development toward the creation of new art on anything but the largest scale

>Wealthy people often have the means and power to contibute to the betterment >of humanity. Bill Gates has given more money than any other human being ever >to various causes. > >
i do not think the arts are high on his list.

>I still don't like/use Windows though. Do you?
> >
I don't but i am sure that i use lots of things he owns without my knowledge

> >
>>>The 'Truth' is always down the middle, and never with the radicals of
>>>either side.
>>> >>>
>> It is the radicals that have fostered the revolutions that so far we
>>have benefited from. It is true that all revolutions if successful
>>become institutionalized, it does not take away from the source. The
>>founders of this countries were radicals. The great Compromisers failed
>>miserably to prevent the civil war
>> >>
>
>Good point. Perhaps the exception might prove to be radical believers in free >market Democracy. History bears this out so far, in that it has 'won' on the >world stage.
> >
What has it won? mediocrity

>Best,
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Monday 03 January 2005 01:39 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
> >On Sunday 02 January 2005 05:30 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >>Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >Well I'm glad we agree that Democracy is the best of all possible choices,
> >even though H.L. Mencken observed that "as the population gets dumber,
> > they elect a dumb-ass" (I paraphrase), a built in problem. (e.g. the 2004
> > election.)
>
> I still do not accept nor believe he was elected.

That creates a real problem, because reasoning requires being reasonable!

> >>>>not that it is a real system, cause it has no method to run things
> >>>
> >>>...except violent repression, which it does better than anyone. Stalin
> >>>killed 20 million of his own citizens.
> >>
> >> Yes capitalism is better at making individuals economic sacrifices,
> >>which i guess is more "humane" on some level.
> >
> >Show me a more humane economic system than Democratic capitalism *in
> >practice*, and I'll show you Maoist/Stalinist propaganda.
>
> Many of the fascist atrocities would not have been possible without our
> intervention. see central and south america over the last 200 years.

Vague and vaguer. Give me an example. Plus, my question was: "show me a more
humane economic system than Democratic Capitalism."

> >Well, this is the crux of capitalism: enlightened selfishness. You would
> > still have a hard time arguing that the standard of living in these
> > countries has not improved. So, don't blame the world bank for profitting
> > or needing to profit. Ultimately its profits go back into nation building
> > anyhow--improving the social and economic situation in emerging global
> > markets.
>
> The standard of living in this country has done anything but improved

Can you quote some real statistical figures to back this up?

> >>>Also, the transformation of Germany and Japan post-WWII *worked*--they
> >>> are now part of Globalization's 'functioning core', to use Barnett's
> >>> term. I hate to say it, but Bush may be setting a successful
> >>> transformation in motion--the same risky gamble Truman's administration
> >>> made post-WWII to transform Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan into
> >>> Birkenstock, leftist Germany and ultra-capitalist Toyota making Japan!
> >>
> >>But these countries were just as big BEFORE the war, we did nothing but
> >>have them rebuild to what they where had they had not been in a war.
> >
> >You are choosing conveniently to ignore my point, which is that we
> > *changed* the very fabric and flavor of their Fascist cultures! We turned
> > one of the most dangerous nations in the world, Germany, into a tame
> > dove. Ditto Japan.
>
> no i am not. the point was that you believe that fascism leads to
> economic growth. these two countries did well under fascism. their
> taming has nothing to do with this has nothing to do with capitalism

They are both now capitalist democracies. We won WWII, remember? The winner
gets to impose conditions, treaties, etc.

> >>>My largest critique of Bush would have
> >>>to be in the area of being a symbolic figurehead to a cultural
> >>>'dumbing-down'
> >>
> >> I think it is cultural suppression, no different than it was under
> >> Stalin.
> >
> >Please. You wouldn't last a single day under Stalin.
>
> It is a question if i am surviving now. If i exist as an artist here,
> it is despite the system , not because of it.
> Even with larger shows , it cost me more than i am paid.

I know it's tough, but people *do* get grants, etc. Maybe you know someone who
can write grants?

> >You do no justice to real
> >suffering when you engage in such reactionary hyperbole.
>
> true it is on a different scale than physical torture, things could
> change in this regard too.
> but you have no idea what i go through and what it has cost me and what
> it cost others.
> 95% of the people who i played music with when i started no longer
> play or if they do play , it is not what they are the least bit
> interested in.
>
> Partch as an example
> But he could not exist today.
> He would not be able to house his instruments anywhere, he barely could
> while he was alive.
>
> Rod Poole recently gave up performing publicly
>
> How many places are there for you to present your work where you are and
> how often can you perform there?
>
> Right now if i put on a concert, it is cheaper for me to present
> someone from sweden cause , if i send them a letter , funding is taken
> care of at that end . I
> cannot afford to present american artist. This is exactly how spaces
> here in La.. are run. Even NY state has more funding than California
> which makes it cheaper to present NY people
> than those here.

The arts funding is a problem, because people who do have innovative and
beautiful things to say often don't have the knowledge or energy to promote
themselves (certainly true of me). And then there is the agent problem:
agents take people on who already have a perceived dollar value. This is why
I think some socialist ideas could be injected into our system with real
benefit, like I said in the last email.

OTOH, many many fine musicians, composers and performers are flourishing and
our successful here. So one has to get to a certain level of expertise within
the system to leverage it to one's advantage.

> >...which is why people thought turning hawkish Germany into dovish Germany
> > was a pipe dream. My point exactly.
>
> I don't know of anyone who thought it was a pipe dream. they were all
> scared to death of Germany and it took half a century before they would
> let them reunite
>
> >>>Basically, the areas of mass poverty and violence in the world are the
> >>>very same areas that refuse to play by the new rules of globalization--
> >>
> >> This violence is fed from the outside in order to set up future slave
> >>markets
> >
> >Not at all. The countries which are 'slave markets' are willing to benefit
> >from joining the advance of globalization. Just look at China, which is in
> >transition to become *more* liberal.
>
> Oh really , how is this

see below...

> > Indeed, 'behaving well' on the world
> >stage is becoming more and more the clear prerequisite to being welcomed
> > into the fold of wealth.
>
> Does Tenamen Square qualify as 'behaving well', does threatening Japan
> with repercussions if it gives the dalai lama a visa to go into their
> country, or driving a nuclear sub into one of their harbors, their
> threatening of to attack Taiwan? No 'behaving well' is nothing more than
> providing cheap labor or out right slave labor.

No. But these things all happened *before* they were admitted into the WTO.
And IMO, I agree that they still do not 'behave well'. But in principle, the
idea of admitting only well-behaved countries is sound. We just have to live
up to that principle, and it's hard when you have an oppurtunist
administration.

> >The countries which reject this want to return to the 11th century. (Saudi
> >Arabia, many of the "blah-blah"-stans: Afghanistan, etc.)
>
> Allot of it is that they don't want to be overrun either culturally or
> economically which is what would and probably will happen. They know
> they will end up like central or South america. Unfortunately regressing
> to golden age never works, not for us either

There is no evidence that Central or South America has lost its indigenous
flavor. Cultures have successfully collide for centuries. It's part of
growing up and living together.

> >>>meaning
> >>>their leaders suppress contact with the 'core', have no free press to
> >>>speak of,
> >>
> >> i am sorry , there is no free speech here of any importance. It is
> >>suppressed by economic means. I find it almost impossible to get real
> >> news. those alternative sources lack the economic ability to cover
> >> except the most blatant events.
> >
> >It's not the best press in the US, but it is neither the worst.
> > Considering the 'inhomogenousness' of the population, it rates quite
> > high. Although there *are* some really disturbing trends (corporate
> > monopolies ala Rupert Murdoch's Clear Channel)
> >
> >>>no real free trade
> >>
> >>what you call free trade , i call slave labor
> >
> >Again, show me a better way instead of more leftist rhetoric.
>
> What is so free about Free trade , the people are not free at 17 cents
> an hour . this is capitalistic rhetoric.
> go into a sweatshop and look at the bloodied hands of those at sewing
> machines there are actually a couple of these here within 1/4 of a mile
> from where i sit.

No one is being paid 17cents and hour *legally* in the US. We have a minimum
wage (not a good one, I'll agree) But the political process has to work that
question out.

> > For Ba'athist Sunni women perhaps. Not Kurds or Shiites. Man, it seems
> > like
> >
> >> <>you ignore a lot of basic facts about the world stage!
>
> Not quite, The Iraqi women have not had to hide there faces in quite a
> long time. In fact it was the only country in that area where this was true
>
> >Do you remember hearing about those Northern Iraqi gas attacks?
>
> the evidence I have seen points to this was done by the iranians

Let me ask you this: it seems that you only believe the news or history that
comfortably fits your world view. What is your criterion for taking anything
as the truth? You seem to be suckered into believing all the internet-style
conspiricy theories (uncoraborated), and don't believe a network of
fact-checking and competitive journalists, who jockey to be the most-reliable
source (coraborated). Why do you believe that say the Holocaust happened, but
not Saddam's gas attacks? And Saddam was just an angel, right?

> >> Well, I think our culture of consumption is to blame. Keeping up with
> >> the
> >
> >Joneses is to blame. Plus, women who don't chose to work, to be
> > stay-at-home moms are shamed now, a downside of the movement. A women's
> > movement that shames a portion of its populus is a failed movement, IMO.
> >
> >>>>At a certain stage in life, if one keeps growing, we call it
> >>>>Cancer-James Hillman
> >>>
> >>>This would also be true of the political left as much as it is of the
> >>>political right.
> >>
> >> I wasn't speaking of the right or left. these terms are meaningless.
> >
> >No, they are not meaningless. They have a definite definition and a
> > definite connotation.
>
> But they do not represent the true struggle

But they are not meaningless like you said they were. The true struggle is
what?

Right now one of the true struggle(s) is in the areas devastated by the
tsunami. I challenge everyone who can afford internet access to consider that
they are comfortable enough to contribute some of their earnings towards that
effort.

> >>either you have rights or you don't and this is the real issue.
> >> It was a reference to uncontrolled capitalism. It is not short sided .
> >>It is quite deliberate and they know damn well what they are doing and
> >>when the time comes , you can be sure that they will already have the
> >>pieces in place to preserve the position they enjoy.
> >
> >I think that it's possible to be wealthy and a responsible individual.
> >
> > i don't
> >demonize wealth. I hope to be quite wealthy someday. Money can buy lots of
> >neat musical tools, and comfort, and I think it's wrong to shame people
> > for wanting that.
>
> obviously there are good and bad in every group. It is the endless
> appetite , the "hungry ghost" which no matter how much they get, they
> want more.
>
> >Good for them who succeed! They are smart, they played the game, and won.
>
> People when the game for all types of reason, often intelligence has
> nothing to do with it.

Well, yes, but there is always some type of cunning involved. Book smarts
often don't make money smarts. But smarts can be rich and poor, and stupidity
can be rich and poor.

> > As
> >long as they do no harm to others, more power to them! Plus, philanthropy
> > is and always was the greatest contributor to the growth of all of the
> > arts.
>
> What companies are giving money to the arts these days, and i don't
> mean museums, i mean who gives money for the development toward the
> creation of new art on anything but the largest scale

Here's a page with a ton of links on funding for new music creation and
performance: http://www.soundart.org/drctry.html Look under the heading 'New
Music Organizations'

> >Wealthy people often have the means and power to contibute to the
> > betterment of humanity. Bill Gates has given more money than any other
> > human being ever to various causes.
>
> i do not think the arts are high on his list.

Maybe not, but there are certainly others who do.

> > Perhaps the exception might prove to be radical believers in
> > free market Democracy. History bears this out so far, in that it has
> > 'won' on the world stage.
>
> What has it won? mediocrity
>

Politically: We are the wealthiest country in the world, and the largest
charitable contributor as well. We remain the most popular destination for
those who leave seeking new opportunity and freedom. We are unchallenged at
sea, and the sole remaining superpower. Hardly mediocre, considering every
nation large enough to aspire to these things has failed where we have
succeeded. (save maybe Britain, who did it with suave brutality) This is not
to say we can't be better, more humane, less cruel. Our prison system sucks
for instance, and there are still many more people who have yet to benefit by
being removed from poverty. Too many. Our press needs more transparency, etc.
Many local political machines are corrupt or mafia-driven. Many of these
things have made me long for Sweden. But there are also downsides to
Socialism. Extremely high taxes for instance. $ for $, we still keep more of
our own money here, even after paying out of pocket for services socialist
countries pay for with taxation.

Musically: You are a product of free-market Democratic culture. Are you
mediocre? Was Harry Partch mediocre? Charles Ives? Steve Reich? John Adams?
Aaron Copland? George Crumb?

In the other arts as well, America is a supreme innovator.

How did you mean mediocre, then?

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>
>>I still do not accept nor believe he was elected.
>> >>
>
>That creates a real problem, because reasoning requires being reasonable!
>
> >
There is ample evidence of computer fraud which still continues

>>
>>Many of the fascist atrocities would not have been possible without our
>>intervention. see central and south america over the last 200 years.
>> >>
>
>Vague and vaguer. Give me an example. Plus, my question was: "show me a more >humane economic system than Democratic Capitalism."
> >
Chile was done with our approval , in fact we egged pinochet on, even the assassination of American citizens who were there.
I would rather accept that there is no humane domain that white wash and bury my head in the sand with terms that don't apply
> >
>>>Well, this is the crux of capitalism: enlightened selfishness. You would
>>>still have a hard time arguing that the standard of living in these
>>>countries has not improved. So, don't blame the world bank for profitting
>>>or needing to profit. Ultimately its profits go back into nation building
>>>anyhow--improving the social and economic situation in emerging global
>>>markets.
>>> >>>
>> The standard of living in this country has done anything but improved
>> >>
>
>Can you quote some real statistical figures to back this up?
> >
Just compare inflation over the last 30 years to increases in workers income. Ask anyone who has been alive long enough and they will tell you.
Right now cities like San francisco are running out of art spaces because they cannot afford to keep them going. L. a. is about to follow suit.

>>
>> >>
>>>>>Basically, the areas of mass poverty and violence in the world are the
>>>>>very same areas that refuse to play by the new rules of globalization--
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>This violence is fed from the outside in order to set up future slave
>>>>markets
>>>> >>>>
>>>Not at all. The countries which are 'slave markets' are willing to benefit
>>> >>>
>>>from joining the advance of globalization. Just look at China, which is in
>> >>
>>>transition to become *more* liberal.
>>> >>>
>>Oh really , how is this
>> >>
>
>see below...
>
> >
>>>Indeed, 'behaving well' on the world
>>>stage is becoming more and more the clear prerequisite to being welcomed
>>>into the fold of wealth.
>>> >>>
>> Does Tenamen Square qualify as 'behaving well', does threatening Japan
>>with repercussions if it gives the dalai lama a visa to go into their
>>country, or driving a nuclear sub into one of their harbors, their
>>threatening of to attack Taiwan? No 'behaving well' is nothing more than
>>providing cheap labor or out right slave labor.
>> >>
>
>No. But these things all happened *before* they were admitted into the WTO. >And IMO, I agree that they still do not 'behave well'. But in principle, the >idea of admitting only well-behaved countries is sound. We just have to live >up to that principle, and it's hard when you have an oppurtunist >administration.
> >
this country is not interested in other countries that behave well .We are interested in whether they can provide cheap goods or not.
Look at Haiti, the leader wanted to raise the minimum wage 1 cent and they organized a fake coup to oust him. He di not 'behave well"

> >
>>>The countries which reject this want to return to the 11th century. (Saudi
>>>Arabia, many of the "blah-blah"-stans: Afghanistan, etc.)
>>> >>>
>> Allot of it is that they don't want to be overrun either culturally or
>>economically which is what would and probably will happen. They know
>>they will end up like central or South america. Unfortunately regressing
>>to golden age never works, not for us either
>> >>
>
>There is no evidence that Central or South America has lost its indigenous >flavor.
>
tell that to the people in the highlands of Guatemala, if you can find many alive

> Cultures have successfully collide for centuries. It's part of >growing up and living together.
> >
once again the growth you describe i describe as cancer

>
> >
>>
>
>No one is being paid 17cents and hour *legally* in the US. We have a minimum >wage (not a good one, I'll agree) But the political process has to work that >question out.
>
> >
No but this is what we foster and do our damnedest to keep in other countries by undermining any types of unions . that what our CIA is for suppressing the rights of workers in places
where

>>>For Ba'athist Sunni women perhaps. Not Kurds or Shiites. Man, it seems
>>>like
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>><>you ignore a lot of basic facts about the world stage!
>>>> >>>>
>> Not quite, The Iraqi women have not had to hide there faces in quite a
>>long time. In fact it was the only country in that area where this was true
>>
>> >>
>>>Do you remember hearing about those Northern Iraqi gas attacks?
>>> >>>
>>the evidence I have seen points to this was done by the iranians
>> >>
>
>Let me ask you this: it seems that you only believe the news or history that >comfortably fits your world view. What is your criterion for taking anything >as the truth? You seem to be suckered into believing all the internet-style >conspiricy theories (uncoraborated), >
there is plenty of evidence of this in the european press. there are conspiracy . what do you think all those think tanks in washington do,
just what do you think these people are paid to do

>and don't believe a network of >fact-checking and competitive journalists, >
competitive? all the main stream news say the exact same thing, often at the same time?

>who jockey to be the most-reliable >source (coraborated). >
like the weapons of mass destruction? thus is what you call reliable?
they are the propaganda wing of the military, they have only a a short term memory are often counterdict themselves even over a period of a month without any acknowledgment of what they have said.

>Why do you believe that say the Holocaust happened, but >not Saddam's gas attacks? And Saddam was just an angel, right?
> >
I didn't say that the attacks did not happen, just it is not clear , who did them .
Saddam is a prime example of one of our puppets, and we wouldn't care a damn about anything he did, if he only would have stayed in line.

> >
>
>
>Well, yes, but there is always some type of cunning involved. Book smarts >often don't make money smarts. But smarts can be rich and poor, and stupidity >can be rich and poor.
> >
Not even cunning . Often people are handed positions by their parents for instance

> >
>>>As
>>>long as they do no harm to others, more power to them! Plus, philanthropy
>>>is and always was the greatest contributor to the growth of all of the
>>>arts.
>>> >>>
>> What companies are giving money to the arts these days, and i don't
>>mean museums, i mean who gives money for the development toward the
>>creation of new art on anything but the largest scale
>> >>
>
>Here's a page with a ton of links on funding for new music creation and >performance: http://www.soundart.org/drctry.html Look under the heading 'New >Music Organizations'
>
> >
>
> >
>>>Perhaps the exception might prove to be radical believers in
>>>free market Democracy. History bears this out so far, in that it has
>>>'won' on the world stage.
>>> >>>
>> What has it won? mediocrity
>>
>> >>
>
>Politically: We are the wealthiest country in the world, and the largest >charitable contributor as well. We remain the most popular destination for >those who leave seeking new opportunity and freedom. We are unchallenged at >sea, and the sole remaining superpower.
>
yawn

> Hardly mediocre, considering every >nation large enough to aspire to these things has failed where we have >succeeded. (save maybe Britain, who did it with suave brutality) >
succeeded at what? having more rich people?

>This is not >to say we can't be better, more humane, less cruel. Our prison system sucks >for instance, and there are still many more people who have yet to benefit by >being removed from poverty. >
the prisons are a capitalistic business a

>Too many. Our press needs more transparency, etc. >Many local political machines are corrupt or mafia-driven.
>
i think that is a gross underestimation

> Many of these >things have made me long for Sweden. But there are also downsides to >Socialism. Extremely high taxes for instance. $ for $, we still keep more of >our own money here, even after paying out of pocket for services socialist >countries pay for with taxation.
> >
i think if you added up all the taxes you pay, you would discover that you are paying way more than these people. every bill has taxes on it add it up and see what you come up with.
and what do you get for your taxes, corporate welfare

When the system collapses, which it is about to do here , i hope you have enough euros

>Musically: You are a product of free-market Democratic culture. Are you >mediocre? Was Harry Partch mediocre? Charles Ives? Steve Reich? John Adams? >Aaron Copland? George Crumb?
>
>In the other arts as well, America is a supreme innovator. > >
all these composers were doing work in the 60's and before when the situation is the opposite of what it is now. Who became big in the 90's?

>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

You solution is that i just move. i hold that option seriously
you fail to see the writing on the wall that the powers that be are not interested in the arts as a viable voice to continue .
they want to censor them. you response is why they should get a hand out
Corporations are getting hand outs every day, Billions are unaccounted for and you are one of the rightist
that if a few 1000 are spent on social programs you scream .

Many of the composers you mentioned before became big in Europe way before here, not the other way around.
Jazz musicians would have been in a lot worse shape with out Europe which , even if it did not pan out to allot money to take back, at least they were respected.
Don't give me any BS about not working hard, that is all i do, except for breaks like this which do absolutely nothing for me.

as for grants , i have a long history of running organizations that got grants from all over. I had a composers group with over 200 members in the 80's
i have presented concert with Cecil taylor, Gavin bryars and comission artist to write radio pieces for the olympics including John Cage. i will look at your list later , but i am not holding my breath. I know what is available and who it is available for. (the latter is the bottom line)

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>On Monday 03 January 2005 11:41 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>The bottome line is this: I gave you a list of a bunch of organizations that >help creative individuals with funding, but you ignored it, and compare our >country in an absurd way to countries that send people to labor camps >(Stalin's Russia).
>
>The other persistent fact is that in spite of all your anti-American rhetoric, >you remain here instead of moving to Russia or wherever else you might >consider a "Shangri-La" for your musical career...and millions of immigrants >come here annually by what they sense is a chance to "level the playing >field." Perhaps in your heart you know that this just might be the best of >all possible worlds, in spite of its challenges? If not, what are you waiting >for? Move to Europe!
>
>I have European friends (Germany, Poland, France, Romania, Italy) who have >confessed that the success they found here would not have been possible had >they stayed in Europe. I'm sure the opposite exists, but I know of no >examples personally. I'd be happy to hear of counter-examples.
>
>As for galleries closing, etc. life is a bitch, and making it is tough. Why >should artistic success be a guarantee? Many things fail that *should* fail. >Innovation and quality are usually rewarded in time. I don't believe in >hand-outs where art is concerned. Most of the really successful musicians I >know work their asses off, and that's how it should be. Ditto with the >greatest musicians throughout recorded history. None had their greatness >handed to them. If I envy them, I need to work as hard. Why should it be any >other way?
>
>Best,
>Aaron Krister Johnson
>http://www.akjmusic.com
>http://www.dividebypi.com
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Monday 03 January 2005 05:08 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> You solution is that i just move. i hold that option seriously
> you fail to see the writing on the wall that the powers that be are not
> interested in the arts as a viable voice to continue .
> they want to censor them. you response is why they should get a hand out
> Corporations are getting hand outs every day, Billions are unaccounted
> for and you are one of the rightist
> that if a few 1000 are spent on social programs you scream .

Not true. I think social programs ought to be supported, as I have said, a
hybrid socialist/democratic capitalist society is ideal. I just think that no
one, not corporations or individuals, deserves guaranteed economic support. I
do not believe in paying taxes so that lazy, sullen, crack-addicted
immigrants can go on making baby after baby in the inner cities, spreading
violence, addiction, child abuse, illiteracy and hopeless misery to the next
generation. While it goes on I do my small part educating inner city children
with educational music demonstrations, to bring a little bit of hopeful
culture to them. All they have now is a culture that glorifies violence,
misogyny, and illiteracy, and vilifies intellectual and financial success
("If you are successful, you're just like whitey")...except when considering
sports figures and criminal rappers. The ultra-leftists cultural-relativist
liberal agenda has taken this BS so far that now a friend of mine who studies
the history of Medieval music in New York was told by an advisor that there
are now more positions in colleges for professors who study rap music than
there are those who study Medieval music...this is some sad shit.

In this way I am a Classicist cultural conservative: I believe in the study of
the timeless great works of the Western canon, and I decry every dollar spent
on culturally relativist education that seeks 'relevance' at the expense of
cultural literacy, meaning an absorption of the great works of the Western
canon, which have stood the test of time generation after generation.

But I do not consider myself politically rightist, but a moderate democrat. In
fact, I took the political compass ( www.politicalcompass.org ), and it said
I was an economic leftist, social libertarian, left of Gandhi and the Dalai
Lama and that my best matched candidate was Dennis Kucinich! So according to
them, I'm more liberal/libertarian than I think I am, I guess.
>
> Many of the composers you mentioned before became big in Europe way
> before here, not the other way around.

How do we measure/prove that?

> Jazz musicians would have been in a lot worse shape with out Europe
> which , even if it did not pan out to allot money to take back, at
> least they were respected.

But they got rich and famous here, even though there was a sever racism
against black musicians.

> Don't give me any BS about not working hard, that is all i do, except
> for breaks like this which do absolutely nothing for me.

I believe there are always examples of people who have it worse than I do and
end up surpassing me by overcoming their situations. Read the bio of any
artist who 'makes it' in the way you want to make it, and there are always
great obstacles to be overcome. Like the saying goes, it's not how many times
you fall, but how many times you get up that counts.

I'm not questioning your work ethic or your talent. Some people get to where
they want to be late in life, perhaps that is your case. Schubert was a
nobody when he died, and that happens, too.

> as for grants , i have a long history of running organizations that got
> grants from all over. I had a composers group with over 200 members in
> the 80's
> i have presented concert with Cecil taylor, Gavin bryars and comission
> artist to write radio pieces for the olympics including John Cage. i
> will look at your list later , but i am not holding my breath. I know
> what is available and who it is available for. (the latter is the bottom
> line)

....well another thing is, the people who succeed best in America are eternal
optimists.

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>On Monday 03 January 2005 05:08 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>You solution is that i just move. i hold that option seriously
>>you fail to see the writing on the wall that the powers that be are not
>>interested in the arts as a viable voice to continue .
>> they want to censor them. you response is why they should get a hand out
>> Corporations are getting hand outs every day, Billions are unaccounted
>>for and you are one of the rightist
>> that if a few 1000 are spent on social programs you scream .
>> >>
>
>Not true.
>
glad i was wrong

> I think social programs ought to be supported, as I have said, a >hybrid socialist/democratic capitalist society is ideal. I just think that no >one, not corporations or individuals, deserves guaranteed economic support. I >do not believe in paying taxes so that lazy, sullen, crack-addicted >immigrants can go on making baby after baby in the inner cities, spreading >violence, addiction, child abuse, illiteracy and hopeless misery to the next >generation. >
I think in reality most people want to work . those that don't will spend their energy finding someway where they won't have to.

>While it goes on I do my small part educating inner city children >with educational music demonstrations, to bring a little bit of hopeful >culture to them. All they have now is a culture that glorifies violence, >misogyny, and illiteracy, and vilifies intellectual and financial success >("If you are successful, you're just like whitey")...except when considering >sports figures and criminal rappers. >
This is what is promoted on TV for sure

>The ultra-leftists cultural-relativist >liberal agenda has taken this BS so far that now a friend of mine who studies >the history of Medieval music in New York was told by an advisor that there >are now more positions in colleges for professors who study rap music than >there are those who study Medieval music...this is some sad shit.
> >
yes education has become a business

>In this way I am a Classicist cultural conservative: I believe in the study of >the timeless great works of the Western canon, and I decry every dollar spent >on culturally relativist education that seeks 'relevance' at the expense of >cultural literacy, meaning an absorption of the great works of the Western >canon, which have stood the test of time generation after generation. > >
if you expanded to include the great canon of works in other countries too, i am with you. possibly every person should know who Seami was

>
>
>Best,
>Aaron Krister Johnson
>http://www.akjmusic.com
>http://www.dividebypi.com
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

fascism leads to democracy

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>