Jimi Hendrix - say it isn't so....Un-American?

[Ronny]

I see, I don't know much about him as he was a bit before my time, I just skimmed the article.

 

[sirmyk]

Also, don't forget insurance fraud. Those that think they should get a free ride by faking some kind of medical/physical issue. Back pain is always a tough thing to prove. Person gets dis-ability, workmans compensation, insurance to cover medical costs and pain suffered, then an undercover detective videotapes the guy working a post hole digger in his backyard while putting in an in-ground swimming pool with the settlement money he got from some bogus lawsuit.

Thats un-American.

When I was sixteen, and just got my license, I did the stupid thing of toying with the radio while driving (luckily I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic) on the road leading out of the high school I was attending. Consequently, I rear-ended the lady (in her early thirties) in front of me, going roughly 2-3 miles per hour. It resulting in three things: 1) a scratch in the protectant on my bumper the size of a pellet; 2) zero damage to her car; 3) the lady storming out of her vehicle to verbally asault me. Her arms were flailing in the air, she jumped up and down (much like a childish temper tantrum), and cussed the living **** out of me. She refused to pull over to the side of the road to discuss the situation (adding much to the already bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go traffic on the one-lane road, and collected my insurance and license information. She also refused to hand over her information in the process. So, I did the right thing and reported the incident to the sherriff's office. They took the report, but wondered why I came in at all. They even laughed at the damage done to my car (which the sherriff buffed out with his shirt sleeve). I never heard back from the woman, or my insurance company at the time. Eleven months and twenty-eight days later (it seems in California you can report a claim up to one year following an incident) I received a letter from my insurance company (as well as a copy of a legal pleading (which at the time seemed written in another language)) stating that this lady I had rear-ended going 2-3 miles per hour (nearly a year ago), was suing the insurance company for neck and back injury. Ha! I laughed aloud. I was safe, but my insurance company currently had his balls in her lawyers' vice of a grasp. For the next year, I continually got copies of documents from the insurance company to keep me notified of the claim and this lady's horrible sewage (play on words, hehe). Come to find out, my insurance company hired a private detective. This guy did some exhaustive research and found out a few things about this bitch. She, for the last four years, had been taking karate classes and had been hospitalized numerous times for resulting injuries; she was also into Yoga, and many other strenuous activities (mostly around the time of the accident). Long story short (sorry), my insurance company finally settled (to avoid any further legal fees (nearing the $100,000 range)) for $30,000. This bitch got $30,000 from my insurance company, and I was dropped from their coverage. I found out a little later that this lady happened to be one of the Special Education teachers at my high school. That, is un-American.

 

[Ronny]

Kenny- you make a good point there, I do think we have a bit of an idealized concept of ourselves and the reality is very different.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

All his theft, un-American, gay military, lying, deceit and such happened before he became famous. The artical states it happened in 1962.

He was just Joe Ordinary at the time...or James Ordinary.

This has all troubled you quite deeply hasn't it? Can I suggest you avoid 'warts and all' biogs of historical figures that you admire for a while. I fear your stripey fur may start to fall out if you have any more revelations like this...

 

[Robert]

You could argue that given America is governed by the principles of the free market, the difference between pulic worker pay and the huge salaries paid too entertainers is actually a very American thing.

Right again, Kenny. The lack of government regulation is, or should be at least, very american.

 

[Robert]

But you're only glad that those people without super-human talent can't abuse the system right?

Those with un-natural, otherworldly talent can freely abuse the system all they want...like Jimi...at least that's the vibe I'm getting from most here today...

I'm glad it more difficult for anybody to abuse it.

By the way, I've never been a fan of Jimi Hendrix, so his fame doesn't influence me in the least.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Right again, Kenny. The lack of government regulation is, or should be at least, very american.

I'd be interested in knowing if this is a sentiment felt across the board in America or just from one point of view? I'm assuming your leanings are more Republican than Democrat on this; forgive me if I've got that wrong or you don't give a monkeys either way.
Whilst differing parties have differing views on the running of the welfare state over here, I think the welfare state is, in general, seen as a central part of our way of life (obviously not everyone will agree with this).

 

[Robert]

And the freedom to choose what causes you believe in and are willing to die for, surely? Which war was he supposed to go to, anyway? Korea or Vietnam? Let's not get started on the 'necessity' of those, shall we?

I never thought of Hendrix as a hero anyway. So he played a damn good guitar and was the 'sound of a generation'. Doesn't make him venerable on the 'hero' scale, IMHO. Frankly, I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing he did. He probably got more out of going into the military than he would have in prison, and if there was a loophole to get out of a war I didn't believe in, I'd sure as hell take it - particularly one as ridiculous as being rejected if you're gay! Ha ha ha ha ha!! Man, they were so short sighted in the '70's. Oh, wait a minute...

Kookamoor, the government that sends our troops to war is elected by us to represent our best interests in all things as far as their authority allows. We had the freedom to choose when it was time to decide who what to represent us. It would be wrong to elect someone to office then not support them, even it if it means sending the troops to war.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Kenny- you make a good point there, I do think we have a bit of an idealized concept of ourselves and the reality is very different.

The trick is to not think of the hourly rates for actors in ER and the one for nurses in a real Emergency Room. But if you really have to, just remember that they are valued so many times more in monetary terms only.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Kookamoor, the government that sends our troops to war is elected by us to represent our best interests in all things as far as their authority allows. We had the freedom to choose when it was time to decide who what to represent us. It would be wrong to elect someone to office then not support them, even it if it means sending the troops to war.

This is slightly at a tangent, but it's worth remembering that you elect a president who is also head of state. As such an American President seems to get a lot more respect for the office he holds rather than a British Prime Minister who gets critised for the job he does.
Oh, and its a fair point that you should probably support a war time leader that you've elected, but also worth pointing out that they (and I'm making a genreal point here) were a free choice from a field of two.

 

[Robert]

I'd be interested in knowing if this is a sentiment felt across the board in America or just from one point of view? I'm assuming your leanings are more Republican than Democrat on this; forgive me if I've got that wrong or you don't give a monkeys either way.
Whilst differing parties have differing views on the running of the welfare state over here, I think the welfare state is, in general, seen as a central part of our way of life (obviously not everyone will agree with this).

As a rule, Democrat or Republican, we don’t like government regulation. In many cases, we agree on what our goal should be, what we have a hard time agreeing on is the details. For example, both Democrats and Republicans believe in a minimum wage to ensure workers earn enough to feed their families. Where the sides spilt is in actual amount. Republicans might object to a higher minimum wage out of concern for what small businesses can afford, and that a higher wage might make it necessary to do away with the position all together. Democrats might want it a little higher minimum wage because they believe minimum wage isn’t high enough for what the worker needs to keep food on the table.

I don’t believe either side in this country wants a welfare state, but there is heavy pressure from the liberal side of the country for socializing medical benefits.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

As a rule, Democrat or Republican, we don’t like government regulation. In many cases, we agree on what our goal should be, what we have a hard time agreeing on is the details. For example, both Democrats and Republicans believe in a minimum wage to ensure workers earn enough to feed their families. Where the sides spilt is in actual amount. Republicans might object to a higher minimum wage out of concern for what small businesses can afford, and that a higher wage might make it necessary to do away with the position all together. Democrats might want it a little higher minimum wage because they believe minimum wage isn’t high enough for what the worker needs to keep food on the table.

I don’t believe either side in this country wants a welfare state, but there is heavy pressure from the liberal side of the country for socializing medical benefits.

Interesting, that what I suspected may be the case.
BTW, the minimum wage is a fairly new thing over here, since Blair came to power.

 

[Robert]

This is slightly at a tangent, but it's worth remembering that you elect a president who is also head of state. As such an American President seems to get a lot more respect for the office he holds rather than a British Prime Minister who gets critised for the job he does.
Oh, and its a fair point that you should probably support a war time leader that you've elected, but also worth pointing out that they (and I'm making a genreal point here) were a free choice from a field of two.

Actually, each presidential candidate starts out in a field that is often three or more before they win their parties vote in the primaries to represent them in the general election. Also, there are checks and balances in our government. In the US, the President cannot take a country to war without consent (majority vote) from Congress, another body of elected officials.

 

[Robert]

Interesting, that what I suspected may be the case.
BTW, the minimum wage is a fairly new thing over here, since Blair came to power.

The minimum wage is a good thing. The Democrats aren’t wrong to be concerned about business owners that might take advantage of workers.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Actually, each presidential candidate starts out in a field that is often three or more before they win their parties vote in the primaries to represent them in the general election.

My understanding of that is it's not a vote open to the entire electorate only party members.
Without opening up old debates, how did Bush beat McCain to the ticket in 2000? From the outside that just seems bonkers, far more dificult to understand than Bush beating Gore or Kerry.

 

[Robert]

My understanding of that is it's not a vote open to the entire electorate only party members.
Without opening up old debates, how did Bush beat McCain to the ticket in 2000? From the outside that just seems bonkers, far more dificult to understand than Bush beating Gore or Kerry.

You're right; primaries are usually open only to party members. So for instance, any registered Republican can vote in the Republican primaries in their state.

 

[Kookamoor]

Kookamoor, the government that sends our troops to war is elected by us to represent our best interests in all things as far as their authority allows. We had the freedom to choose when it was time to decide who what to represent us. It would be wrong to elect someone to office then not support them, even it if it means sending the troops to war.

Okay, let me try an example that might ring true with you, based on what I know about your beliefs.

In the US, the Democrats get in and constitutionally state that first trimester abortion is legal. Are you going to accept that? No, I doubt it. You'll still be against abortion. Just because the elected party implements a policy doesn't mean you have to agree with it and doesn't prevent you from protesting it. Equally so with war. If you don't agree with the cause or the methodology it's your right, as part of a free-speaking country, to do something about it (recall we are talking about 'freedom' here, not Hendrix specifically)! Besides, I don't think any military unit should have a soldier in their midst who does not believe in the overarching cause.

Not sure about you, but I don't check my personal beliefs at the door when a political party gets in that I don't agree with. I'll pay my taxes and obey the laws, but they don't get to dictate what I can think nor prevent me protesting what I believe is unjust.

 

[leckert]

Those who disapprove of his actions never liked him anyways, heck-they voted for Nixon and listened to Perry Cuomo in all likelihood. Speaking of, I think he's more of a hero than Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Gen.Westmoreland, or Robert McNamara(at least until McNamara woke up about the reality of the Vietname War and proposed a pull-out)

You use an awful broad brush here, SFG.

You are wrong to say that those who disapprove... never liked him anyways[sic]..." I love Jimmi Hendrix, and I think he should have been tried for desertion.

I will stop now, as this could easily plunge into politics!

 

[sirmyk]

In the US... If you don't agree with the cause or the methodology [ of war ] it's your right, as part of a free-speaking country, to do something about it (recall we are talking about 'freedom' here, not Hendrix specifically)! Besides, I don't think any military unit should have a soldier in their midst who does not believe in the overarching cause.

With the draft, there is no choice; you either enter boot camp, or you pretend to be gay.

 

[leckert]

Okay, let me try an example that might ring true with you, based on what I know about your beliefs.

In the US, the Democrats get in and constitutionally state that first trimester abortion is legal. Are you going to accept that? No, I doubt it. You'll still be against abortion. Just because the elected party implements a policy doesn't mean you have to agree with it and doesn't prevent you from protesting it. Equally so with war. If you don't agree with the cause or the methodology it's your right, as part of a free-speaking country, to do something about it (recall we are talking about 'freedom' here, not Hendrix specifically)! Besides, I don't think any military unit should have a soldier in their midst who does not believe in the overarching cause.

Not sure about you, but I don't check my personal beliefs at the door when a political party gets in that I don't agree with. I'll pay my taxes and obey the laws, but they don't get to dictate what I can think nor prevent me protesting what I believe is unjust.

Part of the Law you say you would obey is the draft. Hendrix breeched his contract when he lied to avoid service. In colonial times, this would have been treated as treason, and he would likely have been put to death, whether he could play a mean Lute, or not.

If we take away the Government's power to raise an army, we are saying to the world "come and get us. We would rather argue amongst ourselves than stop you from attacking us". You can say "yeah, but if someone did attack us it would be different." I would answer that, by saying that we know A MINISCULE FRACTION of what our government knows (and that's a good thing). We are not in the position, nor do we have the global responsibility, of the President/Congress. When they call us to fight for our country, our only response should be "where do I sign up?". We elect them to make these decisions. We pay them to take the responsibility. If we don't like the decisions they make, then we need to replace them, but while they are in office, they are the Commander-In-Chief. If Clinton had instituted the draft when the USS Cole was bombed by terrorists in the port of Bahrain, (and I weren't over 28), I would have been first in line, even though I would not have voted for the man for dog catcher.

Of course no one is expected to agree with something just because the party with which they are affiliated takes a stand. There is a difference between a conscientious protest and evading a draft. I think Mr. Hendrix was one of the most important musicians of his time, and his influence is still felt in music today. He died too young, but he was no more a "hero" than Elvis Presley, or Miles Davis, or Neil Young, or Tom Cruise.

Not a Hero.
Probably a Coward.
Still a legend!