• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Art Bell

Started by sillydog, April 07, 2008, 11:21:45 PM

HorrorRetro

Quote from: SomeVelvetMorning on May 20, 2013, 08:38:42 PM
I think in most of the world, people generally get married for survival purposes.  Ours is one of the few cultures that sells the idea that love (or lust) is the reason to marry.  It was not so long ago that the United States was much like the rest of the world in that regard. 
My own great-great grandfather married his third wife in 1897.  He was born in 1829 and wife #3 was born in 1863 (a 34 year age difference).  Wives #1 and #2 had died and he still had kids at home to care for as well as needing assistance himself.  Fortunately he was receiving a pension for service in the Civil War in a time where money was difficult to come by.  Wife #3 obviously knew this and it probably assisted in her choice to marry.  They had children and a happy marriage.  Everyone won but I doubt there was any great love felt by either when they married.  They did learn to love one another no doubt while being married.  This is still the norm today in much of the world and given our divorce rate in the US, maybe we have it all wrong today.

I took an interesting sociology class that was based on this premise.  The class was structured around the idea that marriage around the world is a system of commodities.  Each party brings something to the table.  While dating, you're bartering and working the deal.  In my own marriage, and it's the first and only marriage for both of us and we've been married for 18 years now, my husband agreed to be the financial supporter who was geeky and a bit flakey, and I was the one that brought him stability and structure (along with the Army) and helped him become more cultured than he was.  I brought traditionalism to the table.  He was his parents' best man at their wedding.  He grew up in a family of hippies who had met on a commune.  His dad used to live with Janis Joplin for a bit back in the day, so they were very non-traditional.  I was raised mostly by my grandparents in a home where only my grandpa worked and he was the only one that drove the car.  So we each brought totally different values to the table.  When we agreed on our roles, for the most part, the deal -- the marriage -- was performed. 

Of course there was love and attraction involved.  I think it's possible to have both a marriage of commodities and one of love.  I think that's the ideal situation, actually, and the type of marriage that will last the longest.  These marriages that are based on nothing but "love" and the thought of a fancy wedding are doomed to failure in most cases. 

As long as both partners agree with the commodities traded and their roles, things should work out.

coaster

Why are people posting a picture of a man and his grand daughter? Its not relevant. Oh wait... thats Art.
http://www.johnrook.com/Art%20&%20Wife%20Airyn%20Bell.jpg

just kidding of course. They look happy.

Sardondi

Quote from: HorrorRetro on May 21, 2013, 06:31:44 PM
I took an interesting sociology class that was based on this premise.  The class was structured around the idea that marriage around the world is a system of commodities.  Each party brings something to the table.  While dating, you're bartering and working the deal.  In my own marriage, and it's the first and only marriage for both of us and we've been married for 18 years now, my husband agreed to be the financial supporter who was geeky and a bit flakey, and I was the one that brought him stability and structure (along with the Army) and helped him become more cultured than he was.  I brought traditionalism to the table.  He was his parents' best man at their wedding.  He grew up in a family of hippies who had met on a commune.  His dad used to live with Janis Joplin for a bit back in the day, so they were very non-traditional.  I was raised mostly by my grandparents in a home where only my grandpa worked and he was the only one that drove the car.  So we each brought totally different values to the table.  When we agreed on our roles, for the most part, the deal -- the marriage -- was performed. 

Of course there was love and attraction involved.  I think it's possible to have both a marriage of commodities and one of love.  I think that's the ideal situation, actually, and the type of marriage that will last the longest.  These marriages that are based on nothing but "love" and the thought of a fancy wedding are doomed to failure in most cases. 

As long as both partners agree with the commodities traded and their roles, things should work out.
I speak as an expert since I took a total of two sociology courses in college. But I noted then (and nothing has changed my opinion since) that the primary purpose of any Sociology course is to identify any and all sources of love, emotional security, joy, wonder, delight or romance, wherever they may exist in human experience, and destroy them utterly.

ItsOver

Quote from: Sardondi on May 21, 2013, 09:02:50 PM
I speak as an expert since I took a total of two sociology courses in college.,,,,


Hahahaha.... works for me.  ;D

HorrorRetro

Quote from: Sardondi on May 21, 2013, 09:02:50 PM
I speak as an expert since I took a total of two sociology courses in college. But I noted then (and nothing has changed my opinion since) that the primary purpose of any Sociology course is to identify any and all sources of love, emotional security, joy, wonder, delight or romance, wherever they may exist in human experience, and destroy them utterly.

I encountered that in other sociology classes.  I can only read so much Engels and Marx before wanting to slit my own throat.  Originally, I was pretty put off by the theme of this class.  As I got into it, I found it quite interesting and couldn't disagree with a lot of what was covered.  There were some wacky theories as well but, overall, the class was pretty good.

Eddie Coyle


         Took five sociology themed classes and actually enjoyed them thoroughly, despite reading more Gramsci and Sartre than I ever cared to. Tautological folderol is roughly 97% of the course load, but once you realize that so much of it is bullshit with zero real world practical application, it becomes an easy A.

          I was taking one class in that field in November 2004 when Bush was reelected. Our "instructor" missed the next two classes (Nov 4 and Nov 9) suffering from an unknown malady. He then returned on Nov 16 and compared himself to William Shirer. I had to look out the window the rest of that class because I would have laughed in his face.

Sardondi

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on May 21, 2013, 09:51:09 PM...I was taking one class in that field in November 2004 when Bush was reelected. Our "instructor" missed the next two classes (Nov 4 and Nov 9) suffering from an unknown malady. He then returned on Nov 16 and compared himself to William Shirer. I had to look out the window the rest of that class because I would have laughed in his face.
Great Caesar's ghost. I don't think I would have been able to have suppressed my, uh, well, My Morning Guffaw. I sometimes wish the "useful idiots" could have their wildest dreams granted, just to imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth unleashed when they would be led away to the first day's beheadings in the newly named Revolutionary Guards Memorial Soccer Pitch, formerly known as Fenway Park.

Eddie Coyle

Quote from: Sardondi on May 21, 2013, 11:43:39 PM
Great Caesar's ghost. I don't think I would have been able to have suppressed my, uh, well, My Morning Guffaw. I sometimes wish the "useful idiots" could have their wildest dreams granted, just to imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth unleashed when they would be led away to the first day's beheadings in the newly named Revolutionary Guards Memorial Soccer Pitch, formerly known as Fenway Park.
Being that I was the only one of our class of 25 or so, who even got the Shirer reference at all...the comparisons to Shirer were all the more amusing(to me at least) because none other than Shirer himself had made rather silly statements in Oct/Nov 1980 comparing the rise of Reagan to the rise of Hitler. Buy his book to learn more...

      Decent teacher this prof was, but laughable in his melodrama. And contradictions. An ardent Zionist, who basically turned a later class of ours into a 3 hour diatribe on Arafat(who had expired) and Islam destroying Europe(van Gogh murder was in the news)...a domestic leftist, but fairly right wing on Middle East affairs. The type of guy who compares Dubya and Arafat to Hitler...I detected a pattern.

       

Sardondi

Quote from: Eddie Coyle on May 22, 2013, 12:03:26 AM
      Being that I was the only one of our class of 25 or so, who even got the Shirer reference at all...the comparisons to Shirer were all the more amusing(to me at least) because none other than Shirer himself had made rather silly statements in Oct/Nov 1980 comparing the rise of Reagan to the rise of Hitler. Buy his book to learn more...

You're absolutely right about Shirer's melodrama. But then that's not a surprise since his admissions in his later career.

I was a huge fan of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. But I first read it when I was like 12, and to me it seemed such a magisterial work that it never crossed my mind to consider Shirer's own biases. I mean, were talking about the Nazis for God's sake. But then in the 1980's I read his The Nightmare Years, which IIRC was about his personal involvement in Hitler's rise to power. And as a young adult it finally got through to me, from Shirer's own admissions, that, while perhaps not a card-carrier (although conceivably so as well) he was likely the functional equivalent of a Communist. I got over my worship of Shirer. And as one of "Murrow's Boys" that discovery puts an interesting light on Murrow's objection to scrutiny of those CBS reporters under his personal protection.

Why the hell does it always seem to be that the public figures who are/were ionized for having opposed Nazism also embraced socialist tendencies? It's not remotely the only choice. Damn them all.

morphiaflow

Quote from: Sardondi on May 21, 2013, 09:02:50 PM
the primary purpose of any Sociology course is to identify any and all sources of love, emotional security, joy, wonder, delight or romance, wherever they may exist in human experience, and destroy them utterly.

I am going to quote this.

Scully

I thought this was interesting from Art's Facebook page yesterday:




ericdxx

Quote from: Sardondi on May 15, 2013, 05:37:22 PM

So you gotta tell me, how could Clear Chan threaten Art? Do you mean under the terms of his non-compete agreement? Because I thought that had lapsed, and I had thought that when the non-compete time-expired, the former employee could even go into direct competition with his former company if he wished. Unless he signed that right away forever, which of course anyone can do.

Or do you mean that Clear Chan could threaten Art like the Mafia threatens folks - by being the meanest bunch of assholes around? In the case of Clear Chan, I assume that would mean being willing to commit "lawfare" against Art, in which they simply overwhelm him with their scores of lawyers who abuse the legal system for fun, whether they have a valid claim or not. Or could Clear Chan have threatened their own stations, warning them that signing Art up would be considered a violation of those stations' commitment to Clear Chan's "Lineup Of The Mediocre Artists"?

Your thoughts?


It's what happened to Michael Savage. Not many details have been made public but apparently he signed some kind long long-term non-compete contract with TRL and it took him years in court to get out of it.

Lunger

Quote from: SomeVelvetMorning on May 16, 2013, 10:43:16 PM
I liken Art's show to well done Professional Rasslin.  When done correctly with lots of flair and personality, a Rasslin match can be a lot of fun to watch.  In essence, it aks you to suspend disbelief for a while and go with the story line.
Noory's attempt at the show is like watching some independent station in your home town try to produce a Saturday Rasslin hour.  The guys are fat, out of shape, have no personality, and do not even execute the deception well.  It makes for booooooring fare.

My concept of the kind of person that is a fan of That Idiot Norry ...

Wrestling Fan Breaks Down And Cries

ericdxx

Quote from: Lunger on May 23, 2013, 08:22:06 AM
My concept of the kind of person that is a fan of That Idiot Norry ...

Wrestling Fan Breaks Down And Cries


I think the wrestling fan has more in common with the Art Bell fan than the Noory fan. Art Bell fans should skew more to the wrestling/sci-fi/comics/ side of it while Noory fans should be into current events/economy/history/religion

b_dubb

Quote from: Lunger on May 23, 2013, 08:22:06 AM
My concept of the kind of person that is a fan of That Idiot Norry ...

Wrestling Fan Breaks Down And Cries
WHAT
A
FUCKING
LOSER

bateman

Well this is just a big pile of awkward...



Sardondi

That's so bad that, for once, I'm moved to pity rather than mock. ..........What's wrong with me?

Quote from: Scully on May 22, 2013, 10:14:18 PM
I thought this was interesting from Art's Facebook page yesterday:
Last Active: March 06, 2013, 11:34:18 PM
He hasn't even logged in here except to check out how we were reading his facebook drama bullshit and that was over two months ago. I feel so played, do you?

And per Art's facebook Nazism, hey Art, SHIT FUCK TWAT ASS BUKKAKI COCKMASTER BULLSHIT ASSFUCKINGSHITASS FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK. 

The General

Art is getting active on the internet again...

[attachimg=1]

Quote from: The General on May 24, 2013, 11:29:25 PM
Art is getting active on the internet again...

[attachimg=1]
General.
Heh, so much for him coming here to 'splain things.

HorrorRetro

Quote from: Sardondi on May 16, 2013, 04:21:50 PM
IMO Art's three four greatest sins with charlatans are Whitley Strieber, Richard Hoagland, Ed Dames and Evelyn Pagnini.

My list would be Gordon Michael Scallion, Sean David Morton (in their minds, using three names lends them more credibility), Ed Dames, and Hoagland, with Dames being the worst offender.  At least in the beginning, '94-'97, Hoagland was entertaining.  Dames, however, always rubbed me the wrong way.  His smarmy soft voice and saying "roger" instead of yes made my skin crawl from day one.  Of course, his list of disasters that never came to fruition didn't help his credibility.  ::)

Eddie Coyle

Quote from: HorrorRetro on May 25, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
My list would be Gordon Michael Scallion, Sean David Morton (in their minds, using three names lends them more credibility), Ed Dames, and Hoagland, with Dames being the worst offender.  At least in the beginning, '94-'97, Hoagland was entertaining.  Dames, however, always rubbed me the wrong way.  His smarmy soft voice and saying "roger" instead of yes made my skin crawl from day one.  Of course, his list of disasters that never came to fruition didn't help his credibility.  ::)

           They use three names much like serial killers do. And indeed, Dames is the worst. His appearance a few weeks after Columbine, lobbying for schools to buy his program is perhaps the low ebb of the Art-era C2C. It was re-aired on SIT a few years ago. What a slimeball.

Quote from: HorrorRetro on May 25, 2013, 10:47:46 AMOf course, his list of disasters that never came to fruition didn't help his credibility.  ::)
Major Dames hit Fukushima dead on.
For what it's worth.

Morgus

Quote from: General Johnson Jameson on May 25, 2013, 11:45:29 AM
Major Dames hit Fukushima dead on.
For what it's worth.
Dames was off by several years in the timeline however...

Juan

Quote from: Morgus on May 25, 2013, 12:26:04 PM
Dames was off by several years in the timeline however...
Oh, don't quibble.

Quote from: General Johnson Jameson on May 25, 2013, 11:45:29 AM
Major Dames hit Fukushima dead on.
For what it's worth.

What was his prediction?

Morgus

Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 25, 2013, 12:38:22 PM
What was his prediction?
Dames years ago remote viewed a disaster in Japan with earthquake affecting a nuclear reactor, but saw it coming in 2007 or so...

Quote from: Morgus on May 25, 2013, 12:39:55 PM
Dames years ago remote viewed a disaster in Japan with earthquake affecting a nuclear reactor, but saw it coming in 2007 or so...


That's what I figured.  Something inevitable, yet vague on the details. 

He had to have 'remote viewed' Israel lobbing a shell into Syria at some point, and that a nastier than usual tornado would eventually set down - that would be another couple of 'dings'.  He's a complete fraud - they all are.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod