Horowitz "there are only Jewish, gay, and bad pianists" - true?

[forte88]

We can look at it inversely. Could european manage to understand asian music as well as asians? I doubt.

Perhaps. But don't you think it's strange then that Asians have adapted to European music and not the other way around? Additionally, if you compare the instruments invented in Europe with those from Asia, it's like Asians didn't rate music very highly on their list of priorities.But my main problem with Asian music is its musical scale, the Western scale just sounds much more aesthetic.

 Again I'm not trying to put anyone down, but it appears that different longitudes/lattitudes have an influence on the distribution heart and mind. A bit like how Stoneage people made use of subtle energies by building built for example Stonehenge and the pyramids on certain energy gradients. I wouldn't even be surprised if Asians wanting to become musicians would do better if they lived and studied in Europe, and vice versa, stuff like mathematics/programming and philosophy in Asia.(but then again Newton, Einstein, were from the West)


I understand that for many on this forum, music is less about music and more about nationality, education , social standing etc, when to me these things are hardly relevant, music's an individual experience and it's a shame some let conformist attitudes and nationalism interfere with reality.

[forte88]

Computers typically apply completely different ways of "thinking" to top players regarding certain positional aspects: in certain types of position, a computer may calculate 10 moves ahead and evaluate the resulting position based on what it considers optimal play, whereas a GM may go by "feel" and evaluate the initial position based on certain concepts based on abstract understanding. In other positions a GM may be able to look further than a computer. See "horizon effect". I'm not going to comment on whether the Russian psyche lends itself to creativity, as I'm not Russian and don't know enough about it. .

It's about recognizing patterns. A bit like nowadays a computer can even 'recognize' faces. The same with chess, counting and comparing with a database, i.e. intuition. I used to like playing chess, but I considered it more of an intellectual sport than a creative activity, and Russians and Chinese are known for their wordclass athletes....maybe this is where I differ with the rest of the folks here, I consider pianoplaying more of a musical /creative pursuit  than an athletic one

Semantically speaking, are the computers creative? All the computer does is execute code

Exactly

[p2u_]

Perhaps. But don't you think it's strange then that Asians have adapted to European music and not the other way around?

I'm not so sure you will get a reply from afroja86. For some, music is less about music and more about the SPAM in their signatures.

Paul

[forte88]

I hope not, I'm interested in his reply

[chopantasy]

Chess was always about art to me - oh the the beauty of a combination!  I suppose that's one thing that differentiates people.

[forte88]

Chess was always about art to me - oh the the beauty of a combination!  I suppose that's one thing that differentiates people.

The same you can say about any sport

[chopantasy]

Chess is no more a sport than music.  It's a different type of art from the art of the sprinter or high jumper.

[p2u_]

@ forte88

By replying to afroja86's post, you "infected" your own post (the one I'm now replying to) and changed its subject title. Anybody who clicks "reply" on either his post (Reply # 200) or yours (Reply #201) and is not aware of "irrelevant" things in the board software interface will change the subject of this topic, so I suggest you take measures to improve the situation ("modify" + rename subject), thank you.

Perhaps. But don't you think it's strange then that Asians have adapted to European music and not the other way around? Additionally, if you compare the instruments invented in Europe with those from Asia, it's like Asians didn't rate music very highly on their list of priorities.But my main problem with Asian music is its musical scale, the Western scale just sounds much more aesthetic.

Since the creative SPAM-bot that brought up the subject is not likely to reply, I'll take a stab. You are again limiting yourself in your thinking using your own assumptions and your own tastes, forte88.

Asian music doesn't "sell" well, that's why many people are not interested in it, but that doesn't mean it has no great artistic value. I remember the great singer Paul Robeson doing splendid renditions of Chinese songs, and although we are not accustomed to them, it doesn't mean they are bad songs. How could they be? It's such an ancient culture, but we seem to accept only what "sells" well; things like martial arts, westernized "methods" of feng shui, "Chinese" food, especially adapted to our tastes, etc.

Again I'm not trying to put anyone down, but it appears that different longitudes/lattitudes have an influence on the distribution heart and mind. A bit like how Stoneage people made use of subtle energies by building built for example Stonehenge and the pyramids on certain energy gradients. I wouldn't even be surprised if Asians wanting to become musicians would do better if they lived and studied in Europe, and vice versa, stuff like mathematics/programming and philosophy in Asia.(but then again Newton, Einstein, were from the West)

Again your assumptions: Associations of eastern culture and stoneage. I'm speechless. The Russians, for example, did much more than the West for programming and computing BECAUSE THEY HAD TECHNICALLY INFERIOR EQUIPMENT; that's why they were forced to think more and YES... be creative...

I understand that for many on this forum, music is less about music and more about nationality, education , social standing etc, [...] it's a shame some let conformist attitudes and nationalism interfere with reality.

People are desperately trying to convince you of the opposite, forte88, but obviously to no avail; you just won't listen. The only one who started comparing whose music is "best" was you, and you did that for the wrong reasons and in the wrong context. Besides, you interpret arguments of someone explaining to you that those "stoneage" people may be far more creative than one might expect as attemps to convince you that "stoneage" music itself is better.

Paul

[forte88]

Asian music doesn't "sell" well, that's why many people are not interested in it, but that doesn't mean it has no great artistic value. I remember the great singer Paul Robeson doing splendid renditions of Chinese songs, and although we are not accustomed to them, it doesn't mean they are bad songs. How could they be? It's such an ancient culture, but we seem to accept only what "sells" well; things like martial arts, westernized "methods" of feng shui, "Chinese" food, especially adapted to our tastes, etc.

I didn't say it didn't have any value, just less than Western music. But as you rightly point out they've got a lot to be proud of(martial arts etc), although not their music IMO, and if they did, the west would be importing theirs instead of vice versa.

Again your assumptions: Associations of eastern culture and stoneage. I'm speechless. The Russians, for example, did much more than the West for programming and computing BECAUSE THEY HAD TECHNICALLY INFERIOR EQUIPMENT; that's why they were forced to think more and YES... be creative...

This again is misquoting what I wrote, I was referring to latitude/longitude etc(please read again if you didn't understand the first time)

[p2u_]

This again is misquoting what I wrote, I was referring to altitude/longitude etc(please read again if you didn't understand the first time)

You used phrases like "A bit like how Stoneage people", "Stonehenge", and "pyramids" in your comparison with no elements of anything more recent. If you want to be understood correctly, please, don't use such associations; they rather undermine your argument, than support it.

Paul

[forte88]

Here, I'll repeat just in case you missed it the first time

 

Again I'm not trying to put anyone down, but it appears that different longitudes/lattitudes have an influence on the distribution heart and mind. A bit like how Stoneage people made use of subtle energies by building for example Stonehenge and the pyramids on certain energy gradients. I wouldn't even be surprised if Asians wanting to become musicians would do better if they lived and studied in Europe, and vice versa, stuff like mathematics/programming and philosophy in Asia.(but then again Newton, Einstein, were from the West)

[p2u_]

Here, I'll repeat just in case you missed it the first time

You are losing the argument and now you prefer to question my thinking abilities instead?

By using such phrasing (especially in light of what you have been writing before), you suggest people in the East are backward as compared to those in Europe, but with your own assumptions in mind (you didn't mean to do that), your post is still supposed to look good. If you suddenly change either focus or assumptions, please, let the reader know in advance.

Paul

[forte88]

The devil is in the details, but it's ok. It can work. For example I come up with ingenuous creative insights, you guys write a computerprogram that (like a bot)checks facts, fleshes them out a little. If you could develop that, it would be a great step ahead for mankind

[cmg]

Back to the original question re:  Horowitz's off-the-cuff, tongue-in-cheek comment.  Of course, it isn't necessarily true.

But Horowitz, married or not, was gay, as was Richter.  Both, living in a different and even more unenlightened time than this one is (if you can imagine that), were tortured by having to hide their orientation.  In fact, it's my personal feeling that Richter's personality tics and highly self-critical stance were prompted more by his having to bear the weight of his sexual orientation than his perfectionism as an artist.  In Richter and Horowitz's time, the earlier years of their careers, one could be arrested for being gay.  Nice world, huh?

Stephen Hough, thank God, a great pianist and openly gay, has some comments on this issue in his blog;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100006381/gay-pianists-can-you-tell/

[chopantasy]

But Horowitz, married or not, was gay, as was Richter. 

Now you've gone and done it.  Paul will be furious!

[p2u_]

But Horowitz, married or not, was gay, as was Richter.

Now you've gone and done it.  Paul will be furious!

Don't worry I'm not. It's just that there is no proof for it, since Richter himself didn't admit it, and it does not fit in the picture of the man I knew. Otherwise, no hard feelings.

Paul

[cmg]

Now you've gone and done it.  Paul will be furious!

Don't worry I'm not. It's just that there is no proof for it, since Richter himself didn't admit it, and it does not fit in the picture of the man I knew. Otherwise, no hard feelings.

Paul

It's true that neither Richter, nor Horowitz, "admitted" to homosexualiy in any public source as, for example, Stephen Hough has.  There is no record of public admission to the question of orientation by them.  In their time, such an admission would have killed their careers.

Furthermore, whether any artist is homosexual or not wouldn't be a source of hard feelings for those who admired them, correct?  And, out of respectful curiosity, what "picture of the man I knew," as you write, conflicts with him being homosexual?  Did he deny his homosexuality to you, for example, by expressing bemusement or anger at the suggestions he was gay?

[p2u_]

And, out of respectful curiosity, what "picture of the man I knew," as you write, conflicts with him being homosexual?  Did he deny his homosexuality to you, for example, by expressing bemusement or anger at the suggestions he was gay?

With Richter around, one would never even think of raising the subject! I remember him making some remarks about certain "not so beautiful" rumors going, but he was not explicit. He was not of this world, that's why I always perceive it as a bit unfair to apply earthy principles in trying to explain who he was.

Paul

[cmg]

With Richter around, one would never even think of raising the subject! I remember him making some remarks about certain "not so beautiful" rumors going, but he was not explicit. He was not of this world, that's why I always perceive it as a bit unfair to apply earthy principles in trying to explain who he was.

Paul

Lord, I can imagine!  Such a private man.  I'm sure you know the Bruno Monsaingeon film about him, entitled appropriately enough, "The Enigma."  He really wasn't of this earth. 

I did spend an evening many years ago with the late Shura Cherkassky in Miami.  He was at an after-concert party there, and we both were friends with the host, a prominent pianist who was teaching down there at the time.  Shura was easily the kindest, most self-effacing great artist I've ever met.  We struck up a friendship and when he played in NYC in subsequent years we'd have dinner and explore the town.  He alluded to his orientation, but only obliquely.  Like any one of us, we are who we are and our orientations are rather beside the point.  He was such a fine, fine pianist.  And a sweet man.  I miss him.   

[p2u_]

I'm sure you know the Bruno Monsaingeon film about him, entitled appropriately enough, "The Enigma."  He really wasn't of this earth.

By the way, there are many hidden tricks in that film that give a certain depth, but you have to know Russian. For example, when Richter starts telling about Yudina citing poems without teeth, the camera suddenly points to a tombstone of a certain "Zubov" (litt. of the Teeth family ). The end should have been shot in Moscow, but Monsaingeon was too late; Richter had already died. That's why he took the "I don't like myself" quote as a kind of farewell, but actually Richter said that after they had listened together to a recording of Richter's Beethoven op. 111...

Paul

[pts1]

Both, living in a different and even more unenlightened time than this one is (if you can imagine that)...

lol. uh.... the Dark Ages... last year?

Just yesterday Dick Cheney's daughter publically married her long term lesbian partner in a cermony with friends and family in attendance.

Not to mention we have a black president of the USA.

Compared to even a decade ago, these are the MOST enlightened times, at least in America.

[cmg]

By the way, there are many hidden tricks in that film that give a certain depth, but you have to know Russian. For example, when Richter starts telling about Yudina citing poems without teeth, the camera suddenly points to a tombstone of a certain "Zubov" (litt. of the Teeth family ). The end should have been shot in Moscow, but Monsaingeon was too late; Richter had already died. That's why he took the "I don't like myself" quote as a kind of farewell, but actually Richter said that after they had listened together to a recording of Richter's Beethoven op. 111...

Paul

That's a wonderful anecdote!

[cmg]

lol. uh.... the Dark Ages... last year?

Just yesterday Dick Cheney's daughter publically married her long term lesbian partner in a cermony with friends and family in attendance.

Not to mention we have a black president of the USA.

Compared to even a decade ago, these are the MOST enlightened times, at least in America.

Well, Ameria's a tricky place politically.  Don't think for a minute that the ruling class won't reclaim its ascendancy.  Even today, women, let alone gay women, don't have equal rights here.  And gay people, despite their heightened visibility and vocalness, are still denied basic Constitutional rights.  The federal government does not even give them permission to marry.  States rights on this issue are immaterial without federal sanction and a Constitutional amendment to deny gay people this right is on the table with enormous financial and conservative "Christian" support.  

And Obama's election (bless his socks, I certainly voted for him) arose because Caucasians are the growing minority in America and the 60 per cent vote he got arose from those minority voters.  "Minority" means without money in America.  So numbers mean nothing.  This fact of Caucasians losing their statistical edge in America, a fact utterly intolerable to them, has resulted in the creation of the "Tea Party," a racist party, despite their protestations of being simply extreme "Conservatives."  It's a clear, undeclared war on this current President.  And this party's backing by the Fox network and the wealthiest billionaires in America assures its continuity.  Look at Congress:  completely rendered impotent by the Tea Party membership.

No, these are not enlightened times here.  There truly is a class war and a race war raging and Obama, ironically, has betrayed his campaign promises by consistently backing the demands of Wall Street and banking interests at every turn.  Furthermore, he has betrayed the promise to turn back Bush's erosion of civil rights through the Patriot Act.  In fact, he has gone farther than Bush in side-stepping Constitutional guarantees.  Just this year, he ordered the murder of a suspected terrorist without bringing charges against him, without giving him a trial.  The terrorist, by the way, was an American citizen.  An American ordered killed without a trial by an American president.  

Sorry, these are not enlightened times. Smoke and mirrors.  The real power is still held by the same frightening people.  The Oligarchy.  Bankers, financiers.  They have the money, our money, to keep social justice frozen and will do so.  Obama will not be re-elected and will go down in history as a promising, but unfullfilled, moment.    

[pts1]

Well, America's a tricky place politically

Well, I suspect you're young and idealistic and very left leaning -- and that's not a bad thing, it just goes with the territory.

But I'll likely not convince you of anything, and will not try, other than to express a few of my views about the subject.

First of all, I didn't say the US is "enlightened" as in having arrived, its enlightened in relative terms.

Care, by contrast, to live in Muslim countries where women must be covered in public, can be and are murdered by their husbands under certain circumstances with impunity. Where people are hauled into police stations without benefit of "search and seizure" laws or attorneys or rights. And publically acknowledging your "gayness".... can you imagine what would happen to you?

"Hillary and Bill" would've been a much better president than Obama. I said he was an "empty suit" who'd basically fooled everyone, and sure enough, he has not only not kept any of his key promises -- the reason he was elected, plus the politically correct motivations -- he has taken a bad economy and made it much, much worse. But then, a Capitalistic country is much like an incredibly large and complex business, and Obama has never even held a job that we know of, has no practical qualifications, etc.

But he did give one hell of a stump speech and fooled a lot of people.

The Tea Party, unlike the standard talking points of the left you present them as -- is by and large a group of conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, but independents and democrats also) who want to "conserve"  what we have as Americans that has made us strong and successful.

Jobs "conservation" for instance, keeping jobs in America, not sending them to China, and adapting to this new era where union wages cannot be met any longer and keep us comptetive. The crux of the Tea Party people are grounded, normal people who've worked all their lives and follow the rules. Sure there are some nuts, but I do not see that as their essence. But even a church must be prosperous to take care of its most needy members.

I don't see that your perceived "attack on Obama" is race based. I think its competency based.
Young idealistic people see him one way, while people who've worked all their lives see him in quite a different light that has nothing to do with skin color.

Recently in Bush's administration, did we not have that brilliant young woman Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, who was the first black to hold a position that high, if I'm not mistaken?

And if the Republicans/Tea Party is a "racist party", how do you explain
President George W. Bush's administration, for all its flaws, truly bringing change to Africa through its PEPFAR program, which injected billions of dollars of money into nearly every aspect of the fight against HIV/AIDS, from prevention to critical antiretroviral (ARV) treatment programs.

Does this not represent something of an enlightened, humanitarian presence in the world i.e. bringing technology, real and tangible life-changing help to impoverished, starving and desperately ill people by fighting on several fronts backward and repressive social practices in a country that cannot effectively help itself?

All this done by a party of redneck racist haters? Really?

And what has the party of "enlightenment" the Democrat's and its leader done for Africa?
Very little and virtually nothing compared to Bush.

But why the disparity? Obama is of "African American"  having done almost nothing for Africa, and George Bush, a largely unadvertised hero to Africa.

Did you know that the Ku Klux Klan was originally started by the Democratic Party to keep negros from gaining power in government since the Republican Party was largely populated by blacks?

Funny, is it not, how stereotypes are downright wrong at times, and key parts are conveniently forgotten or distorted to meet ones point of view?

Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind, but I disagree that the times we are living in are nearly as unenlightened as you think.

I merely suggest you don't have sufficient perspective to notice.

[fftransform]

That is the most idiotic pile of garbage I have read all day.

Well, I suspect you're young and idealistic and very left leaning -- and that's not a bad thing, it just goes with the territory.

Well, I suspect you're old and afraid of change and slow-witted -- that's not a bad thing, it just goes with the territory.  See how your post starts off?  So excuse me if I don't adhere to some double-standard, forthwith.

Care, by contrast, to live in Muslim countries where women must be covered in public, can be and are murdered by their husbands under certain circumstances with impunity. Where people are hauled into police stations without benefit of "search and seizure" laws or attorneys or rights. And publically acknowledging your "gayness".... can you imagine what would happen to you?

Correct; the U.S. has more civil liberties than Iran.  That must make it perfect?  This argument is akin to saying that dog sh*t is delicious, because it's tastier than cat sh*t.  The dull, sh*t-eating grin I picture on your face as you typed this gives me the impression that you could comment first-hand, so I'll leave it to you.  I also have no idea what "gayness" is, particularly when encapsulated in somewhat instigatory quotation marks; I get the impression that you're really living up to my expectations, from that.  Can you please inform me why, precisely, you think that the U.S. has more civil liberties than Iran?  Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Iran is a theocracy, something that the Tea Party wishes to institute in the U.S., by and large; the majority of Tea Party members are members of dominionist sects of the Christian religion, and of course I can grab some surveys and studies if you seriously want to challenge that statement, but if you want to challenge it, all that's going to show is  your ignorance to that which you have purported to be knowledgeable on (if you're not purporting to be knowledgeable, then your opinions are, of course, worthless, so I am just making the bold assumption).

I said he was an "empty suit" who'd basically fooled everyone, and sure enough, he has not only not kept any of his key promises -- the reason he was elected, plus the politically correct motivations -- he has taken a bad economy and made it much, much worse.

This is a lascivious lie.  Where did you pick it up?  Check Politifact: they have shown that Obama has actually fulfilled the majority of his campaign promises, or legislation is in the works/has been proposed that would fulfill them.  His rate of such has been shown, objectively (proven) to be much higher than previous presidents for which adequate records of their campaigns exist, again by politifact.  But you're probably one of those people who thinks everything besides AFR and Fox are hyper-liberal spin machines, because they're not blasting the air waves with, "Obama is the antichrist," 24/7, the only thing I can presume would sate you.  The reason that most of the promises that he made during his campaign have not been enacted are due to Republican obstruction; you voted those assholes in, and they're doing exactly what you wanted them to do.  You can't have it both ways.

Regarding the economy, you have an utterly bizarre idea of what "worse" means.  Unemployment way down, exports way up, drilling way up, technology investment way up since his stimulus plans have gone into effect.  Did they save the entire economy (the largest in the world) in two and a half years, after it was on the brink of the worst depression since the 20's?  No.  You're either a lunatic for setting the bar that high, or an idiot for thinking that it could have.  And again, Republican obstruction has caused a lot of his attempts at stimulus to be shot down; if you want the economy to thrive, then stop voting in these psychos like Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann.  I'm in between classes, so I can't go grab a fistful of charts and studies to ram down your throat, but believe me, I'm more than willing to, and I have them fairly readily at my disposal.

But then, a Capitalistic country is much like an incredibly large and complex business, and Obama has never even held a job that we know of, has no practical qualifications, etc.

Only a professor at Harvard, and a senator.  What do you do, by the way?  Do you really think that business practices are what is in the best interest of the American people?  I mean, businesses cut jobs to cut expenses.  It's not like they make more profit, and then say, "oh, we have all this extra money just lying around.  Too bad we can't think of anything to do with it; I guess we'll just spend it on hiring those people we laid off back, now."  Nope.

The Tea Party, unlike the standard talking points of the left you present them as -- is by and large a group of conservatives (not necessarily Republicans, but independents and democrats also) who want to "conserve"  what we have as Americans that has made us strong and successful.

Independents such as the Neo-Nazi Party, for instance?  "Independent" does not connote liberal.  And there are no democrats in the Tea Party, just as there are no democrats in the Republican Party.  It's syllogistically contradictory.  Are you really trying to bash somebody for being misleading?


Your post just devolves into even more ludicrous stupidity, but I have to go to class.  You're off the hook.  But you already look like an idiot, so my job is done.

[pts1]

That is the most idiotic pile of garbage I have read all day.

I've reported you for crudeness, abusiveness, and unwaranted attack, which was a reflection only upon yourself.

You belong on a skinhead forum, not here.

You're on my ignore list.

Best of luck.

[cmg]

Well, I suspect you're young and idealistic and very left leaning -- and that's not a bad thing, it just goes with the territory.

But I'll likely not convince you of anything, and will not try, other than to express a few of my views about the subject.

Anyway, I'm not going to change your mind, but I disagree that the times we are living in are nearly as unenlightened as you think.

I merely suggest you don't have sufficient perspective to notice.

I'm sorry you felt attacked by my fellow left-wing comrade.  He's obviously passionate, as I am.  He cares deeply for what he sees, as I do, as the disastrous course of American national and international policy. You expressed your differing views with civility, but I think your facts can be challenged and even debunked, but I'm not interested in debating.  My position has been established after much reading and thinking -- yes, "left wing" sources such as "The Nation," "The New Yorker," and the much more moderate "The New York Times," my hometown newspaper.  I am indeed the product of a progressive, leftist education and upbringing.  I'm also a resident of a Greenwich Village neighborhood only one mile from "Ground Zero."  I, unlike most Americans, survived the September 11, 2001 attacks, witnessed the buildings' collapse, saw people leaping to their deaths from the upper stories, saw the harried and horrified retreat of survivors up Hudson Street ( gave them water), and lived four days, isolated with my neighbors, a face mask to filter out cancerous particles in a state of siege.  I was sequestered and held in my neighborhood by US government and NYC police forces.  I could not leave my block without my passport.  I could not return to my home without it.  No one could enter but residents like me:  no food deliveries for a week, no visitors.  I don't take liberty or the erosion of civil liberties lightly.  

I don't think America is hated for no reason at all.  I think our foreign policy is the prime culprit, not Muslim extremism, though they can be absurdly, murderously extreme and certainly are not blameless.  Murder is murder. 

Americans, however, in their mania for oil, have stomped all over the Middle East and asserted themselves and their culture.  We overthrew the earlier democracy of Iran with the British and established a dictatorship with the Shah of Iran.  Then, there was the infamous Iranian revolution and the resultant militant hatred of America was born and institutionalized.  The rest is history.  We are at war with "terrorism."  Who, in fact, are really the "terrorists?"  The imperialists or the Muslim zealots?  Susan Sontag wrote, grief-stricken, that WE were the culprits and was almost assassinated for her opinion in "The New Yorker" after the 9/11 attacks.  Free speech?  Not in America anymore.  No, America has changed.  It is no longer the America you idealize.      

Yes, I'm a leftie.  That's my political and cultural bias.  And I'm not even remotely offended by your pointing this out.  Pace.  We can still be friends, yes?  

Michael

[pts1]

Yes, I'm a leftie.  That's my political and cultural bias.  And I'm not even remotely offended by your pointing this out.  Pace.  We can still be friends, yes? 

Oh, I don't have any problem with someone having different views. Depending on what the issue is, I'm a liberal and then I'm also a conservative.

But I was young during the Viet Nam War era and what was the most divisive social period in our country. Simultaneously, I hated the US government for the war, and hated the hippie movement for trying to tear down everything and become dopers and freeloaders under the guise of "LOVE".

Most people, it seems like, typically go down party lines, adopting all the propoganda, etc in lieu of clear, reasoned thought. A kind of zombie mentality, IMO.

And that's both the left and the right.

The world is not a fair or idealistically workable place, and humans are the problem, and will readily shift their opinions and methods depending on "which side of the fence" they find themselves due to life circumstances, some within and some outside of their control.

So I don't have any problem whatsoever as long as people are willing to discuss and think about issues... but mostly it seems they just want to use their political preference as an opportunity to express their discontent with what's going awry in their private lives and blame someone else for their failings.

[thchaffman]

This quote was the introduction to my college essay!