Why aren't there more pro-war bands?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Whaleboy blah blah blah

My recommendation is that you ignore him, only few of his posts are funny so reading them is mostly just a big waste of time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
I believe that a lot of artist-types are pacificist leaning -- all violence is bad. I also notice that a lot of "performers" tend to make a point about being patriotic, some to the point of Jingoism.

Part of that is based on the fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks (though part of that was sexism--there was no similar backlash against Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, or Merle Haggard). Furthermore, there are right and left wing patriots. One can consider themselves a patriot and be utterly opposed to the government.

The following was written by a commie.

Let America Be America Again

by Langston Hughes

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)
Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.



O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

(Besides Trotskyites generally are expected to hate Soviet art. What's up with Che?)

There's a difference between Soviet Constructivism, which was a revolutionary art movement and Soviet realism, which was utter crap (generally speaking, I will admit there was some good stuff). The former occured ion the period just before and after the revolution, in a very experimental period. The latter was created to promote loyalty to the state.

[Chemical Ollie]

USA! USA! USA!

[Dis]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Back on topic ... Dis, I'd think a sou'westerner like you would have some pro-war musicians on rotation ... I mean, what music is there down in the Texas Nation (ie, texas/nm/nv/ok) than country AND western?

Toby Keith ... Charlie Daniels ... they're the heart and soul of America's Fighting Spirit

Country is not exactly that popular where I live (though it used to be 30 years ago, but our demographics have changed a bit since then )

And I'd rather claw my eyes out than listen to country.

[Dis]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Remember when Britney Spears said we should "all just trust the President"?

Yes, this is what it comes down to. Britney Spears vs. Slayer.

call me crazy, I'll go with slayer.

[Zoid]

Me too, altough they seem to get old and boring just like Metallica.

[Whaleboy]

You left out virtue ethics. And I'm familiar with the distinction, thanks.

Easy!

But from the perspective of a planned action, all philosophies are "consequentialist." You make a decision based on achieving a desired result, whether that result is to succeed in observing one's principles or to achieve some specific physical end.

While in principle I do agree, are people really free to decide whether or not to go to war. One could argue that a politician in a democracy is not truly free to make the decision, and so consideration of his duty in the deontological sense would not hold. In other words, in circumstances where one is not free to decide, one can have the distinction between the ultimately correct decision, and the intelligent decision.

That all depends on retrospect of course, since an intelligent decision can have disastrous consequences, I suppose the measure of an intelligent decision would first depend on the manner in which it is taken... i.e., is the decision-maker a Kantian, or is he a utilitarian?

Of course I acknowledge that inadequate information can lead to incorrect actions, but if the person in question has made all possible efforts to get the relevant information, said person can hardly be faulted for "making bad decisions" if the decision accorded with the information that was available.

Well of course. You can't fault someone for making an intelligent decision, even if it had bad results.

So, it is possible for a non-intelligent person to act "correctly" while a wiser person fails, but only by what amounts to an accident. Unless you can think of an exception?

No I'm happy with that conclusion, since in life, and in war in particular, mistakes do happen, so that the actual outcome differs greatly from the expected outcome. The recent Israel-Lebanon conflict illustrates that perfectly. In that case, an unintelligent decision was made was with disastrous consequences. If, hypothetically, Hizbollah had been crushed and Syria+Iran humiliated, and no further terrorism occurred, then the unintelligent decision would (arguably) have had a positive outcome.

you know, you were the first and the most solid case of proof for me when I was wondering whether this equation would be BS.

Que?

My recommendation is that you ignore him, only few of his posts are funny so reading them is mostly just a big waste of time.

?

[Blaupanzer]

quote from me:

Whaleboy seems to equate "intelligence" with his personal, pacifist-oriented view.

Whaleboy response:

Where?

Answer:

intelligence -> pacifism. (Whaleboy quote)

Be careful of issuing challenges in a thread, especially when the evidence is already present.

As to the value of Whaleboy's contribution, I think it is naive, idealistic, and a little egocentric, but he hasn't done anything that says he should be ignored.

The word "intelligent" has taken a terrible beating in this thread. I suspect we will gain little to go on beating on it, but I must note that intelligent people can disagree about the best course of action. Just because some of the Bushies appear to be dumber than fenceposts doesn't mean that everyone who is in favor of a selected military action is unintelligent.

Whaleboy, if intelligent courses of action are advocated by intelligent people who disagree with you, you need to find a different distinction than "correct" vice "intelligent."