Neil a phony??

[Ancient Ways]

If you want a bit more info read his latest blog post. He talks about giving money to homeless people because their situation/condition is related to mental illness more than it is a choice. The cliché is that you get more conservative as you get older but I have found that to not be true in my own case. everyone has similar opportunities but not similar innate gifts to take hold of those opportunities. I like to think that this is where he is coming from but no one knows.

An irritating point is that Neil Peart is quoted as saying "Rand Paul obviously hates brown people," when Rand Paul is very charitable to less fortunate people like his charity in Guatemala. Or that George W. Bush is an "instrument for evil" when his policies on AIDS helped save millions of lives in Africa. Lock step criticisms of people on the Right.

I don't know where he got that either. My comment was directed more at those that seem upset Neil is not falling in line with what they believe to be his former views. His comment actually reminds me of the newly converted.

[ReRushed]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

Again, Rand Paul did not say he was against civil rights. He was against the law allowing the Federal government overreaching its authority. A point missed when one is attacked by being called a racist. I'm not a Rand Paul backer or apologist. It's just frustrating to see people with libertarian or conservative views constantly labeled as haters.

 

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

[ReRushed]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

 

Paul is not against civil rights...he is against the Federal government controlling the behavior of private individuals. He has been very outspoken against discrimination.

 

And there are many more than two parties, and within the parties there is also a variation of beliefs. Paul is basically a pariah in the GOP for his views.

 

And your framing of Paul's foreign policy beliefs as liberal just further demonstrates that you are incapable of viewing politics outside of false dichotomies.

It's frustrating to constantly see this point consistently ignored.

[JohnRogers]

Or that George W. Bush is an "instrument for evil" when his policies on AIDS helped save millions of lives in Africa. Lock step criticisms of people on the Right.

Lest anyone forgot, Bono the front man for U2 hardly a right wing sympathizer praised GW Bush for his work on AIDS in Afirca. He even found that GW Bush was human.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

 

Paul is not against civil rights...he is against the Federal government controlling the behavior of private individuals. He has been very outspoken against discrimination.

 

And there are many more than two parties, and within the parties there is also a variation of beliefs. Paul is basically a pariah in the GOP for his views.

 

And your framing of Paul's foreign policy beliefs as liberal just further demonstrates that you are incapable of viewing politics outside of false dichotomies.

It's frustrating to constantly see this point consistently ignored.

 

 

By using violent imagery from the 60s, I was trying to point out the Feds had no choice philosophizing about its role against private individuals. These individuals of course acted out against the poor in public places and in their businesses that were open to the public. And 80% of republicans in congress at that time understood that action was desperately needed and fast. But not Rand.

 

As far as the racist angle to Neil's attack, it's unfortunate, but when taken within the context of unfounded issues in the last six years such as the President being shamed into publicly releasing his birth certificate based on claims of fringe (racist?) extremists has led to a huge discourse those on the left have with their counterparts. The lefties view them selves as responding, not initiating.

 

The embarrassing Kenya angle to American politics has changed the trust each side has for each other, it has added an alarming new litmus test, one that Ted Cruz, who actually was not born in the U.S., will be highly scrutinized as he runs for top office. In context, Neil's comments are 100% understandable, but unfortunate.

 

As far as all this being stunning, I was more stunned during the SnA tour when they played Larger Bowl, especially considering the video. BELIEVE IN THE AFTERLIFE, TRESPASS AND FIND OUT...to me was a huge clue, when taken within the context of the song and all the other images in the video, that ideologies were much different then than they were in the 1970s.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

Or that George W. Bush is an "instrument for evil" when his policies on AIDS helped save millions of lives in Africa. Lock step criticisms of people on the Right.

Lest anyone forgot, Bono the front man for U2 hardly a right wing sympathizer praised GW Bush for his work on AIDS in Afirca. He even found that GW Bush was human.

 

It's terrific W found his heart after office, and many believe the evil done by his first administration was more the VP and Defense Secy, still, the truths we were told back then were far less than self evident. A lifetime of non stop charity would not undo the damage caused in 2002-2003.

[laughedatbytime]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

 

Paul is not against civil rights...he is against the Federal government controlling the behavior of private individuals. He has been very outspoken against discrimination.

 

And there are many more than two parties, and within the parties there is also a variation of beliefs. Paul is basically a pariah in the GOP for his views.

 

And your framing of Paul's foreign policy beliefs as liberal just further demonstrates that you are incapable of viewing politics outside of false dichotomies.

 

If he hasn't gotten it by now, he's not going to get it...

[MusicHead]

Or that George W. Bush is an "instrument for evil" when his policies on AIDS helped save millions of lives in Africa. Lock step criticisms of people on the Right.

Lest anyone forgot, Bono the front man for U2 hardly a right wing sympathizer praised GW Bush for his work on AIDS in Afirca. He even found that GW Bush was human.

 

Right on. Although I admire Bono greatly as a follower of Christ and as a human being, I don't agree with him politically on many things. But it is nice to see him live out open-mindedness in garnering support from politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.

[TheBluePhoenix]

I was very surprised to read what Neil said about Rand Paul and GW Bush. Regardless of where you are politically, those are just stupid things to say. They’re as bad if not worse than saying something like “Obama, Hillary and Pelosi are obviously Marxist communists.” I would like to know the full context of his statements. What lead up to them? Did he bring them up? Did the interviewer ask his thoughts on American politics? I suspect that some editing was done to make his words sound more left.

 

I know that Neil is a smart guy and very well read which is what has me so puzzled. I’m sure he knows that any issue is much more complicated than a one sentence summary. It’s clear that his views and beliefs have changed over time. I don’t understand how someone who was once so influenced by Ayn Rand and referred to her as “genius” can swing so far the other way.

Edited June 18, 2015 by TheBluePhoenix

[TheBluePhoenix]

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

 

That is a great point and I agree with you 100%. The individual against the collective was and still is a common theme in Neil’s lyrics. He also seems to be in favor of big government. I don’t get it.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

 

Paul is not against civil rights...he is against the Federal government controlling the behavior of private individuals. He has been very outspoken against discrimination.

 

And there are many more than two parties, and within the parties there is also a variation of beliefs. Paul is basically a pariah in the GOP for his views.

 

And your framing of Paul's foreign policy beliefs as liberal just further demonstrates that you are incapable of viewing politics outside of false dichotomies.

 

If he hasn't gotten it by now, he's not going to get it...

 

His libertarian foreign policy view will not have him voting with Bernie Sanders? To get things done, there are two main streets n DC. Paul has great libertarian views, outside of GOP mainstream. In a cold world, the practicality of those views are questionable, I think is Neils point. Neil said that he is still a libertarian. But my contention was the quote attributed to NEP was unfortunate, but far from baseless.

 

 

.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

 

That is a great point and I agree with you 100%. The individual against the collective was and still is a common theme in Neil’s lyrics. He also seems to be in favor of big government. I don’t get it.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, in this example, the collective are the people that acted out in mass with hate against those that could not stand for themselves. It seems there is a comparison of Libertarian views from 2112 to the horrors committed against those that could not defend themselves in the 50s and 60s.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Gabrielgil513

[ReRushed]

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

 

That is a great point and I agree with you 100%. The individual against the collective was and still is a common theme in Neil’s lyrics. He also seems to be in favor of big government. I don’t get it.

I believe he would differentiate between a songwriter fighting the record company for artistic control and a person obtaining government subsidized health care.

 

Again, it's the ad hominem attacks. Name calling and accusatory tactics. Neil Peart's lyrics always seemed to be against such things.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

 

That is a great point and I agree with you 100%. The individual against the collective was and still is a common theme in Neil’s lyrics. He also seems to be in favor of big government. I don’t get it.

I believe he would differentiate between a songwriter fighting the record company for artistic control and a person obtaining government subsidized tax credits to offshore jobs to China.

 

 

 

 

Fixed ;)

 

 

.

[ReRushed]

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

 

That is a great point and I agree with you 100%. The individual against the collective was and still is a common theme in Neil’s lyrics. He also seems to be in favor of big government. I don’t get it.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, in this example, the collective are the people that acted out in mass with hate against those that could not stand for themselves. It seems there is a comparison of Libertarian views from 2112 to the horrors committed against those that could not defend themselves in the 50s and 60s.

I assume you're still pushing the Rand Paul is against civil rights argument. Rand Paul has stated he is for civil rights. It's how the law provided the Federal government a potential to override the intentions of the law and infringe on all individuals rights. It seems people of a certain political persuasion are given the benefit of doubt while other are not.

 

Anyway, I'm dizzy from all this.

 

Once again, I'm out.

[ctbadger]

Does anyone think he'll be pressed on these political quotes by reporters along the tour, for more context?

 

No, since he doesn't do interviews.I'm sure he made an exception for Rolling Stone.

[Xanadoood]

If Neil still held the beliefs he had in 76, Rolling Stone wouldn't touch them. Rock hall as well.

 

There has to be more to the story. I can't see him just making blanket statements like that. That shit is like a Facebook post by one of my radical boston liberal friends

[JBsDWdrums]

I gotta be honest....I get more annoyed with him taking shots at Frozen...what's his deal with beating on Disney's arse all the damn time? No one thinks Disney is real....but what should the toddlers be watching? David Lynch films...??? Maybe some Game of Thrones action...the still unreleased animated version of Clockwork Angels....shhheeezuz Neil...lighten up...besides Frozen in the least had a non traditional hero storyline and overall was the best musical animation they have done since Lion King.... Edited June 18, 2015 by JBsDWdrums

[JBsDWdrums]

Folks....Neil lyrics have been illustrating far broader ideas than the typical Ayn Rand stuff...for decades now....he was critical of W on Snakes and Arrows...he demonstrated his feelings on same sex relationships on Nobodys Hero...he issued warnings on business run amok on Big Money...spoke of acid rain (ie another anti industry over nature stance) on Distant Early Warning....

 

For those who feel completely stunned he doesn't still hold those very narrow scoped views closer to his heart....I gotta wonder where in the hell have you been....?!?!.... Again..agree or not (everyones entitled to believe as they please)....but to be all "OMG...Neil said what?".... I just don't get it...in 2015.... the clues have been there like breadcrumbs for years...I also believe his own personal tradgedies made him rethink his own philosophies.....like it would for most people...I would think.

Edited June 18, 2015 by JBsDWdrums

[Mike2112]

Folks....Neil lyrics have been illustrating far broader ideas than the typical Ayn Rand stuff...for decades now....he was critical of W on Snakes and Arrows...he demonstrated his feelings on same sex relationships on Nobodys Hero...he issued warnings on business run amok on Big Money...spoke of acid rain (ie another anti industry over nature stance) on Distant Early Warning....

 

For those who feel completely stunned he doesn't still hold those very narrow scoped views closer to his heart....I gotta wonder where in the hell have you been....?!?!.... Again..agree or not (everyones entitled to believe as they please)....but to be all "OMG...Neil said what?".... I just don't get it...in 2015.... the clues have been there like breadcrumbs for years...I also believe his own personal tradgedies made him rethink his own philosophies.....like it would for most people...I would think.

 

Dude, the guy called someone a racist without any basis or reasoning. This doesn't have to do with him changing his viewpoints. I don't care if he has "changed his viewpoints" - in fact being married to a liberal wannabe elitist and living on the left coast for all these years I EXPECT he would be brainwashed by now and change his views to the borderline socialist viewpoints so dominant on the west coast. The problem is that he called someone a racist without anything to back it up. It was a dumb-f**k move on his part and shows a lack of character big time.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mike2112

[JohnRogers]

Rand Paul meeting with African Canadians.

[JBsDWdrums]

Folks....Neil lyrics have been illustrating far broader ideas than the typical Ayn Rand stuff...for decades now....he was critical of W on Snakes and Arrows...he demonstrated his feelings on same sex relationships on Nobodys Hero...he issued warnings on business run amok on Big Money...spoke of acid rain (ie another anti industry over nature stance) on Distant Early Warning....

 

For those who feel completely stunned he doesn't still hold those very narrow scoped views closer to his heart....I gotta wonder where in the hell have you been....?!?!.... Again..agree or not (everyones entitled to believe as they please)....but to be all "OMG...Neil said what?".... I just don't get it...in 2015.... the clues have been there like breadcrumbs for years...I also believe his own personal tradgedies made him rethink his own philosophies.....like it would for most people...I would think.

 

Dude, the guy called someone a racist without any basis or reasoning. This doesn't have to do with him changing his viewpoints. I don't care if he has "changed his viewpoints" - in fact being married to a liberal wannabe elitist and living on the left coast for all these years I EXPECT he would be brainwashed by now and change his views to the borderline socialist viewpoints so dominant on the west coast. The problem is that he called someone a racist without anything to back it up. It was a dumb-f**k move on his part and shows a lack of character big time.

 

Yeah....Um I addressed that....that's his...opinion....its been covered....and at the same time after 12 pages of thread people are wondering what changed since 1976?.... as if there's some hidden conspiracy that's been obvious since the early eighties....?

 

I never said you gotta buy it...or like it....but the vast majority of his written work in books or on album would indicate the Ayn Rand thing was a phase...but many fall under the same illusion that the press covering the band around 75-76 did.....if anything the "phoney" idea would be the sterotype that Peart is some Ayn loyalist...

[LedRush]

Folks....Neil lyrics have been illustrating far broader ideas than the typical Ayn Rand stuff...for decades now....he was critical of W on Snakes and Arrows...he demonstrated his feelings on same sex relationships on Nobodys Hero...he issued warnings on business run amok on Big Money...spoke of acid rain (ie another anti industry over nature stance) on Distant Early Warning....

 

For those who feel completely stunned he doesn't still hold those very narrow scoped views closer to his heart....I gotta wonder where in the hell have you been....?!?!.... Again..agree or not (everyones entitled to believe as they please)....but to be all "OMG...Neil said what?".... I just don't get it...in 2015.... the clues have been there like breadcrumbs for years...I also believe his own personal tradgedies made him rethink his own philosophies.....like it would for most people...I would think.

 

Libertarians and people sympathetic to views on individualism were right on same sex marriage far earlier than than either of the two major political parties. Him expressing that view in 1993 would seem to confirm his earlier beliefs, not indicate a change. But, as has been mentioned repeatedly yet ignored as much, the issue isn't with him changing his opinions. That is expected. It is in making baseless accusations of racism and sexism in lieu of presenting a cogent thought.

[LedRush]

Folks....Neil lyrics have been illustrating far broader ideas than the typical Ayn Rand stuff...for decades now....he was critical of W on Snakes and Arrows...he demonstrated his feelings on same sex relationships on Nobodys Hero...he issued warnings on business run amok on Big Money...spoke of acid rain (ie another anti industry over nature stance) on Distant Early Warning....

 

For those who feel completely stunned he doesn't still hold those very narrow scoped views closer to his heart....I gotta wonder where in the hell have you been....?!?!.... Again..agree or not (everyones entitled to believe as they please)....but to be all "OMG...Neil said what?".... I just don't get it...in 2015.... the clues have been there like breadcrumbs for years...I also believe his own personal tradgedies made him rethink his own philosophies.....like it would for most people...I would think.

 

Dude, the guy called someone a racist without any basis or reasoning. This doesn't have to do with him changing his viewpoints. I don't care if he has "changed his viewpoints" - in fact being married to a liberal wannabe elitist and living on the left coast for all these years I EXPECT he would be brainwashed by now and change his views to the borderline socialist viewpoints so dominant on the west coast. The problem is that he called someone a racist without anything to back it up. It was a dumb-f**k move on his part and shows a lack of character big time.

 

Yeah....Um I addressed that....that's his...opinion....its been covered....and at the same time after 12 pages of thread people are wondering what changed since 1976?.... as if there's some hidden conspiracy that's been obvious since the early eighties....?

 

I never said you gotta buy it...or like it....but the vast majority of his written work in books or on album would indicate the Ayn Rand thing was a phase...but many fall under the same illusion that the press covering the band around 75-76 did.....if anything the "phoney" idea would be the sterotype that Peart is some Ayn loyalist...

 

Seriously, how can you still be missing the point after 13 pages? I'm beginning to think it's deliberate.

[GeminiRising79]

Musicians/Entertainers should not subspecialize in other matters. We saw what happened when Alex tried to paint something. Painful.