Saturday, May 26, 2012
Oh Yeah, She's a Real Thomas Edison
I always get such a kick out of people saying that Madonna "always reinvents herself". It's like, reinvents what!!? The fact that she changes up her image every once in a while, from sleazy to sleazier? Pablo Picasso, Bob Dylan, Orson Wells, Emmylou Harris, Miles Davis, Eduard Manet, Bette Davis, Ornette Coleman, Daniel Day Lewis - those frigging people reinvented themselves, and substantively so. Frigging Madonna reinventing herself. LOL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Maybe she should grow a third tit.
A mere millimeter change in the length of the metal bra points is counted as 'reinvention'
You seem to be forgetting the most important metric by which we judge a person, which is their net worth. If we look at how much moola she has it would appear as though whatever she's doing, she's doing it very well. Perhaps Will is just jealous?
You're the one who's obsessed with other people's money, wd. The only time that I even think about it is when I'm dealing with greedy little individuals like you.
That is your incorrect perception of my "obsession" with driving our society toward greater equality. As proven by the research in the book, "The Spirit Level", EVERYONE does better when there is greater equality. My desire for everyone to do better can't be described as greed. "Greed" only applies to people who think solely about their own desires. Like with you and free trade.
That book proved absolutely NOTHING. The authors shamelessly and moronically cherry-picked both countries and indicators and then engaged in a statistical analysis that any college freshman would have totally laughed his ass off over. And equality is not something that can be forced. They tried it in Cuba. They tried it in East Germany. And the tried it in the Soviet Union. It doesn't work.......And if I had thought only of my own desires, I would have majored in business and not human services (working with the poor, disabled, elderly, and disadvantaged that you so claim to care for but never ever lift a finger yourself to help). And, I'm sorry, but I don't buy for one second that this whole supposed altruism of yours is anything more than a plan to create a soft landing spot for your own woefully inadequate self.
I stand by what I said in my previous post. Striving for greater equality is the key to fixing our societal problems. And we can do it without going communist.
Your baseless accusations are pure ad hominem... they only serve to illustrate just how bitter (about paying your taxes) conservatives like you (and Rusty) are.
Will: [the authors] engaged in a statistical analysis that any college freshman would have totally laughed his ass off over.
False. One of the authors, Richard G. Wilkinson is a retired college professor. You think his students laughed at him? If he was such a joke why did the University of Nottingham, the University College London and the University of York all want him to teach their students?
Is she really doing it well? Perhaps only if you use accounting tricks.
click here
Will said; "And equality is not something that can be forced. They tried it in Cuba. They tried it in East Germany. And the tried it in the Soviet Union"
In these typical examples of socialism, things aren't very equal. There is an extreme difference between the ruling elites and the ruled. That is of course the naturla result of socialism: a system which concentrates and centralizes economic power in the hands of the most powerfu.
dmarks: Is she really doing it well? Perhaps only if you use accounting tricks.
What "accounting tricks"? I call you on your BS.
Celebrity Net Worth says Madonna has 650 million dollars in assets. They also note that "Guinness World Records has labeled her the most successful female artist of all time".
dmarks: That is of course the natural result of socialism.
The natural result of socialism is more equal societies with fewer societal problems. Clearly the natural result of socialism is that your country gets in the running for being labeled the happiest.
"The natural result of socialism is more equal societies with fewer societal problems."
Only if you think we are all more equal when we are all piles of skulls. See the successful implementation of socialism in Cambodia.
As for the "happy countries", Sweden tops your list. Yes, they are a little more socialist than the US. Meaning that the ruling elites control more of the economy and the people less. But there are a lot of other factors there. No doubt Sweden would be even happier if the government downsized/privatized some.
Socialism, and the search for the government regulated utopia simply negates the individual and natural rights for a Leviathan sponsored security and its tyranny.
Rational: Socialism is also a regression in terms of human progress. The undoing of centuries of progress in establishing human rights (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, etc), taking is back to the "divine right of kings" or something similar to what we had under the Pharaohs... with Marxist pseudo-science as the justification for the power and privilege of the top dogs instead of theocracy. That's the only difference really between socialism and previous forms of tyranny, and it is really rather minor.
Socialism = greater equality = more freedom.
I think when dmarks talks about "more freedom" he really means "more money". He equates freedom with money while w-d equates freedom with choice. There is a fundamental difference.
Jerry: I mean more freedom, not more money. I don't share the socialists' obsesession with controlling money.
As for WD's Orwellian idea that more state control = more freedom, I wonder what some of the more civically and historically informed here think of this disastrous and gullible idea.
No, I think Jerry's right. dmarks believes those with the most money should have the most freedom.
What dmarks unknowningly advocates for is plutocracy. That's what you get when those with the most money have the most freedom.
And he advocates against democracy... rule by "we the people" via our elected officials.
He's been completely brainwashed by the fascist propaganda.
WD said: "dmarks believes those with the most money should have the most freedom."
Actually, that is not my believe. Nothing I have ever said even implies this. Strike 1.
"hat dmarks unknowningly advocates for is plutocracy."
The opposite is true. I have been advocating less pay for our ruling elites. Strike 2.
"And he advocates against democracy..."
No, I never advocate against democracy. I believe it is the best way to control government. However, I strongly disagree with your idea that democracy should control all of society including our personal lives and choices.
"...rule by "we the people" via our elected officials."
You are so gullible.
"He's been completely brainwashed by the fascist propaganda."
Actually, the opposite is true. (and you have struck so many times). It is you who think that a situation that meets much of the definition of fascism is good thing. I want the government to have a lot less power over our personal decisions and lives..my attitude is by definition anti-fascist.
When dmarks calls me gullible for believing in democracy he reveals his true agenda. What he's really saying is that democracy is impossible and we should abandon it... and turn control over to the wealthy elites that he worships.
dmarks: Actually, that is not my believe. Nothing I have ever said even implies this. Strike 1.
Strike 1 for you. Almost everything you say implies you think those with the most money should have the most freedom. This is why you're constantly advocating that worker's wages be cut.
dmarks: The opposite is true. I have been advocating less pay for our ruling elites. Strike 2.
Strike 2 for you. dmarks is so gullible that he doesn't even realize who really rules our country. Not our elected representatives as it should be, but the plutocrats he idolizes. He doesn't even know who the plutocrats are! He thinks the plutocrats are our elected representatives.
This level of stupidity earns you two strikes, which makes it three... and you're out.
But dmarks ignores the ump and keeps swinging...
dmarks: It is you who think that a situation that meets much of the definition of fascism is good thing.
Strike 4. I'm strongly opposed to the fascism that you yearn for. Unlike you I believe in democracy.
dmarks: I want the government to have a lot less power over our personal decisions and lives... my attitude is by definition anti-fascist.
Yes, but you want to turn that power over to the wealthy elites, which is by definition fascist, not anti-fascist.
And now you've struck out 5 times!
"Yes, but you want to turn that power over to the wealthy elites"
I've never done so, actually.
"When dmarks calls me gullible for believing in democracy he reveals his true agenda."
No. You are a patsy for fascism for claiming that because a government is "democratic" it can control our lives.
"What he's really saying is that democracy is impossible and we should abandon it"
No. We should limit it to control of the ruling elites... who should have limited power.
"Strike 2 for you. dmarks is so gullible that he doesn't even realize who really rules our country."
I do know. It is the actual rulers. Most of whom are elected. Everyone pays tributes to these ruling elites. Even the rich.
"Not our elected representatives as it should be, but the plutocrats he idolizes."
Our elected representatives much more fully meet the definition of "plutocrat" than the people you are bashing (those who merely happen to be earning a lot due to proper renumeration for their skills).
":He thinks the plutocrats are our [ruling elites]."
I showed you the definition of plutocart. The ruling elites do rule. Most of them are wealthy. So they fit the definition head on.
"Strike 4. I'm strongly opposed to the fascism that you yearn for. Unlike you I believe in democracy."
Yet, you repeatedly support key provisions of fascism. And you are too stupid to realize that a fascist government can easily be democratic. Fascism is about the pervasive power and abuse of it by the ruling elites.... the definition has nothing to say about whether or not they are chosen democratically.
If "we the people" have "limited" power (which is what you advocate) then the plutocrats will take that power. Ergo what dmarks advocates for is plutocracy. He's just to blind to see it.
He's a patsy for the fascists. Also, isn't calling me a patsy arrogant? "Patsy" and "duped" have similar meanings. Caught you in a lie.
dmarks: I showed you the definition of plutocart.
Your "definition" is wrong.
"If "we the people"* have limited power (which is what you advocate) then the plutocrats will take that power.
(* = ruling elites.)
Your idea that the rich will take over everything unless we have a fascist government there to stamp out every little freedom is nuts.
Yes, I am proud of the fact that I want the ruling elites to have limited power. The Founding Fathers wanted to limit this power too. This is why we have the Bill of Rights.
The idea of limiting the power of the ruling elites, of the State, is fundamental to the republic, to our democracy, to our freedom.
You have gone way out on a limb in advocating unlimited power for the state.
"dmarks: I showed you the definition of plutocart.... your definition is wrong.
All I did was look up what the word meant. You are being like a petulant child caught in a fib who refuses to come clean. I looked up the word. You don't like the meaning since it contradicts the personal one you made up, so you sputter and hem and haw.
dmarks: Your idea that the rich will take over everything unless we have a fascist government there to stamp out every little freedom is nuts.
That is exactly what they will do. Although we most certainly do not have to "stamp out every little freedom" to stop them. In fact, reigning in the plutocrats will give the average Joe more freedom.
dmarks: You don't like the meaning since it contradicts the personal one you made up.
Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. YES, many of those in Congress are wealthy, but they are there because we elected them. They are our representatives. They are too much under the sway of the plutocrats, but they aren't the plutocrats themselves.
You're the one twisting definitions to fit your narrative.
dmarks: Yes, I am proud of the fact that I want the ruling elites to have limited power. The Founding Fathers wanted to limit this power too. This is why we have the Bill of Rights.
You want to limit it to the point where the wealthy elites can run roughshod over everyone else's rights. I'm for limiting the power of government as well, but neutering the government so that it is unable to protect the rights of everyone else is a terrible idea.
Now back to the subject. WD said: "Celebrity Net Worth says Madonna has 650 million dollars in assets. They also note that "Guinness World Records has labeled her the most successful female artist of all time".
Yes. of course she HAS done well. But I was asking if she really is doing well now? Of course she is a shrewed businessperson and can rest on her lucrative laurels and keep her earnings from before stable and growing.
But is she adding to them a lot? Is she a successful artist now? If she is, I will stand corrected.
WD said: "Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy."
Yes. Obama, the top ruler in the US, is wealthy. So is Biden. So are Pelosi, Beohner, and the others. They rule, and are wealthy.
Plutocrats, all.
"...but they are there because we elected them. They are our representatives...."
So? The definition of plutocrat, even the one you found, contains nothing in regards as to whether or not the plutocrats are representatives or not.
"but they aren't the plutocrats themselves."
They fit your definition quite strongly, in actuality.
dmarks,
Since you say most of our elected representives are plutocrats because they are wealthy and you want to limit the power of the plutocrats, are you in favor of a wealth limit on people who can run for congress?
He may be a retired college professor, wd, but he sure isn't a statistician or a credible researcher. Any idiot knows that when you do a regression analysis, you disregard the outlier scores AND that when you do a research design you don't go around cherry-picking indicators simply to prove (a word that legitimate scientists do not generally use - they prefer to say the phrase, "reject the null hypothesis") your theory. Come on, man!
Jerry: Good question. No. I would only limit the handouts they take from government. But the money they earn on their own in the private sector is not my business, and I don't get upset about that.
My main point about "plutocrats" is to deflate WD's hypocrisy and over-use (and use without regard to definition) of his latest favorite insult.
I'm not all bent out of shape with jealousy and greed like a certain commenter here is.
dmarks: My main point about "plutocrats" is to deflate WD's hypocrisy and over-use (and use without regard to definition) of his latest favorite insult.
My "hypocrisy" hasn't been deflated by dmarks' nonsense argument. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy FOR the wealthy. Perhaps the Republicans fit that definition, but there is still a substantial Progressive Caucus who "rule" with the interests of the middle class and working poor in mind.
dmarks deflates his own arguments with his ad hominem overuse of the words "jealousy" and "greed" without regard to definition. Simply because I do not worship the wealthy like some here do does not make me "greedy" or "jealous"... it makes me a Progressive.
Will: ...when you do a research design you don't go around cherry-picking indicators simply to prove...
There was no cherry picking. Also, the outlier scores were disregarded. You're repeating Conservative lies.
Excerpt from "The Spirit Level" book Review: "Where their critics suggest data is cherry picked, the authors clearly explain, both in the text and the consequent chapter, how they came to those results and data points. They also go on to show graphs of certain places over time to further illustrate their findings and remove large numbers of countries from previous graphs to show there is still a clear trend, even without the outliers".
They absolutely cherry-picked both countries and indicators. They said that they were going to examine the 50 richest countries in the world and then magically decided to eliminate 27 of them. And with the indicators they decided to examine drug use but NOT alcohol consumption, imprisonment but NOT crime rates, homicides but NOT suicides, teenage births but NOT divorce rates, foreign aid but NOT charitable contributions, etc..............And I can give you at least two examples in which they did not exclude the outliers; violence (in which they did not exclude the U.S.) and life expectancy (in which they did not exclude Japan). Just because the authors say that they explained something doesn't mean that they explained it adequately.
I thought you said you haven't read it.
My point is that Will didn't read it, so where do his criticisms come from? Conservative sources, no doubt. And, as I said previously, they're lying. They have to because this research completely invalidates their (and Will's) worldview.
If enough people actually knew how bad it is when enormous wealth is concentrated in a few hands... they might have to do something about it.
Will,
Are you denying that great wealth is being accumulated in the hands of a few, or are you denying that it has adverse effects and therefore is a good thing?
Jerry, the top 1% had 42.9% of the total financial wealth in 1983 and 42.7% of it in 2007. I don't spend much time thinking about it, no.
Hey wd, I'm a lot more familiar with the contents of the book (the graphs, especially) than you are. I've also taken 5 courses in statistics and research and I do know a little bit more about methodology than you do. You can either challenge my assertions substantively or you can continue to parrot those idiotic talking-points. You decide.
Will,
The top 1% share of total,pre-tax income went from about 10% in 1983 to 23.5% in 2007. I guess it is all a matter of what numbers you look at.
Also quoted from here
"Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."
Again, Jerry, the top 1% had 42.9% of all the financial wealth in 1983 and 42.7% of all of it in 2007. It virtually stayed the same. And, yes, the top 1%'s share of the total AGI has gone up over the past 30 years (though if you had take it out to 2009, you'd have seen that their share has actually gone down to 16.93%) but, so, too, has their percentage of the total Federal income tax burden. You really have to look at the entire picture.
Post a Comment