Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I'd be in favor of changing the law, the question, though, is whether the pro gun people would actually go for it. Say you limited private sales to 3 per year or 5 in any two-year period and required that the seller fill out a Firearm Bill of Sale and keep that and a copy of the buyer's photo ID on file for 5 years so that in the event the weapon was used in a crime they'd be able to demonstrate that it was sold? Or maybe do what Pennsylvania does and require FFL transfers for handguns (but not long guns). Or also require them for long guns with removable magazines. I think part of the reason why the law remains vague is that gun control is such a toxic issue right now that any change of the law is difficult to accomplish. For the gun rights people any clarification short of a total repeal of the FFL requirement is going to be seen as an unreasonable imposition, and for the gun control people anything short of eliminating private sales entirely is going to be seen as a useless half-measure. So there's no political will to do this.
That being said, I don't think the law is as ambiguous as you're making it out to be. In Abramski, there was no question that the defendant purchased the gun for immediate resale, and the evidence in the case didn't even support a defense that Abramski purchased the gun for himself and later decided to sell it. I also don't think Abramski really applies here in any context because the defendant transferred the gun to Alvarez through an FFL; at no point was he invoking the private sale exception. While I don't like the ambiguity myself, I don't know that the Malinowski case is really the best argument for the idea that the ambiguity needs correcting. I don't know the exact evidence, but I'd find it hard to believe that Mr. Malinowski wasn't acquiring these guns specifically for the purpose of reselling them. I mean, it's possible that he happened to inherit a bunch of guns all at once and wanted to get rid of them, or that he was constantly buying guns to try them out and getting rid of ones he didn't like, but absent specific evidence of that, it's safe to assume that someone who sells 150 guns over the course of a couple years is doing so for pecuniary gain.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I used to work for the local Boy Scout council and found myself advising my old troop on how to deal with the situation through my contacts after the scoutmaster was given answers he didn't like from the District Executive (no real surprise there). The exact problem was that the daughter of one of the more active adult leaders and her friend wanted to join, and while there was a girls' troop relatively close, the leader basically said "I'll be damned if I drive to two meetings and manage two sets of events, etc." So we ended up chartering a troop with two girls that I ended up being the assistant scoutmaster of under the scenario of "We'll call your bluff." It basically operates as a patrol within the larger troop because as long as we keep the paperwork separate, the Council isn't going to pry too deeply into our affairs.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Yes. We TV runs ads excessively for their excellent original programming during reruns of Law & Order. The show you linked to isn't new, and was immediately preceded by Mama June: From Not to Hot, which chronicled her getting a makeover and losing weight. Then when she got arrested and it was revealed she had a drug problem, they had to retool. We TV has also aired incredibly high quality programming such as Growing Up Hip-Hop, The Braxtons, Bridezillas, Marriage Boot Camp, and Love After Lock Up.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
This isn't new, though, and has nothing to do with AI. I remember an Aphex Twin interview from about 20 years ago where he admitted that when he was behind his laptop at live shows he was just playing solitaire.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I'm currently hate-reading Drama Is Her Middle Name, by Wendy Williams and her ghostwriter. I'm only one sentence in so far, and it's already so bad that I can't believe she needed a ghostwriter. Here's to hoping the sequel, Is the Bitch Dead or What?, is better.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Part of the problem, though, is that the NYT only continues to exist because it continues to employ over 2000 journalists covering everything from politics in Belarus to a DIY column that runs articles like "All You Need to Know about Fixings and Fastenings". No, each individual article probably doesn't drive sales enough on its own to justify the cost spent on it, but I'm buying the NYT because I expect to get All the News Fit to Print. I went through a similar divorce with my own local paper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. When I first started subscribing in college it covered all the national stories, local news, sports, etc. to the extent you'd expect from the major newspaper in a mid-size city. They were always accused of having a liberal bias, which led to the establishment of the Tribune Review in 1993 following the demise of the Pittsburgh Press (which was on-par with if not better than the PG). I wasn't a fan of the Trib, not because of the conservative views (which were limited to the editorial page), but because it was clearly a bush-league paper. It had existed in Greensburg for years prior, and, while the Pittsburgh edition got better over the years, it still always felt like a small town paper a little over its skis, relying more on being the conservative choice than having better coverage.
But as time went on, the PG became less and less worth reading. They dumped the DC bureau, and most of the national coverage was wire stories from the AP and bigger newspapers. More of the op-eds were nationally syndicated columnists (and not ones like George Will whom you include because they're big names with national followings). The sports department stopped sending reporters to out of town events that didn't involve local teams. It started to read more like the Trib, but I kept subscribing anyway because it was at least something that came to my door that I could read every morning and get a good idea what was going on in the world. Then they limited print editions to a few times a week and that was the last straw. My dad still gets the pdf edition but it isn't the same; I can't browse a pdf like I can a broadsheet. I probably didn't read half the stories when I got it, but I liked being able to browse it. Most people jumped ship before I did. To use a trendy term, it became enshittified, even if it still did a decent job of providing information about the big stories.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I used to think this as well, but as time goes on I am less enamored by it. It sounds good in a vacuum, but the way college football is structured makes it a nonstarter. Imagine Michigan State get relegated one year and Bowling Green promoted. The first thing that's going to happen is half of Michigan State's team is going to enter the transfer portal, and recruiting is going to dry up. Actually, recruiting is going to be more difficult for any team that finds itself in danger of relegation. Some of the players may transfer to Bowling Green. Next, Michigan State finds itself making MAC money instead of Big Ten money; their payout would go from around 60 million to around 20 million. With this money funding a bunch of non-revenue sports, first priority would be making it so these were at least able to operate. Except they're still playing in the Big Ten, which means they're still flying the women's softball team to Rutgers and USC rather than just busing them to Ypsilanti, and with these teams using their football revenue to add a ton of these sports, that expense adds up quick. Then you have the bloated athletic department and coaching salaries, which are all going to have to take a haircut (MAC teams don't pay coaches 6 million a year plus bonuses). Now they're actually at a long-term disadvantage even compared to other MAC teams, because those teams don't have unfunded liabilities from when they made more money. Relegation would essentially mean condemning the team to a death spiral, from which it would be very difficult to recover.
And it isn't like it's just going to be Michigan State. It would have to be at least one team from each division, or two per conference, that are getting relegated each year, and it wouldn't always be the same teams swapping places. It may give mid-major schools some hope that they can theoretically compete in a major conference, but it would create a similar divide within the major conferences. Some teams are always going to be good enough that they're never in danger of being relegated, and as such they'll be able to attract recruits and transfers that would otherwise have gone to lesser teams. They may not get the playing time, but recruiters can use the possibility of relegation as a bargaining chip — yeah, kid, you may get more playing time at Indiana, but you also might spend most of your career in the MAC. On the others side of the coin, the network deals are based on having certain schools drive viewership. Fox isn't going to be happy when they can't air Michigan State games anymore because now they're on ESPN's extended MAC coverage (on select local stations). It works in soccer because the clubs are independent entities without any kind of revenue sharing. Once you leagueify the whole situation to the fucked up extend college football has done, it isn't really possible.
As for the draft, I said it would be complicated, but I think it's doable. If you limited it to Power 5 schools (though that's changing) and 7 rounds like the NFL draft, you'd scoop up all the 5 and 4 star recruits and the higher end of the 3 stars. In other words, you'd only be drafting kids who aren't going to play for mid-majors anyway. Everyone else is a free agent and can go to whatever team they want. The goal isn't to distribute all the players, it's to end the current practice which is like if the team that won the Super Bowl also got the top pick in the draft. At least give the lesser schools a chance at top recruits instead of forcing them to play a power conference schedule with a roster full of 3 star guys. As far as killing the illusion of student athletes, I don't really give a fuck. We can add the student-athlete illusion to the fiction that NIL money is reasonable compensation for licensing and promotional services. I'm sure that the foundation that's paying the Texas O-line $200k each is really getting a huge return on that investment. When Jordan Addision leaves Pitt after 3 years because USC is willing to pay him more, and no one in Pittsburgh cares because you can't blame the kid for turning down that kind of money, the system is already destroyed. When Clemson is actively trying to destroy the conference it helped found and has been a member of for over 70 years because it will make more money as a member of a different conference that hasn't even extended an invitation yet, they system is already destroyed. There may have been a time when I was willing to pretend otherwise, but the past couple years have destroyed that illusion. I don't know what you're trying to hang on to at this point.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
On a related note, I have a feeling that unless drastic action is taken the entire college football edifice is going to collapse some time in the next decade. NIL deals combined with the transfer portal have turned the entire enterprise into the worst sort of professional sports league. How would the NFL look if there were no salary cap and no contracts, making every player a free agent every year? Since NIL is here to stay, and I don't see the transfer portal going away any time soon, if I were an NIL sponsor I'd make my deal contingent on the player staying at the school all four years, unless I grant him a release. I don't care if it's for the fucking NFL; if I'm committing money to a guy I want to get the max value out of him. I'd also include some kind of liquidated damages clause or prepay the entire 4 (or 5) years so that if he leaves he has to pay the money back. I might not be able to collect all of it depending what the court does, but he'll have to pay something, and he knows he's getting sued either way.
The pipe dream is to come up with some kind of draft system to ensure parity. The NHL from 1995 to 2004 is a prime example of what happens when you can't ensure parity, and even they had more protections in place than college football. No leagues had salary caps before 1993, but no leagues, aside from baseball, had any meaningful free agency before then, either. You'd draft a team and you could trade guys but you could also keep the team together if you wanted to. Some leagues, like the NHL, technically had free agency, but it was restricted enough that building a team through free agency was nearly impossible, as the Scott Stevens fiasco with the Blues demonstrated. As soon as unrestricted free agency was granted, salaries skyrocketed, and even good teams couldn't stay competitive without breaking the bank. The Penguins at the time were going through bankruptcy as a perennial playoff contender with good attendance. 3 teams moved. Ratings plummeted. It took losing a whole season to a lockout to put the league back on the path to stability, and now it's in better shape than ever.
So I propose a draft. I don't know it would work, exactly, but the conferences only stand to make more money if teams like Maryland and Syracuse are competitive every once in a while. If it means Kent State wins a national championship at some point, fine. I never hear any arguments about how the Chiefs don't deserve all of their recent success because they're in a small market with no real national following (yes, they have a national following now, because they're winning, but they aren't like the Steelers or Cowboys who have national followings even when they suck). Because that argument is ridiculous. And will Clemson and Florida State go ahead and lose their fucking lawsuits already?
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I lived in a rural area for 3 years, not because I was trying to LARP a lifestyle but because I was working in the outdoor industry at the time and that's where I needed to be. I guess I was semi "off the grid" but not in any meaningful sense. I had electricity, but well water and a septic system. No TV or internet and really bad cell service (I left the property if I really needed to make a call, but if I sent a text it would send eventually). My house had an oil stove but it also had a wood burner and I decided to use that thinking it would save money. Well, maybe, a little. First, I had to get a log splitter, and even buying a used one split with two of my buddies was enough money to pay for half a winter's worth of oil. Add in the chainsaw and it became a whole winter. Then, every time someone cuts down a tree you have to be ready to go to their house that Saturday to cut it up and load it, and spend Sunday splitting and stacking it. I also didn't have much to start with so I had to buy a cord to get through the first winter, which was a brutal one. Then, when you go to use it, you have to load the stove up to capacity before bed lest you wake up in the morning freezing, making the house so hot you have to open the windows. You freeze in the morning anyway, and you have to get a fire going again from coals. Trust me, the last thing you want to have to do in the winter at 6 am is build a fire. Repeat the process when you get home from work. In the spring and fall you have to use aux heating anyway because any fire is entirely too hot when you're only trying to warm up from 50 degrees. The amount of time I spent dealing with the thing, had I spent it working, would have more than paid for me to run oil full time, and that's not including the cost of the splitter, chainsaw, blade sharpening, gas to haul all that wood, etc. That being said, nothing beats the feel of a stove going in the dead of winter, and it added a rustic charm, but I could have gotten that with a lot less work if I would have just bought wood and burned occasionally rather than committing to it as a heat source. And this is just one, relatively minor inconvenience that comes with living "off grid". But, I still have access to a log splitter I may decide to use again someday.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Writing this from my law office — No, it's not defamation, and it isn't close. In addition to the disclaimer:
- They changed his name
- I didn't see the episode, but they probably changed a number of other details as well, and
- It's a television show that no one is confusing for a news program.
Defamation requires statements of fact, and it's hard to argue that such a blatant fictionalization is making factual statements. I would also add that your proving my point by the fact that you confused Daniel Penny with Daniel Perry, who is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for actions motivated by white supremacy, and I'm apparently the only one who's noticed this so far. Accordingly, I don't know how much Mr. Penny could argue that the episode was about him if even a viewer as astute as yourself can't accurately identify the supposed victim.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I agree that most sex scenes don't add anything to the movie and tend to be boring, unless you're watching an actual Erotic Thriller like Fatal Attraction. This is most obvious in anything that was made for HBO, where a lot of shows seemingly felt the need to show nudity just to remind you that you couldn't get this stuff on regular TV (Boardwalk Empire being a good example). I watched A Few Good Men the other night and never got the impression that the movie would have been better if we saw Demi Moore's tits. I feel the same way about gratuitous swearing. The best regular TV drama of all time is the original Law & Order (and by regular TV I mean a show that was on an actual TV channel weekly from September to May each year and put out 20–25 episodes a season), and that show had little profanity and no sex. The economics of the film industry are partly to blame; movies tend to get pigeonholed based on their MPAA rating, and the easiest way to bump things up to an R is to add gratuitous profanity and nudity.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I can't offer any empirical data either, but I think the fact that you're comparing Marvel movies to 90s action movies is the key here. The former existed back then, but they've since come to dominate the field and nearly replace the latter. Comic book movies were always targeted toward a broader audience than action movies, particularly an audience that included children and families. The idea that I wouldn't have been allowed to see a Batman movie when I was a kid because of sex and nudity would have been unthinkable in the 90s. Even big 90s blockbusters like Independence Day and Jurassic Park didn't have much, if any, sex or nudity, because they were aiming bigger than a typical Schwarzenegger action movie. Despite some efforts in Hollywood to change this (most notably Joker), movies based on comic books are always going to be viewed primarily as children's films, and there's accordingly a limit to how much sex they're going to include. You're comparing them to a totally different genre.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Ironically, the end result "power users" would be complaining about is likely to be something akin to Linux, where if you want software that isn't included in the approved repository you're condemning yourself to a complicated install process (that's totally easy provided you ignore every online tutorial telling you how complicated it is and instead follow these 23 simple steps [assuming you are using one of three distros]).
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I was partially being facetious, but I don't think that size is the main problem. 90 hp is going to be a tough sell, considering that there aren't many cars on the American market anymore that get less than 100. Even a base model Corolla gets nearly twice the HP. Rear wheel drive is basically a nonstarter. The only people I know who have 2wd trucks are contractors. I know people who have been looking for used small trucks for a long time, and when I worked for the Boy Scouts we'd occasionally have a work truck we were getting rid of. I remember one was available, it needed a flywheel but they'd have let it go for $200. Everyone lost interest when I told them it was 2wd, because there's nothing fun about a 2wd Ranger. And while I have no real basis for this, I'd be willing to bet that the interior is chintzy as hell. I don't think it's that people don't want smaller trucks, it's that they don't want that specific small truck.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
That truck is never going to be sold in the US because, outside of you and possibly a few other people, no one is going to buy it. As much as you and other people may complain about the lack of a small, basic truck with a five speed transmission, and 2-wheel drive, there isn't much of a market for one. Most people I know who own trucks they don't need don't own whatever the current versions of the Ranger and S-10 are, they own F-150s and Siverados and Rams and Tundras. Few people actually need a truck, and those who are buying ones they don't need want big penis trucks with huge engines and high towing capacity and 4-wheel drive and and interior like a Cadillac, not some 90 hp puttmobile. They'd sell about as well as those old VW Rabbit trucks that had their fans but didn't exactly take the country by storm.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Affirmative Action/DEI has always had a bit of a mushy existence in the context of discrimination law. The origins of the concept are pretty easy to understand — in the 1960s, blacks typically made up a smaller percentage of the semi-skilled and skilled workforce than their total numbers would suggest. It was pretty obvious that even if companies weren't actively discriminating now, there was certainly a time when they were, and it was a given that as a black guy there was only so far you could go. A lot of people on here will point to HBD and blah blah blah but keep in mind that this was a time when the workforce was largely industrial. If you work in a steel mill, you don't get hired based on your skills and education for specific positions; everybody starts in the labor pool and bids on higher-paying jobs as they become available, and most of these jobs don't require much additional skill. There are skilled jobs, but union dynamics require in-house hirings — if you need an electrician, you don't put an ad in the paper and hope that someone from the IBEW applies from the job; you run your own apprentice program for USW guys already working labor and production jobs so that they can learn the necessary skills, and replace them with new hires. The problem was that, in an environment where these promotions are often based on social and interpersonal dynamics, black employees often found themselves relegated to the lower rungs of the ladder.
The idea behind affirmative action was that companies would take a long, hard, look at how they were making these decisions, and put policies in place to ensure that a diligent black employee would, for example, have a chance to get into that electrician apprenticeship rather than be destined to a career of cutting grass and cleaning up. But Title VII still existed, so blatant discrimination was still prohibited. This has been roundly affirmed by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. And more aggressive forms of affirmative action in general have a lot of under the hood requirements to demonstrate that it's necessary, and these are all things a court may look at in an inevitable lawsuit. So the result is that affirmative action plans tend to be a bit goofy. To the extent they take any real action, it usually focuses on training and recruitment rather than specific requirements. Make sure the black guys in the labor pool are aware of the opportunities and let them know that they have enough seniority to get the promotion if they apply for it. That sort of thing. It's also why DEI isn't just a euphemism; affirmative action is a legal concept that's complicated. DEI is just a fancy way of saying you're making an effort to comply with the law and make sure that there isn't any illegal discrimination in your company.
The problem is that Novant Health crossed a line. It may have actually been permissible if it were part of an affirmative action plan, but Novant never made that argument and tried to claim that the firing was entirely unrelated to race. They had to do this, of course, because there was no affirmative action plan, and even if there were, it's doubtful whether such a blatant act would be permissible under those circumstances. So it's really no surprise. The actual law isn't any different than it was in 1987.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
I'm saying that in the context of the Queen argument, saying that they are a top 300 band isn't saying much; they've always been considered a top 300 band. I remember a kid on Reddit asking a while back why Bob Dylan was considered a top artist, up there with The Beatles, Queen, and Led Zeppelin. It's the inclusion of Queen into this category that seems new to me. No one in that kid's position would ask the same question with reference to The Dells and The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, who are also in the Hall of Fame. Yes, the Hall is exclusive when talking about the entire corpus of rock music. But it's not that exclusive when talking about bands that achieved a certain degree of commercial success.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
He could do a lot of things. The question is will he think do do them while the business end of a weapon is heading toward his balls. Or any other body part, really. With the reach advantage he's going to be in the line of fire before I will, and I doubt an untrained fighter is going to have the fortitude to take the blows necessary to get close enough to do anything. An underpowered hit to the thigh is still going to hurt like a motherfucker.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Unfortunately, "work hard, at a quite possibly unpleasant job" isn't a great sales pitch. But I want to circle back to the point I made ending my discussion of the fifties- most people have to be worker bees.
That's easy to say when the assumption is that other people are the ones who are going to be the worker bees. Most of those industrial jobs that people bemoan the demise of suck. If you want one, US Steel is hiring in Pittsburgh right now because, even offering totally unskilled workers $25/hour plus bonuses, they're lucky if anyone stays a year. I've been in steel mills as part of site inspections for litigation and seen the work that goes on, so I know a bit more about this than the average bear who romanticizes the past. It's incredibly hot, and the dust is unreal. It's shift work, meaning you can forget about being consistently free on weekends (a friend who worked for Allegheny Ludlum got one weekend off a month), and the work itself is basically shoveling all of the dust that seems to come off everything in the place. And God help you if you're a laborer in the coke batteries and have to climb on top of the stand pipes and clean them out. You can eventually work your way up to one of the "fun jobs", like crane operator, where you're in the same environment, but you get to move slabs from one part of the building to another. Except during slowdowns, which happened regularly even in the steel industry's heyday, when you'd either get bumped back to the labor gang or laid off entirely for a few weeks. Or months.
Until very recently, the money for this kind of work wasn't good. People in my dad's generation who worked these kinds of jobs their whole lives were lucky if they made 40k/year by the time they retired in the early 2010s. I grew up in a blue collar family and it was made clear to me that I'd better study or I'd end up working in one of these places. My brothers and some of my friends did work in some of these places during summers in college and said that if they'd been slacking off nothing motivated them more than the prospect of having to work there full time. My one brother did work with my dad full time for a while after graduation and regularly cites that as the worst time of his life. I guy I had to cross-examine a few months ago put it best; he worked as a boilermaker after dropping out of college. I asked him what his major was, and he said "Business. Who knows, if I would have stayed with it maybe I'd be on the other side of the table sitting next to you."
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Seriously? If a bat is being swung in the general direction of your balls, you're telling me you're doing a calculation of the expected force?
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
Well, based on my fuckwit days of recreationally chest boxing my friends in college, the reach advantage is very real among people who don't know what they're doing. The shorter guy would almost inevitably find himself backing up to the point he was against the wall and we had to restart the fight. And we're only talking a reach advantage of 4 inches here. 28 inches and there's no way the knife guy's even getting near him.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
The bat, easily. As soon as the other guy sees the tip of the bat heading directly toward his balls, I guarantee he drops the knife.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. They were well-regarded in the US, but no one considered them at the absolute top of the pyramid, up there with The Beatles and Stones and Dylan. Not even Led Zeppelin, for that matter (I mean, there were some people, but they were mostly pop fans whose knowledge of rock music was surface-level). Yeah, they were in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but with over 300 inductees it's not exactly an exclusive club. And saying that they have three songs in the Grammy Hall of Fame is like damning with faint praise — I couldn't find anything about "We Will Rock You" or "We Are the Champions" ever being inducted, but A Night at the Opera was inducted in 2018, and even giving them that, they're still shy of Blood, Sweat & Tears, who I don't hear anyone arguing are among the all-time greats. I brought up the Eagles because they're a band whose popularity and critical standing was, by all normal metrics, similar to that of Queen, but who I don't hear anyone claiming was among the top 5 groups of all time. I only brought up the UK because I know they were more popular over there and I don't know if people there have been ranking them to 5 or whatever for longer. I would also note that this is a phenomenon that I see much more among younger people who probably saw the movie when they were at the height of their susceptibility of being influenced music-wise at the time of the film's release. I don't really see too many people my age and older reevaluating their opinions on Queen.
Rov_Scam
1mo ago
The thing is, though, there are a lot of bands like that. I should also emphasize the difference between Queen's stature in the UK and Europe vs. North America; they were always popular here but never had the kind of mega-popularity they enjoyed across the pond. The best analog I can think of is a group like the Eagles. They're played on the radio constantly, they had a ton of big hits in both the US and the UK but were always more popular in America, were inducted into the Hall, had a massive reunion tour in the mid-'90s, etc. Their critical stature is higher than that of Queen, but both groups were critical whipping boys in their day whose stature has improved over time. Looking at the VH1 100 Greatest bands list from 1998, Queen ranks at 33 and the Eagles at 23. Rolling Stone's 2010 list of greatest artists has Queen at 52 and the Eagles at 75. Rolling Stone's 2003 list of the 500 greatest albums had two entries from the Eagles, Hotel California at 37 and Eagles at 374. Queen's lone entry was A Night at the Opera, at 230. When Rolling Stone did the list again in 2020 it had Hotel California at 118, Eagles at 207, and A Night at the Opera at 128. To be fair, when VH1 redid their list in 2010 Queen jumped to 17 and the Eagles dropped off the list entirely, but it should be noted that this was after the point when VH1 had burned most of their credibility in the music world and emphasized more pop-oriented acts — Michael Jackson jumped from 40 to 2, Madonna jumped from 86 to 16, and George Michael (!) entered the top 100.
Now, I prefer the Eagles to Queen and they have (slightly) more critical credibility. For all intents and purposes, I'll consider it a draw. The difference is that I don't hear anyone trying to argue that the Eagles are among the top 5 greatest bands of all time, especially not 20-year-old zoomers who aren't so much as arguing it as much as stating it as though it were an accepted fact among anyone familiar with rock music. To be fair, they are very different bands representing very different tastes, but the popularity of country music (particularly pop country) in the United States suggests no reason why the Eagles shouldn't enjoy a similar reputation, especially considering that a lot of the country I hear on the radio descends more from what they did than from what e.g. Willie Nelson or Tammy Wynette did. The answer seems obvious to me: Movies. Not necessarily Bohemian Rhapsody, but earlier. The most notable movie moment for Queen prior to that biopic was the scene from Wayne's World where they were singing Bohemian Rhapsody in the car, which was incorporated into a new music video that was played on MTV and helped the song hit the charts again in the US. The best known movie moment for the Eagles is from The Big Lebowski when The Dude tells the taxi driver that he's had a long night and hates the fucking Eagles. Ever since that movie achieved cult status in the early '00s it's been cool to slag on the Eagles. Meanwhile, Queen, a group who by all means should enjoy a similar stature, gets treated as if they're up there with the true greats. Bohemian Rhapsody (the movie) only took this cool/uncool dichotomy a step further, by cementing their legacy through a largely fictional account of their history. I can't speak for Europe, but over here, there was definitely a marked change in how younger people treated this band after the film came out.
As someone who grew up middle-class in an exurban area my thoughts were the same as yours... until PA announced it had provisionally implemented Voter ID and suddenly my grandmother was effectively disenfranchised. She hadn't driven in years and let her license expire. She could get a state ID, but that required a birth certificate, and she didn't have that. Getting a copy from Vital Records isn't difficult, but since she didn't have a driver's license we had to go to one of the "other" forms of ID, and then present the newly-acquired birth certificate to the DL center with an entirely different group of required documents that some people might not have (e.g. you need a Social Security card, and if you lost yours then you have to go to SSA to get a replacement which is a whole other process). So yeah, I can understand why this could be disenfranchising for elderly people who don't drive and don't work. There may not be many people like this in rural areas, but go to some neighborhoods in Pittsburgh where the average age is deceased and there are a ton of them who use the bus to get around since it's free if you're over 65. These people aren't at the fringes of society, they're just pensioners who live on Social Security and aren't going to maintain a license to drive a car they don't have and who have no reason to get a photo ID.
The big reason I think voter ID failed nationally was that its proponents made it sound like people without IDs were bums who, as you suggest, are a vanishingly small part of the population and who probably have no interest in voting anyway. If instead they had acknowledged the problem and worked towards rectifying it and maybe kicking in some money for outreach efforts or modernization of the ID system then they may have been more successful. But they instead stuck to the argument that we didn't need to worry about these people. For their part, the left didn't do a good job of defining who these people were in a way that would be understandable to Republicans — the more moderate ones just said such people existed in urban areas and left it at that while the more dedicated proggies trotted out their tried and true sob stories about a homeless woman of color with a glass eye and a wooden leg who was forced to make a living collecting cans behind Wal-Mart, which did little to disabuse conservatives of their preconceptions. But that doesn't mean that the Democrats didn't have a point.
More options
Context Copy link