What does Fox News have to do with it?
"I don't agree, therefore, it must be Fox News propaganda." Let's debate on substance, not labels.
What I've seen of recent trends in some public schools, there is some cause for concern regarding altering history to conform to what our current notion of fairness is. I had heard stories from people I knew, who have children in public schools, about prominent figures in U.S. history being largely ignored because they were being judged, and therefore shunned, by today's standards. I came across this article last year that I think illustrates this concern effectively.
While the intentions of excluding, or downplaying some history, or historical figures, because we, in today's society, may disagree with some of their actions is certainly debatable, I think the article that is the topic of this whole discussion today shows how dangerous it can be if we spend too much time thinking about what we want to be, and not enough time looking at what we once were.
Your points are well-taken, but let's be fair. The Big Bang is a theory. I probably don't know nearly as much about it as you do, based on your post, but as we learn more about space, our take on what's out there beyond our atmosphere is changing...if not necessarily the view on the Big Bang. We can't even say if there is or was life on the planet right next door, but we are so bold as to say, "This is how the Universe started and I can prove it"? There are objects out there that we cannot even define, let alone discern the origin. This is about beliefs without proof (kind of like being a Philosophy major), so maybe we can be a little fast and loose with the hard facts. But, in relation to the Universe, it seems to me that we are looking at one very small part of a whole and making our best guess based on what we see. But our best guesses have been notoriously known for being questioned (with the questioners almost always being persecuted) and then corrected.
Actually, if I may knit pick, bin Laden fought alongside the mujahedeen, he did not actually join them. And yes, I see your argument, I am merely saying that people who say, "oh, well, the U.S. helped the taliban years ago," are not speaking the truth. As you correctly stated, we helped the mujahedeen, some of which even fought alongside us in Iraq in the Gulf War. But, your point is taken, some did, in fact, join al Qaeda.
If I were to make the statement: "In Europe, we have seen some of the most inhumane leaders come to power," am I saying that all leaders in Europe are inhumane? Of course not. I think the problem is in your interpretation.
Scientists you say? UCS is a group of environmentalists, not scientists. Where, in their "statement" do you see scientific proof of their claims? I see:
** Scientific findings on issues such as climate change, mercury emissions, and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and websites.
really? no proof given though, huh?
** Highly qualified scientists have been dismissed from advisory committees on childhood lead poisoning prevention and workplace safety and replaced by less qualified individuals with industry ties. At least two panels dealing with nuclear weapons have been disbanded altogether.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Specifically, the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
Now, you wrote: Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized.
Sounds eerily like what UCS did to Bjorn Lomborg. Incidentally, Lomborg was "cleared" by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry.
UCS has issued "studies" like this before, and none of them are ever backed up with facts. If you really read the website, you will see that they are an environmental organization, not a group representing the majority view of scientists either worldwide or in the U.S. Nothing against advocates for the environment, but color me skeptical on any organization that tries to misrepresent who they really are. UCS criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring "scientific findings on issues such as climate change...," yet they seem to do their own share of ignoring certain findings on the issue.
The newspapers simply recite a portion of the "about us" section of the website when describing UCS. Here's an alternative description of the organization. Granted, there is some bias in this assessment, but no more than UCS has for the Bush administration (see their objection to the Iraq war...not that their position is right or wrong, but it is no doubt an awful peculiar policy for a group of "objective scientists" to weigh in on).
I know a lot of you hate Bush, and that's fine, but you still have to consider the source of the information.
Why is one insult scored (-1) while the other is scored a (2)? Both are equally ignorant, offensive, stereotypical, and completely off-topic. I'm so tired of seeing the same crap on every single topic I read about here. It all turns into a nationalistic cock size contenst, usually ending up with rabble that sounds like, "We hate Bush!" "Oh yeah? Screw you, America rules!" Jesus, we can have a story here about an earthquake on Venus (or would that be a venusquake?), and the conversation will still end up at either pro vs anti American garbage, or ridiculous insults that get modded up to (2) for some reason. Sorry, didn't mean to explode like that, it's just all getting very old very fast. Debating is one thing, but there are people here who just keep walking into the wall no matter how many times you show them the door.
Sure, could be. I'm not saying "this is how it is". I'm just noting that it is entirely possible, is it not, that an ant may go through its entire life without developing a single "view" about itself or those around it. Just as you said that our classification system does not reflect reality, and my be selling the ants short, I'm saying that our classification system might also be giving them more credit than they deserve.
I don't remember where or when, but I heard that crows have a reasonably complex social order. So much so, that when a flock of crows is gathered together, one crow is charged with "keeping watch," and if a predator gets through without a warning, the other crows kill the one that was supposed to keep guard. Has anyone else ever heard of this? If so, it would seem to lend some credence to this intelligence/social structure theory.
Or, they could view themselves as, well, as absolutely nothing because their lives may be based on simple programmed responses to certain chemicals, and they really may have no concept of "self" whatsoever. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case, but you are criticizing the previous poster for over-simplifying insects' behavior by applying human classifications to them, when you may, in fact, be over-complicating their behavior by applying human feelings and thought processes to them.
Your last point is interesting, though I personally do not think it is so. I only base this on the observation that dogs don't seem to take an aesthetic appreciation to "scenes of nature". For example, when a person comes across a patch of flowers, he/she is able to appreciate its beauty. A dog may appreciate the flowers, but only in the sense that they are comfortable to lie on. A dog does not stop at the top of a cliff to take in the breathtaking view, nor does it travel great distances to find the best area to view the fall foliage.
But, upon reasoning this all out in my head, dogs do seem to find an appreciation for shiny objects and flashing lights. Perhaps there is, as you say, an aesthetic appreciation there that we do not really comprehend. I don't know if I'd call that an "elevated" aesthetic sensibility, but maybe there is some level of appreciation that would be comparable to a human viewing a masterful painting. "Besides, a dog's got personality, and personality goes a long way."
sigh...leave it to a short-sighted deconstructionist to use a simple spelling error to launch his/her trite crusade. Why don't you take your toys to the play room and let the grown-ups have a meaningful debate?
How is handling your own retirement turning over control to a private organization? I made no references to companies or corporations. What amazes me about you people is that you consistently berate the government because "THEY are watching you!" yet, when you want to prove a point, you make your relationship to the government sound so noble: "a citizen of a democratic republic," and you have no problem turning control of certain aspects of your life to it. In fact, you are giving up freedoms to SS. I'm not saying if it's good or bad, it's simply a statement. You "retain control over those things?" What things? Try demanding money back for what you paid in SS on your last paycheck. Let me know how that goes. You have no control over that. The government decides "X" amount of your paycheck goes to SS. If SS, in the state that it is in now, was an optional investment on, say, the stock market, would you invest in it? That's my point, you have no control over it, so freedom is given up for safety. As for your statement on citizen/consumer rights, that's up for debate. I'm not sure exactly what you're implying. There are abuses on both sides, and I'm not suggesting giving absolute control to either. But as a consumer, I can make choices; I can choose not to buy from companies that I view as abusive, MCI/Worldcom comes to mind, whereas the government can equally squander the public's money and I have no choice but to keep giving them money. Perhaps I'm missing your point...
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You're picking one definition from each word to prove an off-base point. Didn't you notice the (1) (2) (3) next to the individual definitions? Did you notice that "conservative" also meant "moderate" and "cautious"? And I don't know what you're trying to categorize as "communist," but I gather you've never really read Karl Marx, have you? A "corporate paradise" would really be against Marx's ideals, being that there's no real hierarchy in true communism. A closer estimation would be if labor unions overthrew the government and all corporations, which, I guarantee you is not in Cheney's agenda. A still yet better example is all of the communes that sprung up in the U.S. in the 60s. Get it? "COMMUNe" "COMMUNism" - It is a concept whereby everyone puts in an equal share and everyone gets out an equal share. The biggest problem is that many people are inherently lazy, so they tend to want to "take" without "giving".
The Soviet Union tried to accomplish this "equal sharing" through a central government, which is really not what Marx was advocating. The Soviet Union was no more "communism" than America is a "Democracy" (in actuality, it is a representative republic...true democracies, if my knowledge of history serves me correctly, existed in some ancient greece cities)
Now, let's take a look at the political spectrum for a minute, because you're all over it and I have no idea where you're trying to place Bush/Cheney. Politically speaking, Fascist=far right...Socialism and Communism=far left. Conservative, and Liberal, could be anywhere, but conservative would fall on the right side of whatever system the "conservative" is rooted in, and liberal would be on the left. So, keeping this in mind, you accuse Bush/Cheney of exhibiting traits that are to the right and the left end of the spectrum...which would place them at the center...which, I imagine, is not where had meant to place them.
So, I believe it is you who is perverting language...or should I say, selectively choosing definitions...to prove your point. Perhaps if you spent less time picking out cool-looking words from the dictionary and more time studying their meanings, you would be slightly more convincing.
I'm carrying on, but I have to address your cute little references that you throw in here...
1)it is possible to be Republican without being Conservative. In fact, a lot of "Conservative" Republicans are furious about the deficit and the spending. Bush, at least in my estimation, may be a Republican, but he is certainly not "Conservative"
2)You wrote - "In modern societies, like the "totalitarian" Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, hell, most every other modern society than the US, the government owns "natural monopolies" as a proxy for the people, rather than allow them to be neglected or abused by orivate owners."
Most of the countries you mentioned actually have a thriving private (orivate) sector. And abuse is a two-sided coin. Would you rather give absolute "totalitarian" control to a government that you, at the same time, so vehemently despise? And if those governments are doing so much of a better job than the U.S., then how come so much of the world's economy is dependent on the economic situation in the U.S.?
3) Aren't people like you the ones who were complaining about how the government gave no warning about Sept. 11? Now you're complaining because the gov't is giving warnings. If they didn't raise the alert, and a building went down, you'd be screaming your head off again.
4)I believe I've addressed this already
5)"double talk" find me a definition for this one, Webster.
Sorry, but I find it amusing that there are people quoting Ben Franklin in reference to the Patriot Act(?), and then contradicting themselves on other issues that are taken for granted. What about welfare, social security, and other similar programs? Isn't that giving up "freedom" for "safety"? You're merely socializing programs (giving them to the government, therefore giving up your freedom to control them) for safety (in the case of SS, people either don't feel like, or claim that they are unable to provide for their own retirement so they rely on the government to provide a "safety" net). It's funny how when it's an issue that people don't feel like addressing themselves, it's okay to give up "freedom" for "safety" and let the government handle it, but when they perceive government involvement as affecting their little corner of their secluded world, they quote Ben Franklin and become hardcore advocates of freedom over safety.
Re:Try this in the US. 'specially in the south...
on
Kazaa Offices Raided
·
· Score: 1
buddy, I got a cup of decaf here with your name on it.
Really though, doesn't this all seem like an act of desperation, and, in addition, yet another example of the recording industry's uncanny ability to destroy PR with the general public? It seems to me that it is possible to get people to do things your way by strong-arming them into doing it, but wouldn't getting people to understand your position work better? And I don't mean that ridiculous campaign they launched about taking money from the artists. I saw that as an insult to our intelligence. Even artists complain about how profits are divided between themselves and the record companies. In my view, artists have joined the recording industry for two reasons: firstly, because they are made to believe that the current system is the only one that they can live under, and getting something is better than nothing, and second, some artists have endured the long, arduous process of working out a halfway decent deal, by no means, as I understand it, an easy feat to accomplish.
At any rate, I'm of the estimation that, even after this whole downloading affair is over, the recording industry is in for a big surprise when sales don't improve, mainly because a lot of people are fed up with the current selection of music. Not all of us are 13, and not all of us want to go to a concert to see a lip-synced dance routine. This is evident, I believe, by looking at some recent grammy winners that were not, to my knowledge, extensively hyped by the recording industry (Norah Jones, Oh Brother Where Art Thou). As for me, I suppose I'm biased. I still like that old timer rock n' roll, as the man said...but I'd even settle for some rap that's not the same three notes repeated over and over and over and over and over again.
Slashdot Mirror
What I've seen of recent trends in some public schools, there is some cause for concern regarding altering history to conform to what our current notion of fairness is. I had heard stories from people I knew, who have children in public schools, about prominent figures in U.S. history being largely ignored because they were being judged, and therefore shunned, by today's standards. I came across this article last year that I think illustrates this concern effectively.
While the intentions of excluding, or downplaying some history, or historical figures, because we, in today's society, may disagree with some of their actions is certainly debatable, I think the article that is the topic of this whole discussion today shows how dangerous it can be if we spend too much time thinking about what we want to be, and not enough time looking at what we once were.
Your points are well-taken, but let's be fair. The Big Bang is a theory. I probably don't know nearly as much about it as you do, based on your post, but as we learn more about space, our take on what's out there beyond our atmosphere is changing...if not necessarily the view on the Big Bang. We can't even say if there is or was life on the planet right next door, but we are so bold as to say, "This is how the Universe started and I can prove it"? There are objects out there that we cannot even define, let alone discern the origin. This is about beliefs without proof (kind of like being a Philosophy major), so maybe we can be a little fast and loose with the hard facts. But, in relation to the Universe, it seems to me that we are looking at one very small part of a whole and making our best guess based on what we see. But our best guesses have been notoriously known for being questioned (with the questioners almost always being persecuted) and then corrected.
btw didn't mean to post anonymously in response to your last two posts...just forgot to log in.
Actually, if I may knit pick, bin Laden fought alongside the mujahedeen, he did not actually join them. And yes, I see your argument, I am merely saying that people who say, "oh, well, the U.S. helped the taliban years ago," are not speaking the truth. As you correctly stated, we helped the mujahedeen, some of which even fought alongside us in Iraq in the Gulf War. But, your point is taken, some did, in fact, join al Qaeda.
If I were to make the statement: "In Europe, we have seen some of the most inhumane leaders come to power," am I saying that all leaders in Europe are inhumane? Of course not. I think the problem is in your interpretation.
** Scientific findings on issues such as climate change, mercury emissions, and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and websites.
really? no proof given though, huh?
** Highly qualified scientists have been dismissed from advisory committees on childhood lead poisoning prevention and workplace safety and replaced by less qualified individuals with industry ties. At least two panels dealing with nuclear weapons have been disbanded altogether.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Specifically, the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
Now, you wrote: Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized.
Sounds eerily like what UCS did to Bjorn Lomborg. Incidentally, Lomborg was "cleared" by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry.
UCS has issued "studies" like this before, and none of them are ever backed up with facts. If you really read the website, you will see that they are an environmental organization, not a group representing the majority view of scientists either worldwide or in the U.S. Nothing against advocates for the environment, but color me skeptical on any organization that tries to misrepresent who they really are. UCS criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring "scientific findings on issues such as climate change...," yet they seem to do their own share of ignoring certain findings on the issue.
The newspapers simply recite a portion of the "about us" section of the website when describing UCS. Here's an alternative description of the organization. Granted, there is some bias in this assessment, but no more than UCS has for the Bush administration (see their objection to the Iraq war...not that their position is right or wrong, but it is no doubt an awful peculiar policy for a group of "objective scientists" to weigh in on).
I know a lot of you hate Bush, and that's fine, but you still have to consider the source of the information.
I have it on good authority that Rambo III was, in fact, a movie. I can see how it might be mistaken for a historical documentary, though.
Historically speaking, those that we aided in Afghanistan against the USSR were mostly what became the "Northern Alliance".
Why is one insult scored (-1) while the other is scored a (2)? Both are equally ignorant, offensive, stereotypical, and completely off-topic. I'm so tired of seeing the same crap on every single topic I read about here. It all turns into a nationalistic cock size contenst, usually ending up with rabble that sounds like, "We hate Bush!" "Oh yeah? Screw you, America rules!" Jesus, we can have a story here about an earthquake on Venus (or would that be a venusquake?), and the conversation will still end up at either pro vs anti American garbage, or ridiculous insults that get modded up to (2) for some reason. Sorry, didn't mean to explode like that, it's just all getting very old very fast. Debating is one thing, but there are people here who just keep walking into the wall no matter how many times you show them the door.
Sure, could be. I'm not saying "this is how it is". I'm just noting that it is entirely possible, is it not, that an ant may go through its entire life without developing a single "view" about itself or those around it. Just as you said that our classification system does not reflect reality, and my be selling the ants short, I'm saying that our classification system might also be giving them more credit than they deserve.
I don't remember where or when, but I heard that crows have a reasonably complex social order. So much so, that when a flock of crows is gathered together, one crow is charged with "keeping watch," and if a predator gets through without a warning, the other crows kill the one that was supposed to keep guard. Has anyone else ever heard of this? If so, it would seem to lend some credence to this intelligence/social structure theory.
Or, they could view themselves as, well, as absolutely nothing because their lives may be based on simple programmed responses to certain chemicals, and they really may have no concept of "self" whatsoever. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case, but you are criticizing the previous poster for over-simplifying insects' behavior by applying human classifications to them, when you may, in fact, be over-complicating their behavior by applying human feelings and thought processes to them.
Your last point is interesting, though I personally do not think it is so. I only base this on the observation that dogs don't seem to take an aesthetic appreciation to "scenes of nature". For example, when a person comes across a patch of flowers, he/she is able to appreciate its beauty. A dog may appreciate the flowers, but only in the sense that they are comfortable to lie on. A dog does not stop at the top of a cliff to take in the breathtaking view, nor does it travel great distances to find the best area to view the fall foliage. But, upon reasoning this all out in my head, dogs do seem to find an appreciation for shiny objects and flashing lights. Perhaps there is, as you say, an aesthetic appreciation there that we do not really comprehend. I don't know if I'd call that an "elevated" aesthetic sensibility, but maybe there is some level of appreciation that would be comparable to a human viewing a masterful painting. "Besides, a dog's got personality, and personality goes a long way."
sigh...leave it to a short-sighted deconstructionist to use a simple spelling error to launch his/her trite crusade. Why don't you take your toys to the play room and let the grown-ups have a meaningful debate?
How is handling your own retirement turning over control to a private organization? I made no references to companies or corporations. What amazes me about you people is that you consistently berate the government because "THEY are watching you!" yet, when you want to prove a point, you make your relationship to the government sound so noble: "a citizen of a democratic republic," and you have no problem turning control of certain aspects of your life to it.
In fact, you are giving up freedoms to SS. I'm not saying if it's good or bad, it's simply a statement. You "retain control over those things?" What things? Try demanding money back for what you paid in SS on your last paycheck. Let me know how that goes. You have no control over that. The government decides "X" amount of your paycheck goes to SS. If SS, in the state that it is in now, was an optional investment on, say, the stock market, would you invest in it? That's my point, you have no control over it, so freedom is given up for safety.
As for your statement on citizen/consumer rights, that's up for debate. I'm not sure exactly what you're implying. There are abuses on both sides, and I'm not suggesting giving absolute control to either. But as a consumer, I can make choices; I can choose not to buy from companies that I view as abusive, MCI/Worldcom comes to mind, whereas the government can equally squander the public's money and I have no choice but to keep giving them money. Perhaps I'm missing your point...
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You're picking one definition from each word to prove an off-base point. Didn't you notice the (1) (2) (3) next to the individual definitions? Did you notice that "conservative" also meant "moderate" and "cautious"? And I don't know what you're trying to categorize as "communist," but I gather you've never really read Karl Marx, have you? A "corporate paradise" would really be against Marx's ideals, being that there's no real hierarchy in true communism. A closer estimation would be if labor unions overthrew the government and all corporations, which, I guarantee you is not in Cheney's agenda. A still yet better example is all of the communes that sprung up in the U.S. in the 60s. Get it? "COMMUNe" "COMMUNism" - It is a concept whereby everyone puts in an equal share and everyone gets out an equal share. The biggest problem is that many people are inherently lazy, so they tend to want to "take" without "giving". The Soviet Union tried to accomplish this "equal sharing" through a central government, which is really not what Marx was advocating. The Soviet Union was no more "communism" than America is a "Democracy" (in actuality, it is a representative republic...true democracies, if my knowledge of history serves me correctly, existed in some ancient greece cities) Now, let's take a look at the political spectrum for a minute, because you're all over it and I have no idea where you're trying to place Bush/Cheney. Politically speaking, Fascist=far right...Socialism and Communism=far left. Conservative, and Liberal, could be anywhere, but conservative would fall on the right side of whatever system the "conservative" is rooted in, and liberal would be on the left. So, keeping this in mind, you accuse Bush/Cheney of exhibiting traits that are to the right and the left end of the spectrum...which would place them at the center...which, I imagine, is not where had meant to place them. So, I believe it is you who is perverting language...or should I say, selectively choosing definitions...to prove your point. Perhaps if you spent less time picking out cool-looking words from the dictionary and more time studying their meanings, you would be slightly more convincing. I'm carrying on, but I have to address your cute little references that you throw in here... 1)it is possible to be Republican without being Conservative. In fact, a lot of "Conservative" Republicans are furious about the deficit and the spending. Bush, at least in my estimation, may be a Republican, but he is certainly not "Conservative" 2)You wrote - "In modern societies, like the "totalitarian" Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, hell, most every other modern society than the US, the government owns "natural monopolies" as a proxy for the people, rather than allow them to be neglected or abused by orivate owners." Most of the countries you mentioned actually have a thriving private (orivate) sector. And abuse is a two-sided coin. Would you rather give absolute "totalitarian" control to a government that you, at the same time, so vehemently despise? And if those governments are doing so much of a better job than the U.S., then how come so much of the world's economy is dependent on the economic situation in the U.S.? 3) Aren't people like you the ones who were complaining about how the government gave no warning about Sept. 11? Now you're complaining because the gov't is giving warnings. If they didn't raise the alert, and a building went down, you'd be screaming your head off again. 4)I believe I've addressed this already 5)"double talk" find me a definition for this one, Webster.
Sorry, but I find it amusing that there are people quoting Ben Franklin in reference to the Patriot Act(?), and then contradicting themselves on other issues that are taken for granted. What about welfare, social security, and other similar programs? Isn't that giving up "freedom" for "safety"? You're merely socializing programs (giving them to the government, therefore giving up your freedom to control them) for safety (in the case of SS, people either don't feel like, or claim that they are unable to provide for their own retirement so they rely on the government to provide a "safety" net). It's funny how when it's an issue that people don't feel like addressing themselves, it's okay to give up "freedom" for "safety" and let the government handle it, but when they perceive government involvement as affecting their little corner of their secluded world, they quote Ben Franklin and become hardcore advocates of freedom over safety.
buddy, I got a cup of decaf here with your name on it.
Really though, doesn't this all seem like an act of desperation, and, in addition, yet another example of the recording industry's uncanny ability to destroy PR with the general public? It seems to me that it is possible to get people to do things your way by strong-arming them into doing it, but wouldn't getting people to understand your position work better? And I don't mean that ridiculous campaign they launched about taking money from the artists. I saw that as an insult to our intelligence. Even artists complain about how profits are divided between themselves and the record companies. In my view, artists have joined the recording industry for two reasons: firstly, because they are made to believe that the current system is the only one that they can live under, and getting something is better than nothing, and second, some artists have endured the long, arduous process of working out a halfway decent deal, by no means, as I understand it, an easy feat to accomplish.
At any rate, I'm of the estimation that, even after this whole downloading affair is over, the recording industry is in for a big surprise when sales don't improve, mainly because a lot of people are fed up with the current selection of music. Not all of us are 13, and not all of us want to go to a concert to see a lip-synced dance routine. This is evident, I believe, by looking at some recent grammy winners that were not, to my knowledge, extensively hyped by the recording industry (Norah Jones, Oh Brother Where Art Thou). As for me, I suppose I'm biased. I still like that old timer rock n' roll, as the man said...but I'd even settle for some rap that's not the same three notes repeated over and over and over and over and over again.