Half Time II

 Given the fact that the last few half time shows have skewed in the same direction, how about a list of other performers in other genres who should get a shot.  I'm open to suggestions.  FYI. I'm biased toward people who actually sing and play instruments.    This is my list of worthy performers, many of whom I don't particularly like, but still think could be good. 

Earth Wind and Fire

Garth Brooks

Brad Paisley

Taylor Swift

Bon Jovi

Def Leppard

Queen/Lambert

Tyler Bryant and the Shakedown

Gary Clark Jr

Styx

Sammy Hagar

The Eagles

Chris Stapleton

Foo Fighters

Green Day

Lionel Richie/Commodores

Cheap Trick

Little Big Town

Miranda Lambert

Carrie Underwood

Shania Twain

Kieth Urban

Some combination of Run/DMC, Sugarhill gang, and Grandmaster Flash.  

No Doubt/Gwen Stefani

Muse

Coldplay

 

 

 

 

 

Half Time

 There has been quite a bit of talk about the SB halftime show from last Sunday.   For some strange reason, a bunch of old while liberal men are obsessed with proving their left wing credentials by coming up with reasons why it was bad to not like Kendrick Lamar's show.  Their starting place is that those who didn't like it are racist.   

I'm going to start with the obvious.  I (and virtually everyone else on the planet) do not like all types of music or artists in various genres equally, and that is perfectly acceptable.  

Further, I tend to prefer music with at least a minimal level of melody and lyrics that I can understand.   Again, this is a perfectly acceptable position to take on a subject as subjective as music.  

Do I hat all rap/hip hop, no.  Do I hate all black artists, no.  Did I find Kendrick Lamar's halftime show to be boring, unintelligible, and un entertaining, yes.  

As I've done a few shows over the last few years, I've come to realize that the goal in putting together a set list (for the most part) is to be as entertaining as possible for the maximum number of people.   Sometimes that means ignoring the music nerd inside of us, and picking songs people know and like instead of some obscure/cool b side.  

I understand that Lamar has lots of downloads, which may or may not be the most accurate measure of popularity, and that's fine.  To each their own.   I also understand that the SB halftime show is not about pandering to people in my demographic.   This seemed like a "FU" to anyone who's not a Lamar fan.   Again, that's cool, but don't pretend like those of us who tuned it out are de facto racists because we did. 

I think what made it worse is that the game was in NOLA, which has its own rich and diverse music culture and they couldn’t get The Meters, more of Trombone Shorty, or even a single Neville brother.  

USAID

 Lots of hand wringing about the pause/audit of USAID over the past couple of days.   The strangest complaints are from Christian ministries about getting funding cut.   Why would a secular US government be funding Christian Ministries in the first place?   Why would Christian ministries want government funding and all of the restrictions that come with it?

As we see some of the idiocy that USAID has been funding to the tune of millions/billions of dollars, I'm mystified that people are upset about auditing USAID and not upset about some of the bullshit they've wasted taxpayer money on.  

It's almost like folx on the left are against actually being aware of what taxpayer's hard earned dollars are spent on, and eliminating those expenditures that are stupid.  Personally that seems like a losing position. 

Self D

 "Self Determination"

"self-determination, the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their own state and choose their own government."

"The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination. First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state. Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1). With respect to dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b)."

Encyclopedia Britannica

 

" Self determination means that all people have the right to direct their futures; have control over how they live their lives, where, and with whom; and have authority over the resources that support them.

 https://portal.ct.gov/dds/searchable-archive/selfadvocacyselfdetermination/self-determination-fact-sheets/self-determination-principles?language=en_US

I've heard it argued, by Dan and only Dan, that "self determination" requires that every human has the right to roam unfettered across the globe and to live wherever they choose with no restrictions on their movement or settling.    Strangely enough, I haven't been able to find any source that agrees with Dan on this.   

The other day, Trump made some statements about Gaza.  One thing he mentioned was moving those who live in Gaza into other Arab countries where they could theoretically be assimilated.  This got me thinking about why Dan refuses to apply his hunch about self determination to any other country besides the US.   He expect that the US will accept tens of millions of people, without virtually no regulation or management, simply because those people want to live here.  (ignoring what a racist, xenophobic, hellhole the DFL paints the US as)   It seems reasonable to ask, why not demand this same accommodation everywhere?

Back to the history of the Middle East.  Between 1945 and 1948, the international community recognized the need for a Jewish state and partitioned and proposed the first 2 state solution.   In 1948 the Arab world united against the newly formed state of Israel and engaged in a war bent on the total eradication of both Israel and every Israeli citizen.  As part of their campaign the Arabs promised Muslims who left Israel that they would get the first shot at getting their property back and at plundering the Jews.   Unfortunately the Arabs were militarily incompetent and failed miserably, leaving them with all of the people they encouraged to leave Israel, with promise of plunder.   Their response to this situation was to declare these people "palestinians" and put them in camps that were not fit for human habitation.  They used these conditions as the basis to radicalize the "palestinians", into various terrorist groups.   Since then the "palestinian" insistence on eliminating Israel and their refusal to accept a 2 state solution has caused the problem to grow.  

Fast forward to 2025.   Hamas (a terrorist group) controls Gaza, and Egypt (a Muslim/Arab country) has a wall to prevent those in Gaza from entering Egypt.   To this day, no other Arab nation has stepped up to accept these "palestinians" as immigrants.   Instead they've created this false narrative that "Palestine" was an actual nation and that Israel has occupied the nation of "Palestine" and must be removed by any means fair or foul.  

Which brings us back to the question.  Why does Dan not ever call for those in Gaza to be able to exercise their right and move to any of the Arab countries that displaced them in the first place?  Why is Dan silent on the evil of Egypt in constructing a massive wall to keep those in Gaza from availing themselves of the bounty of Egypt?  

I know what his answer will be.   Yet, if "self determination" is truly a universal human right, why not advocate and fight for it everywhere it is being denied?   Why limit oneself to only one country?  

WTH???

 I have a feeling that I'll be writing these posts every so often over the next few years.    But, what in the hell is Trump doing?   Why in the world would he seemingly, seriously, suggest that the US take over Gaza, kick the population out, and bulldoze if to build resorts?    

I completely understand that Gaza is a disaster for those who live there as well as for their neighbors, and the world.   Why in the hell would a president who's campaigned on staying out of wars, champion a policy that likely leads to armed conflict?  If the Muslim nations of the Middle East can't or won't use their billions to offer help to those who share their faith, why would the US get involved?

Yes, the Arab nations should have accepted those who they forced out of Israel when they invaded in 1948.   Yes, they should have taken them, given them citizenship and assimilated them instead of putting them in refugee camps, and treating them like pariahs.   Yes, the Arab world should be investing in Gaza to build something good for the people, not funneling billions to Hamas to engage in terrorism.  Yes, the Arab world should be eradicating Hamas, instead of encouraging them.  No, the US should not unilaterally go into Gaza and bulldoze the place.  

Trump's Greenland thing makes some sense.  The US can develop the natural resources in Greenland and use those beneficially.    Hell, if Trump suggested surrounding Port au Prince and eradicating the gangs and drug traffickers tearing things down and starting over, I might not reflexively oppose that.   At least partially because Haiti has the theoretical potential to be a reasonably well functioning state with an economy based on tourism, Gaza doesn't.  

This is what is so frustrating about Trump.  He's started off strong and is doing what he was elected to do.   But for some reason he can't stop himself from saying things like this and stirring up controversy.  

Don't get me wrong.  Cleaning out Gaza of Hamas and it's terrorist sympathizers, and starting over, is not a categorically bad idea.   The US doing so unilaterally, is. 

Burn, Baby Burn

 Over the last few days we've seen plenty of coverage of immigrants, both legal and not, protesting the recant increase in enforcement of immigration law.  What I've seen and wondered about is why the protesters are flying the flags of the countries that are so dangerous and inhospitable that they claim they were compelled to leave and enter the US without following US law.  Beyond that, they're also burning the US flag.   What in the world is this?  You'd think that at some point, even the most hardcore open borders fanatics would be annoyed at the optics of these protests.

Why this hits me is that it emphasizes a point I've been making about immigrants assimilating.   For decades the goal of immigrants was to assimilate into US culture.   The US is fairly unique in that our culture is not defined by a specific race or ethnic group.   The US has always been about assimilation and building a culture that is more than the sum of it's parts.  Yet rallying under the flags of the places that people have left, to protest US immigration laws, seems to suggest that assimilation is the furthest things from their minds. 

H/T WK

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/01/the-link-between-single-mother-welfare-fatherlessness-poverty-and-crime-5/

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/02/how-is-universal-government-run-healthcare-working-for-canada-in-2024/

WK goes 2 for 2 over the weekend.  He cover two of the left's scared cows and provides data that suggests that their policies are not particularly effective.  We've known for years that Fathers are important, despite what the left would have us believe and the waiting times for the Canadian healthcare  are simply unacceptable.