I've been waiting for this one…and I certainly don't think Bush is in the same league as Hitler- but he is an ideologue and a fundamentalist which is how the Holocaust began- and if you don't think Bush is responsible for thousands of unwarranted deaths, take the blinders off and look beyond your own backyard.

Hitler never dumped dead bodies in pits- he let his minions do the dirty work. But thanks for the lesson in sensitivity.

Here you go Denver, I'm sure they're completely innocent.

i find it funny when we (musicians) use our stage (or status) to proclaim the superiority of our views and then wonder why we only get the same people coming to our shows. we bitch about not getting on the radio or apathetic college kids or whatever, but we won't shut up when it comes to politics.

we deserve to be judged by our politics. it doesn't mean our music sucks, but if we put that out there as part of our image then it goes into the judging criteria. even with special effort to separate one's personal beliefs from those of the band as a whole, we're using status to put our views forward and get people talking about them; we deserve to bear full responsibility for our statements.

i am as guilty as any other musician in this regard.






i hope some of this makes sense. i'm drunk and just ate a "gut bomb" from taco ninja.

More than any post in this entire thread.

First off, thanks to all the people who have kept this discussion going in a pretty civil way. You're all niceys in my book. I know some people who think that message boards are just waste of time, but I think this thread once again proves that not to be the case. Smart discussions can happen, even on sensitive topics.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO....

If you no longer want to support the Whiles, you've also stopped supporting the Ramones for at least 2 years, right?

Now that this discussion has started to get really good, I would like to clarify: my intention was not to "take a stand" and nowhere did I say anything about gay rights. My "men kissing men" comment was satirical, something I had seen in the Daily Show and perhaps came across in a way I did not intend. I merely meant to satirize the fact that the homosexual community is seen as very threatening by the religious right. I myself do not find the homosexual community as threatening in any way, and I do have severe problems with the Constitutional ammendment the President has been talking about- I think it is very unconstitutional. And I also disagree with the President's point of view regarding hate crimes.

Now, as for being ignorant, my own belief is that the first step in trying to transcend ignorance is embracing and accepting the fact that one is ignorant and is very bound by the limitations of being a human being. I never said that I have "no world view," I merely said that mine is very limited. I have yet to travel to a country outside of the US or Europe and I have yet to dive into very much literature of the Eastern or Middle Eastern world.

As far as abortion, I am not trying to change any laws or anything. This is just my belief, and I respect those who believe differently. I think you are greatly mistaken if you think Bush is going to 1) attempt to make abortion illegal 2) attain any success in this. I just disagree strongly with Kerry's voting record with abortion.

As far as "family values," this is my own fault as I was very ambiguous with this term. I like Bush's tax breaks for couples with children and for married couples, and I persoanlly would like to see those tax breaks extend to civil unions as well.

I have to admit that much of the backlash against my post is my own fault. I am guilty of being incoherent and rambling in my original post. I think its the Irish part of me that wants to throw as much shit against the wall as possible and see what sticks. I did not want this discussion to have anything to do with me or the Whiles, I wanted it to be a way to have two very different points of view discuss things and perhaps show that maybe the country is not completely divided and that people who voted for Bush can get along with people who voted for Kerry and so on. Again, my fault as I brought myself into my original post more than I should have. I suppose I do have insecurities about my vote, like I said, voting for Bush does betray a lot of values that I have, and I therefore brought myself into it in an effort I think to over-explain my vote. My footnotes I guess were meant as a way for me to say "although I am ignorant, I have at least thought about things and want to acknowledge your concerns as well as the concerns I have with the President.

Several things:

-I think that for me, this election showed two great flaws in our democracy: 1. The two party system and how it has further polarized, divided and mis-represented our country 2. The tragedy that is the primary elections. Were it not for the way they are done (with states voting on different days and wrapping up the winner very early on), this thread wouldnt exist as McCain would have been the Republican canidate in 2000.

-I don't see why its fair for people like many of the people surrounding Bush, Bush himself and a lot of the Christian right movement to say "we're right and they're wrong." Or to say: everyone should be Christian and think this way. I sympathize with everyone fighting against this, but how is it different to say "voting for Kerry is right, voting for Bush is wrong."

The Moral Majority and Religious Right are tied in with some things you might not believe. (A Falwell/Bush family/ Moon) connection. Michael Moore has nothing to do in exposing this to the best of my knowledge, FWIW.

PM me if you want some links on this.

I was totally floored when I found these things and did some serious investigation to find out if any of it was true. I will continue to investigate as I do not subscribe to "conspiracy theories" or take things like this at face value even though I have always been suspicious of the Moral Majority/Religious Right from the start even though I am Christian myself. They do not speak for me and never have.
I just would like to find some real truth on how they have gotten such a strong foothold in this country and I think I am finding some answers to this through speaking with some Christian apologist researchers who investigate cultish movements WITHIN the Christian church.

If any of this is true, the sincere Christians who think they are voting for "morals" alone in this country are being snowed and betrayed by the RR leaders they have trusted blindly and then add in what Rove has been doing. That's their fault for being of lemming mentality and afraid of those who think differently than they do on "alternative lifestyles", etc..and how "God will lift America's blessing" if these things are allowed freely in American society.
If you believe in God, he created the whole world and I do not think God would show favoritism to the US alone above the rest of his creation, period.

Of course many of you might just find this just a boring post from a crackpot:-)

If not, PM me and I'll give you the links.

Eh, the Ramones kind of came & went for me in the ’80s, so I guess I haven't supported them for at least the last two years.

One does have a choice when picking people/companies (and, by extension, bands) who deliver goods and services. I personally have been known to hold a grudge against places that I feel have wronged me. [I boycotted that Big Bear on High St. months before its demise, because I had had so many things ring up at the wrong price and was completely unsatisfied with the manager's way of dealing with it.] I have stopped going to restaurants where I've been treated badly. I would think twice before buying from a business if they had a Bush/Cheney sign in the window. But I would not stop or prevent anyone else from doing so. It's all a matter of choice.

So when I read that a member of the Whiles is outspoken enough in his beliefs to post them for all to see, they kind of go into the "avoid" column for me. Besides, it may not be about his band, but he did say in the first place that the band is "pretty split evenly as far as registered dems, registered repubs and indies" and that he's the independent! So one can conclude that there are one or more registered republicans in the group. He brought it up, whether the band likes it or not.

Joe's latest post really gives me pause. First off, I apologize for being harsh with the "no world view" comment--I misinterpreted what you were saying. As for embracing ignorance, sure that's a good place to start. But when I read the rest of your post, it just makes me really sad. Sad to think how many more there may be out there like you--JOE! You didn't want to vote for the president! I mean, you say "voting for Bush does betray a lot of values that I have"--with the exception of abortion (by your own account), it goes against pretty much everything you say you believe in.

You seem to be informed. You seem to have extremely moderate views on the war and social issues. But it is incredibly naive for you to think that this president's administration is not going to slowly erode civil rights. Roe v. Wade might not be overturned, but it will undoubtedly be more restrictive. The Christian Conservative stand on birth control (not only in this country, but also in the Third World) is appalling, and only compounds the problems that stem from a lack of access to safe and legal abortions. When you say "I am not trying to change any laws or anything," I say, yes, you are. You voted for Bush.

Like it or not, fear of gay marriage united 11 states to pass incredibly broad "same sex marriage" bans and with it, elect a president who should not (*in my view*) have been elected. And Ohio took it a step further, denying rights to heterosexual unmarried couples as well. It's sad, really really sad, that people voted on fear and hatred of "others" rather than fear and hatred of war and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers.

When the president said that he's looking forward to spending his new "political capital" and that he will "reach out to everyone who shares our goals," I shuddered with fear. It's going to be a long four years, friends, though I really hope I'm wrong.

I apologize for the long post....

Thanks darkdays for extrapolating on the more issues based wing of this discussion. Our generation has taken the abortion debate for granted. Though Joe, who is pro-life, might make sweeping statements like, "Abortion will never be illegal", I'd venture to say that he (and other moderate pro-lifers) do not have anything to back that up. Stem Cell Research, Global Birth Control, Comprehensive Sex Education, and yes... abortion- these are all issues tied up into one. And guess what!? The side of the relgious right is WINNING over the side of science in our government. Here's a few quick tidbits that might make people like Joe feel differently (or maybe not...)

-Under George W. Bush, abortions have gone up despite increased legislation against them. Analysts cite the decline in abortions under Clinton to the administration's COMPREHENSIVE sex education policies. On the flipside, analysts have cited Bush's pushing of abstinence ONLY programs, which have never proven to work...and are often faith, not science based in nature.

-Late Term Abortions, also known as "Partial Birth Abortions" were outlawed, despite hard numbers that said most of these procedures were necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. While all abortion procedures can seem pretty gruesome, the special interests made a point to shirk the facts- in favor of grossing everyone out. By the way, even pro-life judges around the country are finding this Ban unconstitutional, as it does not provide a clause for the HEALTH/LIFE of the mother.

-The Faith Based Initiative has its ups and downs. But a big downside is that it can pump money into what are know as "Crisis Pregnancy Centers". These are privately funded offices that are targeted at college students and the poor and do little more than give you a pregnancy test, and show you literature and movies that are NOT MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC in nature in order to convince you to have the child. These are not clinics, nor are they doctor's offices. Up until GWB became president, NAtional Right to Life and friends funded these places... soon OUR TAX DOLLARS will go to them...

I urge everyone, both pro- and anti-choice to do REAL RESEARCH into the hypocrisy of what it means to be Pro-Life in government in this day in age. I can assure all of you, Roe v. Wade is not as safe as most would think.


ok... thats my message

Ok here's a perfect example:



President Bush has announced his intention to
appoint Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food
and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. This
committee has not met for more than two years,
during which time its charter lapsed. As a result,
the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all
eleven positions with new members. This position
does not require Congressional approval. The
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory
Committee makes crucial decisions on matters
relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties,
including hormone therapy, contraception,
treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization
and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for
Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The
book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing
women with case studies from Hager's practice.
His views of health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology and
modern gynecological practice. Dr. Hager is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as
"pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives
to unmarried women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote
with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's
Body," he suggests that women who suffer from
premenstrual syndrome should seek help from
reading the bible and praying. As an editor and
contributing author of "The Reproduction
Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality
Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr.
Hager appears to have endorsed the medically
inaccurate assertion that the common birth control
pill is an abortifacient (causes abortion). We are
concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious
beliefs may color his assessment of technologies
that are necessary to protect women's lives or to
preserve and promote women's health. Dr.
Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to
guide his medical decision-making makes him a
dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve
as chair of this committee. Critical drug public
policy and research must not be held hostage by
anti-abortion politics.

Members of this important panel should be
appointed on the basis of science and medicine,
rather than politics and religion. American women
deserve no less.

since tuesday I've been struggling to get to the meaning of this term "Family Values". My ignorance of it implies I don't practice it. What I've gathered is that it's a code word for suppression of homosexuals rights and outlawing a women's right to have an abortion. I mean lets cut through the shit here, this is what were talking about.

voting based on whether someone is pro-choice or pro-life is ridiculous for the very reason that the country is completely split on the issue. One side is never going to convince the other that they are right. it will always be this way and it always has been, whether it's illegal or legal. for this reason while everyone would like to see the number of abortions at a minimum, pro-choice is the only possible policy for a free non-secular country. Freedom is a bitch sometimes.

Bush's "culture of life" has lead to a rise in abortions and teen-age pregnancy remains the highest among developed nations. when the pro-choice Clinton was in office abortions were at a 24-year low as was teen pregnancy because he dealt with the issue. That's what our government is suppose to do, identify a problem and fix it. Bush will continue to apply ideology to this issue, cutting education and contraception and leading to more and more abortions. Studies show that the rate of abortion goes down just based on the countries economic situation. The more money you have the more likely you'll feel able to care for a child. So wouldn't voting for a better economic policy do more to stop abortion?

vote for things that government can actually fix. for those people who voted for bush because his pro-life stance I would love to hear whether you feel anything short of a constitutional amendment banning all abortion would be a disappointment at the end of this administration? Would that in affect make you stop casting a vote based on this issue?

This is brand new for me but I might as well add my two cents in, firstly I am one of those people who have actually grown more liberal as I've gotten older but have the realization that to have true unity one must be willing to compromise. This was one of the great talents of Bill Clinton, FDR and Truman, bridging the gap. So when we dismiss one another off hand it is not only childish but also ego-centric, hypocritical and offers no solution. Do I think Joe is a little uninformed or do I agree with his thoughts on our President (and like it or not he is the President of every citizen of this country), yes and no. But what I saw Joe doing was reaching out and being honest with where he stands, he seems conflicted and willing to learn and form his own opinion of the facts which is what folks should be doing. You are his peers. For example on the matter of abortion and gay marriage. From what I understand of Sen. Kerry he is by own conscious against abortion but for a woman's right to choose (as am I). As a former well read Catholic (and I still very much respect the Catholic faith but found I needed a different road) I know the Second Vatican Council never mentioned abortion as a sin. But the Pope has in recent years (along with the death penalty). For many centuries since St. Augustine wrote that having sex without the intent of procreation was a sin, and it wasn't until the second vaitcan council was this reversed. So there are some conflicting or shall I say unwritten rules in the Catholic Church in terms of addressing abortion. I would say to Joe that for many years it was only the affluent who could afford closed door abortions and thousands of women ended up dying, mutilated and ill because of illegal abortions. Also that because one faith says it is wrong it shouldn't be written into our constitution. I would think we need a calm insightful discussion about personal responsibility when it comes to sex so young women don't get to the state where they need an abortion. I'm sure a female can explain this than I.
As for homosexuality, Jesus never spoke of homosexuality. It is not in any of the gospels in the bible nor is it metioned in the often overlooked (but amazing Gospel of Thomas). Paul is the closest to directly mentioning homosexuality but even this is highly debated by religious scholers. He states something to the effect "that men should not have un-natural sex" which could be construed as homosexual acts. Most likely though it refers to having sex with a woman who is in her cycle since at the time women who were menstrating were considered unclean. People like to mention Sodam and Gormorrah, but again many religious scholars reagrd this more as being compassionate towards your neighbors. I personally think that sex in general is confusing and when we are confused we are scared and people's fears tend to block thier compassion for those who differ from them. I firmly believe our views on another's sex is irresponsible and intrusive, in fact it goes against the teaching of Jesus when he spoke about the piece of wood in your own eye. Our government is created to protect us, to bring us together and not seperate us and our President fails to do this in his narrow view he only accomplishes the opposite.
As for giving President the benifit of the doubt when it comes to processing the information given him about the need to invade a country for the very first time without any provication I would say this. The buck stops with him, we expect more from our fucking football coaches for heavens sake. With an estimated 100,000 (go to the bloomberg.com for the full John Hopkins report on this) Iraqs killed since the start of the war and soon to be 1,500 American casualities not to mention sending many innocent men and women to do that killing (how moral is that?) I firmly believe that we as a country have re-elected a practicing war criminal to office. Does this mean I think less of those who disagree with me? Absolutly not, most people (even on the left) would think we have a war criminal for a President. I do think we need to talk about these things, my brother has fought in Iraq and will do so agian I'm sure. He can't stand Bush but he himself disliked Kerry (who I have great admiration for) more so he voted for Nader. Do I agree, no but I think by brother is pretty smart (he teaches English at West Point on top of being a Major) and love him non-theless. Which brings me to my final point. I think Joe could be the best songwriter this town has ever seen and take it from me we have had some great ones. Does his politcs make his craft or talent any less? Don't be retarded. Ezra Pound was a facist, he was still a great poet, Neil Young had a very strong argument why he supported Reagan (he has come out against Bush Sr. and Jr) that had to do with his child have MS. Robert Mac Namera was involved in the killing of millions of easten people (Japan and Vietnam) but if you've ever seen "the fog of war" he seem very compassionate. The world is hard enough by drawing more lines in the sand, one of my favorite quotes is "the realm of the spirit is all inclusive never exclusive" and it is something I try in my day to day life live to the fullest. So check out Joe's songs and try to understand where he is coming from as well as carefully explaining where your positions are.
Thanks-Bela Koe-Krompecher (i don't do spell check)

Honestly Duffy, your moderating makes the difference. I am sure there are people here that would be glad to keep it civil, I am one of them, but the non-civil ones are keeping themselves in control or not posting here because of you.

Whether we like to admit it or not, communities need deterrents and a leader to keep them civil.

That's why I love this place. I don't get stirred to bully bullies. Kudos to you for running a civil place where all opinions can be posted.

Sorry to derail the topic. Just thought the post opened the door for me to tell you I appreciate your moderating, even though I disagree with your Michael Moore admiration.

He he. I don't mean to bust your bal... I mean... well, you know.

You are cool Beth, if not at least humorous. Not that my opinion matters to you.

Peace girl.

Thanks for stating it more clearly than I could, Bela.

Exactly. This is exactly the kind of approach that I wish everyone welcomed, regardless of the content of what's being said.


Totally.

post the one with the collie instead, we've moved on.

Why do you equate social/legal equality with the ability to work? So gay couples who want to be treated as fellow citizens with the right to officially marry are ...uh.. lazy and on welfare? I don't get the connection...