[Dixielandjazz] Not Dixieland Jazz: replies to Barbone

[Charlie Hooks]

I've just noticed that Steve's post (his riposte?) came through on the List
rather than off-list where I (think) I answered him.  So, I suppose I should
also post my answer.  And maybe add a sentence or two...




on 6/29/02 1:10 AM, Stephen Barbone at barbonestreet@earthlink.net wrote:

> Hi Charlie:
> 
> I don't know what Left-Liberal egalitarianism is. Also always thought
> "elitists" referred to the left leaning, Harvard educated liberals. That is
> the
> usage I meant. Am I conservative?  You bet. So much so, that I do not like
> anybody messing with me, my body, or my mind, especially the Government, or
> those that wish they were the Government.
> 
> For example, that is one reason I am pro choice. How so called conservatives,
> who on one hand are supposedly are for the rights of the individual and
> supposedly want less Government interference with those rights, can on the
> other hand, want to pass laws restricting them is well beyond my limited brain
> capacity.
> 
> Do I think all men are born equal, of course not. Do I like Eminem, of course
> not. I think his  music (?) is trash. But I do not push that opinion on
> others,
> basically because I don't have the will to even consider it worthy of serious
> discussion. However, if somebody else likes it, that's OK with me. Does it
> damage folks? Maybe, but so does weed, cocaine and booze, which many of those
> who hate eminem seem to glorify.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I think I take a consistent position, when
> many
> folks don't. Bottom line for me is that the world is full of educated
> derelicts
> as well as full of dummies. Both have opinions and each is as valid as the
> other. One thing I learned in business (and music) is that I could do more
> with
> my limited business knowledge than most "educated" consultant experts, (and
> more in jazz with my limited musical ability than most "trained" jazz
> musicians)
> 
> Hope that satisfies your curiosity.
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve
> 

> Charlie Hooks wrote:
> 
>> on 6/28/02 1:49 PM, Stephen Barbone at barbonestreet@earthlink.net wrote:
>> 
>>> the "elitists".
>> 
>> Tch! tch!  What's this, Stephen?  Sounds like Left-Liberal egalitarianism to
>> me.  Thought you were a conservative?
>> 
>> curiously,
>> Charlie
> 


n 6/29/02 1:10 AM, Stephen Barbone at barbonestreet@earthlink.net wrote:

> Both have opinions and each is as valid as the
> other. 

    In that case, we shall never agree, since the corollary is that the
truth does not exist.  Certainly you would never apply such logic to, say,
an engineering problem.  No, what you really are saying is that to you the
truth simply isn't important, doesn't really matter where non-physical
things are being judged.

    In buying stocks, one opinion is as valid as the next?  Pshaw, pshaw,
Stephen!  You would never believe that. But you will believe that in the
arts the opinion of Rembrandt should carry no more weight than that of the
guy dusting the painting?  I can't believe it.

    Would you like to amend your statement?


Then, later, I replied:


on 6/29/02 1:10 AM, Stephen Barbone at barbonestreet@earthlink.net wrote:

> the world is full of educated derelicts
> as well as full of dummies.

    Now here I completely agree.  In fact, in a former post I stated that
"there is no position so preposterous that some professor somewhere is not
defending or even advancing it."   It's just that, to me, there are plenty
of "preposterous" positions out there, especially the position that "all
positions are equally valid"!

still curious,
Charlie


and then one more:   Steve said

>I don't know what Left-Liberal egalitarianism is. Also always thought
>"elitists" referred to the left leaning, Harvard educated liberals. That is the
>usage I meant.

    OK, I'll accept your explanation; but the usage is highly unusual.
"Elitist" almost always used now as an accusatory by those very Left-Liberal
egalitarians in your favorite paper, the New York Times, and by Harvard
Liberals AGAINST anyone who distinguishes good from bad, right from wrong,
etc..  Such judgements are condemned as "judgemental," as "elitist," and (if
they could bear being judgemental themselves) downright immoral!  These are
not the world's most consistent folks, Stephen!  These are Liberals, that
is, folks who want everyone to do exactly as they please, just so long as it
is compulsory.  (stole that from George Will)

>I guess what I'm saying is that I think I take a consistent position, when many
folks don't.

    As a consistent conservative myself, I prefer to be consistent about
murder whether it's of a born baby or an unborn one.  But perhaps the
mother's opinion that the kid's better off dead is equally valid with the
opinion of the jury which convicted her?  Where does this stop?  Bonnie and
Clyde thought robbing and killing were fine ideas; are their opinions
"equally valid" with those of the rest of us, who thought them low down
scum?  But wait, you say:

>if somebody else likes it, that's OK with me.

    Sounds amiable, like an ok guy.  Murder's ok, if somebody else likes it.
Well, as Mercer once wrote for Kern, "I"m old-fashioned...I love those old
fashioned things..."  I'm judgemental, too.  You betcha'! Intend keeping
right on being.

cordially,
Charlie