[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Platt,

You speak with forked tongue.

On one hand American Idol is evidence of the decay of value in America, on
another is a wonderful profit making enterprise. On one hand all the consumers
of Walmart evidence its quality, on the other all the consumers of American
Idol evidence is their "inability to discriminate". On one hand you shout how I
am trying to make everyone "just like me", on the other you find anyone who
feels different than you stupid.

[Platt]
Nothing wrong with American Idol making a buck. Nothing wrong with contestants
making a buck. What Ham and I deplore is the taste of those who make the show
and the contestants successful.

[Arlo]
So the vendors are inassailable and noble, but the consumers have deplorable
taste? I take it you also feel the same way about Larry Flynt, who's money
making ventures make him a model for material profit. Its the stupid folk who
are too stupid to "discriminate".

And yet you continue to accuse me of thinking everyone is stupid. Nice rhetoric,
Platt. Sad, but nice.

[Arlo previously]
If quality is not determined by what people value, what determines it? What
Platt values? What "the discriminatory elite" value?

[Platt]
Quality is freedom of individuals to determine for themselves what has quality.

[Arlo]
Then why when individuals freely choose for themselves that American Idol has
quality, you don't see this as evidence that the show has quality? Oh, that's
right. The consumers are too stupid to properly discriminate like you.

[Platt]
There you go again condemning all of America. In this case, its politics. 
Further, you're convinced American society needs to be "saved."  Methinks 
you're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist preacher.

[Arlo]
Empty rhetoric. I don't condemn "all of America", but I'm not blindly allegiant
to it like a robotic servant either. Of course, that's your world, criticize
America The Great at all and you are Pol Pot.

Conservatives (archaists) and liberals (futurists) both are static. The way
forward will only be paved by DQ. You rightly challenge the liberals for
thinking that social policy can ipso facto "build" a great future, but in
return all you offer is a retreat to "the good old days". Where we are headed
no one knows... but we can be reasonably sure that cultural values will align
the path.

And when you are unable to bring any criticism to the producers of "sleeze"
(such as American Idol) because there is nothing wrong with "making a buck",
and instead blame the undiscrimating populace for their inability to tell good
from bad, well, as I said, Profit is King.

Interestingly, when that "undiscriminating populace" chooses to select at
Walmart, you use this as evidence of Walmart's high quality. Of course, this
convenient "when it supports my position I say this, when it doesn't I say
that" type rhetoric is pretty expected.

[Platt]
There you go again with your culturally-determined everything. To you, nobody
has a mind of his own. We're all just cultural robots. Sad.

[Arlo]
There you go again thinking your culture played no part in your discerning "what
you like". We're not robots (although I saw the dichotomy coming), but we are,
like Pirsig states, bound by cultural glasses. Your favorite singer is "good"
to you because of the cultural values you've appropriated.

[Arlo previously]
It also neglects that music has many forms, from throat singing to Wagnerian
opera, from digideroos to cellos, from classical to punk, from Sinatra to Mick
Jagger. How would you determine, or use "discrimination" to determine which is
best, not only for "you", but for "everyone"?

[Platt]
I wouldn't think of determining what is best for everyone. You would though. You
want to "save society" by persuading everybody that your way is the best way.

[Arlo]
Of course, if you read what I wrote, you'd see such an accusation is idiotic.
Your use of "discriminting" as a code-word for "superior ability" is so damning
to your rhetoric, I don't know why you attempt to hide. And to throw sand into
everyone's eyes, you accuse me of the very position you are advocating.

Sinatra is better than Jagger "for everyone". Your idea of "quality" is superior
and discriminatory, while everyone who feels differently is woefully unable to
discriminate properly. 

As for the "save society" comment, again, its not hard to read my post, and see
that I lambast both conservatives and liberals in favor of "something new",
Dynamic Quality. How could I know what that is?

If you re-read the Toynbee quote, how you can't see that is a brilliant example
of Pirsigian analysis, is beyond me. But you miss this because of your utter
tunnel vision for conservatism. 

[Arlo previously]
There is no "right wing conspiracy" but that the conservatives are
"anti-intellectual" and socially-minded, is evident from every radio show,
every press conference and every soapbox attack they make against
"intellectuals", beginning with THEIR paranoic fear that "liberals are
conspiring to keep conservative thought off campus".

[Platt]
Well documented, or haven't you been following the hearings in Pennsylvania?.

[Arlo]
You are familiar with Occam's Razor, are you not? The simplest explanation  is
probably the best. Well, if the Academy is populated by more liberals than
conservatives, I'd attribute this to (1) exposure to diverse strands of thought
at the university level naturally instills liberal-minded thinking, and also
(2) those entering the Academy are often the least concerned with "profit", and
since Money is the conservative God, conservatives choose a career in business.

I've been with the University for over a decade, in undergraduate classrooms and
graduate. I've never seen a "conservative" position denied, but I have seen a
demand for support beyond "Rush Limbaugh says so".

But since you are concerned with political ideology being undiscriminated in the
academy, perhaps you'd like equal time for Nazism, Communism, Tribalism,
oligarchists and monarchists? What about holocaust revisionists? Shouldn't we
give their "theories" equal time in the classroom?

[Arlo previously]
Public schools must balance the books, if not, why are so many schools cutting
arts and music programs? They are the least "valuable", hence they are the
first cut. Doesn't that make sense? Why cut the most valuable programs first?
They are the least "valuable" because they are not vocational, and vocational
education is concerned with "preparing you for a job", i.e., what you need to
know to make money.

[Platt]
So what are you proposing, to cut the vocational programs in favor of the music
program?

[Arlo]
I could make that argument. Do you feel vocational education is the purpose of
the school system?

[Platt]
If you think there no so sex involved, watch the contestants, the judges, the
audience, and listen to the song lyrics. Sleaze abounds. I've watched it enough
- once or twice for 5 minutes or so --to see and hear that. It's obvious.

[Arlo]
Oh, right. Music, other than what Platt likes, is all about sex. How silly me
for forgetting. Here I thought contestents were going on the show to earn money
and get fame, when they were really going on the show because singing about
"biological quality" gives them biological pleasure. And here I though the
producers were making the show to make a quick buck... or wait, there's nothing
wrong with the producers, its the consumers who are unable to properly discern
value. So.. and, here I thought consumers watched the show because they too
fantasized about celebrity and wealth, when in fact they watched it because
they are sexually drawn to the sex beats of the sex songs by the sexy singers.
Sex, sex, sex. Who sounds like a "preacher"?

Nope, you can wag your biological finger at this all you want. Its all about
money. Money in production, money for the contestents, and the love we have of
celebrity and wealth. 

[Arlo previosly]
I don't "hate the profit motive". Indeed, it was my suggestion to consider that
people labor for more reasons than profit. Granting that in our world we need
money, I see nothing wrong with considering "material profit" in our labor. I
just think that (1) it is pushed too much, to the point where "profit" trumps
all other concerns, and (2) if we backed off "material profit", and talked
about "identity" and "care" in our labor, we'd all be better off. And we'd be
without "American Idol". But, since Profit is King, it's here to stay.

[Platt]
Well, what do you know. After all this, Arlo sees nothing wrong with material
profit. Sing Hallelujah.  But Arlo simply can't let go of how we ALL would be
better off following his road to Utopia.

[Arlo]
Oh right. Wanting to talk about Pirsig's notion of identity and care in labor is
"following me to Utopia". You are really something else sometimes, Platt.

I did not say I see "nothing wrong with material profit". I said I understand we
need money, and see nothing wrong with considering money in our labor activity.
But there are also other things to consider, like Pirsig's notions of
"identity" and "care".

Arlo