Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: A church is burning
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
 RE: A church is burning (in reply to flyeogh)
|
|
|
Good questions. I don't know if the State will be broadcasting who gave what (I doubt it), but I don't think there's anything you can do to keep individual donors from boasting about it. Some have noted that even the large amounts pledged by Lagardère pale in comparison to the amounts he has (legally) kept out of the State's coffers through so-called "tax optimization". It certainly doesn't help the government right now. It hurts their argument that certain taxes (especially the so-called ISF) on the rich are making life unbearable for them and if we bring those taxes back they'll flee the country. When that's your argument for not taxing the rich, you're better off if they don't decide to give hundreds of millions overnight to this type of cause...
In any event, you may very well be right that some might expect something in return or may be doing it for cynical self-promotion. Though in the end it's up to each individual to sort out what their own motivations are. I've been reading some essays by Joan Didion lately, and she makes some good points about how we often delude ourselves into thinking our motivations are grander than they really are (she says it better, but anyways). So, outside of the more cynical motivations, I'd imagine each of these wealthy donors will have to figure out for themselves whether they're giving for altruistic reasons or whether deep down it's just an exercice in flattering one's own ego.
@Ruphus Agreed, though there are exceptions. Take the late Douglas Tompkins. He's a good example of using private wealth in a way that people concerned about ecology like you and me would be happy with. Though deep down, and I suspect you'd agree with me, I'm still a bit bothered by Tompkins's philanthropy because I can't help but think it shouldn't have been his decision to make. But, well, that'd lead us down yet another long political discussion 
@sartorius I'll break with fly's advice just long enough to remark that I made no promises. Yes, I changed my mind. Sometimes I even cancel on dinner plans less than a week in advance! The horror... I don't make promises on the trivial and unimportant. All that does is belittle the meaning of the actual promises I may make. Anyways, carry on.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 20 2019 16:40:19
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to Escribano)
|
|
|
quote:
I spent a while in the company of Île de la Cité and the Rive Gauche. It is important to me and I will donate. I don't care what others think - they don't have to stump up anything.
I, too, am glad to contribute.
To call those who recognize the cultural significance of Notre Dame "ignorant" and "missing the point," and to toss off the observation that, in so many words, it was just another building, represents Philistinism at its worst.
Unfortunately, Western society has grown crude and coarse over the last forty or so years, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Ever dine in a nice restaurant and notice how many patrons under the age of 40 are wearing baseball caps on backwards?
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 20 2019 19:54:37
|
|
flyeogh
Posts: 729
Joined: Oct. 13 2004
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Agreed, but I fail to see why there must be a trade-off.
Bill there surely must be a trade-off. There has always been a trade-off. And there always will be. If not, we wouldn't advance.
Each generation will want change. The good ideas of the past will get battered but survive. The stupid ideas, especially those that were in existence merely to maintain some power group, will be cast aside. New ideas, both great ones and stupid ones will represent the then current generation and equally get sifted in the future.
In the past there was a lot more control over the masses. Organised religions and rich land-owning upper classes ran the roost. The symbols that represented that power were rejected by my generation (e.g. top hats, bowlers, flat caps). And some things, like baseball caps in reverse became a symbol of revolt and change.
An example: I remember Piers Morgan on BGT dressed formally. He sneered at an Australian chicken farmer who walked on stage dressed like an Australian chicken farmer, baseball cap in reverse. 3 minutes later I know who I’d rather share a restaurant with – although I think I already knew before the chicken farmer showed his friendly generous nature and no lack of talent 
Another example, Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols. He tried to expose Saville in 78 but was silenced by the men in suits. Again I know who I'd share a restaurant with.
In many, many cases appearance hasn't counted for a lot over the years.
Of course, each generation likes to think it left behind positives and doesn’t like to see things important to them being dismantled. And looking back it is all too easy for our memories to paint a rosier picture than the reality of our pasts. But I’m glad I lived in my time and not in that of my father or grandfathers. I’m glad we changed things, even when we got it wrong.
Brendan I don’t think spelling has declined in general, although it may do so locally and within certain groups. Many more people have the ability to read and write as time advances. And these more literate generations not only put pen to paper (in numerous ways), but also can more easily publish and expose their efforts to the masses. I’d suggest an observed decline in spelling is not evidence of declining standards, but evidence of growing literacy.
And technology is now helping to improve spelling and grammar. The students who attend my English classes continually are prompted by technology to improve their grammar and spelling. And it works even when English has so many variants.
Sorry wittering. Just to say I can’t get excited about reverse baseball hats. I'll get my coat 
_____________________________
nigel (el raton de Watford - now Puerto de Santa Maria, Cadiz)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 22 2019 15:40:42
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to flyeogh)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: flyeogh
Bill there surely must be a trade-off. There has always been a trade-off. And there always will be. If not, we wouldn't advance.
Each generation will want change. The good ideas of the past will get battered but survive. The stupid ideas, especially those that were in existence merely to maintain some power group, will be cast aside. New ideas, both great ones and stupid ones will represent the then current generation and equally get sifted in the future.
In the past there was a lot more control over the masses. Organised religions and rich land-owning upper classes ran the roost. The symbols that represented that power were rejected by my generation (e.g. top hats, bowlers, flat caps). And some things, like baseball caps in reverse became a symbol of revolt and change.
My family rebelled against class domination in 1775, and took up arms to throw it off. Many in the second generation after mine are now young adults, and vote for progressive candidates. However, I don't remember seeing any of them wearing their baseball caps backward.
With perhaps a longer personal perspective than yours, I agree that I would rather live in the present day than in the times of my childhood and youth. We are indeed less overtly racist now in the USA than we were in 1950.
But but as you observe, innovation can result in both progress and regression.
For example, in "Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America," by John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck, the political scientist authors publish data showing that the fraction of the electorate who expressed racist views in surveys remained the same from 2006 to 2016: about 30%.
However, two factors were decisive in the election of 2016. In 2006 the racists were about evenly distributed between the Democrat and Republican parties. By 2016 they had almost all identified as Republican.
The second factor was that in earlier elections the candidates had spoken in much the same way about race. The racists split between the two parties. In 2016 the racists were given an opportunity by one of the candidates to express their attitudes. The authors of the cited book conclude, based on statistical studies, that both white identity and racism were decisive factors in the composition of the small number of votes in a few key states which gave the presidential winner a substantial majority in the Electoral College.
There was a great deal of innovation in techniques of political communication, and an unprecedented transgression of the racial campaigning norms in place since the defeat of George Wallace in the 1964 Democrat presidential primaries. These innovations were successful, and remain in use.
It remains to be seen when, or whether, these innovations may be cast aside.
I remain hopeful that they will be.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2019 0:00:26
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
The authors of the cited book conclude, based on statistical studies, that both white identity and racism were decisive factors in the composition of the small number of votes in a few key states which gave the presidential winner a substantial majority in the Electoral College.
And yet, studies have demonstrated that several districts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and were decisive in his win over Clinton, voted for Obama in 2012. Political scientists reviewing the results in both elections have concluded that voters in these districts were not voting for Trump out of white identity and racist tendencies (they, after all, voted for Obama in 2012). Rather, they were voting for the candidate they perceived would be in their best economic interest as president. In 2012, they went for Obama, and perceiving their position no better under Obama, in 2016, they went for Trump. Trump of course played this up to the hilt. The upshot, however, is voters in these crucial districts were not necessarily voting for reasons of racism and white identity, but for the candidate they perceived would be in their best economic interest.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2019 14:39:07
|
|
kitarist
Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: A church is burning (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
Political scientists reviewing the results in both elections have concluded that voters in these districts were not voting for Trump out of white identity and racist tendencies (they, after all, voted for Obama in 2012).
Here's the Washington Post (Myth no.4) summarizing studies some 2 years after 2016, and providing the reason why "they voted for Obama in 2012" is not a good argument why race could not have been a deciding factor; in fact it was:
"In fact, racial attitudes were the prism through which voters thought about economic outcomes — something we call “racialized economics.” For example, after Obama became president, attitudes toward blacks suddenly became linked with people’s views on the economy: the less favorable their view of blacks, the less favorable their view of the economy."
and
"In the general election, the belief that split Trump and Clinton supporters was not whether “average Americans have gotten less than they deserve.” Majorities of both groups agreed. Instead, the dividing line was whether they thought “blacks have gotten less than they deserve”: Fifty-seven percent of Clinton supporters agreed, but only 12 percent of Trump supporters did."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/myths-about-the-2016-presidential-election/2018/10/05/4e07a22a-c808-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2019 15:58:10
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
7.800293E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
). 