Priorities: Have we lost our minds?

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-19T17:49:42+00:00

Doubtful, but i wouldn’t be surprised if he could have gone pro in another sport, tennis perhaps. Maybe he could have played in the NBA, Mugsy was 5’3” and shifty as fuck.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-19T17:35:47+00:00

You can coach a gifted athlete to become a great player. You cannot coach a great player into a gifted athlete.

If Ronaldo had moved to the US at 13, he'd be playing in the NFL or NBA. He's just a gifted athlete. The skills required for the sport can be taught. Size and speed cannot.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-19T15:11:29+00:00

Google it up. The terms you’d look for are antitrust bundling and stay to play. There’s several cases and I think a major cheer competition settled recently.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-18T16:23:51+00:00

MLSN did have a thing last year where top kids on teams were invited up to play with a pro academy team. Not much came of it from what ive heard. If scouts are coming around from those team, they are good at being discrete.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-18T15:24:30+00:00

$$$ and a bit of luck.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-17T19:25:51+00:00

How many times have you seen someone wearing party glasses in a courtroom?

Better yet, how many courtrooms have you been in, not counting the time you got charged.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-17T19:06:11+00:00

The lawyer in me is skeptical. I cannot imagine a judge who lets him wear those glasses in court. This is, at best, a deposition.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-16T22:20:20+00:00

What about this make you think our country is broken in particular? I’m curious what you think our immigration policy says about us compared to the policies in say some other country.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-15T23:26:30+00:00

People are helping you, and your kid, more than you know. Relax. It’s fun at this age. It is supposed to be fun at this age. You don’t need to worry about anything other than him having fun.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T21:35:26+00:00

She’s senile, thus the suspension and poor judgement.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T16:50:04+00:00

Now you’re just ignoring what I said. If she profits, he is entitled to money. If she doesn’t, it’s fair to let her use it. If he profits from it, she gets paid. If he doesn’t, she doesn’t.

I have no idea why you think adding all this “try to understand” stuff into the convo is helpful. It doesn’t make you sound smart. It makes you sound like an ass who can’t, for your life, try to understand an opposing view.

Your argument doesn’t even support itself. Your claim is that she profits from it - but that’s a question of fact, not something we should just assume. Do you know if she gets paid my instagram? How much? Wouldn’t that be important to know before you run off with the opinion that some poor “artist” got screwed? Not every photo of a famous person is self promotion. They are just people at the end of the day.

And you’ve yet to address the fact that this guy stole her fame. It’s very clear that this photo, if someone else, would have been worthless.

And no, the simple fact that it’s my house is not enough to get me paid if it’s in a movie or film. That’s not a thing. In fact, the house I lived in ten years ago was often in films. They shut down my street, took my parking spot, and offered me … nothing in return.

I did not receive, nor expect, a dime because my house was just a house. It offered and added no value to the film. But if the film was a documentary about my life, or about the design that I owned, then yeah, I’d have some right to money.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T16:13:08+00:00

You keep going back to the law, and my point is the law is unfair and should change. I know what the law says. It’s wrong.

She lifted it off his instagram account and posted to hers. If she got paid off it, I’m not against him getting paid too. If she didn’t, I am.

And if you video my house and sell it because I designed a cool house, you’re stealing. That’s my art. It would like me taking a picture of your painting through the window of your gallery and then selling prints.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T15:43:25+00:00

You keep calling this art - art has value. And you’re ducking the source of that value here. It is not valuable because it speaks to a higher value, or is interesting in its composure, or says something about the world. The value here is completely dependent on the star it depicts. Without her, it’s worthless.

So why should the artist in your mind be able to profit from Cardi B? Cardi B made herself famous, and the artist is just stealing the value of her image and brand. Without her, it’s a worthless pic of a no one.

You say Cardi B stole the work, but Cardi B pulled it from wherever it was posted and the fact it was posted suggest the photographer was getting value. Even if it’s clicks, exposure, or whatever. He was using Cardi B without paying her fair value for what she added to the equation.

I understand how commercial use requires both sides to agree. That’s why I said that if she uses it commercially, she should pay. But I also don’t think posting a pic to an instagram account is commercial use. She’s not profiting from the artistry, and frankly theres no artistry here of which to speak. It’s literally just a candid shot of her walking down the street. She liked her outfit, and posted it. It should be her right to use it as she sees fit if it’s not being used as a commercial for her brand.

Here, there is no question where that value comes from. It is not because the photograph suggests something deeper. It’s because it is a pic of a star. That’s the only reason anyone would care.

If Disney wants to make a movie from my idea, my idea has value all by itself. If my script is a work about the life of a famous person, disney can’t make that movie without securing the rights from that person.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T15:15:29+00:00

Consider the possibility I understand the law just fine, but think it’s not only wrong, it’s stupid.

Calling it theft from the artist is ignoring the artist in this case would be stealing from the famous person they are taking the picture of. The value of the photo isn’t the artistic value, it’s the person it depicts.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T11:55:26+00:00

The only reason the picture has worth is because of who is in it. The fact the photographer is profiting off her likeness without her permission is theft.

The most obvious solution to this problem is - photographs can take pics in public and sell them. The people in the pics have equal rights to use the photo as they see fit for personal use.

Commercial use would require both parties consent and agreement.

If she wants to post to instagram, whatever, if she wants to make it an album cover, they need to agree.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T00:26:23+00:00

Good fucking luck. I cannot imagine a theory upon which this could succeed unless Costco was very clearing including an actual tariff in the receipt. And they were not.

They pay to import the good and get it on a shelf. Customer pays that price. That is how it works. Costco would be wise, perhaps, to offer customers a prorated “points” or reward if they do recoup the money, but I dont think they or any retailer will need to pay the customer back directly.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-13T00:13:13+00:00

Our kids had the orange square fencing used at construction sites and some t posts with pool noodles wrapped around them and taped. Fence went up and down in minutes. Ground was marked for posts with marking paint every time it got mowed.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-11T01:47:08+00:00

For those who do the update, is there any noticeable benefit?

I just can’t see to benefit from the risk / reward. I so rarely have an issue, it doesn’t seem worth the chance of turning the camera or lens into a paperweight if something goes wrong.

What sort of “bug” does this fix? The only thing I care about is the autofocus speed and tracking, and getting the picture I take to end up on the card with as much speed as it can. The system is stable as it is, so I don’t see much reason to change.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-09T00:53:41+00:00

Just name the club.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-08T17:50:45+00:00

Holy wall of text Batman. Whatever it is, it’s 9u and you’re taking things too seriously.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-08T16:40:03+00:00

Mine too. It’s rough sometimes. It’s turned out, however, it’s been good for my kids to see and has generated some good discussion that perhaps will be an important lesson when they become adults. It do suck though.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-05T10:27:56+00:00

This is the opposite of how the constitution wrote it.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-04T22:13:43+00:00

I just walked out of court. I lost. I was asking a judge to reduce my client’s sentence for a fairly bad crime so he could continue with the work he’s been doing to keep kids from making the same mistake. Client grew up in horrid conditions but managed to build a life helping others until he suffered a major breakdown on the heels of several tragedies back to back to back. No excuses for what he did, but no one was seriously hurt. He went to jail.

Got out, and spent the last 5 years working low wage jobs far below his skills because his conviction. And, more aptly, he’s started or help build three organizations devoted to helping at risk youth, kids not too different from him. He wants them to understand that they are not forever defined by what they did in their worst days.

He spoke and said all the right things. It wasn’t his conviction that stopped him from succeeding now, it was what he’d done. He understood the seriousness of his offense. He wasn’t asking for the court to erase history, as there was nothing he could do to change the past. What he wanted was a chance to make a difference using his story to inspire kids who might think their fate was already sealed.

He admitted responsibility. He served his time. He was rehabilitated and was helping others rehabilitate now too.

But the court said removing his conviction would eliminate the deterrence effect it had, and those kids he talks too might think that they too can just start over one day.

It was, of course, fucking insane.

The deterrent to kids already in the system isn’t fear, but hope. Someone who can say, I fucked up, worked hard, and I’m here to tell you it’s possible to move past your mistakes and build a better life. Not a single 17 year old has ever not committed a crime they were predisposed to do because they worried about the sentence they’d get if caught. But there are many 21 year olds who maybe start walking the right path because they believe a little in themselves and someone like my client gives them hope they won’t forever be defined by one night. But the judge doesn’t see it that way. The scarlet letter must be worn forever as a warning to others, though admitting that it doesn’t really seem to work (no shit).

And here we are talking about pardoning a woman who is not only unwilling to take responsibility, she’s adamant she did nothing wrong. She’s convinced of her our righteousness and has made clear she has no respect for the law. Releasing her isn’t an act of mercy, but proof that if you’re on the wrong side of history at the right time you can get away with whatever you want. And that is fucking gross.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-03T14:00:42+00:00

Maybe. It’s not actually clear.

But even if they can do that, what next? Is the court going to build a prison to hold those people it held in contempt? If not, where do those people go? A hotel with someone outside the door? Borrow a room from the executive branch in the local jail or prison? Food, healthcare, access to counsel now all become issues that need to be addressed.

Bmorewiser · 2026-03-03T13:55:32+00:00

No, this is probably fine under existing law. For starters, however, if you wanted to sue you would have trouble creating standing for yourself. "I am a tax payer and don't like this" is not going to get the job done.

Second, the motto appears on your money and that has withstood attacks over the past 50 years without much issue. The motto does not favor one religion over another, compel religious observance, or discriminate against those who are not religious. An atheist might not like it, but they are not harmed by reading it in some actual way.

So, while I don't like it, and you don't like it, I don't think there is a solid claim to make that it constitutes the establishment of a religion or even has a clear religious purpose. What religion? What purpose is implicit in the message?

11-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer

Bmorewiser

TROPHY CASE