Scragged - All Comments

re: The Wrongs of Rights 1: Human Rights

lfon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:41:44 GMT

"Does the Constitution allow such restrictions on the right to speak? No. If you don't like what someone says, you don't have to listen, but you have no authority to shut them up"

On public property, yes. On private property, you can dictate restrictions on speech all you want. I hope you spend some time dwelling on property rights and how those effect other rights. A great deal of what one may do comes down to WHERE one is. For instance, free speech is restricted on airplanes or crowded buildings. The right to privacy is GREATLY debated, but even with those that support it, it differs again based on property.

re: The Wrongs of Rights 1: Human Rights

Werebat — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:18:23 GMT

Interesting... I look forward to reading the rest of the series. As I grow older I find myself leaning more and more toward libertarianism -- I'm curious how or if you'll avoid coming to some of the same conclusions I have here. Good work.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Fennoman — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:08:36 GMT

Tony,

This comment is directly pointed at you, not the article.

You call yourself a liberal because "you care." Fine. Conservatives show they care by donating more to charity than liberals:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html (same article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&em

So you go around saying "you care" while conservatives actually care.

Liberalism is simply a way for you to assuage your guilt at the cost of someone else. You let the government take tax money and give a pittance to a needy person and you say you care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/a_short_interview_with_evan_sa.php

It's time to start thinking... then your caring will actually make a difference.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Tony Liberal (i.e. I care) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:24:30 GMT

SpadeIsSpayed,

For someone so sure of things...
...You don't know jack.

You ARE right about one thing though: I "don't call myself a Liberal for nothing".

I call myself a Liberal...because I care. ;-)

Have a good one.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

SPADESASPADE — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:50:26 GMT

tony liberal w.c.( who cares )
I doubt there is any aspect of mj`s or oj`s character that you would not twist to make it appear righteous,just as there would be no actions by the police that you would not find devious or conspiratorial....I`m sure you don`t call yourself liberal for nothing.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Julia — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:25:17 GMT

Yep, there are at least 2 kinds of justice out there today. That's why Mr. Obama appointed a Supreme Court justice with empathy so she could add an extra racial twist to her deliberations.....

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Tony Liberal (ie. I care) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:40:24 GMT

Lol...OJ? In a "Black folks shouldn't revel in Michael Jackson's Blackness because he 'ran from his Blackness his whole life'" article?

Um, ok.

But Yes, celebrities, and even Los Angeles police officers caught on video committing obvious felonies it seems, appear to be afforded a different brand of justice than the average person.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Tony Liberal (ie. I care) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:31:22 GMT

Doubting that disease caused his loss of pigmentation is not unreasonable.

I was actually skeptical myself when I first heard the condition offered as an explanation.

But I have actually met a person with vitiglio who also has an almost completely uniform loss of pigmentation just as MJ has. However, there were areas hidden by clothing that where not completely without pigment. But the surface of the skin that was exposed (extremities, face, neck scalp) was completely depigmented.

I suspect that there are areas of MJs body that still contain pigment as well.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

hodges78 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:18:38 GMT

Yeah, OJ's crimes were all alleged too. Celebrity justice is great if you can get it.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

lfon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:17:01 GMT

"if there was one thing Michael did not want to be, it was a black man. His rumored fourteen plastic surgeries turned him from a clearly black teenager, complete with Afro, into a caricature of an androgynous white person"

Maybe not. People tell me that Jackson never admitted that. When asked, he always insisted that he had some kind of skin disease. Personally, I doubt it; the color was far too even across his body to be the work of a disease. Just saying.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Tony Liberal (ie. I care) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:04:06 GMT

Well first of all MJ's crimes were alledged.

Secondly, he was never convicted of his alledged crimes.

Thirdly, what crime he may or may not have committed is totally irrelevant to this article.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

hodges78 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:57:36 GMT

Great followup on the MJ hysteria. The difference between Elvis and MJ was that Elvis' shortcomings only hurt himself.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

gary — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:51:47 GMT

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let the rest of the world mourn that child-molesting freak; you guys stick to politics.

re: Michael Jackson: Requiem for an Artist of Unity

Tony Liberal (ie. I care) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:29:45 GMT

Hmmmmm...Slow day in the news cycle eh?

Listen, Jamie Foxx's reaction is no different than Catholic's reaction when JFK was elected President; the Irish's reaction when Tip O'Neil became Speaker of the House; nor undoubtedly the Hispanic reaction when Judge Sotamayor becomes Supreme Justice Sotamayor.

The reason you wouldn't see Brad Pitt exault in group identity with Elvis, is because historically speaking, ascending to such pinnacles has been the province of White entertainers, politicians, etc. So why "exault" in a special recognition, for which typically, a member of your group was the recipient?

That's why you don't see Blacks taking particular racial pride in Black Heavyweight champions like they did when Jack Johnson, and Joe Louis became champs, because today it's a common occurence.

["Does it honor his memory to revel in the blackness he spent his life running from?"]

Do you think that if Elvis threw down his guitar and swore of music at some point after becoming a musical icon, that he would be any less revered, or celebrated as the "King or Rock-n-Roll" after his death?

Why should Michael Jackson's memory be defined by HIS "demons", but not Elvis'? Should Elvis' eating disorder and drug addictions be attached to any celebration of his memory?

C'mon.

Also, I reject your premise that MJ "spent his life running away from his Blackness".

If that was so, why during his interview with Oprah, did he emphatically state: "I’m a Black American, I am proud of my race. I am proud of who I am."?

Why did he feature and collaborate with so many Black professionals in making his music?

Why sing music with so much R&B (ie. Black) influence? Particularly later in his career where it could be argued that he sang predominantly R&B. Why not exclusively sing folk, rock or country, where he could have really been on his way to totally distancing himself from any and everything Black?

Nah, I submit he was attempting to transcend BOTH race AND sex, by altering his appearance to LOOK race-less and sexless.

Either that, or look like Liz Taylor :)

But like I said, must have been a slow news day.

re: Clothes, The Next "Green" Sacrifice

cowsnplows — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:38:19 GMT

Al Gore nude?

Please..... not while I'm eating breakfast.

re: Clothes, The Next "Green" Sacrifice

gChang — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:32:28 GMT

Ever been to a nude beach? It's always the ugly people that want to be nude. I've always chalked it up to value. People with attractive bodies don't want to give it away for free. They know what it's worth, whereas the uglies will give it away for free to whoever is willing to take it. The last thing we need is a bunch of dirty, harry, smelly hippies taking their clothes off.

re: Clothes, The Next "Green" Sacrifice

Von Hayek — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:28:56 GMT

(Let's not forget the one-square of toilet paper per session either)

http://scragged.com/articles/bottoms-up.aspx

re: Iran's Protests and the Value of Human Life

xLayer — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:12:41 GMT

Jefferson's call for the tree of liberty to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants - is a sad realization about democracy not something to be looked forward too. This writing smacks of warmongering.

re: Mining Jane Austen

lfon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:23:59 GMT

On your response to doug about YouTube...

I disagree entirely. Yes, there are certainly many infringed works up there. But those account for a very small minority of the total content.

Look at the brand new, original, amateur content. Look at the time-lapse paintings, the "vegetable music", the comedy specials.

YouTube has millions, maybe billions, of totally new creations that have nothing to do with any existing TV content. Sounds like you haven't been on there in awhile. YouTube isn't just a site that hosts TV clips. That's the least of what's up there.

And there are a good 20 or 30 other YouTube clones too. FunnyOrDie.com for instance.

People are far more creative now than ever, I think.

re: Mining Jane Austen

lfon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:19:17 GMT

It has nothing to do with Disney's success today but that was never the point.

The point is about stifling the creativity of OTHERS, no Disney.

To extrapolate on your question, what does the long copyright for Mickey Mouse have to do with stifling OTHER people's success today?

The answer to that also appears is: nothing. It isn't stifling it at all. People are creating cartoons in abundance far beyond anything 50 years ago. Which is the whole point.

re: Mining Jane Austen

Petrarch — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:04:31 GMT

"We have more innovation in literature and art today then ever before and by far. Next time you're bored, check out YouTube or the countless self-publishing book/e-book sites."

Exactly - and a vast number of them violate copyright laws, by "illegally" using copyrighted music or film clips in their production. As a result, the new works are confined to the mostly unpoliced ghetto of the Internet, and even there are frequently booted off by copyright-holder complaints to YouTube.

In response to lfon - what does the long copyright for Mickey Mouse have to do with Disney's success today? They haven't made any new Mickey cartoons in years, he's nothing more than a corporate emblem. Mickey entering the public domain wouldn't have prevented Up, High School Musical, or anything else new from being a success.

re: Mining Jane Austen

doug c. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:32:19 GMT

From the article: "Shorter copyright terms would lead to a new burst of innovation in literature and the arts, as today's imaginative youth"

We have more innovation in literature and art today then ever before and by far. Next time you're bored, check out YouTube or the countless self-publishing book/e-book sites.

Art has grown by an order of magnitude over the past 30 years. Public schools teach art more than science, and the internet distributes art and connects artists in a way never possible before.

re: Mining Jane Austen

lfon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:28:53 GMT

I agree about the copyright term. 20 years is long enough, 40 years is pushing it, 100 years is ridiculous. But that's just my personal opinion.

The important question is... Does having TOO long of a copyright term stifle creativity? How can that be proven? Disney's rights haven't made the cartoon market shrink; it's grown exponentially in the past 50 years. One could easily suggest that seeing the (lavish) rewards that Disney has made has influenced other artists to enter that industry. Nickelodeon, Dreamworks, Paramount and others are making tons of money off cartoon rights too.

re: Making a Monkey of Michelle Obama?

jonyfries — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:45:28 GMT

I unfortunately don't have time at the moment to fully read and reply to the full thread but since it was requested I thought I would provide links to the cases of homosexual abuses of religious people and organizations:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Hope that helps.

re: Making a Monkey of Michelle Obama?

Tony Liberal (ie. I care) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:17:11 GMT

Hmmm, so not even the pretense of attempting to paraphrase the actual point of my posts in any genuine way, let alone address that point.

re: Making a Monkey of Michelle Obama?

Patience — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:32:31 GMT

Hmm, so citing Thomas Sowell, a black man who is certainly far more brilliant than anyone here, is a racist insult against... blacks.

I shudder to imagine what would happen if someone brought up Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington, both men born slaves but who adamantly believed that black people needed to work their own way up to their rightful place - to prove to themselves, and to everyone else, that they were just as capable as a white man. Which they then proceeded to do. How times have changed!

re: Sanford, Sex, and Slick Willie's Last Laugh

sam — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:00:30 GMT

The NYT agrees.

The Prurient Trap
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Conservatives used sexual morality as a weapon and now it's shooting them in the foot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/opinion/27blow.html

re: Sanford, Sex, and Slick Willie's Last Laugh

morris — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:46:59 GMT

"Perhaps perhaps maybe the right doesn't really care either"

Ding ding ding. There's your answer. These guys don't *really* care, they just want you to *think* they do so they can collect your vote. The GOP has been worthless for at least a decade.

re: Sanford, Sex, and Slick Willie's Last Laugh

Patience — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:35:10 GMT

Well, here's the underlying question: Should everything WRONG also be ILLEGAL? If not, what wrong actions that are not illegal should nevertheless be disqualifying for high office?

And wherever the line is drawn, shouldn't it be applied equally to everyone?

re: Sanford, Sex, and Slick Willie's Last Laugh

cowsnplows — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:50:49 GMT

So, if you can't meet the standard, lower the bar.

Just sounds so...so....so left wing. But then I've become convinced that the political spectrum is not linear, but circular. The extreme left and right come back together. So, maybe lowering the bar is a right wing concept also.

However, if one wants to be really radical, why not keep the standard and eliminate the weeds? It takes years to eliminate perennial weeds from a weedy field. But it's well worth the effort. One can sure get a lot done, fast, with a clean field. Sure, new weeds spring up every year, but they are easier to eliminate if one keeps after them every year.

Anybody can have a weedy field. A weedy field is a sign of laziness. It seems both the left and the right have been lax. But, as the author said, the left doesn't care about weeds. Perhaps perhaps maybe the right doesn't really care either? Or is it just too hard to hoe out the weeds?

It would be a shame if the only perceivable difference between the left and right was who did what with whose money.