HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rocktivity » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

rocktivity

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: New Jersey
Home country: USA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 39,013

Journal Archives

An absolute moral outrage -- HOW DARE THEY

charge $16.99!



But seriously, folks, here's the backstory:

The NFL Buffalo Bills football team is for sale. Rock star Jon Bon Jovi has always wanted to own an NFL team -- he owned the Philadelphia Soul arena football team for a while. Amid rumors that he's ready to retire from making music, he has partnered with Larry Tanenbaum, owner of the Tornoto Maple Leafs hockey team, and Edward Rogers III of the Toronto-based Rogers media conglomerate.

The key word there being "Toronto."

Buffalo New York and Toronto Ontario are 100 miles apart around the eastern rim of Lake Erie, and Buffalo Bills fans are VERY nervous about the team being moved if Bon Jovi and his partners succeed in buying it. They're so nervous, in fact, they've organized a Buffalo Fans Alliance and gotten the band's music banned from local venues and radio stations. Why? Because they rightfully suspect that Jon would be running the team in name only.

While Jon's net worth is estimated at close to half a billion dollars, Tanenbaum's is at $1.78 billion and Rogers' at $7.6 billion: their AVERAGE net worth exceeds Jon's eleven times over. It's obvious why Tanenbaum needs Rogers: he doesn't have the operating capital that would be needed. It's obvious why Rogers needs Tanenbaum: he has no experience running a major league sports franchise. It's obvious why Jon needs Rogers and Tanenbaum: As a "mere" millionaire, he won't have ANY operating capital to contribute once he puts up his third of the franchise fee (the current bid is alleged to be $1.2 billion). But why do Tanenbaum and Rogers need Jon? As far as the Bills fans are concerned, he is to be the crowbar with which his partners will pry the Bills out of Buffalo, since Jon wouldn't have the money or the power to stop them.

There's a lease deal where the Bills would have to stay through the 2020 season. But it would be easy to run the team into the ground by then: All the "Toronto Brothers" would have to do is cut Jon off financially. Between that and his "inexperience" as an NFL team owner, his partners would be left with no recourse but restore the team's financial viability by moving the franchise to Toronto!

Thus, the T-shirt. While Jon may be too starry-eyed to see what his partners have the potential to do to him (ironic much?), I think it makes him more like a innocent babe in the woods than a genocidal dictatorial despot. And since his entire band are public figures, I think a visit from the FBI is in order: a $16.99 price tag is a crime indeed!


rocktivity

I agree with it, but you CAN'T be a "visually assaulting terrorist" and a "colluding slave"

at the same time.

Unfortunately, Hooks made her very legitimate argument a casualty of her rhetorical overkill. Are you really "controlling your sexualization" if you wouldn't have a musical career without it, that is, if you really DID have to rely on your musical talents for a living?

You see, I had this argument over thirty years ago about Madonna. I distinctly remember hearing Shining Star on the radio and wondering, "How the hell did SHE get a record contract?" My neighborhood wouldn't be wired for cable for a few more years, so the first time I actually laid eyes on her, she was on the cover of Time magazine -- with the headline "Why She's Hot."

She was hot because her male fans wanted her, while her female fans wanted to be her because males wanted her. They all said, "But it's different with her -- sure she's all sex appeal, but it's HER sex appeal! Doesn't that make her a feminist?" I said, "No -- it makes you a pimp. And being your own pimp doesn't make you any less of a whore."

Beyonce isn't doing anything that Madonna through Miley Cyrus hasn't -- including trying to pass it off it as feminism. If you sift through the ashes of Hooks's "friendly fire," you'll find that she mentioned "capitalist patriarchy." That's what Beyonce and her video pop tart "ancestors" have enslaved themselves to -- it's NOT a "black thing."

More


rocktivity

DING DING DING! WorseBeforeBetter and KittyWampus, you're our grand prize winners!

WorseBeforeBetter:
Madonna opened the floodgates around when, 1984? Since those early MTV years we've been "treated" to Britney, Beyonce, Rihanna, Miley, Katy, Nicki, etc. I don't consider any of them to have truly impressive voices. But for Britney, I'd say all of these women are in control.


KittyWampus:
(B)e(ing) depicted in her underwear and other provocative outfits and states of undress over the years... certainly helps her career...

(To) what degree (does) her success exist only because she allows herself to be used in a particular way(?)


To which I'd like to add what I wrote in the DU thread I started about Beyonce's Time cover:

Why SHOULDN'T Beyonce "come half dressed?" Coming half dressed is the way she BECAME "influential!"

...(I)t (made) perfect sense to feature more of Beyonce's body...her "influence" was GENERATED BY her body.


MTV opened the floodgates with Madonna, drenching us in the notion that you don't need impressive vocals OR impressive music if you have impressive bodies, impressive wardrobes, impressive cinematography, and impressive publicists. Madonna started out as a "boy toy," and was last seen putting swastikas in her videos to generate attention.

There are two big disadvantages to being a video pop tart sensation. One is that sensations wear off, forcing you to stay competitive by placing a premium on evolving visually rather than artistically. (Otherwise you end up dead in the water -- and ripe to be traded in for a younger model.) And, of course, you also have to put up with being seen as a blight on women who are striving to be seen as "serious" about their work.

Consequently, I find Hook's talk of terrorism, imperialism, anti-feminism and visual assault to be the equivalent of swatting a fly with a heat-seeking missile. She's right about the capitalist patriarchy of the entertainment business being the root of the problem, but she's wrong to see it as the exclusive burden of black women. Its commandments are "Sex sells" and "Controversy sells" and "Do unto others as others have done unto others," none of which is news to Madonna, Britney, Rihanna, Miley, Katy, Nicki, et cetera (Did you forget Lady Gaga, WorseBeforeBetter?).

They and Beyonce are just doing what it takes to maintain their fame, fortune and recording contracts. I don't believe they're interested in doing the alternative. And as for "control," I think it's safe to conclude that Miley is more interested in being the next Madonna than the next Adele!


rocktivity

.






















It's his attention to his inattention to detail that makes it work

It's not just Zach's dumb questions and absence of charisma -- it's his greasy hair, scruffy clothes, flushed complexion, slouching in his chair, wrinkled script (from which he has to read the president's name). His gaze goes to everything except his script, his guest and his camera angles, and he sulks when he's checkmated. Add the crap production values that were the hallmark of no-budget, pre-cable public access TV, garnish with the irony that the guests are from the top rather than the bottom of the ladder where public access TV guests traditionally came from, and Between Two Ferns can't help but be a living monument to unprofessional media.




Put another way, my sister once told me that Patrica "Hyacinth Bucket" Routledge of Keeping Up Appearances "really is a very good singer in real life." I said, "You wasted your breath telling me that -- only a REALLY good singer can sing as BADLY as she does as WELL as she does!"




rocktivity

Found this article at CNN

Vargas starts out the video by describing himself as "the most privileged undocumented in America" because he works as the kind of journalist who can get published in the New York Times:

In outing myself, I risked everything and prepared myself for anything. What I was not prepared for, however, was silence, especially from politicians in Washington, where immigration has become the third rail of American politics, often framed in partisan, polarizing terms, mostly subjected to elections, and tied to the future of political parties.

Consider this state of affairs: Congressional leaders, particularly House Republicans, hesitate to pass substantive reform because they don't trust the Obama administration to enforce immigration laws. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has been busy enforcing the laws by deporting nearly 2 million immigrants in five years -- that's a record, and an unjustifiable part of President Barack Obama's legacy.

And in the backdrop of this finger-pointing, political standstill is an urgent moral crisis among millions of families in America. To us who are directly affected by the political standstill, immigration is urgent and personal... Immigration is about our families.

He certainly wasn't worried about being deported, or he wouldn't have done it -- at least, not without an American "sponor" in his back pocket. As for the political "silence" he speaks of, here's a newsflash (if you'll pardon the expression): the politicians are silent because they're perfectly happy with the status quo. With a vulnerable, expandable, powerless, practically penniless underground workforce, wages can only decrease and organized labor can only get weaker -- good news for the corporatists who finance the politicians. That's why Washington only makes enough noise about "reforming" immigration to get votes, then shuts up about it.

Meanwhile, how dare Obama utilize the illegal immigration laws that are already on the books! As I understand it, he's concentrating on deporting those who have criminal records, so it makes sense that he would do so "silently." And was Vargas happier when Bush II was looking the other way, or would he have preferred President Romney's "self-deportation" policy?

Talk about speaking with a forked tongue! And come to think of it, why would someone as educated and talented and "privileged" as Vargas have a problem a good-paying journalist job in his native Phillipines? Maybe he didn't take such a big gamble after all...


rocktivity

DING DING DING! TexasTowelie, you're our grand prize winner!

This over-entitled turd is going to get pulverized if he ever gets on the football field.

And quite possibly by his OWN teammates!




Anyone remember Joe Namath? His teammates and front office may not have liked his showboating and partying, but they tolerated it because he didn't start ACTING like Joe Namath until he BECAME Joe Namath, see? They tolerated it because aside from having above average skills, he understood the importance of showing that he ALSO cared about being a team leader.

Manziel's problem, as you so beautifully put it, is "over-entitlement." Unlike Tebow, or most of his teammates (or Bieber or Mayweather for that matter), Manziel's life ISN'T effectively over if he fails in the NFL. He won't end up having to do infomercials or playing overseas to stay afloat financially. So he DOESN'T waste time kowtowing to Browns management and coaches or caring about the players -- especially not the quarterbacks he's supposed to be making a priority of outplaying. He's got bimbos and celebrities climbing over him because he's already wealthy, not because he's delivered on his promise as quarterback.

But how much winning does Manziel think he can do without winning the respect of his teammates? He doesn't have enough sense to PRETEND that becoming THE Cleveland Browns quarterback is his only priority right now?


rocktivity

Remember this scene from Raiders Of The Lost Ark?



That's what happened to Cantor -- he got so caught up in flashing the swords of his own rhetoric and ambition, he completely lost sight of the even more powerful weapon that his own voters still had.

Just like that, a member of the GOP's congressional "gang of three" is gone, and more important, it puts a bug in the ears of Boner and McTurtle's voters that it's not impossible for them to do the same. Power to the people, right on!


rocktivity

But why stop at withholding state funding? Let's withhold EVERYTHING!

If not being able to get emergency welfare will help discourage people from illegally crossing our borders, imagine how well their not being able to get ANYTHING would work! All we have to do is make it illegal to buy, sell, give, receive, possess or exchange ANY kind of product, service, or funding in America -- private or public, legal or illegal, domestic or foreign -- if you're not in the country legally. That would have them skeedaddling out of here like roaches in a light beam!

Since they would have no marital or parental rights, anchor babies must leave with their parents and can come back when they're 18 (as long as they're proficient in English and don't have a criminal record). If only there was a way to make it illegal from them to have sex or breathe our air...


rocktivity

NFL Star Gets Drug Suspension For Wanting Another Child (Get Your Hankies Out)

Well, it turns out that there's a perfectly reasonable reason why the NFL's Robert Mathis was caught with a PED in his blood, and it's a real tear-jerker. Unfold your handkerchiefs and cue the DU "Cry Me River" String Quartet:



The six-time Pro Bowl member – and Super Bowl champion with the Colts – was suspended for four games, costing him $705,000, for testing positive for the fertility drug Clomid...banned by the NFL because it can be used to help improve a player’s performance.

Hadley Englehard, Mathis’s agent, says Mathis was taking Clomid for fertility purposes. “Robert is not a cheater. There is not one bit of evidence that Robert used this for anything but fertility,” Englehard said.

Mathis and his wife already have twin boys and a daughter, but they wanted to give Mathis’ ailing mother – diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer – a fourth grandchild. Mathis’ wife is now pregnant.

Dr. Steven Morganstern, the Atlanta doctor who treated Mathis for infertility, told ABC News that he didn't realize Mathis was an NFL player when he prescribed Clomid...
link


With a terminally ill mom, Mathis HAD to come up with that fourth grandchild, or else! Or else...something. And what thanks does he get? The NFL dares to put price on a player's love for his mother!

...Wait...what?

…Mathis' urologist told ESPN he initially did not know Mathis was an NFL player. However, Mathis said in his statement that he initially asked his doctor if the meds would trigger a positive drug test. Those two statements are, um, polar opposites...(And) what did Mathis put (as his) occupation...when (he) filled out his application to the doctor?

...(P)layers on each team are constantly reminded to know exactly what goes into their bodies...As a team captain, Mathis likely knew this better than other teammates....There is an independent medical specialist -- jointly appointed by the union and the league -- (who) players can go to if there is any doubt about any medications or supplements they want to ingest...Players have an app that lists every banned substance. Just plug in a name and get the info...Yet Mathis took none of those approaches, apparently...

Clomid (is)...also known as a classic chemical vehicle...used to mask performance enhancing....(I)f Mathis only used it for 10 days or so, as his agent says, that is not proof Mathis didn't use long enough to actually have any muscle-building benefits...
link


Oh, now that's REALLY unfair, expecting a pro athlete to practically broadcast to the whole world that his sperm doesn't know how to count! Telling that one doctor must have been humiliating enough -- would the NFL be happier if Mathis had made it the subject of a reality show?

What Englehard said was misleading was the NFL’s focus on the fact that the drug Mathis used, Clomid, is FDA approved only for women, not for men. Englehard said that doesn’t mean men can’t legitimately use it as a fertility drug...

Englehard also noted that the NFL sometimes gives therapeutic-use exemptions to players to allow them to use prescription drugs for medical purposes, even if those drugs are on the banned list. Englehard said the NFL has done that for players who use Adderall, and Englehard said the league even rescinded the fine and suspension for one of his own clients in a similar situation. According to Englehard, the NFL has even given multiple therapeutic-use exemptions to other players who use Clomid for fertility, and Englehard is baffled that the NFL is treating Mathis so harshly while allowing other players to use the same substance.
link

Game, set and match, Mr. Englehard -- way to put those Mathis haters in their place! The ONLY difference between Mathis and the NFL players who sought the exemption for Clomid is that Mathis DIDN'T seek the exemption -- so there, too, nyah nyah nyah!


rocktivity
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »