Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, May 5. 2017

Photo from The Taco Wall of Cinco de Mayo

Related, Cultural Appropriation: A Modest Proposal

I enjoy this site: Hunter-Angler-Gardener-Cook

“Exercise-in-a-pill” boosts athletic endurance by 70 percent (h/t Insty)

Apple Is Now The World's Largest Bond Fund

California plans to tax space travel by the mile

8 Lessons to Learn From the Failure of Common Core

Puerto Rico Declares a Form of Bankruptcy

Connecticut Laughs Ruefully As Its Tax Haul Collapses 25 Years After Income Levy

Driving business and the prosperous from their state

Hillary Clinton Warns of a 'Handmaid's Tale' Future

Here we go: Hillary launching “Onward Together” PAC next week to rebuild her political influence

Charles Krauthammer: We’re Now ‘Less Than Seven Years’ Away From Single-Payer Health Care

Trump is Realigning the parties

Young Donald Trump Walks Out On CNN Crank: “You’re Very Negative… Do It With Somebody Else”

President Trump Realigning Geo-Political Alliances, and Few Paying Attention…

From Roger Simon's Colbert, Trump, and the Roots of Liberal/Progressive Rage

If you were a visitor from a distant solar system come to our nation or even a time traveler from our own nineteenth century, I submit you would be perplexed. This Trump person (being?) doesn't seem to be all that different from many leaders who have come before him. I mean, what has he done exactly? Enforced some immigration laws that were enacted by the Congress over several administrations? Tried to fix a mediocre healthcare plan with another plan that may or may not be as mediocre? Called for a tax reduction similar to those enacted by previous Republican and Democratic administrations? Cut back on some regulations that became overly burdensome? Called for a temporary halt to immigration from a half-dozen countries his predecessor had already cited as dangerous hotbeds of terrorism? Shot off a few dozen cruise missiles at the airfield of a dictator who was gassing his own people, but didn't harm a single person in the process?

I could go on, but you get the point.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:14 | Comments (31) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: May 07, 08:49

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

RE Hunter-Angler-Gardener-Cook

"I’ll drink fancy Scotch ... Pabst Blue Ribbon"

yeah. no.

#1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 08:03 (Reply)

Man, Hillary Clinton can latch onto some boring slogans.

#2 Texan99 on 2017-05-05 08:38 (Reply)

That's because she is a boring person, with absolutely no imagination.

#2.1 B Hammer on 2017-05-05 10:17 (Reply)

I know. She is the worst. I think it was hilarious that she came up with the "Donald Ducks" thing (as seen in Project Veritas video). I don't even remember it. But yet, Creamer implies it was all Hillary's idea and she wanted that dumb Donald at every Trump rally. She really thought she had come up with a brilliant idea.

Sort of like the writer who hits it big with a best seller and then is never well-edited ever again (J.K. Rowling, I'm looking at you and your horridly rambling final books in the series), Clinton has too many 'yes' men around her telling her the ideas she comes up with are fantastic.

They are not.

#2.2 MissT on 2017-05-05 12:11 (Reply)

Now libs will be upset that Trump didn't stick around to be ripped by a hostile interviewer. Will they care that Hillary didn't do an interview for the majority of the time she was running the worst campaign in the last 100 years? While Trump is no cupcake for the press to cover, Hillary's loathing for them is legendary. And the odd part of that is that most of those hacks wanted Hillary anointed as Her Highness. What kind of moron won't use that to her advantage, at least long enough to get elected?

#3 Dangerous Dean on 2017-05-05 08:40 (Reply)

QUOTE:

If you were a visitor from a distant solar system come to our nation or even a time traveler from our own nineteenth century, I submit you would be perplexed.

The alien visitor tries to understand why humans revere Beethoven, da Vinci, Confucius. Beethoven uttered tones, da Vinci brushed paint, and Confucius strung words. But as much as the alien studies on the subject, the tones, the brushes, and the words seem not all that different from the noises, the brushes, and the words of so many others.

#4 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 10:40 (Reply)

Do you speak English on your home world?

#4.1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 12:16 (Reply)

About one in five Earthling humans speak English, but Beethoven, da Vinci, and Confucius did not.

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 12:43 (Reply)

I'm asking about your home planet. You need a better teacher.

#4.1.1.1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 13:06 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Cultural Appropriation: A Modest Proposal

Couple of problems with the essay.

Bindis and feathered headdresses are religious symbols, so appropriation of these symbols is not equivalent to the appropriation of rap music or pizza. However, considering the long history of outright theft of black music, it's not unexpected that people will be somewhat protective of cultural appropriation. As for pizza, it was disseminated by Italian immigrants to the wider community.

More important is conflating people vocally objecting to cultural appropriation with "requiring to show proof of ... ancestry". People have a right to object, and when people have been largely dispossessed, such as the American Indian, they tend to hold tightly to the vestiges of their cultures.

#5 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 10:49 (Reply)

QUOTE:

... outright theft of black music

Exactly who stole black music? If you're talking about the music industry people who stole black artist's royalties and profits, I'm with you, but that's not stealing their music, that's stealing their money.

The whole subject of "cultural appropriation" is ridiculous. Should Americans be mad because other people (especially Eastern Europeans) wore blue jeans, or baseball caps, and listen to rock and roll in the '70s (which was a significant influence that helped end Communism there)?

#5.1 mudbug on 2017-05-05 11:59 (Reply)

mudbug: Exactly who stole black music? If you're talking about the music industry people who stole black artist's royalties and profits, I'm with you, but that's not stealing their music, that's stealing their money.

No. They stole their music, as in taking the credit and the money.

mudbug: The whole subject of "cultural appropriation" is ridiculous.

Cultural appropriation is an observable cultural phenomenon. Most of the time, it is entirely appropriate. People have to right to complain, and other people then have to make a judgment as to the pertinence of the complaint.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 12:50 (Reply)

Z: No. They stole their music, as in taking the credit and the money.

No thinking person would believe any white person who said he sang "Tell It Like It Is" (made famous by Aaron Neville) for example. The same goes for any black artist.

#5.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-05-05 13:04 (Reply)

mudbug: The same goes for any black artist.

We could cite multiple examples of white artists recording black music without attribution. However, let's just quote Keith Richards on Chuck Berry:"I lifted every lick he ever played."

#5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 14:31 (Reply)

Are you serious? Do you actually think Berry's estate has a intellectual property claim against Richards?

Yes or no.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 14:41 (Reply)

Blacks have culturally appropriated many musical instruments invented by not-Blacks. The wholesale theft of white music by blacks is appalling.

But seriously, kid, would any jazz musician actually say "jazz" or "fusion" and "culturally appropriate" in the same sentence?

Did Stan Getz "culturally appropriate" Brazilian bossa nova in the early '60s? Does this offend you?

I suspect know you don't think through anything you post or that you don't experience life except through someone else's internet talking points.

#5.2 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 12:31 (Reply)

Fetterman: Blacks have culturally appropriated many musical instruments invented by not-Blacks.

Most cultural appropriation is inevitable and reasonable. Other times it is not. Nonetheless, cultural appropriation is generally a protected right. Notably, no one replied to the substance of our original post.

#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 12:53 (Reply)

"Nonetheless, cultural appropriation is generally a protected right."

Woah, cite me a single statute or law for that. Don't remember learning anything about "cultural appropriation" in law school.

As a minority, I want to figure out how I can make money out of your statement, so all of you Zs please put your collective heads together and give me the legal citations.

#5.2.1.1 Jim on 2017-05-05 14:07 (Reply)

Jim: cite me a single statute or law for that. Don't remember learning anything about "cultural appropriation" in law school.

Perhaps they didn't cover it in your law school. See Amendment, the First; U.S. Constitution.

#5.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 14:22 (Reply)

You're stuck, kid. You screwed yourself again. What are you gassing about now?

Cite the specific law that protects or bars "cultural appropriation".

You can't make legal stuff up in a forum full of lawyers and not get called out. The First Amendment covers a lot of ground, where is "cultural appropriation"?

Cite the law or go home.

#5.2.1.1.1.1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 14:30 (Reply)

Fetterman: Cite the specific law that protects or bars "cultural appropriation".

Asked and answered. The Supreme Court has determined that First Amendment protections apply very broadly to artistic and cultural expression.

#5.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 14:43 (Reply)

Using legal phrases when you're not a lawyer makes you look even more ignorant of the law than you are. You didn't answer anything.

Musical composition is a kind of intellectual property protected by the Copyright Act, which is grounded in the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause — Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 which will be news to you. Wikipedia is not always your friend. Some rights in musical composition are protected, and always subject to fair use, but not all and certainly not anything "cultural".

Don't make up bullshit.

Cite the specific law that addresses "cultural appropriation".

#5.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 14:58 (Reply)

Fetterman: Musical composition is a kind of intellectual property protected by the Copyright Act

Sure, but that doesn't stop someone from making their own blues or raps songs, or from wearing dreadlocks, or trivializing the use of feathers by American Indians. However, people who do so aren't protected from criticism either.

That's the First Amendment for ya.

#5.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 15:04 (Reply)

Changing the argument from your childish claim that the First Amendment protects against cultural appropriation to a generic right to speech is evasive and lame. You got burned down again.

#5.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Fetterman on 2017-05-05 15:13 (Reply)

Fetterman: Changing the argument from your childish claim that the First Amendment protects against cultural appropriation

We never made that claim. Quite the contrary, saying "cultural appropriation is generally a protected right" as free expression under the First Amendment.

#5.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 15:39 (Reply)

Z--I apologize, I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that people have the legal right to be protected from cultural appropriation.

One cultural appropriation from my culture I can think of right off the bat is tattoos, although I personally despise them. The word is a mispronunciation of "kakau" or "tatau" ("to mark/write"), depending upon which island group you are from. Ironically, when I was brought up, we thought of tattoos as pagan and barbaric (good missionary influence) , but now look at America! Amazing.

Sorry to go off, but we have those debates here. See,
e.g., http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=ipbrief

Right now these things are at the threat/intimidation level and not enshrined in law, but the more people buy into the concept the more of our free speech we lose. Can the descendants of the Romans object to the use of the Roman alphabet on this page?

#5.2.1.1.2 Jim on 2017-05-05 14:48 (Reply)

Jim: I apologize, I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that people have the legal right to be protected from cultural appropriation.

Not a problem. Our position is quite the contrary. Cultural appropriation is generally protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, most cultural appropriation is part of the normal interaction between cultures.

#5.2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 15:06 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Young Donald Trump Walks Out On CNN Crank: “You’re Very Negative… Do It With Somebody Else”

Not sure why the CNN reporter, Charles Feldman, is a "crank", who was asking about the financial stability of Trump's Atlantic City casinos. Trump had threatened to sue Janney Montgomery Scott LLC unless they fired their financial analyst, Marvin Roffman, who wrote that the casino would not survive. Roffman was fired.

Trump's casino entered bankruptcy the following year. Who's the crank again?

#6 Zachriel on 2017-05-05 11:04 (Reply)

Well, there's good new and bad news out of Puerto Rico. The bad news is they are busted, the good news is they closed over 180 public schools.

#7 Ray on 2017-05-05 16:02 (Reply)

The "California plans to tax space travel by the mile" article is misleading. Multistate businesses must pay income tax in all the states in which they operate. In order to prevent every state from taxing 100% of their income, states are required to apportion the income via a formula to approximate the percentage of the corporation's income earned from operations in that state. California has proposed to apportion the income of space companies using a miles-based formula. Other states do this with respect to airlines already.

This is not "taxing space travel by the mile." It is "apportioning the income of space companies by the mile." Unless the space companies make a profit (unlikely), they won't owe any income tax (income tax for businesses is on net income). Whether or not the formula makes sense, is fair, will increase CA income tax greatly, I don't know. But the article is extremely misleading.

#8 GU on 2017-05-05 16:47 (Reply)

CA won't be taxing the launches from Vandenburg--they are federal government launches.

#8.1 Sam L. on 2017-05-05 19:49 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, May 5. 2017

Friday morning links