A Beautiful Mind

[Dubai]

The most political band I can recall is Crass,1970/1980s anarcho-punks.Their anti-Falklands War single "How does it feel to be the mother of a thousand dead" sparked a debate in Parliament.They're not easy listening,though.

That's the point. Since the 60's, 70's 80's there's not been much in the way of "challenging" music around (those bands previously mentioned excepted). Poor old George Micheal at least had a go with that song about b'liar being bushes poodle and look at the trouble he's had since! There was a surprising one from Leftfield (last album... about soldiers etc.) but nothing really rousing in the mainstream.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.....

[yaakov]

yes, it is nice to listen to some music with a bit of edge otherwise it becomes very dull and boring.

However, I have never really thought that any song I have heard has provided intellectual insight into any serious political matter.

I get the impression that many bands feel the need to provide a meaning for their otherwise superficial life and so feel the need to become "serious."

I am sure there are exceptions to this but a lot of modern bands, when interviewed, seem incapable of stringing a sentence together.

Edited October 15, 2007 by JimmyMac

[Walton Goggins]

The way I see it with a band such as Crass, although don't mind them myself, admittedly they have a committed ( tiny ) following - but mainstream artists such as Billy Joel, Neil Young, can influence ( possibly subversively ) more people than Crass could dream of - so for Crass its all for nothing.

Movin' Out by Billy Joel brilliantly illuminates the disillusion of the MEW 4x4 buying property ladder climbing workaholic and had people singing along as they drove to re-mortgage with their bank manager - how nostalgic.

Anthony works in the grocery store

Savin his pennies for some day

Mama Leone left a note on the door

She said "Sonny move out to the country"

Ah but working too hard can give you

A heart attack, ack, ack, ack, ack, ack

You ought-a know by now

Who needs a house out in Hackensack?

Is that all you get for your money?

And it seems such a waste of time

If that's what it's all about

Mama if that's movin up then I'm movin out

Mm I' movin out, mm oo oo uh huh mm hm

You should never argue with a crazy mi mi mi mi mi mind

You ought-a know by now

You can pay Uncle Sam with the overtime

Is that all you get for your money

And if that's what you have in mind

Then that's what you're all about

Good luck movin up cause I'm movin out

Mm I'm movin out Mm oo oo uh huh mm hm

Sergeant O'Leary is walkin the beat

At night he becomes a bartender

He works at Mister Cacciatores

Down on Sullivan Street

Across from the medical center

And he's tradin in his Chevy for

A Cadillac ack ack ack ack ack

You ought-a know by now

If he can't drive with a broken back

At least he can polish the fenders

(repeat chorus)

[Pindar]

You're absolutely right, challenge or real criticism to politicians and "the system" seemed to dry up in the early 1990s. We had "spitting image" and "not the nine o'clock news" in the 1980's but there's not been anything really like that since. Sure enough Rory Bremner does his best, but it's not exactly mainstream like Spitting Image was. I believe the problem here is that the mainstream only hear about things that they are played on the radio/tv (and have been rubber stamped by the producer) or discover through media outlets such as iTunes and Napster (and again they are afraid of hosting political stuff in case somebody sues them). The real underground stuff is somewhere, undiscovered but inaccessible to all but those who know its there. The mainstream media (the BBC) recently attacked youtube for allowing (albeit distasteful) content to be allowed to stay online. It featured phonecam footage of school bullying. Rather than see this as an opportunity to show the world what is going on in and around our schools, the BBC and its wheeled on "experts" decreed that it was inexcusable that this sort of material could remain online and demanded that it be removed. The fact is, mobile phone cam footage has been used as evidence in a court of law, but it was beyond those in the documentary that the same could apply here. One would almost think that schools actually encourage bullying for some unknown reason and wish to suppress it becoming public knowledge. Anyway, the point I am making is that anything deemed controversial or politically fringe, is swept under the carpet and displaced by things which are frankly, vacuous and mediocre. There is no longer any real debate encouraged in the popular media. It's as if truth and justice are "uncool".

[Dubai]

You're absolutely right, challenge or real criticism to politicians and "the system" seemed to dry up in the early 1990s. We had "spitting image" and "not the nine o'clock news" in the 1980's but there's not been anything really like that since. Sure enough Rory Bremner does his best, but it's not exactly mainstream like Spitting Image was. I believe the problem here is that the mainstream only hear about things that they are played on the radio/tv (and have been rubber stamped by the producer) or discover through media outlets such as iTunes and Napster (and again they are afraid of hosting political stuff in case somebody sues them). The real underground stuff is somewhere, undiscovered but inaccessible to all but those who know its there. The mainstream media (the BBC) recently attacked youtube for allowing (albeit distasteful) content to be allowed to stay online. It featured phonecam footage of school bullying. Rather than see this as an opportunity to show the world what is going on in and around our schools, the BBC and its wheeled on "experts" decreed that it was inexcusable that this sort of material could remain online and demanded that it be removed. The fact is, mobile phone cam footage has been used as evidence in a court of law, but it was beyond those in the documentary that the same could apply here. One would almost think that schools actually encourage bullying for some unknown reason and wish to suppress it becoming public knowledge. Anyway, the point I am making is that anything deemed controversial or politically fringe, is swept under the carpet and displaced by things which are frankly, vacuous and mediocre. There is no longer any real debate encouraged in the popular media. It's as if truth and justice are "uncool".

Agreed. But, the fault lies with us, the sheeple. The media and gumment are not Gods. They get away with what they think they can get away with. As soon as there's a groundswell of opposition, anything unpopular is shelved. Look at the poll tax for an example. We, The People, really do get the gumment we deserve.

And back on topic.... if everyone stopped buying Oasis, Britnry Spears and the oh so rebellious Rolling Stones, and instead supported the bands with something to say, the publishers would soon listen.

[Cogs]

NM - there is a band that covers exactly these issues. However, lets hope that the drummer can offload his struggling BTLs before they consume too much of his resources.

If you tolerate this then your capital gains will be next?

Just a shot in the dark...

[KTeetwo]

"I agree that negative freedom is poison. It a pessimistic view of humanity is which we are all viewed as isolated, self interested consumption monsters. It was a dreamt up by a depressive. What amazes me is that the political class swallowed it."

- Is that not because,mainly, they (the Political Class) are associated with advertising agencies and will thus indirectly benefit from the increased advertising revenue that encourages consumption. - whether that be alcohol, in the name of The Portman Group - or goods and services as in Financial Services and the UK housing Market and its gentrification.

KT

[Prof]

One likes to believe

In the freedom of music

But glittering prizes

And endless compromises

Shatter the illusion

Of integrity

A comment about the music industry that could also be applied to our Government.

My ears are still ringing slightly from last night`s trip to Manchester.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Prof

[The Colour]

great post nm.

Ever heard Senser?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senser

No Comply

You taught me so well to be an idiot

I almost became every word that you said

and everyday you gave to me

special thoughts, lessons free

underwhelmed by your generosity

I quickly began to compensate

so forgive me if I sound disinterested

Why should I comply with this?

So why should I conform to this?

So why should I comply with this?

So why should I conform to this?

When I stand with the mike in my hand

A love of the land I always question those

who are in command

I'm taking nothing from the troops

in their big black boots,

got you jumping through hoops

and setting fire to your roots.

You paramilitary groups you don't scare me,

mess with the posse and they might have to tear me

off ya, check me, know what I mean?

And I don't give a ****** about COMBAT-18.

It seems simple the first time they get you

'cause children are all born the same

and they play together till someone tells them lies

and they got me this way a long time ago

but this time they won't get me, no.

Roll with the team,

turn on the high beam,

expose the lies washin' up downstream.

You see your BNP you ain't shit to me. [12.2]

Loud mixed-Briton, proud of my ancestry.

Get back to jack to that.

Edited October 15, 2007 by The Colour

[Lord D'arcy Pew]

The main reason John Nashs' Game Theory has become so popular is because it works. It has done an excellent job of subduing the masses, where are the anti-war rallies, where are the student protesters, why no riots in the streets? When governments see the results of creating a greedy self obsessed society as a positive then it can only be expected to spread. There's a joke in advertising that goes like this; Why does a dog wag its tail, because the tail cann't wag the dog. The joke is about manipulation, it could read; why do Governments manipulate their people, because people can no longer control their Governments.

The only way to stop the spread of Nashs' work is to make it a negative and not a positive for Governments, but this is a long way from happening. Take the latest Postal dispute as an example, the Government wish to break up and privitise Royal Mail. The result of this would be a very big negative for society with the loss of nearly ever rural Post Office and a more expensive service for the majority of people. But becauce of the work of Nash most people want to see this happen, businesses will see a reduction in their postage costs, and are willing to see others suffer as a result. The common man has been told to back business as it is in their self interest to do so, business creates jobs and jobs create wealth surely. Take a look at how much dept is now being serviced by the U.K £1.7 Tillion or thereabouts, many people have become wage slaves to dept, new labour should of be called bonded labour. If we buy more things we will be happier, if that doesn't work we should buy even more things. The house buying dream is nothing but a dept induced comma, one that many people are starting to come out of. How many people watched any of Adam Curtis' progams on the TV compared to the soap operas that keep the population occupied. Ignorane is bliss for most and if the drug works they will just keep swallowing it.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Lord D'arcy Pew

[hankdd]

The links don't work

They just make you worse.

[lets get it right]

Needless to say the Nash Equilibria is how Margaret Thatcher arrived at her conclusion that there is no such thing as society. What does this say about out 'socialist' Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he invites her to tea in Downing Street?

The words 'talk' and 'your @rse' leap to mind. Here is part of what Margaret Thatcher ACTUALLY SAID.

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin."

[AteMoose]

when you sell your art, you destroy it....

[Crash Buyer]

I agree with some of your sentiments but the Adam Curtis series 'The Trap' did address some of your points as follows -

The main reason John Nash's Game Theory has become so popular is because it works.

The programme argued that the theory does not work in practice.

It has done an excellent job of subduing the masses, where are the anti-war rallies, where are the student protesters, why no riots in the streets?

However there was the largest ever UK demo, against the Iraq war, before the war had even started.

The joke is about manipulation, it could read; why do Governments manipulate their people, because people can no longer control their Governments.

Could people ever control their govts?

The only way to stop the spread of Nashs' work is to make it a negative and not a positive for Governments, but this is a long way from happening.

Curtis argued that by encouraging people to act in their own self interest, Game Theory had unintended consequences. People did not behave as expected and also came to regard politicans as self-interested bureaucrats.

Take the latest Postal dispute as an example, the Government wish to break up and privitise Royal Mail. The result of this would be a very big negative for society with the loss of nearly ever rural Post Office and a more expensive service for the majority of people. But becauce of the work of Nash most people want to see this happen, businesses will see a reduction in their postage costs, and are willing to see others suffer as a result. The common man has been told to back business as it is in their self interest to do so, business creates jobs and jobs create wealth surely. Take a look at how much dept is now being serviced by the U.K £1.7 Tillion or thereabouts, many people have become wage slaves to dept, new labour should of be called bonded labour. If we buy more things we will be happier, if that doesn't work we should buy even more things. The house buying dream is nothing but a dept induced comma, one that many people are starting to come out of. How many people watched any of Adam Curtis' progams on the TV compared to the soap operas that keep the population occupied. Ignorane is bliss for most and if the drug works they will just keep swallowing it.

I agree with your comments about the merits of post office privatisation, however I think most people are totally indifferent to almost all political issues, even when they are affected by them.

With regard to the housing bubble, the recession will cause the herd instinct to change but I don't think the sheeple will become activists or realise their mistakes. They will simply follow the new herd instinct, that housing is a bad investment.

[Bug16]

when you sell your art, you destroy it....

That's what bitter artists that nobody is interested say to make themselves feel better and more important than successful artists.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Bug16

[nmarks]

That's what bitter artists that nobody is interested say to make themselves feel better and more important than successful artists.

Depends how you measure success. Contemporary society obsesses over financial and material success. All the greats in human history have been remembered for reason other than money.

Money is nice to have but you can't put a price on Newton's Laws of Motion, the Gettysberg Address or a Nobel Laureate.

History does not fondly remember those who act purely in their own self interest, if it remembers them at all.

[lets get it right]

Depends how you measure success. Contemporary society obsesses over financial and material success. All the greats in human history have been remembered for reason other than money.

Money is nice to have but you can't put a price on Newton's Laws of Motion, the Gettysberg Address or a Nobel Laureate.

History does not fondly remember those who act purely in their own self interest, if it remembers them at all.

So you're saying David Beckham is no Ozymandias?

[nmarks]

The words 'talk' and 'your @rse' leap to mind. Here is part of what Margaret Thatcher ACTUALLY SAID.

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin."

My original statement stands.

It goes to show what kind of a mind you have if words like that leap out.

Edited October 15, 2007 by nmarks

[thecrashingisles]

My original statement stands.

It goes to show what kind of a mind you have if words like that leap out.

Your original statement was, "Needless to say the Nash Equilibria is how Margaret Thatcher arrived at her conclusion that there is no such thing as society."

If you can still say that after reading that extract from the original interview then you haven't begun to understand what she was saying.

[nmarks]

Your original statement was, "Needless to say the Nash Equilibria is how Margaret Thatcher arrived at her conclusion that there is no such thing as society."

If you can still say that after reading that extract from the original interview then you haven't begun to understand what she was saying.

It was a Freudian Slip on her part which she covered up with warm syrupy words to fool people like you.

[thecrashingisles]

It was a Freudian Slip on her part which she covered up with warm syrupy words to fool people like you.

It wasn't a Freudian slip; it was a reasoned argument that made perfect sense in context. She was pointing out that society is just the product of the efforts of individuals.

[domo]

It wasn't a Freudian slip; it was a reasoned argument that made perfect sense in context. She was pointing out that society is just the product of the efforts of individuals.

You don't get it !! It was a conspiracy! To ****** over the working class and destroy socialism!!! And let the greedy capitalists rape the dirty little corpse of 70s socialist Britain!!!!

[No Muggy Bear]

But socialism never works does it? It always grinds a country to the ground. I believe Cuba are having a good go but it aint a walk in the park for everyone.

Put in a nutshell, would you like to work in a high pressured environment and get paid the same/have the same standard of living as a lollipop woman? No? There has to be a carrot dangled to get the masses reaching higher, or we would all be queuing for that lollipop lay position, not spending years at uni trying to better yourself, then go years of hard graft to get the same standard of living.

[Timm]

If you tolerate this then your capital gains will be next?

Just a shot in the dark...

I'm with you on that one...

On another note, and with apologies to the Dead Kennedys:

I am James Gordon Brown

My aura smiles

And never frowns

Now I am Prime Minister...

Tony's Power has gone away

I will be Fuhrer today

I will command all of you

Your kids will learn to buy in school

Your kids will all get debts at school!

[Chorus:]

United Kingdom Uber Alles

United Kingdom Uber Alles

Uber Alles United Kingdom

Uber Alles United Kingdom

CCTV will control you

100% guaranteed

You will pay for the scottish race

And always wear the nappy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here

Big Bro' on black horse is near

The crash cannot come back you say

Buy a house or you will pay

Buy a house and you will pay!

[Chorus]

Now it's 1984

Knock-knock at your front door

It's the nu-labour secret police

They have come for your on-line niece

Come quietly to the camp

You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp

Don't you worry, it's only a shower

For your clothes here's a pretty flower.

Enslave yourself to buy a place

MEW on toxic short term rates

You will croak, you little clown

When you mess with Prime Minister Brown

When you mess with Prime Minister Brown

Edited October 15, 2007 by Timm

[Pindar]

The main reason John Nashs' Game Theory has become so popular is because it works. It has done an excellent job of subduing the masses, where are the anti-war rallies, where are the student protesters, why no riots in the streets? When governments see the results of creating a greedy self obsessed society as a positive then it can only be expected to spread. There's a joke in advertising that goes like this; Why does a dog wag its tail, because the tail cann't wag the dog. The joke is about manipulation, it could read; why do Governments manipulate their people, because people can no longer control their Governments.

The only way to stop the spread of Nashs' work is to make it a negative and not a positive for Governments, but this is a long way from happening. Take the latest Postal dispute as an example, the Government wish to break up and privitise Royal Mail. The result of this would be a very big negative for society with the loss of nearly ever rural Post Office and a more expensive service for the majority of people. But becauce of the work of Nash most people want to see this happen, businesses will see a reduction in their postage costs, and are willing to see others suffer as a result. The common man has been told to back business as it is in their self interest to do so, business creates jobs and jobs create wealth surely. Take a look at how much dept is now being serviced by the U.K £1.7 Tillion or thereabouts, many people have become wage slaves to dept, new labour should of be called bonded labour. If we buy more things we will be happier, if that doesn't work we should buy even more things. The house buying dream is nothing but a dept induced comma, one that many people are starting to come out of. How many people watched any of Adam Curtis' progams on the TV compared to the soap operas that keep the population occupied. Ignorane is bliss for most and if the drug works they will just keep swallowing it.

I agree, the Royal Mail *should* be seen by any thinking and sane person as the envy of the world. Instead, the tired old "privatisation good, nationalisation bad" mantra is replayed in order to justify the destruction of a public monopoly and simultaneous creation of a private one. As somebody said on here earlier, cant remember which thread, if all the postal workers left and formed their own company, the government would ban them from operating. To be independent of the sleazy senior management at royal mail, they (existing postal workers) could easily create a viable, private alternative to the royal mail, keep their jobs and run the service better. But no, the government wants to hand royal mail on a plate to the fat cat pimps in the city so the spoils of this great institution can be devoured by the financial vultures, leaving a high-priced carcass to perform the role of what was the Royal Mail. The result of privatisation will be that prices will go up, services will deteriorate and staff will be less secure (look at the destruction of british rail as evidence). The government makes it illegal for anybody to compete with the royal mail for domestic post, but is quite prepared to turn the royal mail into an inferior privatised monopoly, just so long as their chums in the city get a big cut of the profits. There are some things which simply cannot be shoehorned into performing like other businesses. Utilities, public transport and domestic postal services are included IMHO. Yes, they could be reorganised to make them more efficient, but the sham privatisations are really code for transforming public monopolies into private ones and giving away the nations wealth to those who least deserve it. Most of this privatisation nonsense came about on the advice of so called economic experts from the late 1970's onwards and has been continued to this day by the die-hard thatcherites. I for one would still think that the royal mail was outstanding value if I had to pay twice what I pay for a stamp, so why are they trying to fix something that aint broken?

Edited October 15, 2007 by BarrelShifter