A little bit of this, a little dash of that …

One of my favorite new artists in recent years has been Rhiannon Giddens, who first came to public attention as a member of the Carolina Chocolate Drops. Her Drops co-founder, the multi-talented Don Flemons, has since left the band and Giddens is pursuing a solo career as well. (She comes to Atlanta on April 3.)

Earlier this month, Giddens released a new solo album produced by T Bone Burnett, but I can’t find any cuts from that album on Youtube yet. The performance below can’t be described as typical of Giddens’ work, except in the sense that it illustrates just how far-reaching and eclectic the work of this operatically trained, banjo-playing musician can be.

Have a great weekend!

 

Reader Comments 0

899 comments
Bruno2
Bruno2

 Tuna: Respectfully, Bruno, given your insurance-as-mooching rhetoric, I don’t believe you for a moment.

Tuna--For someone who complains that others are putting words in your mouth, you sure are comfortable putting some ugly words in my mouth that I never said.  Purchasing insurance isn't mooching, particularly when someone with no pre-existing conditions buys in.  However, NOT purchasing insurance isn't mooching either, which is what I have been accused of, and what my statement was in response to.

Here’s the thing.  Health is a gamble.  You never know how or when something catastrophic might befall you – yet insurers try to insulate *themselves* from catastrophic loss by cutting their losses when a *client* suffers catastrophic loss.  So who’s really taking the risk when insurers can drop you?  Certainly not the insurers.

The bottom line is that health insurance policies are legal contracts, no more and no less.  And like all other contracts,  they contain specific terms to which both the insurer and the policyholder are bound.  Without policy limits, it's impossible to accurately calculate the premiums necessary to pay the claims and stay financially stable.  That's not to say that "no cap" policies shouldn't be offered, it just doesn't make sense to complain about a previous policy containing a cap someone purchased knowing the terms going in.

If you wish to continue a discussion about the fairest, most economical way to fund health care, I'm open, but you have to understand that I do so from a dispassionate standpoint, since I'm a non-user of medical care.  I want the best for my fellow citizens, as I've stated, but I don't think I should be impoverished because others are being irresponsible either.

The bottom line is that health care costs waaaaay too much in this country for a variety of reasons, from "defensive medicine" to a lot of unnecessary clerical costs associated with third-party billing.  But, the #1 reason for the ridiculous costs is a pervasive unhealthiness in our population which is not due to any true "misfortune", as your statement about health being a "gamble" implies. For every person like you who is simply unlucky genetically, there are 5 or more whose health problems are 100% due to an unhealthy lifestyle.  If you detect any attitude no my part, that's the reason.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Bruno2 "Tuna--For someone who complains that others are putting words in your mouth, you sure are comfortable putting some ugly words in my mouth that I never said."


Rejected.  You've made your opinion quite clear on this point; sick people such as myself who consume more than their 'fair share' of health care dollars deserve to have taxpayers examine and vet their medical expenses.  Did you or did you not make that assertion in your post last week?


Protip: yes, you did, and yes, I've got a response for that, too.


"Without policy limits, it's impossible to accurately calculate the premiums necessary to pay the claims and stay financially stable."


Then don't call it insurance, because that's not what it is.  And I appreciate your implicit acknowledgement that the playing field is tilted decidedly in favor of the insurers, who have previously been able to simply drop clients who were costing more than their 'fair share.'


"but I don't think I should be impoverished because others are being irresponsible either."


GFY, Bruno.  I was not irresponsible with my health and am not *being* responsible for my health, yet you clearly would have no problem with me being impoverished as a result of it.


"But, the #1 reason for the ridiculous costs is a pervasive unhealthiness in our population which is not due to any true "misfortune", as your statement about health being a "gamble" implies. For every person like you who is simply unlucky genetically, there are 5 or more whose health problems are 100% due to an unhealthy lifestyle.  If you detect any attitude no my part, that's the reason."


I see.  So because you see a lot of people who suffer poor health because of their own poor choices, I get lumped into the Irresponsibility Brigade because of your own prejudices.  Lovely.



Bruno2
Bruno2

@Tuna Meowt @Bruno2 Tuna, you're still putting a lot of words in my mouth.  Where have I said that you, or anyone, should become impoverished due to medical bills??  I'm all for fairness in the system.  Certainly I could become sick one day myself or a family member.  Why would I support bankruptcy for anyone??

At the same time, now that health care is officially a "shared expense", why shouldn't the public have some say-so as to how the financing is handled??  Quite honestly, it's been the "carte-blanche" approach to health care that has gotten us into this financial pickle in the first place.

I'm sorry that you are leaving this discussion with a false understanding of my view, but there is nothing in my post that supports your over-the-top interpretation.  I'm as compassionate as the next guy, but I express my compassion through support for plans that are fair for everyone involved.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Bruno2 @Tuna Meowt "Tuna, you're still putting a lot of words in my mouth."


Then I think you need to expend a greater amount of effort to clarify your position, because IMO you have said some absolutely horrible things in advancing your argument.  Here's one:


“Prior to Obamacare, it was considered an individual expense (rightly or wrongly), which is why I preferred to stay on my own. When I'm eating rice and kimchee, I don't like paying for my neighbor's lobster and caviar.”


So I'm living high on lobster and caviar, am I?  Quite frankly, I don't think you draw a great a distinction between people whose poor health can be traced back to poor decisions on their part and people like me, who simply drew a lousy genetic hand.


"Where have I said that you, or anyone, should become impoverished due to medical bills??"


See above, Captain Caviar.


"I'm all for fairness in the system."


What *you* think is fair and what *I* think is fair are probably miles and miles apart in this regard.


"Certainly I could become sick one day myself or a family member.  Why would I support bankruptcy for anyone??"


Indeed.  Why *would* you?  That begs the question of why you're making up this ludicrous lobster-and-caviar construction.


"At the same time, now that health care is officially a "shared expense", why shouldn't the public have some say-so as to how the financing is handled??"


Nope, nope, nope.  Not what you said last week.  Here's what you actually said, and my response:


“Having said that, I think it's more than valid for me to question how those bills are to be paid if it is my money on the line.”


Respectfully, no, it’s not.  More of *my* money than *yours* goes to paying my medical costs.  Even if my healthcare is subsidized, I’m still paying more for it than any other individual taxpayer.  The only entity that *might* have a credible claim under your scenario would be my employer (since they pay a significant portion of my premiums), and, in fact, they *do* have knowledge about my claims via their Experience Rating from my insurer.  You might have a point when it comes to how the money for the overall *program* is being spent, but you have no right whatsoever to know the first thing about anyone else’s medical costs and expenses.


"Quite honestly, it's been the "carte-blanche" approach to health care that has gotten us into this financial pickle in the first place."


Which is hardly the fault of the INSURED, now is it?


"I'm sorry that you are leaving this discussion with a false understanding of my view, but there is nothing in my post that supports your over-the-top interpretation."


Maybe you didn't *mean* to put it in there, but I assure you, I'm having no trouble whatsoever *finding* it in there.


"I'm as compassionate as the next guy, but I express my compassion through support for plans that are fair for everyone involved."


And being a person who doesn't carry insurance and who isn't suffering from a chronic, incurable and debilitating disease, you're qualified to speak to what's fair for me how, exactly?


Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Yes_Jesus_Can @Tuna Meowt "Then JamVet and all other leftists would do well to LEARN something about science, what it is, what it is NOT, what it's for and why we learn it. "


Then perhaps you would do the same.


I grew up with a college professor of Microbiology in the house.  At the same time other kids were learning to ride bicycles, I was learning how to operate an analytical scale, a fume hood and an autoclave.  How about you?


I think your criticism of "all other leftists" is just as inaccurate and as ill-tempered as the responses you decry from JamVet.  Maybe you should try being a little more christlike if you want to be listened to and taken seriously.


(reposted from below, as I'd really appreciate a considered response from YJC)


YouLibs
YouLibs

Who are you going to believe? Petroleum industry think tanks or those idiot rocket scientists over there at NASA?

straker
straker

Jam


It helps to know that fundamentalists like Yes Jesus have no interest in real science or the scientific method.


To them, scripture tops science and blind faith is all that really matters.


This makes them immune to any actual reason, science and logic.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@straker So what's your "explanation" for someone like me, who isn't religious in any way, shape or fashion, but who similarly objects to AGW, Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but strictly on Scientific grounds??

kayaker71
kayaker71

Our universe is so vast and so much is unknown about our origins that I find it very difficult to even have an opinion about it.  We are a long way from having solid answers and all of the ones debating this issue now will be long gone before any solid conclusions are made, if they ever are.  But it makes for a lot of cannon fodder on a Monday morning. 

JamVet
JamVet

YJC, how old is the earth?

kayaker71
kayaker71

There is little doubt that some kind of climate change is taking place.  To label it man made is jumping to conclusions that are not yet proven.  And because so much money and political capital is being spent on these predictions, there is a need to be much more specific about what is happening.  To some idiot like Al Bore, who comes up with the strangest predictions, you have to wonder about his motives.  If he is going to be the front man in this controversy, he has to be more credible. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

@kayaker71 Again, what frustrates me is this "All or Nothing" framework some of these Dimwit Libs live in.  They equate any valid objection to AGW as an attack on Science itself or some other BS.  I'm particularly laughing at some of the dimbulbs who are claiming I just don't know enough about Science, when their own lack of knowledge prevents them from even understanding what I'm objecting to.

JamVet
JamVet

@kayaker71 

He is not the front man to this theory, any more than you are to the theory of the opposing camp.

Forget about Gore and start reading the published works of the scientists themselves.

They is a plethora of them in prestigious, highly respected publications such as National Geographic, Scientific American and countless other scholarly articles elsewhere.

The decide if they are full of shat and Rush and Rick Perry aren't...

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

What is the benefit of the non-empirical (or otherwise) evidence of evolution? How does it inform us? How does it help us to create or engineer things and keep us healthier, more prosperous or more productive or more educated? How is a child ignorant if he considers creation myths of the Bible (or elsewhere) and informed if he doesn't? What is the utility of evolution?

These were the questions JamVet avoided (others are below in previous posts).

I asked these because it came up in discussion of "science", but "empirical" evidence as JamVet himself regurgitated moments ago, is one key of science as well as analysis, but we see in all other branches of what we call scientific knowledge a certain utility to advancement that we don't see in Darwin's branch. When we research a new link in the evolutionary chain there is no result to it, no outcome other than, "Oh, that's interesting." If you face the fact of how Darwin is used, 99.9% of the time his name is invoked to begin a political discussion, and I hasten to point out the horrible results of those discussions, which occured not only in the wars of the 20th century, but even moreso in its peacetime activities. The regimes under German, Soviet, Chinese, Cambodian, N. Korean, Jim Crow and South African "nations" may not all have been reinforced by Karl Marx's thinking, but clearly, they all channeled Darwin to enforce their hubristic nationalism.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Yes_Jesus_Can "How is a child ignorant if he considers creation myths of the Bible (or elsewhere) and informed if he doesn't? What is the utility of evolution?"


What's the utility of your creation myth?

JamVet
JamVet

@Yes_Jesus_Can 

How does natural selection, as discovered by Darwin and others, keep us healthier?

Wow.

You truly know nothing at all about the theory, do you?

I'd suggest you read The Origin of Species and ask the question again after having read about encephalization.

(I'll let you borrow my copy...)

dbm1
dbm1

@Yes_Jesus_Can

If a truth is misused, or it's hard to see how to use it, that is not relevant to whether it is true.


Again, if you really want an answer, why not ask a biologist?


Part of the answer is that understanding evolution is crucially necessary in order to understand biology in general.  Another part is that the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is an example of evolution that we badly need to understand. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Yes_Jesus_Can It doesn't have to be an either/or, YJC.  I fully agree that evolution is basically a general, non-empirical observation, and has zero utility as a "Scientific Theory".  But, that doesn't leave Creationism as the only other possibility.  I prefer honesty: We really don't know.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@JamVet @Yes_Jesus_Can 

If you can't explain it, JamVet, then I'll keep my copy closed, thank you.  I've already asked you twice to illuminate me/us, but saying "pick this up and read it," ain't explaining, and it sure as heck isn't science. 

I wouldn't have asked you such a question unless I was sure you couldn't answer it in words, and boy was I right.  It's as if I said, "don't believe creation?  Pick up the Bible!"--which I wouldn't do to you, by the way. 

Your argument is in shambles. 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@dbm1 @Yes_Jesus_Can 

Wrong entirely. 

Evolution is only noteworthy as a scientific fact: you say it exists, period. 

Evolution is very different from gravity.  When Newton discovered his brilliant theory of gravity, he didn't say, somewhat like Darwin did, "hey!  I discovered gravity! Did you know that stuff falls down to the earth when you drop it?"

He quantified it. 

Evolution isn't quantified, and to the extent that we try to do so, we are really historians, gaining no scientific control about the notion of "evolution." 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Bruno2 @Yes_Jesus_Can 

It's not "either-or" here, Bruno.  You can have a evolution, an intelligent design universe WITH a creative being too.  They're not mutually exclusive. 

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. 

The left loves to drive wedges between us. 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Bruno2 

I think whether or not you believe the universe was created in six days matters only if you are willfully ignorant about contradictory facts--in other words if you are close-minded.  But let's be honest, how many facts we encounter in our daily lives are contradictory, and how many more are at all relevant?

Conversely, whether or not you disbelieve in a Creative God only matters if you are willfully ignorant about contradictory mysteries--in other words, if you are equally closed-minded. 

dbm1
dbm1

@Yes_Jesus_Can @dbm1

Evolution is harder to quantify than gravity, partly because there is a random element, partly because with evolution we are always dealing with very complicated systems.


Any controlled experiment concerning evolution would have to extend over many generations, which makes it difficult to conduct such experiments. 


Yet again, if you really want an answer, why not ask a biologist?

JamVet
JamVet

@Yes_Jesus_Can @JamVet 

then I'll keep my copy closed, thank you.

Your copy?

Puhleeze.

Your mind is more closed than that supposed book that you have...

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Yes_Jesus_Can @Bruno2 Again, YJC, I see and acknowledge the seemingly irreconcilable mysteries of the Universe, and can see where someone might be tempted to "fill in the blanks" with a Creator.  In my case, I'm more comfortable leaving it as a mystery than to choose an explanation that I know is wrong.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls

Let us take this rope, given to us by JamVet and proceed to hang his and other leftist arguments on it. 

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Yes_Jesus_Can You know, knocking down JamVet and knocking down an actual scientist who studies the mechanisms you're asking about are two quite different things.


Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Tuna Meowt @Yes_Jesus_Can 

Then JamVet and all other leftists would do well to LEARN something about science, what it is, what it is NOT, what it's for and why we learn it. 

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Yes_Jesus_Can @Tuna Meowt Then perhaps you would do the same.


I grew up with a college professor of Microbiology in the house.  At the same time other kids were learning to ride bicycles, I was learning how to operate an analytical scale, a fume hood and an autoclave.  How about you?


I think your criticism of "all other leftists" is just as inaccurate and as ill-tempered as the responses you decry from JamVet.  Maybe you should try being a little more christlike if you want to be listened to and taken seriously.


straker
straker

Yes-Jesus


What questions?

kayaker71
kayaker71

Hell, the polar ice cap is supposed to be melted by now.  All of the polar bears are supposed to be dead and Florida is supposed to have most of its waterfront property under water.  Al Bore said so, so it must be correct. 

JamVet
JamVet

@kayaker71 

Hell, the polar ice cap is supposed to be melted by now.  Blah, blah, blah...

You are staggeringly uninformed...

An as regards Gore, an unabashed liar...

KUTGF
KUTGF

@kayaker71  Got proof of the exact dates that you claim these "predictions" were to take place and that Gore made the predictions.  My bet is that you don't have squat other that Encyclopedia Outofyourassica.

kayaker71
kayaker71

@KUTGF @kayaker71 UN climate change converence, 2004.....  "By 2014, most of the polar ice cap will be gone".  Do your homework,  It aint that difficult. 

kayaker71
kayaker71

@Tuna Meowt @kayaker71 @KUTGF There is more ice in the polar ice cap right now than there ever has been.  And more polar bears.  Florida is not under water and Al Bore is still a multi gazillion dollar millionaire because of his lies. 

kayaker71
kayaker71

@JamVet @kayaker71 I don't think that it is me that is misinformed.... more like the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner. 

JamVet
JamVet

@kayaker71 @JamVet 

BTW, mea culpa, apparently the man did incredibly say that.

Yet, your obsession with that one man is interesting.

If useless.

It is as if it gives you license to totally discount the mountain of data, evidence, facts and science that are the reason that the theory of ACC is overwhelmingly accepted as the most logical answer to the question by men of knowledge.

Start listening to the real experts.

There are literally hundreds of them.

Or don't.

Or just keep listening to what Rush tells you about Al.

Interestingly, I've not yet seen of the major con cards played here yet - the experts are all corrupted and bribed.


 

Paul42
Paul42

I reference this every so often.  If anything, it clarifies some terms in addition to addressing the perennial questions that get asked here, then answered, then asked again, then answered, then asked again (seems to be a pattern with many topics).

Natonal Geographic, "Was Darwin Wrong?"

.  
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

Bruno2
Bruno2

@Paul42 Paul--I just scanned the entire article, and not once does it point to any proof of how beneficial genetic changes occur in an organism or a population.In fact, it's a very elementary article which has a very condescending tone to it IMO.

Let me review for you, then:

(1) Organisms and species change physically over time.  Since genes direct our physical development as an organism, obvously genes change over time as well.  We all agree on that point.

(2) Organisms which produce beneficial changes allow that individual organism to adapt better to the environment and thus have a much better chance of surviving and reproducing, therefore carrying that beneficial genetic change forward in the population.  That's common sense, so again we all agree on that point.


For some reason, whenever a person objects to Evolutionary theory, it is claimed that person is disagreeing with one of the two above facts, or that that person just doesn't understand what a Scientific "theory" is.  As such, that's frustrating to me, because my objections go much deeper, and aren't based on any unfamiliarity with the theory, as dbm implied below.  Again, show me proof how a specific genetic mutation is documented to have resulted in a beneficial macro-change in an organism, and I'll drop my objections.

Bruno2
Bruno2

Jam--For all of the insults you throw out about Cons not understanding Science, you're not making yourself look good here with your statement "There is a high degree of uncertainly in virtually all of science."  In the case of gravity, for example, the forces can be calculated precisely to just about as many decimal places as you want, otherwise we couldn't use satellites for GPS systems.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Ditto for quantum mechanical measurements, many chemical measurements, etc.  To include climate modeling in with any of these quite frankly reveals a deep lack of understanding on your part.

You're my friend, and will always be, but your pronouncements about which scientific disciplines are "settled" vs which aren't are way off base.

fedup52
fedup52

@Bruno2  You have quite a few scientific term.  None of them are relevant to gravity.  Funny how you like to throw these words and show don't understand anything.

Do everybody favor.  Stay away from the big words.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@fedup52 @Bruno2 WTF are you talking about?? 
From the article: "To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy."

In case you were unaware, General Relativity = Gravity, dumba$$. In fact, you tried to criticize my use of the word "stereoscopic" once before, claiming that "stereospecific" was more correct.  The bottom line is that you don't know WTF you are talking about, attempting to substitute "form" for "substance".