Octopus Overlords

I love pow-wows. I go to at least a couple a year. I've got a very close friend (a Ute/Southern Cheyenne) who is a grass dancer and sits on one of the larger drums (ie - he's a singer and drummer at pow-wows.) This gives me an opportunity to see some of the private elements and to ask questions. And yet I'm still a white guy with zero native blood, so take this for what it is worth:

1. Pow-wows are not just Native hang outs, they are considered sacred ceremonies, a few of which (but far, far from all) they allow the public to view. Calling your lunch meeting a pow-wow is appropriate the same way calling cocktail hors d'oeuvres 'communion' would be.

2. The 'average' Native with any connection to their culture would despise calling any other meeting a pow-wow, and would likely be up front about that. They are very, very sensitive to cultural appropriation, largely because they deal with it on a massive scale every day in a way very few others do. From souvenier shops outside of reservations full of made-in-China dream catchers to new agers selling 'sweat lodge' ceremonies that are stolen directly from their religion to people claiming to be part of their culture in order to profit from them at their expense while publicly misrepresenting their culture (see almost any 'indian' spiritual book.) Imagine if an atheist set up a "Christian Style Baptism Retreat" outside the Vatican, called himself 'Father Jesus' and sold plastic good-luck reliquaries for $150. That is exactly what goes on every day for Native Americans, and nobody thinks twice about it.

3. Pow-wow food is a thing. Very little of it is pre-Columbian traditional. Much of it isn't even pre-reservation, but it is still modern-traditional. Fry bread is a amazing, by the way.

I am entranced by the idea that pow-wow is some universal word to all Native American Tribes from Inuit to Yaghans.

You should have started with Apache, not Inuit.

Do I really need to specify 'Native Americans in the central portion of North America' in the middle of a discussion about those same peoples? The word comes from one people. The use of it was adopted across most of the 'central portion of North America.'

hepcat wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:12 am You should have started with Apache, not Inuit.

I was doing it by geography

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:13 am Do I really need to specify 'Native Americans in the central portion of North America' in the middle of a discussion about those same peoples? The word comes from one people. The use of it was adopted across most of the 'central portion of North America.'

It depends. Can an Olmec and a Toltec have a pow-wow?

An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 pm An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

The greeter asks, "Do you have a reservation?"

I bet no one came to OO today and expected ethnography humor. You get EVERYthing, here!

WILDCARD, BITCHES!!
/jumps out back of van

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:40 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 pm An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

The greeter asks, "Do you have a reservation?"

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:40 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 pm An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

The greeter asks, "Do you have a reservation?"

I think I'm supposed to ask you to check your privilege but how can you not appreciate that. You'd make a 1970s celebrity appearance gameshow proud. All you need is Gene Rayburn to set you up.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 pm An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

The Cherokee says, "I used to be a brave warrior until I took an arrow at Wounded Knee."

Too soon?

Jaymann wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:29 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 pm An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

The Cherokee says, "I used to be a brave warrior until I took an arrow at Wounded Knee."

Too soon?

Wrong group. Wounded Knee was the Lakota

Fitzy wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:30 am

Jaymann wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:29 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 pm An Olmec, a Toltec, and a Cherokee walk into a bar...

The Cherokee says, "I used to be a brave warrior until I took an arrow at Wounded Knee."

Too soon?

Wrong group. Wounded Knee was the Lakota

And there were no arrows.

https://twitter.com/GrahamVyse/status/1 ... 3043780608

What an insufferable douche. Hope this ends his 15 minutes of fame.

Also, somebody should tell him about this guy named Barack Obama.

Avenatti wrote:“When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight,” he says, adding that he wishes they didn't.

I once made the mistake of saying something vaguely similar to my wife. She asked if I thought a black woman could beat Trump in the election. I replied with the honest answer of "I'm not sure. There's a lot of people who'd oppose that. Right now I just want him gone, even if it means putting an old white guy up against him."

It was a fun fight we had after I said that.

Paingod wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:42 pm

Avenatti wrote:“When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight,” he says, adding that he wishes they didn't.

I once made the mistake of saying something vaguely similar to my wife. She asked if I thought a black woman could beat Trump in the election. I replied with the honest answer of "I'm not sure. There's a lot of people who'd oppose that. Right now I just want him gone, even if it means putting an old white guy up against him."

It was a fun fight we had after I said that.

I do share the concern. Putting up a minority candidate makes it easier to rally the Trumpist racists, who then argue "see? Minorities are trying to take over America and take everything from hard working (white) Real 'Muricans!" A huge part of the GOP / tea party backlast in 2009 - 2010 was racism driven, in a way that I don't think would have happened to that degree had the winning candidate been a white male.

Having said that, there's also the whole fuck the racists thing and let's not care what they think, which I also agree with.

But they still get to vote. So, I don't think this is something that would lead me to vote for a white male democratic candidate because of that, but it is something that I worry a little about, given the stakes of Trump getting reelected.

I'm not *unhappy* Avenatti is out there giving Drumpf at least a little of his own medicine in the legal realm... but I have no idea how he deluded himself enough to think there's any amount of support for him to run for President.

I think Michelle Obama could beat him. Handily.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:04 pm I think Michelle Obama could beat him. Handily.

I can already see all republican head explode if she's ever elected president.
I'd sure love to see her try, she'd do great.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:59 pm I do share the concern. Putting up a minority candidate makes it easier to rally the Trumpist racists, who then argue "see? Minorities are trying to take over America and take everything from hard working (white) Real 'Muricans!" A huge part of the GOP / tea party backlast in 2009 - 2010 was racism driven, in a way that I don't think would have happened to that degree had the winning candidate been a white male.

Having said that, there's also the whole fuck the racists thing and let's not care what they think, which I also agree with.

But they still get to vote. So, I don't think this is something that would lead me to vote for a white male democratic candidate because of that, but it is something that I worry a little about, given the stakes of Trump getting reelected.

The reality is that it would make a big difference with some voters. Is that enough to warrant doing it? Not my call.

The GOP have had a couple of female primary candidates, specifically white ones. How'd they do?

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 pm

El Guapo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:59 pm I do share the concern. Putting up a minority candidate makes it easier to rally the Trumpist racists, who then argue "see? Minorities are trying to take over America and take everything from hard working (white) Real 'Muricans!" A huge part of the GOP / tea party backlast in 2009 - 2010 was racism driven, in a way that I don't think would have happened to that degree had the winning candidate been a white male.

Having said that, there's also the whole fuck the racists thing and let's not care what they think, which I also agree with.

But they still get to vote. So, I don't think this is something that would lead me to vote for a white male democratic candidate because of that, but it is something that I worry a little about, given the stakes of Trump getting reelected.

The reality is that it would make a big difference with some voters. Is that enough to warrant doing it? Not my call.

The GOP have had a couple of female primary candidates, specifically white ones. How'd they do?

Part of the problem is every time you have someone breaking new ground, you rile up those interested in the status quo (like Obama galvanizing the deplorables). New reality needs time to evolve into the status quo. Considering the widespread destruction of everything Obama achieved, a minority candidate is probably going to start back at square one.

I think Michelle Obama would be a terrific president as long as she has a favorable congress. What we learned from both Barack and Trump's first two years is that when you have absolute control, use it. Obama squandered his opportunity trying to work with both parties. The donkey party ought not make that mistake again.

Vorret wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:32 pm

YellowKing wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:04 pm I think Michelle Obama could beat him. Handily.

I can already see all republican head explode if she's ever elected president.
I'd sure love to see her try, she'd do great.

While I agree, I'm a little tired of seeing the same tiny group of people at the top of our political food chain. I think the rules should be amended so once someone from a family makes it to President, that family can't hold a top office again for another 50 years. It feels too much like a sideways monarchy when it's the father, then the son - then the husband and his wife tries for it - then maybe the father and his daughter (Ivanka, please by the gods, no)...

Paingod wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:13 am

Vorret wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:32 pm

YellowKing wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:04 pm I think Michelle Obama could beat him. Handily.

I can already see all republican head explode if she's ever elected president.
I'd sure love to see her try, she'd do great.

While I agree, I'm a little tired of seeing the same tiny group of people at the top of our political food chain. I think the rules should be amended so once someone from a family makes it to President, that family can't hold a top office again for another 50 years. It feels too much like a sideways monarchy when it's the father, then the son - then the husband and his wife tries for it - then maybe the father and his daughter (Ivanka, please by the gods, no)...

I don't worry much about this (especially as I feel like America lost a great future when RFK was murdered).

We don't have a dynasty problem; we have a celebrity problem. Another Kennedy might be excellent or mediocre, but President Kardashian will be a disaster.

Holman wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:31 am

Paingod wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:13 am

Vorret wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:32 pm

YellowKing wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:04 pm I think Michelle Obama could beat him. Handily.

I can already see all republican head explode if she's ever elected president.
I'd sure love to see her try, she'd do great.

While I agree, I'm a little tired of seeing the same tiny group of people at the top of our political food chain. I think the rules should be amended so once someone from a family makes it to President, that family can't hold a top office again for another 50 years. It feels too much like a sideways monarchy when it's the father, then the son - then the husband and his wife tries for it - then maybe the father and his daughter (Ivanka, please by the gods, no)...

I don't worry much about this (especially as I feel like America lost a great future when RFK was murdered).

We don't have a dynasty problem; we have a celebrity problem. Another Kennedy might be excellent or mediocre, but President Kardashian will be a disaster.

Pffft. I'll give this to Trump, he has made me less afraid of that happening simply due to be unable to see one of them doing worse than he has. They may be annoying idiots but I don't foresee them actively pandering to hate groups.

Holman wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:31 am
We don't have a dynasty problem; we have a celebrity problem. Another Kennedy might be excellent or mediocre, but President Kardashian will be a disaster.

This.

And I will say that while I think she would be a lot better candidate than other celebrities, I would consider Michelle Obama part of that celebrity culture, too.

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:12 am

Holman wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:31 am
We don't have a dynasty problem; we have a celebrity problem. Another Kennedy might be excellent or mediocre, but President Kardashian will be a disaster.

This.

And I will say that while I think she would be a lot better candidate than other celebrities, I would consider Michelle Obama part of that celebrity culture, too.

WTF. 'Splain yourself please.

Being famous because you are/were the wife of a two term president is not the same as being famous for being a reality show star, or socialite IMO. I'm probably misunderstanding your intent though.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:06 am

Defiant wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:12 am

Holman wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:31 am
We don't have a dynasty problem; we have a celebrity problem. Another Kennedy might be excellent or mediocre, but President Kardashian will be a disaster.

This.

And I will say that while I think she would be a lot better candidate than other celebrities, I would consider Michelle Obama part of that celebrity culture, too.

WTF. 'Splain yourself please.

Being famous because you are/were the wife of a two term president is not the same as being famous for being a reality show star, or socialite IMO. I'm probably misunderstanding your intent though.

I think his point is people would be voting for her because of who she is rather anything she has done (or heck, even knowing her position on anything).

Michelle Obama seems very smart and capable, but I don't want people to go straight to the presidency without any personal testing or experience in an elected government role. If she wanted to run for the House or Senate (or I guess for a governorship) - maybe, and then go from there. Obviously I'd vote for her over Trump, but I don't see much reason to pick her over half a dozen or so likely Democratic presidential candidates.

stessier wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:13 am
I think his point is people would be voting for her because of who she is rather anything she has done (or heck, even knowing her position on anything).

This. While there's more to her background than just who she is (eg, her education and her career), to me that isn't nearly enough to qualify her for President. Clinton, by comparison, was a lot more involved in government during her time as first lady, and she still spent eight years as a Senator before running for the Presidency. (Of course, I say this as someone who thought, and still thinks, that Obama could have used a few more years of experience before becoming president)

Defiant wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:11 pm

stessier wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:13 am
I think his point is people would be voting for her because of who she is rather anything she has done (or heck, even knowing her position on anything).

This. While there's more to her background than just who she is (eg, her education and her career), to me that isn't nearly enough to qualify her for President. Clinton, by comparison, was a lot more involved in government during her time as first lady, and she still spent eight years as a Senator before running for the Presidency. (Of course, I say this as someone who thought, and still thinks, that Obama could have used a few more years of experience before becoming president)

Got it, understood.

Woo hoo! The 2020 race has officially started!

Let's get going! Give me some polls to fret about!

I just got push polled about the 2020 election by TPC Research. It was amusing.

Jeff V wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:28 pm ... What we learned from both Barack and Trump's first two years is that when you have absolute control, use it. Obama squandered his opportunity trying to work with both parties. The donkey party ought not make that mistake again.

This, this, this, a million times this. While I admired Obama's bipartisan approach at the time, the GOP wall of disinformation will discredit any attempts at bipartisanship anyway, so we may as well just ram through as much legislation as we can, assuming we regain control of the Government in 2020 (which I think we will).

My greatest fear is that the party will waste too much time on things like immigration and global warming instead of doing things that might actually create more Democrats: Raising the minimum wage, strengthening everyone's access to quality healthcare, legalizing marijuana, fighting back against voter suppression, etc. etc. etc....

Apollo wrote: Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:34 pm
My greatest fear is that the party will waste too much time on things like immigration and global warming instead of doing things that might actually create more Democrats: Raising the minimum wage, strengthening everyone's access to quality healthcare, legalizing marijuana, fighting back against voter suppression, etc. etc. etc....

I'd argue that global warming is more important to the Democrats' long-term goals than anything else on that list. Mostly because if we ignore it, there may not be a long-term.

Blackhawk wrote:

Apollo wrote: Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:34 pm
My greatest fear is that the party will waste too much time on things like immigration and global warming instead of doing things that might actually create more Democrats: Raising the minimum wage, strengthening everyone's access to quality healthcare, legalizing marijuana, fighting back against voter suppression, etc. etc. etc....

I'd argue that global warming is more important to the Democrats' long-term goals than anything else on that list. Mostly because if we ignore it, there may not be a long-term.

Yeah, wasting time on AGW is not a thing. Of course, you could make the argument that it's possible to spend time poorly on things unable to pass.

Zaxxon wrote: Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:04 pm

Blackhawk wrote:

Apollo wrote: Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:34 pm
My greatest fear is that the party will waste too much time on things like immigration and global warming instead of doing things that might actually create more Democrats: Raising the minimum wage, strengthening everyone's access to quality healthcare, legalizing marijuana, fighting back against voter suppression, etc. etc. etc....

I'd argue that global warming is more important to the Democrats' long-term goals than anything else on that list. Mostly because if we ignore it, there may not be a long-term.

Yeah, wasting time on AGW is not a thing. Of course, you could make the argument that it's possible to spend time poorly on things unable to pass.

The scientific consensus is that the world has 12 years to mount an unprecedented effort to phase out fossil fuels and stave off climate disaster. The US has spent the last 2 years doing the exact opposite, and will tread water at best for the next 2. If the Democrats do sweep in 2020 -- which I consider a very big if -- they'll be down to 10 years left, and the Republicans will still fight it with everything they've got. So while it is arguably the most important issue of our day, and while the American people recognize the urgency, it is also most likely a lost cause. That doesn't mean that we should give up, but whatever we can do will be too little, too late, unless global warming moves up everybody's priority list dramatically between now and then. It's hard to fire people up about a slow-motion apocalypse when we face so many lesser, but more-acute, disasters at the same time.

Apollo wrote: Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:34 pm
My greatest fear is that the party will waste too much time on things like immigration and global warming instead of doing things that might actually create more Democrats: Raising the minimum wage, strengthening everyone's access to quality healthcare, legalizing marijuana, fighting back against voter suppression, etc. etc. etc....

Voter suppression is certain to be a priority. I would also think that increased immigration and naturalization would help create more Democrats.

As to raising the minimum wage, healthcare and legalizing marijuana, not sure that that would necessarily create more Democrats (if anything, I seem to remember reading an article that said that if a country is more economically left-wing, it tends to increase the number of people on the right - along the lines of "I'm more economically secure now, I got mine, I don't need to worry about all these other stuff people on the left care about")

Since LBJ, the Democrats have only managed to control the government for usually 2 or at most 4 years before everything blows up in their face. The #1 reason for this, IMHO, is that they waste all their political capital pursuing unpopular policies that don't appeal to, nor provide a direct benefit to, the majority. While it is certainly important to take action on things like climate change, the party's public FOCUS should be on things that give a direct benefit to the greatest number of voters.

The Democrats also need to learn how to sell their policies to the general public. While they don't want to surrender their souls to Populist ideologies as the GOP has, they still need to be able to speak directly to white working class voters. FDR and LBJ understood this, but the modern day Dems don't seem to have a clue.

The party desperately needs some new leadership, a younger generation that knows how to speak to voters. Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein, just to name a few, are exactly the sort of people you want working behind the scenes crafting legislation and twisting the arms necessary to get bills passed. But they are definitely NOT the people who need to be the leaders or spokesmen of the party. All three have committed unforced blunders in recent months that shows clearly that policy, not political strategy, is their strong suit.

Ultimately, the Democrats need a little style to go with their substance, IMHO. After all, if they get thrown out of power every time they manage to get anything passed, they can't do ANYTHING about global warming!