Righting On The Wall

Original Air Date: July 14, 1949

Ronald Reagan on Socialism & Liberalism

ROTW Contributor: Angela Durden

The Killers and the Undertakers

ROTW Contributor: Angela Durden

Daniel Ek is quoted in an article which begins with the Grammy president being made fun of — and accused of just about ranting — as Neil Portnow rightly repeats himself by asking, “Isn’t a song worth more than a penny?” Someone thought it would be cool to ask the CEO of Spotify what he thinks of the matter. I shall break down Mr. Ek’s answer.

Point #1: Daniel Ek, CEO and co-founder of Spotify, is the leading music streaming service in the world right now with nearly 30 million paying subscribers. Breakdown: Awesome. Love it when a business can make money. However…how many free listeners do you have, and are you paying those licensing fees? Hmmmm?

Point #2: Daniel Ek is asked: How do you respond to some artists’ claims that music streaming services are harmful to the industry? Ek answers: “Look, we pay the great majority of our revenue back to the music indsutry [sic]. And as we grow, that revenue is really making a difference.” Breakdown: “Music industry” is a generic term, Mr. Ek. So if by music industry you mean the Warner’s and the Sony’s and the CD Baby’s and the TuneCore’s and the massively under-performing performing rights organizations, then yeah…you’ve made a correct statement. However…profit at whose expense?

Point #3: Mr. Ek states, “Many people don’t realize that the music industry was in decline throughout all the download years…. Now, finally, after years and years of decline, music is growing again, streaming is behind the growth in music, and Spotify is behind the growth in streaming.” Breakdown: Mr. Ek, you’ve grown the customer base for your service. Your service delivers ears that pay to listen through a proprietary delivery system. Which system you and others have managed to convince everyone that this is the only way to get music. Not that there’s anything wrong with innovation or claiming market share. However…downloading or streaming, theft is still occuring; and it’s not the music business that is growing, and it certainly is not being serviced to good health.

Point #4A: “We are all in this together,” Mr. Ek replied to Quora. Mr. Ek insists that Spotify is “committed” to the success of songwriters and producers. Breakdown: Mr. Ek, to that I call bull. All that your service and others like yours have managed to do for those songwriters and producers — you claim to be committed to — is separate them from their fan base and their money stream. However…is that completely your fault?

Point #4B: “We are all in this together,” Mr. Ek replied. Breakdown: No. The songwriter and the artist have dropped the ball and ceased to aggressively protect and defend their rights to their own product. The reasons for that are varied, but the result is the same. So, is it any wonder that you are using what they have pretty much given away? However…while the digital aggregators and major labels act in the role of murderers of copyright protections and careers, companies such as yours act in the role of complicit undertaker who wants profit so bad he’s going to encourage business brought to his door as the gangs take over the streets.

So when the death rate exceeds population growth, where will you get the business then? So, Spotify et al, y’all just go right on ahead and make your fortunes on the backs of the new slave class. And y’all just go right on ahead and set up your fiefdoms and have your little serfs pick that cotton for you and spin it into gold. And y’all just proceed to send the songwriters down into the mines to put out that next big sparkly hit.

But remember this — and you cannot say you’ve not been told — the revolution has started and this is the last hurrah for the killers and the undertakers. Because the slaves and the serfs are walking off the farms and out of the mines. The big multi-nationals — top-heavy with executives who send out for their coffee — are soon not going to be able to afford a coffee pot to spit in.

Happy Birthday - George Harrison

George would have turned 73 yrs old today.

I once read Frank Sinatra said Harrison's "Something" is the best love song ever written.

Trump Vs. Rubio - Hope Vs. Change

by Kim D.

In a campaign year where immigration and safety issues are paramount, Trump is capturing the larger share of the Republican primary vote thus far. From his Reagan copycat of "Make America Great Again" to his anti-PC rhetoric that oftentimes brinks on the verge of the outrageous and profane, Trump is the candidate of those who are uber pissed about do-nothing Washington politics and the lead players. However, Trump is not Reagan-like and as a reminder, should you dare to compare the difference, watch this clip of how a true statesman speaks.

To many of his supporters, the surge of the Trump train is about revenge, not about actual policy. Many are willing to turn a blind eye to the flipflopping and obvious untruths of the front runner in the hopes that Trump will do the things he promises on the stump. In doing so, Trump supporters are relying on "hope" and not vetting his entire record, just as the Democrat party did in the 2007 primary where Barack Obama was concerned. Tapping into the average Joe's anger and coupling rhetoric with celebrity is working well for Donald. The question all should be really asking is if Trump becomes the Republican nominee, will he be able to beat Hillary Clinton, the favored to win the Democratic nod for the 2016 presidential race. With Trump's general election, super high negatives, it is a huge gamble to take.

What Trump supporters don't want to admit is that Ted Cruz is the ultimate middle finger to establishment politics and the ruling class known as the Washington cartel. He hasn't wavered on his principles and is the only one who has proven he will do what he says he will do. For this reason, Trump and Rubio both bash him and label him as a sick liar. Those who are unwilling to take the time to vet the word salads thrown at Cruz on a daily basis simply believe the narrative and this, so far, has been a successful Trump/Rubio strategy.

So, that leaves us with "change" - Rubio. There is not much hope with Marco - put aside that he is the establishment's last great hope. For the majority of pissed right wingers, clinging to their Bibles and guns, Rubio isn't the answer.

For the last presidential election, the establishment convinced the majority that only Mitt Romney could take on and beat Barack Obama. In a year where we were seething over the passage and implementation of Obamacare, the Republican party nominated the one person who had previously supported a healthcare mandate which wasn't too bright and the result was that millions of conservatives stayed home and handed Obama the reelection.

Will the more right-minded fall for this trick again? In a year where immigration issues top the list, will the majority vote for the one guy who would ensure amnesty? Rubio can screech Ted Cruz is a liar but his record is clear. A vote for Rubio would be one for clear change - amnesty. To better understand Rubio's record on immigration, John Fonte has explained it quite well:

The senators who wrote the legislation — the famous Gang of Eight — intended to expand the pool of cheap foreign labor for favored big businesses: Harry Reid for Las Vegas’s gambling business; Marco Rubio for Florida’s cruise-ship industry; Michael Bennet for Colorado’s ski industry. Apparently the Gang of Eight agreed that “ski instructor” is a job Americans are reluctant to perform, and thus more foreign workers are needed.

The primary role of Senator Rubio in the Gang of Eight was not in crafting the legislation but in selling the bill to conservatives. For a time, Rubio’s salesmanship appeared to be working, and there was not much conservative opposition to S-744. But then the details of the Gang of Eight’s work began to be scrutinized, and Rubio faced pushback from the Right.

For example, on June 26, 2013, Senator Ted Cruz told radio host Mark Levin that because of S-744’s thousand waivers, the Obama administration could “ignore vast portions” of the bill. Cruz told Levin that the bill “weakens existing law and border security, it weakens the fence provisions, it weakens biometric control, it weakens operational control. . . . It puts legalization first, and it promises border security in the future.” Indeed, on June 10, 2013, Rubio had told the Spanish-language Univision television network: “First comes legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border.”

A vote for Donald Trump would be one of "hope" that he would erect the border wall and deport millions of illegals sponging off of a taxpayer-funded welfare system. A vote for Rubio would seal the deal and bring true change to immigration policy - aka amnesty.

Which leads to one final thought - is there time yet for the true great awakening and the realization that "hope and change" will never solve America's fundamental problems? Translation - only a vote for Cruz will reverse Obama's fundamental screw-over job of this country.

Mitt Romney commenting on what preezy candidates...

are doing right/wrong in campaigns is as welcome and insightful as a Pee Wee Herman dissertation on the proper etiquette that should be followed while masturbating in a darkened theater.

Ted Cruz on the Kelly File Town Hall in Houston, Texas

Obama wants to be Raul Castro's new BFF

By Mouser the King Cat

Hey, let bygones be bygones. Raul Castro and Barack Obama want to be pals. Obama plans to drop by March 21-22.

Obama has acknowledged that as the countries move closer there may be “very serious differences” over issues like free speech. (He said that with a straight face. We all know he and Castro 100% agree that no criticism should go unpunished.)

The trade embargo thing is stickier, because all American property was seized after the Cuban revolution, everything from sugar factories to oil refineries. Thousands of claims were filed, totaling about $1.8 billion.

Leon Neyfakh of The Boston Globe examined the substantial legal hurdles to improving relations more than a year ago, interviewing many learned people. The money quote is from Julia Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations:

“There is a scenario that I see, which is bit by bit the fundamentals of the embargo are chiseled away by executive order, by the economic and family ties linking Cuba and the United States, and by non-enforcement.”

In other words, the claimants can join the General Motors bondholders in getting screwed, probably between the 2016 election and Jan. 20, 2017.

On one thing, these two new BFFs agree: Rule of law? We don’t need no stinkin’ rule of law.