|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 13, 2018 23:30:35 GMT -5
Taste is dead anyway.
Hollywood, like any other industry, isn't about taste; it's about finding a market and selling to it.
Might as well complain about bulldozers not being aerodynamic.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 13, 2018 21:23:44 GMT -5
Politicians attain office by running campaigns. Campaigns are funded by voluntary funding.
Politicians then make decisions about compulsory funding. What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 13, 2018 21:17:42 GMT -5
It's true. We're not a country. That's so nobody can declare war on us.
|
|
|
Savings
Feb 13, 2018 21:14:56 GMT -5
Post by poetinahat on Feb 13, 2018 21:14:56 GMT -5
Yes - it's hard to argue for saving, especially if college education is out of reach, and home ownership is nearly so. One thing I love about Australia - mandatory superannuation (aka retirement savings). On top of your pay, your employer is required to put 9% into a fund of your choosing, which you can invest, but can't withdraw until you reach retirement age. It's forced saving, and it's fantastic. Proceeds are taxed at a much lower rate than income (say, 15% compared to 40-50%), until you start withdrawing - which encourages more saving, if you can afford it. Also, you can contribute more to the fund, but there's an annual maximum. Unrelated: tipping isn't customary here. Waiters and the like are paid better - the minimum wage is, well... hereThe cost of living may well be much higher here, especially in cities. But in general, it seems to work. (On the other hand, the median house price in Sydney is now over $1 million - so home ownership is out of reach for many, if they want to live in the big smoke. OTOH, Medicare means a standard doctor's visit is free.)
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 6, 2018 23:13:43 GMT -5
In the end, it all comes back to Cotton Eye Joe.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 5, 2018 22:30:51 GMT -5
Holy crap. The Radiohead/Hammond similarity is suspicious, and if I were Albert Hammond, I'd have had a bone to pick too. But the Del Rey song is a deadset copy (eta: at least the first verse/chorus; it was so exact I didn't bother listening further). The verse/chorus progression is identical, even as far as the 'weirdo'/'manifesto' near-rhyme. And then there's the "out of the black/into the blue" line. Oh, but it's an homage to Neil Young? That's all right, then. That's probably the least cliche-ridden line in the whole song. The comment in the above link points to the issue with Radiohead, and how Del Rey offered 40%, but Radiohead wouldn't budge from 100. Good on them. FFS. If this is what she's about, then I can say I feel no regret about having missed her work (or whoever did it) to this point.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 1, 2018 1:14:13 GMT -5
His values and his morals - such as they are - are almost completely opposite to mine. Politics don't even come into it. I feel the same way. If Trump had different politics, I might listen to him and think, "Yeah, he's got a point." But he's such an unsavory person, that I don't see how I could bring myself to support him, regardless. I chuckle to myself that, over here, the word 'savoury' is in common use to classify food that, I guess, involves herbs and spices and salt, as opposed to sugar. Hence, one category of 'unsavory' would be 'sweet'. From now on, I will think to myself that Donald Trump is a sweet guy.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 31, 2018 19:40:51 GMT -5
"Hey, I'm sorry I said 'grab their pussy', but Bill Clinton said much worse."
How does the Catholic Church's systematic, monstrous enablement have anything to do with Hillary Clinton's campaign HR decisions?
It doesn't make her actions any more or less excusable.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 31, 2018 19:21:15 GMT -5
You would have been right about me, Cass - except that (a) I haven't watched an SoU in years, and (b) I found Trump to be unbearable in the Eighties, and he's only gotten worse, so I avoid actually witnessing him if I can manage it. His values and his morals - such as they are - are almost completely opposite to mine. Politics don't even come into it.
I do try to set aside my personal revulsion for him, but I have only seen one thing involving him that I thought "well, good for him" or even "that's neutral". And that was the photo-op with the Teacher of the Year, holding his fan.
I get that there are some good things happening now - like the stock market rising, and a drop in black unemployment. But if Trump takes credit for them, I'd like to know a bit about what he's actually done to bring about those changes. (And I accept that he's no different from any president in taking credit for cyclical events that occur on his watch.)
I also get that a lot of America is sick of getting lied to, or - worse - ignored by Democrats, except on the campaign trail, and even then only maybe. And I really doubt that the Democratic Party will have learned anything from this. But even the GOP abhorred Trump, right up until he won. Now, they defend him with fire. They're worse than those goddamn reindeer who shunned Rudolph until he got the lead gig with Santa - then they loved him. Screw them.
The entire position of the Trump movement seems to be "We'll do anything the liberals hate". I would love to be wrong about that; I voted for Reagan, and I voted for Perot - hence I never voted for Bill Clinton.
But for fuck's sake, I don't think I could even invent a character more ill-suited to the Presidency than Donald Trump.
Maybe that's exactly why he's the President we were always going to get.
ETA: There is one thing I like about Trump, at least in comparison to other politicians: his lack of principle, and his venality, aren't hidden. They're front and center, in full view. He's a wolf in wolf's clothing, and in that respect, he's the most honest politician ever.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 31, 2018 0:26:22 GMT -5
So which institutionalised wrong are we talking about here: - the individual cases of unjust prosecution of innocent men at particular private institutions, and the speculation that it's systematic at that particular institution - The ongoing cultural and systematic condoning, and suppression or lack of action against, the sexual harassment, assault, and rape of women - at particular institutions and in public and private
They both fit your definition, far as I can see. But it certainly doesn't fit the former better than the latter. And I'm not touching the Title IX assertion, least not in this thread.
Again, no one is defending or denying either of them, far as I know. But this thread was about the latter, and there's been a repeated diversion of the discussion to the former.
If they are indeed apples and oranges, then the false-conviction topic has no place in this thread, and to continue to bring it back is an active derail.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 30, 2018 18:40:45 GMT -5
There's a joke to be made about Tesla, batteries, and essence of Musk...
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 29, 2018 19:28:16 GMT -5
It seems to me that everyone agrees that assault and harassment are facts of life for women, and also that it can happen that innocent men are on occasion falsely accused and persecuted (as will happen with any crime).
But for the discussions on assault and harassment to be repeatedly swamped by the yes-but concerns of the rare exceptions - which thus usurp the injured-party status from the assault/harassment victims, who would have had nothing to do with false accusations - seems out of proportion, inappropriate, insensitive. . . and, frankly, selfish.
I can completely understand that a post highlighting a false accusation, even if it appears obnoxious because of when it was said, or even who said it - may well have been written with good and noble intentions, and even empaty. True or not, though, this is also what gaslighting looks like. At least give the original topic some air before crying for justice for a few actual men, and the millions of completely hypothetical proxies.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 24, 2018 23:35:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure his being under oath would make any difference. I just don't get the impression that he's capable of overriding his compulsion to say what fits his narrative.
I do get the impression that he doesn't really think he's lying, even when he is - or that, well, the necessity of winning overrides any imperative to be truthful. I don't think it's even a hard choice for him.
Even when he's caught red-handed, it's not his fault because, well, someone else has done far worse.
So, I think he would very easily lie under oath -- and pass a lie detector test while he does it.
This is nothing to do with party politics; it's what I've seen of him all along. He's just not a creature for whom honesty has any value.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 24, 2018 1:31:16 GMT -5
I know I've used the term 'anecdote' to mean a specific incident, which in this case was factual; it's my understanding that an anecdote may be either factual or apocryphal. But if that's muddied the waters, my apologies!
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 23, 2018 21:29:38 GMT -5
I haven't listened to the clips yet, but the article is... well, pertinent to more than just the music industry. *sigh* The bit about her real name is hilarious. OTOH, hasn't it always been thus with popular music? Payola wouldn't even raise eyebrows anymore, and TV commercials flash a link to the music and artist used. David Byrne gives a detailed view of the music industry, from contract types on up, in his comprehensive, yet enjoyable, volume, How Music Works. Speaking of "new music" and RHCP, I get a kick out of this 'news' item from a favorite satirical news site here in Oz: Study backs Nick Cave's assessment that the Red Hot Chili Peppers are 'garbage'DISCLAIMER: I own albums by both Cave and the RHCP, and have both enjoyed and been fed up with both. But the quote makes me laugh.
|
|