Review of the Reviews: Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem

Found a review of this book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem Jay W. Richards on CRI

http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF1324a.pdf?msource=EC120127WKLY&tr=y&auid=10202252

Criticizing even Christians today as critical of capitalism (WOW; what a total turnaround from just 30 years ago!), it purports to debunk eight “myths”:

1–The Nirvana Myth, of the possibility of a perfect society in this world
2–The Piety Myth, or thinking that good intentions or simply loving Jesus solve all problems
3–The Zero-Sum Game Myth, that all economic trades are win-lose
4–The Materialist Myth, or “believing that wealth isn’t created, it’s simply transferred”
5–The Greed Myth, that all capitalism is founded on the deadly sin of greed
6–The Usury Myth, that Christianity necessarily opposes capitalism because of interest
7–The Artsy Myth, that capitalism necessarily creates ugly, cheap culture
8–The Freeze-Frame Myth, “believing that things always stay the same”

#1 ties in with the typical criticism of leftism as being “utopian”. But the way many rightists defend capitalism, they are in practice making the same mistake. This whole book and its reviews are a prime case where ideals are laid down, ignoring the sinful nature of men, who bend the system so that it does not work as they claim it does (points 3 and 4 are a great example of this).
But only when its flaws are unavoidably obvious, do they then come out with “no system is perfect”. The argument then becomes that (at least), it’s “better” than others, and thus, “the best in the world” (That’s the ultimate goal of their beliefs).
But this just dismisses the legitimate complaints of others under this system, while only their criticism of other systems are the only thing that’s valid.

#2 is arguing that using the “better”, more “practical” system is just as important as the more humane motives.

#3 and #4 is basically the whole “bigger pie” argument I discussed in earlier entries. Again, it ignores the loopholes and strings the powerful can pull, so that it in practice does seem to become a virtual “zero-sum” game. Just look at the economy! The failure for all this “wealth” to be “created” (when these people continue to be rewarded so richly, despite “overtaxing and overregulating” rhetoric), is just continued to be blamed on others (“liberals”, “socialism”, etc).

#5 dissociates capitalism from the sin it has become most associated with, but once again trumping ideals, often staked on the supposed “character” of the players (“…encourages enterprise. Entrepreneurs, including greedy ones, succeed by delaying their own gratification, by investing their wealth in creative but risky ventures that may or may not pan out”; “…not only channels greed into productive purposes, but unleashes human ingenuity, creativity, and willingness to risk as well”); and ignoring how they do not always play out that way in actual practice. It even claims “Rather than despising the market order, Christians should see it as God’s way of providentially governing the actions of billions of free agents in a fallen world.” (p. 214), which one reviewer ties to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” concept, which is based on the notion of “providence” which supposedly made this country so great in the first place, including through stuff like conquest and slavery, which were also very financially oriented as we saw.
(I’ve even seen this “invisible hand” said to be the Illuminati’s title for God, but we take it for granted! The reviewer, now on p.1 of Amazon, also asks “Is Adam Smith being elevated to the status of prophet?”, and also points out some of the problems with the argumentation).

But if we accept point #1, we should not have to disprove that it leads to greed. If leftist ideals lead to one set of sins, then capitalism leads to others. there’s no “Nirvana”, remember!

#6 explains why “interest” in the modern world does not actually violate the scripture’s condemnation of “usury”. I myself had always wondered about that one! The argument seems to be that interest today, is on money loaned to or by a bank, in which it was risky “and prevented the bank from using
the money for other purposes”, and that it “allowed wealth to be created much more quickly than it had been before”, where the ancient money “wasn’t doing anything anyway”. Then, there are unfounded typical claims that we have always seen, such as “the Bible treats ‘risk, investment, and interest in a positive light’, and ‘describes enterprise as productive, not exploitative, and money as fertile, not sterile.’”

So I’m not readily sure how valid these arguments are (as it’s the first time I’m hearing them), but it does look to me more like assumptions and force-fitting the system into Biblical “principles” than any solid biblical exegesis.

#7 is basically a rehash of #5, and shifting the blame to another associated vice (besides greed), called “consumerism”. But the two go hand in hand.
The reviews rightly point out “what sets capitalism apart is not consumption. Consumption is part of every human life and economic system”. But thne, of course, it goes into the virtuous ideal of capitalism “…requires that not all wealth be consumed, but that some be saved, risked, and invested. That means that consumerism is, in the long run, contrary to capitalism.”, and “The sorry symptoms of consumerism aren’t unique to capitalism, however. Rather, they derive mostly from the materialist worldview that seems to be everywhere.” “Materialism” has long been a code word for leftism or communism (the whole “Darwin/Marx/Freud” trinity of “godlessness”), which are long decried as “taking over” and influencing everything, including America. So this is basically yet another example of a between-the-lines blaming of capitalism’s problems on communism, as I have been pointing out.

If you want to blame another “c…ism” besides capitalism try corporatism (especially global)! (At least libertarians are more likely to point this out).

#8 is sort of like 3/4 again, but now turned towards the area of resources, rather than wealth. (It also seems to lead to a jab at issues such as global warming). The argument is that human ingenuity will force solutions that will alleviate these problems. This could happen, but then, we must wonder what happened to the Conservative Christian’s familiar claim that man is so evil (sinful) that things will only get worse, especially in light on “the great endtimes apostasy” (which leftism and everything else they condemns are supposed to be apart of. Though Hanegraaf is a partial preterist who likely doesn’t believe in that, but I don’t know what the author’s position is). All of a sudden, now, Christians are taking, what, again, is a sort of “utopian” idealistic vision.

Overall, the biggest proofs against this fervent uncritical praise of capitalism (as actually being practiced), is
•the illusion of scarcity (which 3/4 is going along with), and that, as pointed out in an earlier article,
•modern capitalism is based on corporatism, while the original principles of the founders weren’t.

So what’s happening in all of these debates, is that people are upholding values of “freedom” aimed at “private”, yet actual, living individuals, but the beneficiaries of these “freedoms” today, in practice, are these “private”, yet huge, powerful artificial “persons”, which are basically minature governments, and which are intermingling with the state governments to boot!

In debates as to whether a person can do whatever he wants with his property, even if the community protests, if the community uses government, that may be seen as government opposing the right of the individual. However, all this government is in this case is a structure advocating an agreed upon consensus of multiple individuals. It is not some superhuman entity, as it is often portrayed (except in true dictatorships, where it enforces the will of one individual).
So what happens, is we either rule by “the people” (who are “represented” by a smaller group of individuals, as “leaders”) or rule by whichever “private” individual has the most money and acquired power. (Money to buy the assets).

One “government” entity (institutional entity carrying legal power) is as good as another, so the problems remain, and we just look for continue to place blame on the other party.

Examining “cutting the deficit” rhetoric

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2011/02/15/3-big-lies-about-cutting-the-deficit

Makes a lot of interesting points. It’s true that we ALL in this society want more, and then seek to blame others for why we have to struggle, and want all the “cuts” we scream for to be taken from someone else. But in [apparent] “fairness” to the rich, and thus, “Sooner or later, however, we’re all going to have to give.” it ignores the illusion of scarcity, and I just could imagine giving up our tax deductions, raising the retirement age, even cutting education, and nothing much still changing. It could yet again be the supposedly “most deserving” being the least affected. We’ll all work longer and pay more taxes, just to make things a little better, but the argument is that the rich already work longer and pay more taxes, so they’ll “deservedly” get off scott free.

All of this does not address the widening gap, which it seems none bu the Occupiers wants to see as a big part of an illusion of scarcity.

Corporatism: line between private enterprise and government becomes fuzzy, with same officials in both sectors

Goes to show, for both Right and Left, who think that either business or government are the solution, and the other other side is the problem, that the two are pretty much the same thing, and this is why neither party is changing anything (at least not for the better).

Some more articles:

http://www.alternet.org/story/153304/rich_people_don’t_create_jobs:_6_myths_that_have_to_be_killed_for_our_economy_to_live?page=entire

http://www.focus.com/fyi/10-big-businesses-that-have-moved-abroad/

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/12/05/rich-getting-richer-globally-study/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/08/opinion/sunday/20111008_McFadden_Cartoon.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

Here’s an interesting video as well (He claims Marxism is the answer, but never gets into how it would offer a solution. Still, it’s a great assessment of what’s been going on in the world financially).

Message to OWS

First sent this to the site’s e-mail, then posted to their forum:

I have been applauding the movement, because it is about time people finally started getting wise to the economic imbalance of the economy, and stopped blaming the poor, as the conservatives had actually been doing, an without much rebuttal, until now.

Still, I see the typical conservative responses being hurled at the movement, which is that:
•the rich “earned” all they have
•no one has any right to criticize how much someone else makes
•you’re just trying to get the government to institute socialist control over the nation
•if you want more money, just “work harder” like they did
•complainers are all “whiners” who are too “lazy” to get a job
•occupiers are all living in their parents’ house and out of work

Even liberal papers like the NY Daily News I see printing cartoons insinuating this stuff.

At the same time, one of the big charges is that the movement has no clear message.

What I’ve come to see as the heart of the issue, and which should be used to respond to these conservative claims, is, (to borrow from the Zeitgeist film) the illusion of scarcity this entire economic system operates off of.
It’s like we have this competitive system, where there seems to be only so much money, and it has to be divided in a fashion where those at the top have most of it (and then these people’s defenders blame the poor, unions, government regulations, etc. for “burdening” them, and thus as it were “forcing” them to take the jobs elsewhere).
However, the way they’re living is not one of scarcity; it’s one of abundance; ridiculous “money to burn” abundance, but the system they are running makes it seem like it is scarce, as it is in fact scarce for everyone else. [The conservative response that giving the rich more will create a "bigger pie" is a de-facto acknowledgment of a notion of scarcity. The debate is on whether that is true, or who is really to blame for there being such an apparently small pie].

So the issue is not about “rights”, and “legality” of “private ownership”; but about the line they are feeding us (through their conservative mouthpieces and defenders), that there is no money for anyone else (and it is all our fault for not “working hard enough” like they did; as if there was really so little money that one had to be a CEO to live decently). And then blaming other groups for eating up all the money.

Then there’s the argument, like in this article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47712 that the rich all “deserve” all they have, because they are making their living “pleasing their fellow man”. So again, it’s all in the character of the person (as usual). This illusion of scarcity is even highlighted by the defense many give, that the CEO’s often had to work 20 or more hours a day (or up to a hundred or more hours a week) to get where they are. Some will even chide the workers “you work your 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week and then go home, yet you want more for nothing”.
Yet those extended hours are not normal, and in fact not healthy (for themselves, physically, or for their relationships). The 8 hour day and 40 hour week (with 8 hours of rest) was settled on because it was the most conducive to health.
But now, the extended hours, in these arguments, are being made the standard, or what’s normal or the basic reqirement, for “success”, or even to keep your head above the water. Just working the normal hours is being called “lazy” even!

Thus, it operates on a devaluing of everyone else’s work and service. It’s like if one is not a top executive or entertainer, they haven’t “earned” a decent living! Then, we tell them “just work harder” or assume that the complaints are a coming from people who just want “something for nothing” (govt. handouts).

But all of this holds only under a severe case of scarcity. Like the Ice Age, where there just isn’t enough for everybody, and only the strongest who scramble the hardest can gain enough to survive decently.
(Does anyone think, why is this the model of success in modern day America?)

But wealth is not really that scarce. All of this is only justification for it being increasingly concentrated.
To sum it up, the illusion of scarcity is an excuse for “civilized” humans to revert to the ‘law of the jungle’, for their own maximum convenience, and at everyone else’s expense (which they are then made to blame on others, including those lower than they!)

THIS is the theme I believe the movement should now focus on. (And the battle should become more rhetorical, as this is how the Right has successfully swayed the nation for decades (The silence or lack of focus on the other side being the ultimate proof to them that they are ‘right’), and the whole parks thing seems to have run its course as the “occupied” are now using it to make themselves the victims, get the police to become more violent, and confirm their above charges).

Another good direction to go in, is a better idea of a solution. Like do we really think government is the answer, when (as most of us are probably aware) the corporations have all gained the power they have through government, and often buy out politicians? But more govt. is what everyone assumes we want).

In other news on the subject; a few more articles:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/america-wall-st-penn-state-article-1.982043

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/kristof-a-banker-speaks-with-regret.html

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/opinion/vedder-college-costs/index.html

http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.aspx?post=0844157f-5e1d-4785-a57a-3fce887ef3e1

 

Chicken Scratch Day!

I see all the hoopla about the date 11/11/11.

I actually had waited for the date as far back as the 90′s. I was a data entry clerk, and had to key in six digit dates. When you had a date with numbers like 11′s, it was easier/quicker to type. I then figured the easiest day of all would be 11/11/11. (Call it “chicken scratch day”!)

However, in lieu of the Y2K scare, we switched to newer systems using four digit years.
Then, I left that job.
Plus, I realized even if I was still there, the day is a holiday and the office is closed!

Oh, well…

All that happened for me was that I got a bad sinus infection.

I never even knew anyone placed any other kind of significance on it, as  see the news stories and all. I did notice several movies are opening on the day. (They flash the date significantly in their ad posters). I guess the number just catches the attention.

Review of Horton “Christless Christianity”

I read the book (Michael Horton, Christless Christianity, Baker, 2008) a year ago, and sent in this review through one of those text boxes on the book’s site (the only way you could contact). I had to get this one, as I wanted to see an updated version of  the excellent but underexposed Beyond Culture Wars (1996), and was being greatly irritated by the rhetoric I was challenging in some Christian debates, seeing some Christians who seem to worship America and capitalism more than Christ (who some barely mention in the discussions), yet only use Him to prove they “are on the side of the truth”. Hence; “Christless Christianity”!

---

I certainly like how Horton goes after the way American spirituality “uses God or the divine as something akin to an energy source”, “like electricity” (p178-9 [&83]) that we “plug into”.
That ALWAYS bothered me, and was discouraging when it didn’t really feel that way (but then, of course, they ironically tell you it is not by feeling, making it all the more confusing!)

He also really helped me understand Matt.11:17 (children dancing at the marketplace) and Rom.10:6-7 (bring Christ down or bring Him up from the dead), which I had never fully understood, and never saw anyone expound upon.

It also clarifies more what his vision of the Church really is. Like the “Word and sacrament” part, which was mentioned in BCW, but not really elaborated on.

(So for someone not familiar with his brand of Reformed faith, it’s easy to take that stuff for granted).

The concern I have, as with BCW, is the high praise of Augustine, the “Historic Church”, early American preaching (e.g. the Puritans) and even Luther and Calvin. A lot of problems came with Augustine, and were perpetuated through those other authorities who followed or were influenced by him.
For one thing, Augustine’s life of sexual immorality before conversion greatly affected his teaching, and it looks to me like instead of laying all of his deep guilt at the foot of the Cross, he just projected it through some of his message, and tried to double-insure himself with a twisted mix of works-righteousness and unconditional election (if all else fails).
After all, this guy is who made the later Catholic Church much of what it became. So its ironic to criticize Christians now for “moralism”, but then uphold Augustine, who basically popularized this response.

I’m glad he now acknowledges that a lot of the problems he addresses are found in Calvinistic churches as well.
But that should show that a turn from Calvinism is not the cause of the problems he is addressing.

I also would like to see him further distinguish IFB style fundamentalists from new evangelicals (such as Osteen’s fans). The former group will agree with everything Horton says about “therapeutic” focus, the errors of Osteen and others, and the need for a more “God-centered” focus on His holiness rather than man.
But their alternatives for psychology are the same exact “inner” focus Horton is criticizing. (e.g. the “life change” from the “personal relationship with Jesus” as the “Biblical Answer” the Bobgans and others argue for).

I also wonder, with the focus on “Law”, and then, the statement on p.62, about the regenerate being “raised from the dead” by the “spirit, working through the Gospel”, and that this happens, “not just once, but every time we encounter the Gospel afresh”, and the “sacraments” as “means of grace” (like the Catholics call it), or “convey saving grace” (p219); what exactly this means. For the way the Catholics take that, you are basically in and out of Christ (salvation) every time you sin, until you “confess and repent”, then then “partake of Christ” anew through the sacraments, by which salvation is a “process”. That, clearly, is works-salvation.

But then, that is apparently what Augustine taught. (And Calvin’s teaching that God gives reprobates false faith which He later takes away also ends up in practice encouraging works-righteousness, to “show thyself elect”).

Also, while he is dead on about the American church’s “inner focus”, simply going back to a formal, liturgical and hierarchical system seems to be the opposite extreme, and not the Biblical truth. The Reformers broke away from a Catholic Church that held those positions, and took them to the point of becoming totally corrupt. The sacraments became virtual idols that had some sort of “spirituality” or spiritual “presence” even, in themselves. The hierarchy became kingly, or at least a “paid professional” power base that does not seem to be what the New Testament really taught (most leaders were itinerant and had to be provided food and rest; it wasn’t the “elected/hired” government official or CEO pattern it eventually became); and with one leader exalted to almost’s Christ’s level. They tried to control secular rulers and institute the Kingdom themselves just like the first century Israelites.

Their authority became divine, and their traditions assumed to be apostolic, even though many of them clearly weren’t. The biggest example being works-salvation.
Luther, Calvin and the others, in order to challenge this and go back to a more scriptural model, had to basically reject the “external” authority of the Church, and rely on their own “private interpretations” (which Horton is criticizing in the modern church). So why should their ideas now become the new “apostolic standard”? Their interpretations look like a mix of select Catholic traditions (including a revival of Augustinian electionism) supplemented by the new “faith alone” position, which the Catholics will all say was at odds with “historic Christianity”.

And I don’t agree that Calvinism has captured all of the Biblical truth. But if we have to put aside our “private” interpretation and go with an “external” one, then why shouldn’t we go with a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox authority, then? (At least their institutions can be traced all the way back to the first century body, where Protestantism clearly broke away and not the other way around).

So this should show the problem is not as simple as just following an institutional church.

Otherwise, it was a great treatise. I really wish the Church would take notice of the overall message.

Forgot to address:
183: It s the Spirit, not Jesus who lives within us (strange position on the Trinity. Jesus is the one who is “in” us through the Spirit).

190: sheep expected to be shepherds themselves (He is criticizing this, but it is supported by Heb.5:12)

231: Calvin quotes Cyprian “whoever has God for his Father has the Church as his mother”

Statement on often touchy subject (that has thankfully seemed to have been dying down in recent years)

More unused thoughts from my files:

My opinion on the Jews (since this is often a touchy situation and there is a lot of fear and suspicion in the relationships of the groups).

First and foremost, they’re PEOPLE; like anyone else. Growing up with Asperger’s Syndrome, I tended to have problems with all people, so “people” were naturally all the same to me. (Basically, problematic! But then that is how most saw me, which was precisely the problem!) I had just as many if not more problems with peers when the neighborhood turned from mostly Jewish to black in a matter of a few years.

I believe that all groups have what are known as “cultural sins“. So while I might recognize the group’s cultural sins, I do not hold them against them as some innate defect (making my group “better”), just like I hope (or wish) people would not hold the black community’s cultural sins as a defect of the whole race.

Where blacks are often tagged with reputations for crime, sloth and moral (i.e. sexual) looseness; for Jews, it is controlling, hoarding and being stingy with money. Also, as controlling education (which many Right-wingers see as “godless”), pop culture and the media. (Some will add, wrongly promoting blacks into prominence, as in those industries).

Such sterotypes in all people almost always have some truth to them. But I don’t see any group that is “better” and any other, or whose “sins” are not as bad. They just differ based on the experience and opportunities of the people.

The Jewish “money” stereotypes are also held —and greatly overhyped (and thrown up most commonly) by “Aryan” supremacist groups (“international Jewish bankers”, Illuminati connections, etc), in addition to the other areas of influence.
When I hear this stuff, I thoroughly reject it. While there may be Jews in some level of power in those areas, I don’t see them as a group pulling all the strings like that. There may be some individuals in positions of power, but just like the aftermath of the general black-white conflict, things seem to be drawn more on class than race now. Aryan groups still appear to holding (and desiring) the most power in the world, and their “identity” groups are just projecting their own stuff onto their intended victims. (Just like they claim blacks are eroding society, gaining all their tax money, etc.)

My perspective on them:

•Fond memories of the neighborhood (Flatbush) in my early youth

•admire their cultural sense of humor

•Find many of them to be very friendly

•was taught to identify with them as a fellow persecuted minority

Issues the two groups have had:

Many Blacks do seem to retain a lot of grudges against them due to abuses and mistreatment in the past (particularly as our landlords, bosses and shopkeepers).

The way I look at this is through what I call the “hierarchy of whiteness”. They were ‘higher up’ than us, because of their white skin and often ability to “pass”, yet they were ultimately still on the lower end of it.

The hierarchy appears to go roughly as follows:

Nordic
Anglos
Rest of northern Europeans
Southern Europeans
Jews
Asians (particularly lighter ones)
Most of the rest of “colored” people
Blacks

(Among anti-semites, the Jews might be below the next two groups, and perhaps tied with blacks for last).

So inasmuch as there has been some mistreatment there, I believe it is the “big fish-little fish” syndrome. People don’t like their position on the list when higher-ups put them down, but they often fall into taking advantage of their place above others on the list.

And blacks seem to be universally on the bottom of this list. Due originally to people’s apparent fear of the dark skin of the original people, a terrible misinterpretation of Genesis chapter 9 (that has gone largely unchallenged even by detractors), and then the portrayal of their culture and religion as backward, sensual and demonic by the dominant Western world.

I believe this also leads to a sort of unconscious jealousy towards Jews, especially when the two groups are further polarized by others at times (below).

So I believe it is a mistake for blacks to hold a special resentment towards Jews moreso than other groups that we have had issues with, as many have done.

Part of this is due to the fact that they were the ones we had the most immediate contact with, in the neighborhoods we have lived in. But you have to credit them for allowing us in in the first place, where other groups were much more hostile towards integration.

The other part is that many, in rebellion against a “Judeo-Christian” upbringing, turned to distorted forms of Islam as their platform, which naturally tended to lean towards antagonism towards Jews from interpretations of certain parts of the Koran, as well as ultimately stemming the historic dispute between Ishmael and Isaac (In addition to these sectarian variants viewing the rest of the white race as “devils”. “Black Hebrew” groups follow suit).

Other issues:

•conflicts in the 90′s (Crown Heights, etc.)
What bothered me is how blacks back then seemed to automatically come off as the bad guys in general perception. Part of this was from the biblical/political doctrine built around Israel (below).

•While being very sensitive towards “antisemitism”, some people have in turn been rather insensitive towards blacks. (Offensive portrayals of blacks in old films, negative comments by some comedians or others etc. at times, which they would not tolerate when others do the same to them).

•Blacks had been chastized for use of term “holocaust” regarding their struggles in the past.
Both groups have gone through a lot of oppression over the centuries. The difference is that for Jews, you had a large concentration of it in one event, and for blacks, it was spread out more.
It was horrible for both, so we should not minimize each other’s experience.

•Christians who put Jews on a pedestal from their interpretations of prophecy (and even some Jews are suspicious of this, and some are anti-Zionist based on scriptural objections).

•From here, you had people (especially political and/or religious conservatives) who took sides, and used black-Jewish relations to further put down blacks. For instance, one Christian tract goes as far as to say that African nations are suffering famine and war as a “curse” for breaking diplomatic ties with Israel.

•Another example is that they’re often included in the general conservative claim, that “our ancestors/(other ethic groups) started out as discriminated-against minorities, yet they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps instead of whining; yet blacks haven’t”. Hence, higher on the cultural “hierarchy” in practical terms. (This, often spouted by groups who become critical of Jews themselves in other areas, such as the cultural or economic conspiracy theories).

Because of both the above tension between the groups, plus concern about the overall low perception of blacks in general, plus just the natural tendency of all groups to be exclusive at times, I might feel uncomfortable and wonder how I am being received among given groups I may find myself among.

Religious differences:

I identify with Christianity, which holds Jesus as the Messiah, while the religion of Judaism doesn’t. So that is an area of disagreement. Theological disagreement (which will be reflected in my Biblical/doctrinal writings). But not personal affront.

In Christian discussion, we often in passing mention the Jews’ rejection of Jesus in the narratives in a critical fashion. To Christians, this is a given, and the point is usually the significance of the events; not the sin of the Jews.

Frequently cited apostles like Peter and Paul were critical of the Jews they were dealing with, and this will be referenced in Christian readings of scriptures. But Peter, Paul and most other disciples, along with Jesus, were themselves Jews, and were voicing their disagreement with their countrymen, not disowning the race.

Thoroughly repudiate supposed “Christians” who misuse this notion, such as citing Peter’s statement of the Jews being “stiffnecked and stubborn” (and these are often the same ones who claim to defend “Israel” against all of its enemies), or antisemitic groups’ charges of “Christ-killers”, etc.
I’ve seen at least one author (who is otherwise a Christian Zionist!) even cite Matthew 27:25 (“His blood be on us and our children”).

Such people do not understand the basic point of the death of Jesus, which is that all of man is equally sinful; which is the whole foundation of the Christian Gospel. They’re making the same exact mistake as those “stiffnecked” Israelites of Jesus’ time! Their “following” Jesus only leaves them with less excuse! They are the ones who should know better! Such mindset continues to be what Paul called “of the flesh and not of the Spirit”.
The Jews’ sin ‘stood out’ and was highlighted in the scriptural narratives, because they were the particular people God “chose”, to work with; to show us that point, that man was sinful, even when given the Law. Hence, Paul’s statements of both judgment and salvation being “to the Jew first, then to the Gentile”.

This was never intended by Jesus or his disciples to become any basis for antisemitism, or assumption that because the Jews rejected Jesus, that gentiles (or at least certain groups of them) are now the new “chosen ones” (and thus superior). “All have sinned”.

The judgment for those people’s sin was in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Therefore, there is no justification for making any further violence against the Jews, such as the Holocaust, or a supposed future “Armageddon” where more millions of Jews are predicted to be killed, into a “divine judgment” against the people, as various Christian interpreters and antisemitic fringe groups have done.

I’ve also had to refine my position on the modern state of Israel. Growing up watching all the violence in the mideast on the news, I was always torn as who to side with. The Arabs seemed to have the most terror groups and bombers. Yet as I later learned, they were in the area first, and were basically pushed aside to re-establish the nation of Israel. This has become a hotbed even here in US political discussion.

I really cannot blame Jews, who were suffering for centuries in Europe, for wanting to return to their original land. I believe the Western nations behind the reestablishment are the ones who messed things up.
They (the Brits) are the ones who gained control over the mideast through defeat of the Muslims who had dominated the area for centuries. It was the West that then decided to carve up the land to reestablish the modern state of Israel. Part of this may have been under the premise thaat they were fulfilling prophecy, based on “Dispensational” readings of scripture and the prospect of a “third temple” that would be destroyed by the “Antichrist” in a final showdown between God and evil. But others suspect the purpose was to maintain a presence of Western influence in the area, to remain near the oil. (This would explain why the US and Britain have come to be seen as wavering on their support of Israel more recently, for the sake of oil, as Christian zionists always complain. The oil was probably what it was all about all along!)
So the question over Israel is a difficult one.

My wish now is that the resentment and suspicion of each other would continue to dissipate, and the divisions would become irrelevant (except for being a diversity we could appreciate).

Song by song review of “Songs In The Key of Life” (Compared to previous albums)

Dusting off stuff out of my old files that I didn’t want to fill my regular website with (especially when it was on AOL, and space was limited).

After years of listening to Stevie Wonder’s 70′s albums in order and comparing Songs In the Key of Life with the previous four albums (Music of My Mind, Talking Book, which I grew up on, Innervisions, and Fulfillingness First Finale), I’ve figured out why Songs doesn’t sound quite the same as the earlier work, as has been noted by many people (even though the instrumentation was similar). A lot of it has to do with both melody and the Moog bass (along with the Moog background and clavinet, which are obviously missing for the most part). These created the unique sound Stevie had under engineers and co-producers Bob Margouleff and Malcolm Cecil.
Generally, Songs In the Key of Life is seen as Stevie’s greatest project ever. The concept, maybe, but musically, it just isn’t as good aesthetically. I guess it does have more of a pop appeal, while the earlier stuff was too deep and jazzy for the disco era and later. I learned from biographer John Swenson (Stevie Wonder, Harper & Row, 1986) that the album was produced in a time of chaos, with the ousting of engineers Margouleff and Cecil who had greatly enriched his sound with their “TONTO” sound machine, (and studio technician Gary Olazabal promoted to engineer), and other issues within Stevie’s production company (with his brothers involved) and his life (he had planned to quit the music business and go to Africa around that time as well). All of this would affect the production.

(Complete discography, and each album has its own linkedarticle, for those not acquainted with songs mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Wonder_discography)

Love’s In Need of Love Today:
Fender Rhodes tune akin to You Are the Sunshine and Smile Please. Close, yet Rhodes is not as melodic as those songs, and it doesn’t have the range of harmonies those songs do. Vocal lines are a bit similar to Smile Please, yet they too are lacking (The verses are really small and the chorus kind of reminds me of a concert version of a song, where one or two lines from a verse are repeated over and over again– “Love’s…in need…of love today…don’t delay…send yours…ri-ght away…). As Swenson says, the lyrics are very weak. Flower Power was a good later song that recaptured the feel of You are the Sunshine, as well as Come Back As a Flower (Substituting acoustic piano for Fender Rhodes).

Have A Talk With God:
The synths and low vocals are right out of the previous albums, yet it lacks the piano, Fender or Clav backing of the earlier stuff like it.
Vocal melody could have been improved a bit.

Village Ghetto Land:
This was a total new sound (more realistic synth strings), so of course it would not fit in the earlier albums. I wonder what Margouleff & Cecil would have done with it. (Probably would have fit if done in Clavinet or maybe even piano)

Contusions:
The Margouleff & Cecil influence definitely remained in this tune. (The ascending chords at the beginning of each verse). As no instrumental pieces were released on the previous albums, it is also different, and as Swenson says, the live versions (such as MusikLaden and the Rainbow Theater concert,which could be found online) sounds better than the album version. The electric guitar groove also sounds like what everybody else did, (standard production techniques, which Stevie with his Clav and Moogs left in the dust from 1972-4) and a clavinet in place of the guitars would have definitely improved it.

Sir Duke and I Wish:
I Wish is definitely the “Superstition” and “You Haven’t Done Nothin” of this album, but now the Clavinet is replaced with Fender Rhodes, synths, and a muted guitar. These just do not give it the sound the earlier counterparts had. Likewise, Sir Duke could have been a new “Tuesday Heartbreak” if it had a Clavinet added to a wah-wahed Fender in the Background. (The Fender is nicest with the more melodic songs rather than the funk tracks.)

Knocks Me off My Feet and Summer Soft:
These are one of the prettiest and closest to the earlier productions of this album in terms of vocal and instrumental melody. A Moog bass would have given them the “fuller” sound of the earlier songs, and on Summer Soft, a Clavinet instead of guitar.

Pastime Paradise:
Same scenario as Village Ghetto Land. Because of the classical sounding harmony (which one may associate with a harpsichord), this too would have been great with Clavinet

Ordinary Pain
This would almost fit as is. The end part could have used more of an instrumental backing such as a Clavinet (other than the synth bass) as the similar ending of “I believe”.

Isn’t She Lovely:
It sounds nice with the Fender chords, but notice it consists mostly of whole note chords (i.e. one chord per measure of four beats), so there is virtually no instrumental melody. Moog bass and backgrounds (instead of synth strings toward the end) could have made up for this (as in Creepin’) Also the high pitch singing doesn’t seem to fit Fender Rhodes songs. I guess this reflects his joy over his first child, so it’s good in its own right.

Joy Inside My Tears:
The harmony and vocals could have fit, but the synth strings is what sticks out. Swenson was really hard on the song –”An incredibly boring 6½ minute dirge that only Stevie’s most dedicated fans could find listenable”. I thought so at first, but then it was playing on the radio once (in the ’80 or ’90′s!), and I took note of the ad libs at the end and came to appreciate it much better. That was classic Stevie vocals, much like Signed Sealed Delivered or Maybe Your Baby. So A different instrumental arrangement is probably what would have made this song great.

Black Man
This really sounds like classic Stevie, but what’s missing is of course the clavinet! He uses a combination of guitars and basses and synths probably to mimic the sound, but the real thing would have been nicer!

I Am Singing
Great pretty song with synths replacing Clav. With the gritty vibrating sounds of the clav, it would have been one of the most interesting songs ever! (think Look Around, Happier than the Morning Sun and I Believe (without the piano) rolled into one)

If It’s Magic
Sounds different because of the harp, which was never used in the earlier stuff. The piano version I saw on a TV special (And available on YouTube) sounded better to me, and it would have been nice with Fender rhodes as well.

As:
This too has a pretty close Fender Rhodes track and vocals as the prior albums, but once again, a Moog Bass would have made it fuller.

Another Star:
Swenson says “the mix is poor, and [George] Benson’s [guitar] solo suffers as a result”. To me, “Bird of Beauty” seems to be what this song was aiming at. Lou Rawl’s “This Song” (From around the same time; from the same album as “You’re Gonna Miss My Lovin’”) is a much prettier sounding tune similar to this. Both songs had a nice Fender harmony (Bird Of Beauty mixes it with Clav, and This Song mixes it with acoutic piano). The melodies on those songs were better, while Another Star, like Isn’t She Lovely uses whole notes (even though there is a piano groove beneath it). Stevie is singing high pitch here again, and this would have been nice as a climax, but songs like this are nice starting off low. This would have also probably fixed the problem Swenson addressed.

Online, what appears to have been an earlier version of this surfaced a few years ago. It started out with a nice Fender Rhodes and acoustic guitar opening, and he’s only scatting and repeating “deep inside my heart”. However, the harmonic lines are clearly the same as Another star. The scale increases, to one point where the Fender chords sound like “You Are The Sunshine” (the 0:50′s to the 1:00 area). Then it drops back down to the beginning, and the clip fades out as what would be the second verse begins.

Saturn
A Moog (horn sound) for a change. Very similar to Evil, but lacking the Moog bass of course. What he’s saying is interesting, yet, the way he drags out the lines makes it sound not as good as his other ballads (not much melody). A 1975 copyright, this (if not If It’s Magic or Harmour Love) could have been his first production with Olazabal. His final Olazabal song, “Keep Your Love Alive” from 1990 is the same way, pretty much.

This also had an earlier version that creeped out online, and while the piano sounded the same, the Moog horns (only use in this album, and not as good as the earlier albums) and lyrics were totally different; being a typical song about a broken relationship. The words and emotion sounded much more genuine in that form. (Can’t seem to find this online now).

The words are from the bridge (between the main verse and the chorus. Wonder how the chorus went).

only love you needed to see you through
I was over it or I’m back in love,  over then………
If that’s so, I am very [wise?]
You’re a lady can you tell me why
I read the letter that you’re sending to my best friend……..

Funny that something like this would be turned into a song about a planet he wants to go to because of problems on earth. (The “orange snow” is actually accurate for Saturn’s moon Titan. Man, that was almost seven years ago already when we finally got that picture of the surface. Waited almost 30 years for that!)

The song was said to originally be about Stevie’s home town of Saginaw, MI, then as he played around with the words, co-writer Mike Sembello decided on the “Saturn” concept. So then were these lyrics from that inbetween “playing around” time? It still seems that these would have been original, and that making it a non-love song (whether about Saginaw, or Saturn) was the later concept.

Ebony Eyes:

This may have fit as is. Could have been from “Where I’m Coming From” (That Beatles-esque style was more in style back then) A Moog bass would have been nice.

All Day Sucker:
Ahh! Finally, a Clavinet in the lead! (It’s only other use was background in Love’s in Need of Love Today) But this song is the epitome of what I am discussing. In the verses, both main Clavinet chords and vocals fall on the beats (with some syncopated kicks in there. This is the principle of plain traditional music. Think of the grammar school music class) There is also a very weak Clavinet groove beneath it, (sounds muted and almost like random keystrokes. You have to listen to CD with headphones to really hear it), plus a gaudy synth bass sound, but almost no real melody. Tuesday Heartbreak, Superstition and all the other Clavinet tracks are light years ahead of it. The bridge (“All day sucker…try-in’ to get something fo-r nothin’) is very good however, and makes up for it a bit. (“Outside My Window” sounded almost as good as the clavinet productions, even with the guitar replacing clavinet, however).

When the 2005 album A Time 2 Love, came out, with a track called “Please Don’t Hurt My Baby”, fans cheered the return of the Clavinet, and of course compared it to Superstition. But it really is more int he vein of All Day Sucker, with the chords following the beat. An unreleased song he did in concert, “What You Don’t Know”, though done in electric guitars, has much more the layered harmony feel of Superstition.

Easy Goin’ Evening
This is a mellow Fender Rhodes track that aims at You’ve Got it Bad Girl and Superwoman, but of course is not as fast and free flowing as them. Those songs had Moog Bass and more melody as well.

---

One may think “Well, he couldn’t keep using the same four sounds (clav, Fender Rhodes electric piano, acoustic piano and Moogs), so he had to expand”. But he could have expanded with those same instruments, and you saw this beginning in Innervisions and Fulfillingness First Finale (and the unreleased tracks), the last two albums produced in the earlier style. If the songs on “Key of Life” are converted back to those production methods, they would have sounded better, and yet not sound like the same old stuff. Besides, the “new direction” Stevie was going in seemed to move back to standard soul production techniques (strings, albeit synthesized until the 80′s when he brought real orchestras back into his music; electric guitars and acoustic and electric bass and synth bass other than the Moog; rhythm more important than melody, etc. The 1984 and later style was just a more synthesized version of the same thing), so if those standard instruments could be used over and over by everyone, (including Stevie now) without getting tired, then the Clav and Moogs could have as well. (As this was not only how others produced in the late 70′s, but also basically how Stevie was produced before the Margouleff & Cecil period, —the old Motown sound; it was actually a step backward for him.) The Isleys stuck with Margouleff & Cecil for 2 more albums, and even then most of the albums after that up until 1983 kept the sound.

A theory I have as to the radical change in the mid-70′s, of both his music and focus, might stem from the accident that almost killed him right around the time Innervisions was released (Three years before Songs was released). A log had struck him on the right side of the head. He was probably already working on the projects that would become the next two albums after Fulfillingness, and that was when the total shift occurs.

A newer interest of mine is personality theory, both temperament and MBTI type. There is a verion of the theory that discusses right and left brain functional perspectives. Growing up on Talking Book, it seemed to reflect an Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving (ISTP) perspective. Also, him pragmatically rebelling against the Motown machine when coming of age. What people who discuss type usually assume him to be is Introverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging (INFJ). The iNtuitive part reflecting his abstract focus (like the “love mentalism” Swenson dismisses from the Songs sleeve notes). Feeling, because of his altruism, which really surfaced around that time. In 1975, he even considered quitting the business to move to Africa. And “Judging” indicates the the Feeling (which is a “judging” process) is oriented towards the outer world of people and action, rather than an inner code of ethics (though some think he is a Feeling Perceiver, which fits that latter definition)
Clearly, some cognitive shift was occuring during this period.

He seemed much more “concrete” (focused on tangible reality rather than the meanings of things) and “logical” (focused on the mind more than the heart) before the accident. ISTP and INFJ are actually close, cognitively, using the same four (out of eight possible) function-orientation combinations, though in a different order (One has the S and T out front, and the other has the N and F). P is associated with the right brain, and J with the left brain. So ISTP and INFJ are actually right/left brain alternatives of each other, (called “Supplement”). So the accident apparently shifted him more to the left brain perspective, and hence, him appearing to be an INFJ.

Here’s the later project focusing on the transition of the sound in general, that did make it to my web space:

http://www.erictb.info/TONTO.html

What really happened to disco?

When I first discovered that Wikipedia was designed to be edited by anyone; I was like “WOW”; an outlet for all of my trivial and factual information. I didn’t realize the “original research” criteria, and just jumped in with my spin on things. Like something I had been thinking about in the mid ’00s: what exactly happened to disco, as I had discovered the Music Choice channels, including one called “showcase” that alternated between “disco” and “old School Rap; both now replaced by two other channels).

I had saved the part of the article I reconfigured, as I think it is still an interesting read on the development, with the noting of two different strains of disco that went in different directions upon entering the eighties (some of this is the contribution of others). The parts before this had traced the genre through Motown, Philly and other sources:

On Wikipedia 15 Feb-21-Feb 2006

Transition and Descendents

The year 1980 was a transitional time for music, especially dance music, which lost its disco sound, as complex melodic structures and plush elements of the symphony orchestra gave way to a diminutive, street sound. In the early-1980s, George Benson, Rick James, Patrice Rushen, The Brothers Johnson, The Weather Girls, Madonna, Kool & the Gang, Miquel Brown, Teena Marie, The Commodores, The S.O.S. Band, and other artists continued to create many disco-enthused hits. At the same time new styles emerged – Italo Disco and Euro Disco.

Also in the early-1980s, House music was forged in the underground clubs of Chicago and New York, when the first drum machines were introduced into disco tracks.

Two strains of “disco” music

To better understand the evolution of disco into the 1980′s, we can look at the division between what can be called “white disco” and “black disco”, for both for the most part went into different directions. While all disco had some common features (like the beat), and originated in black music, the type of disco most often performed by white artists and popular with white audiences was a more mainstream sound, which can be distinguished by among other things, horns and strings that are often performed in an “extravagant” style that resembles a Broadway production. Examples of this mainstream disco sound are:

• Groups like the Bee Gees, The Village People, The Ritchie Family, and ABBA
• Marilyn McCoo‘s “You Don’t Have to be a Star”,
• Vicki Sue Robinson‘s “Turn the Beat Around”,
• Alicia Bridges‘ “I Love The Nightlife”(1979)
• Yvonne Elliman‘s “If I Can’t Have You” (1978)
• Andrea True Connection‘s “More, More More”,
• Melba Moore‘s “This is It” (1976),
• Gloria Gaynor‘s “Never Can Say Goodbye”,
• France Joli‘s “Come To Me”,
• the disco ventures by such pop stars as Cher, Barry Manilow and Barbara Streisand.

This style seems to have been largely inspired by MFSB’s “TSOP”, which, as an instrumental track, was a bit heavier on the instrumentation than many other soul records.

The black disco sound remained more true to its funk and R & B roots and was heavier on the bass and electric guitar. Horns and strings were used a bit less, and when they were used, were performed in a style that more resembled the older “Motown” and “Philly soul” sounds. The musical scales were usually more “funky” as well. The top “black” disco sound acts were:

• Groups like Chic, Sister Sledge, A Taste Of Honey, Evelyn “Champagne” King,
• Smaller acts like Musique, Foxy, Kleeer and Peter Brown
• Hits like McFadden & Whitehead‘s “Ain’t No Stopping Us Now”
• Hits by The Emotions, Thelma Houston, Cheryl Lynn, The Trammps,
• The disco ventures of Motown and former Motown acts such as The Jacksons and Diana Ross.

Acts like KC and the Sunshine Band and Donna Summer were mainstream in their popularity (The definitive “mainstream” disco album being the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack both performed on), but nevertheless more “funk”-oriented in sound (Summers’ “Last Dance” was definitely the more “mainstream” sound). Gloria Gaynor‘s “I Will Survive” was a bit of a cross between the two sounds, with a more “mainstream” production style, but the soulful singing is associated more with black music. The Bee Gee’s “You Should Be Dancing” was also a more funk-infused track than some of their other hits.

The effect of the synthesizer

The advent of the synthesizer in popular music greatly altered both sub-styles of disco. The earliest grain of this can be seen in Donna Summers’ 1977 hit “I Feel Love”, which has a completely electronic rhythm, consisting primarily of a synthesized percussion and bass sound, and is regarded as the precursor to the later “Techno” or “House” style. The same year, Kraftwerk produced its hit “Trans-Europe Express“, which was played and danced to as disco, even though it consists largely of a “futuristic” synthesized string orchestra sound. As synthesizers increased in usage, the first sounds to convert to the new instruments were generally the bass and strings. At first, this was done in a way that did not stand out and change the overall sound. An example of this would be Michael Jackson’s “Shake Your Body To the Ground” or Lipps Inc‘s “Funky Town”. But in the 1980′s, it became very noticeable, and eventually led to the point where the music just was not “disco” anymore. However, the dancing/partying crowds probably did not recognize this, nor care!

The transformation of the “mainstream” disco sound

You can see the gradual change in such titles as

• Amii Stewart‘s “Knock On Wood” (1979),
• the Bee Gees‘ “Tragedy” (1979),
• Irene Cara‘s “Fame” (1980),
• Olivia Newton-John‘s “Xanadu”(1980)
• Blondie‘s “Heart of Glass”, (1980)
• Patrick Cowley & Sylvester‘s “Do You Wanna Funk”, (1982)
• Laura Branigan‘s “Gloria” (1982),
• Boystown Gang’s “Can’t Take My Eyes Off Of You” (1981)
• Roni Griffith “(The Best Part Of) Breaking Up” (1981-2),

and several songs from this period by the group Lime. These songs still had the disco rhythm and bass line, but it was now synthesized, along with the background sounds, which usually replaced the horns and strings, and at the same time rock guitars (or synthesizers that mimicked their sound) also became prevalent. So basically, the more “mainstream” disco sound gradually merged into pop-rock. Another transitional song was The Weather Girls‘ “It’s Raining Men”, which uses the same basic instruments (including the bass line) of the 70′s “mainstream” disco sound, but by this time in the 80′s, the faster beat was more associated with the emerging pop-rock style, so it is sometimes not considered disco. A more synthesized example of this is The Pointer Sisters‘ “Jump”. So as rock moved a bit towards the rhythmic sensibilities of disco, [as was stated above], this segment of disco moved closer to rock. In the mid-80′s, the styles had pretty much merged into a single sound that is known as “the ’80′s sound”.

The transformation of the “street” disco sound

Meanwhile, the black disco sound was at the same time spawning the new genre of rap or hip-hop, and also as synthesizers increased, it either merged back into R & B, or some of it blended into pop-rock as well. In the 1981-83 period, a hybrid acoustic/synthesized sound emerged, where the bass and other background sounds were replaced by synthesizers, but other acoustic and electroacoustic intruments like the acoustic piano and “Rhodes” electric piano and electric bass and guitars were often retained. They were now used to produce chords which were more prominent (and often a bit more jazzy) than in the earlier disco, (in which the harmonies were less prominent than the rhythm), further changing the sound. You can compare the piano playing in songs like Silver Convention’s “Get Up And Boogie” (1976), Cheryl Lynn’s “Got To Be Real”, (1978) or Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family” with this later style. You can also compare the general sound of Evelyn Champagne King’s “Shame” (1977)and “I don’t Know If It’s Right” (1979) with her later hits “Love Come Down” (1981) and “I’m In Love” (1982). These songs, and similar ones by Kool & the Gang, The Whispers, Shalamar and Dynasty, D-Train, and Kashif (including several acts produced by him before he released his first record in 1983) all maintained a danceable rhythm that is generally considered disco, but the overall sound is noticeably different from the 70′s black disco sound. It is more of a general R & B style, that maintains some features (such as the rhythm) from disco. Many of these songs are about as different from the “disco” of the late 70′s as are the “pre-disco” songs listed above. Even during the disco period, there were many great hits and groups that were generally not considered disco, though they were just as danceable, and played in discos along with everything else. Examples would include Stevie Wonder (I Wish, Sir Duke) and Earth, Wind & Fire (Shining Star, Getaway). These styles were deeper in quality, featuring more harmony and even melody, rather than just rhythm; and was put in a category above disco, which was the popular fad of sorts. However, young producers were greatly influenced by these musicians, and when the mainstream disco craze wore off in the 80′s, dance records began borrowing more elements from these great artists along with even jazz. “Disco” was more a particular sound, rather than anything with a similar rhythm, and it was generally associated with certain groups who made it big with those sounds. But when disco increased in popularity, eventually, the word became associated with anything danceable, that played in discothèques, even after the sound changed. That is, until it changed so much, that the word finally fell out of favor in the mid eighties, even though the same rhythms were being used in new styles of music. Around 1984, most black dance tracks became almost completely synthesized, and this (plus the increasing use of rock-guitars, next paragraph) made the style blend in even more with pop-rock.

Sounds associated with rock were gradually influencing this style as well. Donna Summers’ “Hot Stuff” (1978) for instance, incoporated rock elements such as the guitar riff. Later, she released the song “Love Is In Control” in 1982, in a new mostly synthesized production technique, though it retained a heavily “70′s” style funk sound overall. However, the following year, her biggest hit was “She Works Hard For the Money” which was a definite “80′s” “pop-rock” style, with the synthesized and guitar background riffs, though it still maintained somewhat of a disco bassline, and is played as “disco”. Several other R & B acts followed this style. Examples are Kool & the Gang’s “Joanna”, “Tonight”, “Misled” and “Fresh”; George Benson‘s “20-20″, Al Jarreau‘s “Raging Waters”, and Stephanie Mills‘ “Medicine Song”.

Some examples of 80′s (late) disco are:

• Loeatta Holloway — “Love Sensation” (1980)
• Lipps, Inc. – Funkytown (1980)
• Young & Company – I Like What You’re Doin’ To Me(1980)
• Vaughn, Mason & Crew – Bounce, Rock, Skate, Roll (1980)
• Diana Ross — “I’m Comin’ Out” (1980)
• SOS Band — “Take Your Time” (1980)
• Carl Carlton: “She’s A Bad Mama Jama” (1980)
• Gino Soccio — “Try It Out” (1980)
• Taana Gardner — “Heartbeat” (1980)
• Gwen McCrae – “Funky Sensation” (1981)
• Skyy — “Call Me” (1981)
• Tom Tom Club – “Genius of Love” (1980-1)
• Secret Weapon — “Must Be the Music” (1981)
• Kleeer — “Get Tough” (1981)
• SOS Band – “High Hopes” (1982)
• Goody Goody – “Let Me Work On You” (1982)
• The Weather Girls -“It’s Raining Men” (1982) [“mainstream sound” derivative]
• Indeep – “Last Night A D.J. Saved My Life”  (1982)
• Miquel Brown -”Too Many Men, Too Little Time (1983)[mainstream derivative]
• Evelyn Thomas — “High energy” (1984) [“mainstream sound” derivative]
• Somebody Else’s Guy — Jocelyn Brown (1984)

Semi disco songs (with post-disco style harmonies):

• Kool and the Gang — “Ladies Night” and “Celebrate” (1979)
• Tom Browne — “Funkin’ For Jamaica” (1980)
• The Whispers — “And the Beat Goes On” (1980), “It’s A Love Thing” (1981)
• Shalamar — “Second Time Around” (1980)
• Booker T — “Don’t Stop Your Love” (1981)
• Alicia Myers — “I Wanna Thank You” (1981)
• Evelyn “Champagne” King — “Love Come Down” (1981)
• Denroy Morgan — “I’ll Do Anything For You” (1981)
• France Joli — “Gonna Get Over You” (1981)
• Cheryl Lynn — “Shake it up Tonight” (1981)
• Dynasty — “Here I am” (1981)
• Shalamar — “Night To Remember” (1982)

Post-disco dance records (that are often considered disco) include:

• Patrice Rushen — “Haven’t You Heard” (1978), “Forget Me Nots” (1982)
• Narada Michael Walden — “I Should Have Loved Ya” (1979)
• The Brothers Johnson — “Stomp” (1980) —funk
• Roberta Flack — “You, You & I, Back Together Again” (1980) —funk
• Imagination — “Illusion” (1981) —electronic pop
• Kool and the Gang — “Get Down On It” (1981)
• Earth, Wind & Fire — “Let’s Groove”
• Billy Ocean — “One of those Nights (Feel Like Gettin’ Down)” (1981)
• BBQ — “On the Beat” (1981)
• Tony Lee — “Reach Up” (1981)
• Central Line — “Walking Into Sunshine” (1981-2)
• Junior Giscombe — “Mama Used to Say” (1981-2)
• Evelyn “Champagne” King — “I’m In Love” (1982)
• Howard Johnson – “So Fine” (1982)
• D. Train — “You’re the One” (1981) “Keep On” (1981-2) “Walk On By” (1982) “Music” (1983)
• Sharon Redd — “Beat the Street” (1982)
• Angela Bofill — “Too Tough”
• Raw Silk — “Do It To the Music” (1982)
• Kashif — “I Just Gotta Have You (Lover Turn Me On)”, “Help Yourself to My Love”, “Stone Love”, “Baby Don’t Break Your Baby’s Heart”

Disco “spinoffs” rap and “House” music

Finally, disco was largely succeeded in the younger black music community by rap, which had started, by rapping over disco tracks. The first commercially popular rap hit was “Rapper’s Delight“, which borrowed the bass line from Chic’s “Good Times”. The two styles existed side by side for a few years, with rap sometimes creeping into disco songs such as In Deep’s “Last Night A DJ Saved My Life”. The two styles together also sparked off “House Music” or “techno” when Afrika Bambataa released the 1982 rap “Planet Rock“, which drew several elements from Kraftwerk’s “Trans-Europe Express” and the previous year’s “Numbers”. While other raps were also adding electronic sounds, this soon wore off in that genre in favor of a more “raw” hip-hop sound. However, the “Planet Rock” sound also spawned a non-”hip-hop” electronic dance trend, with such follow-ups as Planet Patrol’s “Play At Your own Risk”, the same year, followed by “One More Shot” by C-Bank; and the following year, its popularity skyrocketed with Shannon’s “Let The Music Play” Freeze’s “AEIOU”, and Midnight Star‘s “Freakazoid”. Electronic Dance music or ouse Music (later called “techno”) had now emerged as its own genre, and this sort of became the new “disco”, even though it was not recognized as such, due to the nearly 100% electronic composition.

Did it really “die”?

All of this is why it is often said that by the year 1985, disco was pretty much “dead”. It did not really have a distinctive “death”, but simply blended back into other popular styles, while spawning some new styles. It was the synthesizer, and resulting change in the sounds, that basically ended disco as it was known in the pre-electronic 70′s, moreso than any reaction from the competing rock genre. The danceable rhythms would live on in pop-rock, rap, Techno/House Music and regular R & B; and the dance club continued to thrive with these styles.

De we have to be CEO’s to be “hard working” and “successful” in this economy?

Here’s a good statement from Michael Moore:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/heres-the-michael-moore-cnbc-video-everyones-talking-about.html/

I’m not even sure the equality of opportunity is there anymore… That’s what gets me about people who say they (Occupy Wall Street) don’t believe in capitalism. People on this street say ’oh yeah we’re for free enterprise, we’re for a competitive market.’ No they’re not… they want to destroy the competition…they want to merge or buy out the competition. They want to make it so consumers and citizens have as few choices as possible. That’s their nirvana…a Soviet form of capitalism where they’re the only ones in charge. So the American people believe in competition and believe in everybody having a fair shot at it… if you’re an entrepreneur… if you’ve got the next great idea today… go to your local bank and try to get a loan…They’re all sitting on the money down here. They won’t loan the money to the small business person, or the person who has that next thing to advance society…

Meanwhile, here is an exchange elsewhere I joined into with a point:

What if you are underpaid and there are no other jobs you can do? Is that fair? No!

You are making an assumption that is not valid. If you have a job and the only job you can get is making less or no job at all, you probably should do something to make yourself more marketable. If there are no other jobs for you, then it is fair that the employers pay you less, you are worth less as there are a myriad of others who would take your place if you quit.

I hired people and had one person threaten to quit because we paid them too little (or they didn’t get enough of a bonus). The fact was, I had hundreds of applicants for his job willing to make less than I paid him. In actuality, he would have done me a service to quit, I would have saved thousands of dollars. However, he realized that he couldn’t find another comparable job that paid as much.

I was in that situation. I didn’t want to go back into the ministry full time but I wanted to make more money. So, I began a year and a half quest to make myself more marketable and worth more to people. This included getting my MBA, getting expertise in other areas, joining organizations that would help give me more credentials, and much more. I became a leader in several non-profit organizations and was recognized for some great things that I accomplished.

Would it be unfair for my company to pay me more? Yes, because I couldn’t make more money elsewhere. Was it fair for me to improve myself and then take another job for more money? Yes!

Both are Capitalistic.

Sometimes it sounds like in the ideal version of this system, everyone would be a CEO, in order to live decently. (And of course, anyone who is not, is “lazy”, and deserves their plight. And that would be “fair”. Though people at the same time try to justify this by saying “life is not fair”–as in don’t expect it to be).

Still, this ignores other factors, such as the bar being constantly raised, in various ways. The cost of living going up. And even the requirements for “marketability”. Like here in NY, they raised the qualifications to get a counselor’s license. So my wife’s Masters’ was instantly rendered worthless, and instead of making money now, we’re paying for basically, a second Master’s.

These types of things are never taken into consideration, and call them lazy if you will, but a lot of other people will give up in that situation. Others might be incapable of making it.
But we seem to be setting up a system where you have to spend decades in school, and work 20 hours a day to be “worth” enough to make it, and we hold those people who do this (many of them having a problem of “workaholism”, where even their health and families suffer) up as the “fair” norm of “hard work” and “success” (by which anything less is “laziness”), but clearly, something is lopsided there, and that’s part of what people are complaining about.

Here’s another informative link:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1792056/occupy-wall-street-demographics-infographic