# Glenn Beck On "The Nose "- I Kid You Not !



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The other day I came across something you might think was as wildly improbable as the plot the the wacky Shostakovich opera The Nose . I kid you not, Glenn Beck, the right-wing demagogue, actually went to see the Met production of this opera two years aqgo, and gave it a terrible review on his show. This is on youtube now, and I came across it theother day while browsing this site.
According to Beck, his daughter is an aspiring opera singer, and she took him the the Met production of the Nose. He hated it ! He though tthe music was terrible, and the story so ridiculous as to be beyond belief.
Of course, he missed the whole point of this crazy opera, which is to be surrealist in the first place.
But what he said was funny as hell, and I laughed out loud ! Try this yourself. Beck also said hois daughter took him to see the Ring at the Met. and believe it or not, he liked it !
Don't we live in a crazy world ?











:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Really? They made an opera out of that? Pretty scary.









Cue the lefties and their Wagner/Nazi schtick . . .


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Who wouldn't enjoy a live Ring??????


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I find his rant rather vapid and insulting to art.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Maybe, but at least it's hystericaly funny !


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't find it to be so. As an American I am subjected to people running around with similar opinions and those that listen to Beck and regurgitate it in their attempt to ruin society, in their disdain for art and intellect. I will never find humor and commentary equivalent to a drunken man with a 5-year-old's intellect humorous nor insightful. I don't find ignorance funny.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

This is completely derogatory where he acts like sandwiches and cheese are not "normal" food and apparently is the food of liberal snobs, Christianity isn't accepted at the MET but Wicca is based on his own joke, describes people who talk about music as "homosexuals" and "snobs", and people who go to the Opera as "homosexuals". It is absolutely ridiculous. This is the average person in the United States and I have to deal with them on a daily basis. This is the lowest form of humor in my opinion and he sounds like a bigger snobs than the "snobs" he's talking about. The worst part is that he portrays this as if he believes what he's saying is worthwhile and is intelligent thought.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

EDIT: I managed to listen to some of it - the fact that his "admission" that he went to the opera was apparently enough for people to lose all respect for him was enough to make me cry.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Its here:


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

American anti-intellectualism at its worst. But this is is the country that sees a NASCAR race or a professional wrestling match as a cultural event.



Cnote11 said:


> This is completely derogatory where he acts like sandwiches and cheese are not "normal" food and apparently is the food of liberal snobs, Christianity isn't accepted at the MET but Wicca is based on his own joke, describes people who talk about music as "homosexuals" and "snobs", and people who go to the Opera as "homosexuals". It is absolutely ridiculous. This is the average person in the United States and I have to deal with them on a daily basis. This is the lowest form of humor in my opinion and he sounds like a bigger snobs than the "snobs" he's talking about. The worst part is that he portrays this as if he believes what he's saying is worthwhile and is intelligent thought.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I wonder how his daughter feels about him ranting publicly like this.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I wonder how his daughter feels about him ranting publicly like this.


I wonder whether he thinks his daughter is a moronic snob too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The Rush Limbaugh of Fox News, and you're giving him more air time?

Shame on you. :-/


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think the Ring has a crazier story than the Nose.

Ha, just had an idea, they should combine the music and the story of all five operas to create an epic Shostakovich/Wagner "The Nose Ring" and this Glenn Beck person should go review _that._ :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think the Ring has a crazier story than the Nose.
> 
> Ha, just had an idea, they should combine the music and the story of all five operas to create an epic Shostakovich/Wagner "The Nose Ring" and this Glenn Beck person should go review _that._ :lol:


1.) the Ring has a crazier story than the Nose
Agreed!

2.) Shostakovitch -Wagner, "The Nose Ring."
BRILLIANT! 
....This will get passed on and go into circulation!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Or how about comissioning the American composer Tobias Picker to write an opera called "The Nose Picker ?"


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

The funny thing is that the more Glenn Beck tries to mock other people and make them look bad, the worse he ends up making himself look lol. He is pretty crazy though so I wouldn't pay any serious attention to him, I think he's out more for a reaction than anything else.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Perhaps if he'd read the short story by Gogol first he could have saved himself the bother of talking like an *** - at least on this occasion.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> Perhaps if he'd read the short story by Gogol first he could have saved himself the bother of talking like an *** - at least on this occasion.


Or had he read the program beforehand.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My my...what a limited and narrow view about what guys and girls "should" act like.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well, I feel like I lost some brain cells. The sad thing is that there are 22 likes to 10 dislikes on the second video, and on the first only my recent vote tipped the scale in favor of dislikes...13 to 12.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

violadude said:


> My my...what a limited and narrow view about what guys and girls "should" act like.


Even if he's in debunk mode just for comedic effect it's not so much what he's saying but how he's saying it - the bloke just ain't funny!


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

Actually, I can sympathize with him and his experiences with Wagner. I know about halfway through enduring Tristan und Isolde I was ready to off the two star-crossed lovers myself just to get them to stop rambling on about how they couldn't live without each other.

Obviously it was done for humor - I am amazed at how obtuse people can be in these matters.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I have only listened for his review for "Die Walküre". It was so dumb I don't even feel insulted, though I probably should, both as a Wagnerian and as a conservative. True conservatism is also about appreciation and desire to preserve the greatest achievements of the Western civilization, including opera. This man doesn't seem to be willing to raise himself to appreciation of these achievements. Plus he doesn't have the slightest trace of imagination. What a douchebag!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Actually, I can sympathize with him and his experiences with Wagner. I know about halfway through enduring Tristan und Isolde I was ready to off the two star-crossed lovers myself just to get them to stop rambling on about how they couldn't live without each other.
> 
> Obviously it was done for humor - I am amazed at how obtuse people can be in these matters.


I am sure he at least half believed what he was saying and what he said was pretty offensive, joke or not.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

Oh, I am certain he felt out of his element in that opera house, among people who probably would be calling him things like douchebag, telling him he talks like an ***, or that he is crazy, if they knew who he was.

But the thing is - he went to the opera. 5 long hours of it. And he had a reaction to Wagner that is not that much different from what I have seen some classical music fans remark. He didn't like it, but he tried it. How many critics of Glenn Beck have sat down and listened to 5 hours of his show before denouncing it in probably less flattering terms than he had for the opera?

I find much of opera to be tedious - flimsy plotlines connected together with musical dialogue that can be repetitive in the extreme. Even the most beautiful music can get annoying if the needle on the record starts to skip.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Oh, I am certain he felt out of his element in that opera house, among people who probably would be calling him things like douchebag, telling him he talks like an ***, or that he is crazy, if they knew who he was.
> 
> But the thing is - he went to the opera. 5 long hours of it. And he had a reaction to Wagner that is not that much different from what I have seen some classical music fans remark. He didn't like it, but he tried it. How many critics of Glenn Beck have sat down and listened to 5 hours of his show before denouncing it in probably less flattering terms than he had for the opera?
> 
> I find much of opera to be tedious - flimsy plotlines connected together with musical dialogue that can be repetitive in the extreme. Even the most beautiful music can get annoying if the needle on the record starts to skip.


But I'm not talking about his critiques of the ring or the nose. I am talking about his stupid idea that somehow going to the opera makes you less respectable or that talking about how great a conductor is makes you less "manly" and that "real men" don't talk about opera. Or that just because he didn't get the opera means that nobody else got it and they are just being snobby and pretending they do. All those judgements are just stupid and ignorant and I don't think you would agree with them either, Dr. Mike.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DrMike said:


> How many critics of Glenn Beck have sat down and listened to 5 hours of his show before denouncing it in probably less flattering terms than he had for the opera?


His show and one of the greatest musical masterpieces in history are just not comparable. And if he disliked the opera so badly he could at least have done better than go and make fun of it on nationwide TV. He has achieved nothing by this except for making himself look stupid.
I actually used to have some respect for the man and would have never called him a douchebag before I heard this.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

It's kind of ironic that he made fun of a Shostakovich opera so much. If he had taken the time to actually learn about Shostakovich and his life he probably would have appreciated him since he's so "anti-everything communist/socialist."


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Oh sorry, I forgot to say that by his review for "Die Walküre" I meant this:











and not the video posted above.

Also I don't agree about "The Nose" being the biggest scam in art history. The biggest scam in art history is the Black Square!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Actually I changed my mind, that video IS funny. But not for the reasons Glenn Beck fans think it is. It's funny because, as I understand it, and as the OP mentioned, the point of "The Nose" is to be as surrealist as possible because it is a satire on surrealism. The reason Shostakovich wrote a satire on surrealism is basically because the Soviets and the Soviet Government denounced surrealism in the arts because the Soviets were very pro-realist (or at least they said they were, I wouldn't call their many propaganda videos realist by any means). So Glenn Beck, by saying that the opera was stupid and ridiculous is basically taking a *gasp* *pro-Soviet* position.  The only difference is that the Soviets would have understood it as a satire and Glenn Beck didn't. Now *that's* funny! :lol:

But whatever! Opera is for sissies anyway. Imma go git ma gun and hunt deer with my six pack of beer and pack of beef jerky like a REAL man!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

violadude said:


> ....Imma go git ma gun and hunt deer with my six pack of beer and pack of beef jerky like a REAL man!


If you're lucky you might be able to blag a lift with Ted Nugent...


----------



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

Didn't you guys say that Beck said he enjoyed the ring?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I have posted two videos on the second page where he makes fun of "Die Walküre" and opera in general. But in his "review" of "The Nose" he says "Die Walküre" had even been enjoyable compared to it. And he doesn't even know the difference between a single opera and the whole Ring cycle. The whole cycle does not last six hours, it's more like sixteen!


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

Dr. Mike: I have listened to many hours of Beck (I tend to monitor right wing media from time to time). He is a complete nutcase - another has-been DJ who passes as a political commentator for fascists and nitwits. It has nothing to do with his uninformed opinion on opera - his opinion is uninformed on nearly everything he talks about. It has to do with the fact that he is - I'll use the word again - a fascist xenophobe who maintains his listenership by being as ignorant, as offensive, and as repugnant as he possibly can. As I said before, he is a shining example of American anti-intellectualism which must have W. F. Buckley whirling in his grave. I was no fan of Mr. Buckley's - but at least he maintained a certain decorum and was able to speak intelligently.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

Why is it that the only conservatives liberals can every give any praise to are the dead ones?

Anyways, I see the term "fascist" thrown around a lot by liberals when describing conservatives. It strikes me that it is used erroneously, and I would like someone who is liberal to tell me what they actually think fascism is, and how it applies to conservatives. Because it seems quite ridiculous to lump in conservatives with the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. Please explain.


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Why is it that the only conservatives liberals can every give any praise to are the dead ones?
> 
> Anyways, I see the term "fascist" thrown around a lot by liberals when describing conservatives. It strikes me that it is used erroneously, and I would like someone who is liberal to tell me what they actually think fascism is, and how it applies to conservatives. Because it seems quite ridiculous to lump in conservatives with the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. Please explain.


Well that first question is a hanging curve ball - but I won't swing.

Description of modern far-right conservatives such as Beck, the Kochs, et. al. as fascists can be justified by their racism, belief in social darwinism, and their support for a corporate oligarchy which is anti-working class, anti-union, and anti-poor. That is all I'm going to say as I don't think overt political discussion is called for in this thread and I am sorry to have engaged in it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2012)

ksargent said:


> Well that first question is a hanging curve ball - but I won't swing.
> 
> Description of modern far-right conservatives such as Beck, the Kochs, et. al. as fascists can be justified by their racism, belief in social darwinism, and their support for a corporate oligarchy which is anti-working class, anti-union, and anti-poor. That is all I'm going to say as I don't think overt political discussion is called for in this thread and I am sorry to have engaged in it.


Well that is convenient for you to now claim you have nothing else to say on the matter, since what you described does not resemble fascism. No wonder Orwell claimed that the term had lost all meaning.

Fascism sometimes had racist tendencies, but not always. More often it was nationalist tendencies, but then that wasn't unique to fascism. Social darwinism was also embraced by progressives of the early 20th century - their cause quite frequently espoused eugenics and forced sterilization of undesirables. I doubt progressives today think of themselves as fascists. As for supporting a corporate oligarchy, being anti-working class, anti-union, and anti-poor, again, this is historically inaccurate. Fascism was often (particularly in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) a movement of the proletariat - that was one of the things it had in common with communism. Corporations were allowed to exist so long as they profited the nation - sounds more like the crony capitalism that progressives have embraced.

No wonder you didn't want to discuss it further - first, your caricature of people like Glenn Beck and the Kochs is laughably biased, and second, you clearly have no real idea what fascism is.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

^ You read Orwell, LOLOLOL that was the most boring book I ever read.

I thought, okay ill give it a try as my brother loves it, even though I think reading is boring. So then I read it - but jesus christ it was horrible. There was no action at all, it was just a guy living his life in some crazy place that sounded horrible. You must be gay.

[not serious]


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Well, I cued the lefties and out they came. I find the Glenn Beck obsession rather puzzling.

By the way, you are more likely to foul off that hanging curve hitting exclusively from the left side of the plate. Learn to switch hit and your average might improve.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I loved this ! Glenn Beck is in the wrong field . Based on this , he could be one of the greatest stand up comics of all time ! This thing had me in stitches ! Beck is a born comic !











:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

I made it through about four seconds of his rant. Total idiot, I have known a million like him.


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

DrMike, I simply said that political discussion was not appropriate in this area of the forum and I apologized for engaging in it. The fascist movements of the 30's were anti-communist and had the support of corporate leaders in both Europe and the U.S. The Progressive movement of the early 20th century really bears no resemblance to what is called progressivism today (just as the Republican Party of the 19th century bears no resemblance to the Republican Party of today). The modern corporatist state is the creature of American conservatism and seeks to destroy unionism and oppress the working class while depriving them of decent health care and living wage. Fascists of the 30's did not tolerate free unions (like modern conservatives), were xenophobic and excessively nationalistic (like modern conservatives), and viewed the working class as slaves - just as modern corporatists do. Their anti-intellectuallism is well-documented - the modern conservative movement in its denial of climate change, and in many cases, evolution, carries on the American Right's version. But in the end I will grant that name-calling serves no purpose and I should not have engaged in it.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

ksargent said:


> DrMike, I simply said that political discussion was not appropriate in this area of the forum and I apologized for engaging in it. The fascist movements of the 30's were anti-communist and had the support of corporate leaders in both Europe and the U.S. The Progressive movement of the early 20th century really bears no resemblance to what is called progressivism today (just as the Republican Party of the 19th century bears no resemblance to the Republican Party of today). The modern corporatist state is the creature of American conservatism and seeks to destroy unionism and oppress the working class while depriving them of decent health care and living wage. Fascists of the 30's did not tolerate free unions (like modern conservatives), were xenophobic and excessively nationalistic (like modern conservatives), and viewed the working class as slaves - just as modern corporatists do. Their anti-intellectuallism is well-documented - the modern conservative movement in its denial of climate change, and in many cases, evolution, carries on the American Right's version. But in the end I will grant that name-calling serves no purpose and I should not have engaged in it.


I think your last sentence should go first, and the rest should be deleted. Just a suggestion. A punch in the face followed by a plea for non-violence isn't always an effective approach.


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

You misread my post. There was no plea for non-violence nor was there a punch in the face. To borrow a phrase from Harry Truman: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."



misterjones said:


> I think your last sentence should go first, and the rest should be deleted. Just a suggestion. A punch in the face followed by a plea for non-violence isn't always an effective approach.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

ksargent said:


> DrMike, I simply said that political discussion was not appropriate in this area of the forum and I apologized for engaging in it. The fascist movements of the 30's were anti-communist and had the support of corporate leaders in both Europe and the U.S. The Progressive movement of the early 20th century really bears no resemblance to what is called progressivism today (just as the Republican Party of the 19th century bears no resemblance to the Republican Party of today). The modern corporatist state is the creature of American conservatism and seeks to destroy unionism and oppress the working class while depriving them of decent health care and living wage. Fascists of the 30's did not tolerate free unions (like modern conservatives), were xenophobic and excessively nationalistic (like modern conservatives), and viewed the working class as slaves - just as modern corporatists do. Their anti-intellectuallism is well-documented - the modern conservative movement in its denial of climate change, and in many cases, evolution, carries on the American Right's version. But in the end I will grant that name-calling serves no purpose and I should not have engaged in it.


First of all, you mischaracterize what the fascists believed, and then equate it with a false depiction of consrvative thought - very much steeped in the rhetoric of Marxist ideology regarding class struggle. Then you cherry pick only those aspects of fascism that you think support your case, and extrapolate out then that people you don't like on the right must be fascists. The fascists in Germany initially made common cause with the communists, because both were ideologies born of the Marxist philosophy of the exploitation of the proletariat (which you still espouse), but ultimately they split on how to govern. But both were totalitarian. I can play this game too. I can cherry pick aspects of some vile ideology to make it look like you espouse that ideology. An ideology is not defined by certain aspects, but by the entire spectrum of its beliefs. So to label someone a fascist because you claim they have a few similarities is merely demagoguing because you don't want to debate facts.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Ha, I recently wrote something for five guitars that musically represents aspects of Marxist philosophy.


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

Dr Mike - okay. And I assume you will also agree that President Obama has mislabeled a socialist?

Actually I see a lot of merit in Marx's critique of capitalism - if not the implementations of the USSR and others in the early 20th century. There is no question that the working class IS being exploited in the U.S. But - as I said - nothing comes from the calling of names. The fact is - you and I wil never agree and to discuss these issues is pointless and a waste of time. You accuse me of not debating specific point - yet you do not refute the points I have made other than my use of the descriptor "fascist." I can only assume that you admit that the modern American conservative movement is racist, anti-intellectual, and exploitative of the working class - since you have not argued the points. Perhaps we CAN agree on a few things after all.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

ksargent said:


> You misread my post. There was no plea for non-violence nor was there a punch in the face. To borrow a phrase from Harry Truman: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."


I don't think so. Though my stomach couldn't take more than one reading, it came in loud, left and clear . . . well, at least 99% of it came in that way.

To borrow a phrase from one of my favorite poets, Alexander Pope, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing . . ."


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

ksargent said:


> Dr Mike - okay. And I assume you will also agree that President Obama has mislabeled a socialist?
> 
> Actually I see a lot of merit in Marx's critique of capitalism - if not the implementations of the USSR and others in the early 20th century. There is no question that the working class IS being exploited in the U.S. But - as I said - nothing comes from the calling of names. The fact is - you and I wil never agree and to discuss these issues is pointless and a waste of time. You accuse me of not debating specific point - yet you do not refute the points I have made other than my use of the descriptor "fascist." I can only assume that you admit that the modern American conservative movement is racist, anti-intellectual, and exploitative of the working class - since you have not argued the points. Perhaps we CAN agree on a few things after all.


I would not call Obama a socialist, but rather a statist. He has some socialist tendencies, but I think he is more of a progressive statist.
I didn't specifically refute each accusation you made, but I did state that you misrepresented conservative thought - I thought that would be a catchall.

Conservatives are not racist. That phrase has now become as meaningless as "fascist." It comes from the liberal idea that minorities are always going to be oppressed, and thus anybody who opposes any social program that might benefit oppressed minorities must therefore be racist. Thus, if you support welfare reform, since many minorities are on welfare, you must be racist. If you oppose unregulated immigration, since a vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, you must be racist. If you oppose Medicare and Medicaid, since a large proportion of minorities benefit from these programs, you must be racist. But the fact of the matter is that conservatives oppose the programs, not the people that most benefit from them. In my mind, assuming that minorities cannot survive without state assistance is the more racist ideology.

You claim conservatives are anti-intellectual, and your previously cited opposition to the theory of anthropogenic climate change and evolution as evidence. I don't know how relevant this is, but you MIGHT be surprised to know that I have a PhD in microbiology. I recognize that there is a huge groundswell support for the idea of anthropogenic climate change, but many of the scientists who have afixed their names to it are in fields that have no specialized expertise in climatology. There are also numerous scientists that do not support this theory. The science is not settled simply because liberals say it is. The IPCC's statements are as much, if not more, political statements as they are scientific ones, and the fact that so many holes have been punched in their reports regarding falsehoods portrayed as facts SHOULD make any intellectual pause and reconsider it all. But liberals/progressives are so sold on the big picture they ignore any evidence to the contrary. As for being anti-intellectual, well, I can also show how liberals are anti-intellectual. Decades of experience shows that nuclear power can be made clean and safe. France derives 80% of its power from nuclear sources, and can store the entire accumulated waste in a single warehouse not bigger than an American football field. But anti-intellectual groups - typically liberals - oppose the building of new nuclear reactors in the United States. No greenhouse gases are emitted by this energy technology. Or consider DDT - prior to its development, malaria and other mosquito-born infections were killing hundreds of millions of people. Malaria used to be common in Boston, for crying out loud. But with DDT, we were able to make malaria virtually non-existent in this country and were on our way to curbing it and other mosquito-born infections worldwide. Then liberals jumped on the bandwagon claiming DDT was bad. And so they got its use discontinued. CONSERVATIVE estimates are that hundreds of millions have died of mosquito-born infections since DDT was discontinued - despite the fact that NUMEROUS scientific studies have shown no correlation between the use of DDT and all the environmental ills the liberals told us it caused. And lets not even start with how many more people we could feed worldwide were it not for the liberal hysteria over genetically modified crops, what they like to call "Franken"-crops - crops that can produce higher yields, can grow in lands previously thought arid. No - the fact is that anti-intellectualism is not unique to conservatives or liberals, they just attack different things.

Exploitative of the working class? Why, because we oppose union-monopolies? Why is it that a corporate monopoly is bad, but a union monopoly is good? Take education. The teachers unions are virtual monopolistic powers. They make it virtually impossible to fire bad teachers regardless of the offense. Students are left to wallow in schools with poor teachers because there is nothing you can do to get the bad ones fired - the teachers unions have too much power. Conservatives are for policies that make it possible for EVERYONE to succeed. We are for fair tax policies that make everybody invested in their government, not ridiculously progressive tax structures that allow politicians to siphon away money from the wealthy to fund programs for the poor that will win them more votes. It is not being exploitive of the poor to say that they can't demand the money of the wealthy simply because they want it. There is nothing wrong with wealth, if it is acquired legally. The rich and the poor are interdependent. Yes, the rich need poorer people to work for them to produce goods, but if the rich do not offer wages that people are willing to accept, and cannot produce goods that others will want to buy at the price they are asking, then they will quickly cease to be rich. And there is nothing out there that says that the poorer people may not someday be rich. Look at the examples of Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs, or any number of self-made men and women. Yes, you do need to work hard, and typically the philosophy that somebody else owes you something will not get you there. But the door is open in this country for anybody who has a good enough idea, or the will to work, to at least get a shot at a better life. I hate to burst liberal bubbles, but life does not give an A for effort - success in life is results-driven. And you will typically find that those who are successful are not the ones who sat around and whined and moaned that they couldn't succeed because somebody else stood in their way.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

There isn't any use to debate with someone who thinks fascism rose from Marxist ideology... The Nazi party was started in part as a reaction against communism. To say that it sprung up due to a Marxist ideology is just completely inaccurate. Fascism supports a strong nationalist state, while communism supports no state at all. They aren't anything alike.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

And by statist, I mean that Obama believes that there is no social ill that cannot be overcome through the efforts of the state. And that any federal program that has as its goal the fixing of a problem, no matter how unconstitutional, how misguided, how poorly thought out, is worthwhile. They are not concerned so much with results as intentions. It doesn't matter if an entitlement program actually corrects the wrong for which it is created, so long as its intention is to "help" people. And he also believes that the purpose of the state, rather than to protect individual rights and liberties, is to guarantee equal outcome and "fairness" for all. And for that, he believes that no limitation on its power is justified if it impairs the ability of the state to achieve that goal.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

"Yes, the rich need poorer people to work for them to produce goods, but if the rich do not offer wages that people are willing to accept, and cannot produce goods that others will want to buy at the price they are asking, then they will quickly cease to be rich."

This is extremely naive and if you look at the pattern through history you see this is also completely inaccurate. Also, as a social psychologist I can tell you that your viewpoints don't exactly mesh with the way people think and act. It is a nice thought though, isn't it Dr. Mike? It doesn't exactly work that way though. As for your idea that "poor people" (he wasn't poor, they were very well-off) like Steve Jobs can rise to the top, well... you do realise that Steve Jobs had amazing hands-on training from his birth, right? His father, who built lasers, taught him to fix and build electrical devices as a child, and was placed around other people who were computer geniuses. It was this that stimulated him, and I'm afraid to say that the idea that poor people can become rich is mostly a facade. You need some type of advantage, and let's face it, majority of people do not have the advantages.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> There isn't any use to debate with someone who thinks fascism rose from Marxist ideology... The Nazi party was started in part as a reaction against communism. To say that it sprung up due to a Marxist ideology is just completely inaccurate. Fascism supports a strong nationalist state, while communism supports no state at all. They aren't anything alike.


When did I say it rose from Marxist ideology? I said that both Marxist and fascist ideology were both proletarian movements. Don't believe me? Go look at the propaganda posters of both the Nazis and the Soviets - both glorify the common man, the worker, the farmer, the proletariat. Both ideologies ultimately exploited these groups just as much, if not more, than any capitalistic society they both equally despised. Fascists tolerated capitalism perhaps a bit more, but only insomuch as the corporations alligned themselves with the state and supported its success. Where they didn't, the state would step in and take over. Communists rather right from the start advocated the takeover of corporations and making everything an organ of the state. Both ideologies, though, tought that the individual was less important than the whole. Both were anathema to liberal concepts of individual rights and liberties - they both equally despised liberal democracies. The concept of the working class is not unique to Marx. The Nazi party was NOT started as a reaction against communism - it was a reaction to the condition that Germany found itself in following WWI. The fact that part of that condition was that marxist ideology was gaining a strong foothold in the country might have been a motivating factor doesn't make it the driving factor. And besides - it is well known that 20th century fascism started in Italy, not Germany.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

"The fascists in Germany initially made common cause with the communists, because both were ideologies born of the Marxist philosophy of the exploitation of the proletariat " 

You said it right there. Both ideologies born of the Marxist philosophy of the exploitation of the proletariat. No, fascism wasn't born of the same Marxist philosophy. We in the United States parade around with "Joe Six-Pack" and glorifying the common man, but that doesn't mean we're born of Marxist ideology. The idea of glorifying the common man in Germany was about something completely different. I spoke of Germany only because you spoke of Germany. I'm not going to debate this with you when you obviously aren't very up on your history of Fascism like you claim to be. You might want to go read up on Anton Drexler before you tell me communism didn't play a factor in the upstart of the Nazi Party. What about the Reichstag fire where they used propaganda of a communist burning a German building to gain favor with the masses? You're blind if you don't recognize the anti-communist ideology of both Italy and Germany. Of course there was more to it, and more reasons why the masses get on board, but the creators of the party were driven in-part by their anti-communist ideologies and their wish to purge Germany of liberals, intellectuals, and Jews.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> "Yes, the rich need poorer people to work for them to produce goods, but if the rich do not offer wages that people are willing to accept, and cannot produce goods that others will want to buy at the price they are asking, then they will quickly cease to be rich."
> 
> This is extremely naive and if you look at the pattern through history you see this is also completely inaccurate. Also, as a social psychologist I can tell you that your viewpoints don't exactly mesh with the way people think and act. It is a nice thought though, isn't it Dr. Mike? It doesn't exactly work that way though. As for your idea that "poor people" (he wasn't poor, they were very well-off) like Steve Jobs can rise to the top, well... you do realise that Steve Jobs had amazing hands-on training from his birth, right? His father, who built lasers, taught him to fix and build electrical devices as a child, and was placed around other people who were computer geniuses. It was this that stimulated him, and I'm afraid to say that the idea that poor people can become rich is mostly a facade. You need some type of advantage, and let's face it, majority of people do not have the advantages.


So? Big news flash - not everybody is going to have the same capabilities. But opportunities exist for those who want them. If we didn't have those who were more successful than others, our society would not advance. We would still be back in the stone age. But just because one person succeeds and another does not, does not mean that the one who succeeded did so at the expense of the one who did not.

And it is not the job of the state to correct any such inequalities. The problem when you let the state intervene to impose fairness is that, often, fairness is in the eye of the beholder, and typically becomes subject to the whims of whatever party is in power. I don't want every aspect of my life regulated by liberal philosophy, just as you don't want every aspect of your life regulated by conservative philosophy - but when you let the state take over more roles in this regard, then you have to face the consequences that, sometimes, the person making the decisions for you is going to make decisions YOU DON'T LIKE. So how do you prevent that? Don't let the state make as many decisions and have as much control over you. When the government makes the decisions of what should and should not succeed, it rarely ends well. They just dumped half a billion dollars into a company (Solyndra) that went belly up - a company that capitalists said was not a wise investment. Had they let the market dictate which company was more viable, rather than bureaucrats who are not as wise as they think they are, we would be half a billion dollars richer now than we are. The best we can do is to make the opportunities available to all, and then let individuals apply their efforts in ways that they think in their best interest. If education needs reforming, lets reform it. Lets work on making it easier to get rid of bad teachers and turn schools back into institutions whose sole goal is the education of our youth, not political indoctrination camps, or guaranteed jobs for union members. Lets make sure that discrimination in hiring is eliminated, so that the only thing that should be considered in hiring a person is how qualified they are for the job, and make their skin color and gender give them no more and no less of a chance at the job. We can look at potential safety nets for those who genuinely can't advance in this world and might need help, but not force all to be subject to such government programs.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

You realise you gloss over key words and go for extremes. When I say it was started in part as a reaction against communism you say it wasn't AT ALL. When someone says conservatives are racist you say CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT RACIST! On both accounts you are completely WRONG. Communism WAS started IN PART (key word, please read it) as a reaction to communist AND SOME CONSERVATIVES ARE RACIST. I love your iron clad logic when you boat that "CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT RACISTS". How can you say that with a straight-face?

As for Glenn Beck, the guy deserves to be trashed. If you have any respect for him then I feel bad for you. If I were a conservative I'd be embarrassed by this guys buffoonery.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Also, I quit reading your post after you said it isn't the "job of the state". You keep referring back to the "right of the state". I hope you know there isn't such a thing. It isn't inherent you know, and you're basing your opinions off of it without justifying the idea of the "job of the state" or the "right of the state". I hope you realise that when you say these things it just means your opinion of the job of the state, and that it isn't actually the job of the state or not the job of the state. You're defining state for how its relevant for you and acting like its automatically valid. I dislike the terminology so I will proudly wear my fascist badge and terminate this conversation.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> "The fascists in Germany initially made common cause with the communists, because both were ideologies born of the Marxist philosophy of the exploitation of the proletariat "
> 
> You said it right there. Both ideologies born of the Marxist philosophy of the exploitation of the proletariat. No, fascism wasn't born of the same Marxist philosophy. We in the United States parade around with "Joe Six-Pack" and glorifying the common man, but that doesn't mean we're born of Marxist ideology. The idea of glorifying the common man in Germany was about something completely different. I spoke of Germany only because you spoke of Germany. I'm not going to debate this with you when you obviously aren't very up on your history of Fascism like you claim to be. You might want to go read up on Anton Drexler before you tell me communism didn't play a factor in the upstart of the Nazi Party. What about the Reichstag fire where they used propaganda of a communist burning a German building to gain favor with the masses? You're blind if you don't recognize the anti-communist ideology of both Italy and Germany. Of course there was more to it, and more reasons why the masses get on board, but the creators of the party were driven in-part by their anti-communist ideologies and their wish to purge Germany of liberals, intellectuals, and Jews.


I described it as "Marxist" philosophy, because that is how we now think of it. But both movements were proletarian. The Nazis arose from Drexler's Deutshce Arberiterspartei (DAP), or German workers' party. Drexler opposed many things - he was anti-semitic, he opposed the Treaty of Versailles, anti-monarchist, anti-Marxist, and believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. Later, when Hitler laid out the 25 points of the party, it was more than just an anti-Marxist movement, just as it was initially not just an anti-Marxist movement. It was in opposition to ANYTHING that they felt was standing in the way of a greater German nation. It was, at its very core, an ultra-nationalistic racist movement. They hated everything that stood in the way of a Greater Germany, and at the time, this included Marxism, or bolshevism. Communist movements were more international in scope - they sought a worldwide communist movement. They wanted the workers of the world to unit. Nazis wanted the Aryan workers to unite and create a strong German nation that could expand, if need be, to increase the power of that German nation, taking what they needed.


----------



## ksargent (Feb 8, 2012)

We come from diametrically opposed moral systems. I believe that decent housing, basic food, medical care, and employment are human rights and that it is the province of the state to ensure that all citizens have access to those. I accept that there will always be (and should be) disparities in income, but I believe that it is in the interest of society to exercise some control over those disparities. You have a Ph.D. and I salute for your work in obtaining it. However, I hope you don't suffer from the delusion that you earned it all by yourself. You were educated largely on other people's money - even if you received no financial assistance. If you attended public institutions, then a large portion of the cost of your education was paid for by public funding - even if you paid your tuition on your own. If you attended a private institution, then it is likely a significant portion of the same costs were paid through endowments. If you received financial aid - well, enough said. You make use of tax-supported facilities every day of your life - when you drive, when you fly, when you listen to the radio, when you use the Internet and so on. So no one is truly "self-sufficient." Regarding the progressive income tax: that is a question of morality as well. It is my view that the rich SHOULD pay higher percentages than middle class and poor people. The fact is that a low wage earner's tax burden comes from funds which he or she would use for basic needs, while a high earner's will come from funds he or she would use for luxuries. Even if the low wage earner pays no income tax, he or she will pay a variety of state and local taxes as well as Social Security/Medicare. The high earner, on the other hand, is excused from paying SS/Medicare on a great part of his or her wages. It is the responsibility of a civilized society to provide certain basic needs to ALL of its citizens. A civilized society supports the arts. And the idea that requiring those who have benefitted the most from our economy to pay more is nothing more than simple fairness as far as I am concerned.

So - you see - we are very different. I do believe that history generally is moving leftward and modern conservatism is at the twilight of a thirty year period of dominance. In a generation or two, what is viewed as "conservative" will be an ideology similar to Obama's - in fact, Obama is governing to the right of Nixon, Ford, Eisenhower, and virtually every modern Republican before Reagan. Modern conservatism is demographically doomed in the U.S., so enjoy it while you can.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

Yes, we are diametrically opposed. And can I assume, then (based on the logic you previously employed) that since you did not refute specifically my arguments regarding racism and anti-intellectualism, that you now agree with me? 

The idea that modern conservatism is a doomed demographic was something that James Carville predicted right before the Republicans, led primarily by a strong and vocal conservative core, won sweeping victories in the 2010 midterm elections, stopping the Democrat-reacquisition of the House just 4 short years after they took it in 2006 and eliminating the super-majority in the Senate. While Democrats may have greater numbers on the books, the country itself is very much a center-right nation. Conservative principles are gaining traction, not losing ground. For example, while the country is not yet at the point where there is popular support to outlaw abortion, the general sentiment regarding abortion has definitely been shifting towards a more pro-life direction. Regarding issues of taxation, Democrats now have even had to concede that higher taxes do not always lead to higher revenues, and more people are realizing it. They are seeing the effects, as people flee places like California and New York, where taxes have become prohibitively expensive. Modern liberalism only survives when modern liberals couch their liberal ideas in relatively conservative language.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> Also, I quit reading your post after you said it isn't the "job of the state". You keep referring back to the "right of the state". I hope you know there isn't such a thing. It isn't inherent you know, and you're basing your opinions off of it without justifying the idea of the "job of the state" or the "right of the state". I hope you realise that when you say these things it just means your opinion of the job of the state, and that it isn't actually the job of the state or not the job of the state. You're defining state for how its relevant for you and acting like its automatically valid. I dislike the terminology so I will proudly wear my fascist badge *and terminate this conversation*.


Ah, and I was just starting to get warm tingly feelings towards you.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> You realise you gloss over key words and go for extremes. When I say it was started in part as a reaction against communism you say it wasn't AT ALL. When someone says conservatives are racist you say CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT RACIST! On both accounts you are completely WRONG. Communism WAS started IN PART (key word, please read it) as a reaction to communist AND SOME CONSERVATIVES ARE RACIST. I love your iron clad logic when you boat that "CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT RACISTS". How can you say that with a straight-face?
> 
> As for Glenn Beck, the guy deserves to be trashed. If you have any respect for him then I feel bad for you. If I were a conservative I'd be embarrassed by this guys buffoonery.


To start off, Fascism was more or less bron in Italy, not in Germany.

Nazism wasn't born because of communism or anything like that. As a reaction to "jewish bolshevism" it originated in the shadows of versailles and the worst economic crisis in German history.

Conservatives are no racist just because they are conservatives. Some are, of course. But not because of the ideology. It would be the same as saying that all socialists are full of social resentment which would be an exaggeration.

Damn I never knew some sort of political discussion could be had in this forum. I've been having those all around yet I always found talkclassical to be quite dead for non-musical subjects...


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Fascism supports a strong nationalist state, while communism supports no state at all.


 In pure theoretical analysis, yes, Marxism doesn't support a state. But its no anarchy either (not to be confused with anarcho-sindicalism or other currents of the sort). Marxism supports a dictatorship of the proletariat. A dictatorship of the proletariat by default requires a governing body (the group of proletarians in charge). Hence, you have a state, only one even more powerful, not tied to the same originating principles as the traditional nation-state, but just as omnipresent, powerful, coercive, and dangerous (as history has proven MORE THAN OFTEN ENOUGH).


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm well aware of where Fascism started. If you read the thread you can see that we were discussing in specific Nazism.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

tgtr0660 said:


> In pure theoretical analysis, yes, Marxism doesn't support a state. But its no anarchy either (not to be confused with anarcho-sindicalism or other currents of the sort). Marxism supports a dictatorship of the proletariat. A dictatorship of the proletariat by default requires a governing body (the group of proletarians in charge). Hence, you have a state, only one even more powerful, not tied to the same originating principles as the traditional nation-state, but just as omnipresent, powerful, coercive, and dangerous (as history has proven MORE THAN OFTEN ENOUGH).


There is a difference between Marxism ideology that was developed under the Soviet state and actual beliefs of Marx. Communism supports no state at all, and those strands of communism that do support a state I do not believe to be pure communism, but rather ideologies branched off of it that take ideas but reject the actual goal of communism as seen by Marx. I'm sure you know all of this.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

From an opera review to the state of Marxism in the 20th and 21st centuries. Somewhere Glenn Beck is laughing his *** off. Perhaps Paddy Chayefsky is, as well.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Yes, why are we on about this all? I think instead we should talk about how great Die Walkure is.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

I found Die Walkure boring as hell. I rented DVDs for the entire Ring, and was able to follow it up until Die Walkure, but that was my limit.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I love Die Walkure, as a part of the ring it deserves its spot at No. 1 on our list.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

So you only got through Das Rheingold? What exactly did you dislike about Die Walkure? Did you enjoy Das Rheingold at all?


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

I found nothing engaging in it. Wagner, for me, is a few highlights interspersed among a bunch of filler, overlayed on top of absurd plotlines. Yes, I know that the Ring is based on Germanic/Norse mythology, but he modified it enough to make it his own. I don't dismiss overly lengthy productions out of hand, but sometimes, less is more, and I don't think Wagner grasped that. He likes to hit you over the head with vain, excessive repetition to get his point across.

I found Tannhauser and Die Meistersinger to be fairly enjoyable, but have not really derived much pleasure from the rest of Wagner's output, other than my Szell-directed "Wagner Without Words" recording.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

No insults intended, but I believe people who cannot appreciate Wagner simply do not possess the necessary degree of imagination. They are the kind of people who will take a look at Lord Of The Rings or Star Wars or any other epic fiction and snort: "Rubbish! That doesn't happen in real life!" and go watch the latest chick flick. Boring people! And yes, I know The Ring is about much more than just Germanic/Norse myth but still...

As concerns nazism and communism, they may have been on the opposite sides of the frontlines once but the underlying idea is the same - an all-powerful state that supposedly knows best about what is good for its citizens and has a right to employ whatever methods its leaders find best for the achievement of the ""golden age", including torture and mass executions. A lot of "progressives" and "liberals" nowadays seem to believe in the same idea, that citizens should rely on the government to solve their problems, minus repressions of course. And by the way, before 1941 when the Reich made the first move, nazis and soviets were best buddies.

Conservatism "Founding Fathers-style", however, has a totally different idea behind it, namely that the government consists of merely fallible and selfish human beings who would abuse power whenever they have too much of it and therefore need to be watched closely and their power severely restricted. This last idea seems to be far more realistic.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Can we get back to making fun of Glenn Beck and his silly views on opera?


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> No insults intended, but I believe people who cannot appreciate Wagner simply do not possess the necessary degree of imagination. They are the kind of people who will take a look at Lord Of The Rings or Star Wars or any other epic fiction and snort: "Rubbish! That doesn't happen in real life!" and go watch the latest chick flick. Boring people! And yes, I know The Ring is about much more than just Germanic/Norse myth but still...
> 
> As concerns nazism and communism, they may have been on the opposite sides of the frontlines once but the underlying idea is the same - an all-powerful state that supposedly knows best about what is good for its citizens and has a right to employ whatever methods its leaders find best for the achievement of the ""golden age", including torture and mass executions. A lot of "progressives" and "liberals" nowadays seem to believe in the same idea, that citizens should rely on the government to solve their problems, minus repressions of course. And by the way, before 1941 when the Reich made the first move, nazis and soviets were best buddies.
> 
> Conservatism "Founding Fathers-style", however, has a totally different idea behind it, namely that the government consists of merely fallible and selfish human beings who would abuse power whenever they have too much of it and therefore need to be watched closely and their power severely restricted. This last idea seems to be far more realistic.


On the contrary, I love the Lord of the Rings (I have read it and the Hobbit at least 6 times each), and love Star Wars (at least the original trilogy). I have no problem with fantasy/ fantastical plots, shop long as they are well written and coherent.
I prefer quality to quantity, and I recognize that Wagner did have quality, but you sure do have to Wade through a whole bunch of filler to get to it.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

No insults intended, but I think Dr. Mike was beaten as a child and that is why he doesn't like Wagner. There has to be some explanation other than it just doesn't do it for him.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

He must have been beaten by some German who was singing extracts from The Ring while working on his face with his fists. And again, no insults intended.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Wagner is ok for me, but it's rare that I will sit through an entire opera of his, especially if I am trying to follow along with the libretto I have to do it in chunks. 

I don't really like Lord of the Rings that much either, at least the movies.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

violadude said:


> Wagner is ok for me, but it's rare that I will sit through an entire opera of his, especially if I am trying to follow along with the libretto I have to do it in chunks.
> 
> I don't really like Lord of the Rings that much either, at least the movies.


As much as I loved the movies, the books are even better. I'm not saying you should read them, but if you ever find yourself in the enviable position of having a lot of free time and wanting to read something new, try them. The first of the three, The Fellowship of the Ring, is, IMHO, the best of the three, so you should get a pretty good idea just with that one whether you would be interested in reading the other two.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> No insults intended, but I think Dr. Mike was beaten as a child and that is why he doesn't like Wagner. There has to be some explanation other than it just doesn't do it for him.





SiegendesLicht said:


> He must have been beaten by some German who was singing extracts from The Ring while working on his face with his fists. And again, no insults intended.


Yes, I was beaten as a child, and that experience instilled in me the strong desire to never again subject myself to anything oppressive or domineering. Hence, my feelings towards Wagner . . .

Just kidding about the beating, BTW.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I found nothing engaging in it. Wagner, for me, is a few highlights interspersed among a bunch of filler, overlayed on top of absurd plotlines. Yes, I know that the Ring is based on Germanic/Norse mythology, but he modified it enough to make it his own. I don't dismiss overly lengthy productions out of hand, but sometimes, less is more, and I don't think Wagner grasped that. He likes to hit you over the head with vain, excessive repetition to get his point across.
> 
> I found Tannhauser and Die Meistersinger to be fairly enjoyable, but have not really derived much pleasure from the rest of Wagner's output, other than my Szell-directed "Wagner Without Words" recording.


Try Tristan, which has no filler. Dutchman is also quite tightly written and good for people with limited attention span.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

Tristan was worse, to me, than the Ring. As I have commented elsewhere - I was ready to kill the two of them myself just so I wouldn't have to hear for the millionth time about how they couldn't live without one another.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Tristan was worse, to me, than the Ring. As I have commented elsewhere - I was ready to kill the two of them myself just so I wouldn't have to hear for the millionth time about how they couldn't live without one another.


I reckon a person has heard about 5% of a Wagner on the first listen. Try again soon.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

My Wagner history:
Die Meistersinger - listened 1X - rather enjoyed it.
Lohengrin - listened 1X - left no lasting impression
Tannhauser - listened 2X - perhaps my favorite Wagner, enjoyed it.
The Ring - listened to all of it 2X, watched Das Rheingold and Die Walkure on DVD - bored to tears
Tristan - listened 2X - praying there will never be a third time


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Tristan bored me the first few times as well. By the 10th time, I was convinced it was the greatest thing ever written. Today I can not in honesty think of a 5 minute interval I would be willing to cut from it. Perhaps part of my attraction of Wagner has been learning to "own" what is at first a seemingly impenetrable, gargantuan work and witnessing as endless prattle turns divine.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

Which Das Rheingold and Walkure did you watch, DrMike?
Just curious.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> As much as I loved the movies, the books are even better. I'm not saying you should read them, but if you ever find yourself in the enviable position of having a lot of free time and wanting to read something new, try them. The first of the three, The Fellowship of the Ring, is, IMHO, the best of the three, so you should get a pretty good idea just with that one whether you would be interested in reading the other two.


If I ever got around to reading fiction books, I'm sure I would like the LOTR books better than the movies. All the action scenes in the movie are kind of what bored me. I'm not that into big action scenes. I feel like once I've seen one minute of big sweaty guys crashing into each other and clanging their swords together I've seen every minute of it.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I tell you, the first time I saw LOTR I hated it. The second time I thought it was brilliant. Then I watched the second and third one and felt they were also brilliant. Really enjoyable stuff on my behalf.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Conservatism "Founding Fathers-style", however, has a totally different idea behind it, namely that the government consists of merely fallible and selfish human beings who would abuse power whenever they have too much of it and therefore need to be watched closely and their power severely restricted. This last idea seems to be far more realistic.


Alas, even apart from government, the world is full of "merely fallible and selfish human beings who would abuse power whenever they have too much of it and therefore need to be watched closely and their power severely restricted."

And who has to do the watching and restricting? Why . . . government.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

violadude said:


> If I ever got around to reading fiction books, I'm sure I would like the LOTR books better than the movies. All the action scenes in the movie are kind of what bored me. I'm not that into big action scenes. I feel like once I've seen one minute of big sweaty guys crashing into each other and clanging their swords together I've seen every minute of it.


You might. I loath the movies, but love the books. Peter Jackson definitely Hollywood-ized the movies (added cheesy love scenes, fighting scenes, etc) which was actually detrimental (in my opinion) to the quality of the films.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I guess that was just adding Isolde to injurty, Drmike !











:lol: :lol:: :lol:


----------

