MEMORIAL DAY...

      Memorial Day needs a reboot in my opinion. It wouldn't be the first time. Memorial Day used to be called "Decoration Day" and it was intended as an observance for those who had died fighting in the Civil War before the holiday became a generic observance of all those who had died while fighting in any war the United States had participated in. Later on, it evolved further still into an observance for all those who had died though as far as I can tell, that has not become official. It is still very much associated with military service. But I don't want Memorial Day to be about the dead any longer.

      I've lost many people in my life: they're not dead, they've just...moved on and while I am okay with some from that number, there are several still whom I miss and wish for reconciliation, rapprochement, that we might somehow run into each other after all these years, that maybe I could find out if you are doing alright, or simply a public moment to mourn their passing not from this life, but from mine and coming to terms with it. I'm absolutely sure you can think of such people from your life and with the advent of the internet, one might think it possible to have a kind of people bulletin board. A version of the "Have You Seen Me?" milk cartons: I MISS YOU...DO YOU MISS ME? or perhaps something that incorporates "memory" or "memorial" into its title to make it more fitting for the holiday.

        I have neither the clout nor the wherewithal to promote such an idea but should you find yourself in need of such a holiday, by all means...pass it on. Share it so that it may grow upon others. I will share my memorials here and there when the day comes.



"Keep Me in Mind" by Little Joy


"Your Wildest Dreams" by The Moody Blues


"Calling All Stations" by Genesis

LINE OF THE DAY, part XXVI

It'll be faster if I just post it as a picture. From this article on Cracked.com on "9 Foreign Words the English Language Desperately Needs":

(click on image to enlarge)

MOMENTOUS OCCASIONS...

      The more I think about it, the more I feel that I friendzone girls just as frequently and perhaps even more often than I am friendzoned by them. I couldn't tell you if this is so because I am afraid to enter into relationships for whatever reason or if it is more an effort on the part of my mind to preserve the status quo. Lacking knowledge of the former makes it difficult to prove/disprove the latter. Only circumstantial evidence can be offered.

      What I think I need to test this idea is something I've never had and that is the dual combination (is that redundant?) of a girl whom I find immediately attractive (let's say, 7+) and who is also rather aggressive in making an "us" happen. I say this because I've noticed in recent years and, as the memory is fresh, with Number Twelve that there is a certain momentum that builds when I'm becoming interested in a new girl and it's a momentum that cannot tolerate even the slightest stall. And even though I moved with Number Twelve much faster than I did with Digby, even she came with a stall that was enough to set a paralyzing doubt in motion. The week I had intended to ask her out coincided with the Halloween snowstorm that put dampeners on really anyone's plans but it was enough to make me question what I had been doing and whether or not this was the path I should be taking. I had managed to keep enough of my resolve to proceed anyway but I could feel it...I could feel this desire to not upset the established order and it was especially strong coming on the heels of the withering Digby crush. And while my momentum would ultimately be halted on account of her already having a boyfriend, I find that I'm perfectly fine with being friends with Number Twelve and I wonder why that should be.

      I have talked to girls via the online dating sites. I don't know what the limit is for messages before the momentum is lost and they are effectively friendzoned by me and I don't know how many times we can text/talk via the phone before it happens too. Honestly, I'm thinking it's three messages and one phone call. If she hasn't given me a number by her third message and if we have not set up a date (or even just a casual meet up) after the first call, I can feel my mind able to overcome her. That momentum is critical and it applies to other areas of my life as well. Take crying for instance...I rarely ever do and usually that is because it is resistible. In movies and television, it happens because the moment is interrupted by a visual like the camera changing to another view instead of lingering on the moment or from a change in music. In real life it happens because the person making me upset realizes this and halts their advance and even a moment's break is enough for me to regain my composure (only my Best Friend has ever resisted halting her advance...I respect her for that. I really do). And once I have my composure, I will never be able to get crying upset again over that. Basically, you have one chance to pierce my armor: I am the Shishio of emotional defense. This applies perhaps across the board. My anger is disrupted and dissipated by any type of distraction (though absurdity works best...anger seems most vulnerable to anything that forces me to think). My dreams are disrupted by insistence (i.e. logical contradictions or me trying to see something, especially a face, more clearly). Hope is disrupted by doubt. Joy is disrupted by seriousness. Sadness is disrupted by terror.

      So perhaps my attraction is thus disrupted by delay or repetition. I can't define an interaction so long as it is in motion. It is only through delay or through the formation of a pattern that I can mark a person as a friend, an ally, an enemy, a coworker, a friend of a friend, a girlfriend, etc. In other words, so long as you are in a state of flux, you can be anything to me. Chaos is your friend when assigning yourself in my otherwise orderly mind or rather, when not getting yourself assigned.

      I think thus that for a girl to become my girlfriend, she either can do nothing to halt her momentum or must circumvent all this nonsense by leapfrogging initial steps. The only circumvention I can think of is sex as it is something I do not expect of almost all types of interactions. It would be near-impossible to friendzone a girl I were attracted to if shortly after meeting, I knew unequivocally she were attracted to me. That, unfortunately, has never happened to me. I only give the idea credence because I think unusually. So while one-night-stand type behavior is generally considered a no-no for relationship-creation for most people, I am not most people. Treat me like most people and you will be friendzoned. Treat me like most people and you will bore me. Move faster than I can keep up with you and you can be whatever you want.

NEStolgia

      The original Nintendo Legend of Zelda is the best of the Zelda games I have played [FULL DISCLOSURE: I have played (and beaten) the original, Zelda II, and A Link to the Past (SNES) and have seen Twilight Princess in action] and I'm not saying that as some sort of obsessed fanboy or because the game genuinely is better (odds are it's not), but because unlike later entries in the series (and this applies to Metroid too), you are not limited to a set path. Afterall, the game is labeled on the cartridge as part of the "Adventure Series" of games available for the NES at the time and for me, part of the adventure is the ability to not only explore, but to discover the path best suited for you and the original Legend of Zelda offers these options.

Octoroks!

      Take the Dungeon Levels for instance. Yes, they are all numbered 1 through 8 and yes, that is the suggested order but note I said suggested and not required. In fact, the first time I beat the game I went to Dungeon Level 7 last simply because I could not find it (I even remember exactly where I was when I found it too). To this day I don't know what inspired me to play the Flute in the fairyless pond (all the other ponds have fairies) because nothing in the game up to the  point ever suggested that playing the flute there would cause the lake to drain revealing the entrance (except for the cryptic clue: "THERE ARE SECRETS WHERE FAIRIES DON'T LIVE"). Later games required you to enter the dungeons in a precise, unalterable order, but in the Legend of Zelda, it was perfectly possible to complete any of the first three dungeons first and in any order. Going after Manhandla first would be a difficult task for a three-hearted Link and his wooden sword (or five hearts and the White Sword if you scout around first), but not impossible. In the First Quest (not as familiar with the second), it would be perfectly possible to assemble the Triforce of Wisdom going through the Dungeon Levels in this order: 3, 4, 5, 7, 1, 8, 6, and 2. And I'm talking completing the Dungeons, not entering and doing a grab-and-dash of the hidden item(s). That makes for increased playability as there is more than one path to your goal. Only certain levels require you to beat another one first.

Tektites!

      An additionally enjoyable aspect of the Legend of Zelda for the NES is the fact that it is not required of you to find every item in the game in order to complete. I like the idea of optional and not some fetch quest to go get an item that is only useful in one particular instance (I'm looking at you Quake Medallion and Spell and Thunder Spells!) and while the game does have a few such items (the silver arrow being the most conspicuous as it is needed to defeat Ganon), they do not reach the level of padding that other games in the series manage to achieve. Items you don't need to complete the game include the White Sword, the Magic Sword, the Magical Key (opens an unlimited amount of doors), the Boomerang, the Magical Boomerang, the Letter (as well as the potions you can buy once you present this letter), the Red Candle (can be used more than once per screen), the Magical Shield, the Power Bracelet, the Magical Rod, the Book of Magic, the Blue Ring, and the Red Ring. There are also Heart Containers and additional Bombs you can purchase that aren't necessary for Link to complete the game either. That's a significant amount so how hard you want to make the game is up to you and that pleases me greatly.

P-P-P-Peahats!

      When Zelda II: The Adventure of Link came about, this all went away. Now the Palaces had to be completed in numerical order; items could only be acquired in a more-or-less precise sequence; and it was nearly impossible to complete the game without getting every single item in it even if those items were essentially one-use gimmicks. In the Legend of Zelda, Dungeons had locked doors and keys, but it was not always necessary to open every locked door allowing you to hoard keys for later. It was even possible to buy keys from Overworld merchants. In Zelda II and A Link to the Past, every dungeon's locked door was necessary to open and there were only exactly as many keys as needed to open them. There was a skeleton key in Zelda II but it was only available for us the Sixth Palace and the Final Palace. Items like the Blue Mail and Mirror Shield in A Link to the Past were only available in specific Dungeons and only then...never earlier through cunning or luck whereas in the original game, both the Magical Shield (blocks almost all shots the regular shield cannot) and Blue Ring (halves your damage) could be purchased in shops. You could have these things by simply grinding enemies in the Overworld to get Rupees and buying them before entering even the first Dungeon Level. Again, with the original game, options abounded depending on your level of prowess/insanity.

Leevers!

      Additionally the Legend of Zelda came with a genuine Second Quest. When you beat the game (or simply cheated by making your character name ZELDA), you were given a new quest. It featured the same Overworld but with different locations for the Dungeons and secret places. It had completely different Dungeon Level layouts. It had additional features not found in the first quest like the Old Man requiring you pay a "door repair" charge and the more sinister "LEAVE YOUR LIFE OR MONEY" which, if you haven't learned your lesson from the First Quest to keep lots of Rupees on hand ("I BET YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE BOMBS") when in Dungeons, you paid dearly for it with the permanent loss of a Heart Container (unless you somehow still only had three hearts when encountering him). It also featured new things like the Flute opening up more secret passages and the ever-strange walking through walls. Some walls in the Dungeon Levels were false and  you could pass through them and they could be either one-way or two-way apparitions. They did not reveal themselves with Bombs so you just had to try and see what happened. It gave a whole new element to the game to work with. It also introduced different versions of some enemies like the Stalfos which now shoot sword beams at you and the Bubble which in the First Quest merely prevented you from using your sword for a few seconds upon contact (no damage to Link though). However in the Second Quest the Bubbles came in a red form which permanently took your sword away and a blue form which gave your sword back (you could also get your sword back by having your life restored by either a fairy or by using a life potion - apparently also by playing the Flute...I never knew this). Like in the First Quest, neither Bubble would physically harm Link. Zelda II had a technical Second Quest but it was identical to the First Quest. The only difference is that you started with maxed out Attack, Defense, and Magic which although a letdown in terms of having a new challenge, it is totally fun whaling on enemies in the early Palaces with your overpowered sword breezing through enemies that initially gave you such trouble. The early stages of the Second Quest in Zelda II could easily be subtitled "Link's Revenge". A Link to the Past has no Second Quest.

Zelda!

Zelda!!

Zelda!!!

       I've never played later games in the series. I only witnessed my (now ex-) roommate playing Twilight Princess and noticed undesirable features that I find are common in modern games like a guide (in this case Midna) that tells you what you're looking at or what to do instead of having you, the player, figure it out for yourself. In addition to the above-mentioned problems with having a precisely laid out path (despite it being an adventure game) and numerous fetch quests, it also would point out where the boss's weakness was during the fight instead of, again, having the player figure it out. I hate that shit. Early games didn't have this though it was more a consequence of memory being expensive and limited forcing the designers to instruct the player in other more subtle ways. Anyway, so that's it. The original game rules and those are my reasons. I hope you've enjoyed this stupid rant and you win 50 Internets if you figured out the reasoning behind the picture posts before reaching the end. If not, click the link (no pun intended) under the red Zelda and see for yourself.

SIRIUSLY...

      I cancelled my satellite radio service on Saturday. I had been thinking about doing so for a couple of months now. I love the Opie and Anthony Show and have been a fan since 1998, but I'm either moving on from it or have been made to move on from it and I think it more the latter since my easy distraction from the show began only after the merger/hostile takeover of XM by Sirius.

      I can't help but feel the Opie and Anthony Show has been neutered by Sirius management and examples of this abound from their being shoved into a smaller studio when their old studio remained not only functional but actually remained. Listeners who used to regularly come in to watch the show on XM and occasionally participate on-air (giving us for better or for worse characters like Stalker Patti, the retarded Laverne and Shirley, Big A, Pat from Moonachie, Tippy Tom, and Bobo) could no longer do so. Interns, so vital to the show both to keep it running smoothly in the background and occasionally comedy fodder for the show were at one time taken away and although now, after much elapsed time have returned, they are not allowed to participate on the show as they once were despite the fact that such participation gave us the likes of Sam Roberts, Nathaniel, Derek, Travis, and Danny all of whom went from interns who got a break on the air to full-fledged underpaid employees as well as interns who didn't get hired like David, Pat "Fucking" Duffy, Jared, Bob, "Wild" Bill, and Noah but who provided the show with hours of on-air entertainment. Modern Sirius management would have prevented the show from acquiring and showcasing their talents.

       The Opie and Anthony Show have not done live gigs for their listeners in quite some time and certainly not with the frequency that was common back on XM and WNEW nor has the show broadcasted from other cities in years or been able to do any events like the Comedy and Animation festivals of yesteryear. Radio contests have all but disappeared, having been reduced to practically random callers when they do have something to give away. I don't even remember when their last true contest was but I assure you they were all on XM and terrestrial radio. The Eggnog Drinking Contest, Sex for Sam, Money Honey, Staple Gun Roulette, The Voyeur Bus, The Rat Eating Contest (which introduced us to the foul-mouthed, ever ready with the insult Frenchy who turned what was supposed to be a disgusting dish by virtue of it being rat meat and prepared it so well that people were actually asking for seconds), What Would You Do for Britney Spears Tickets?, Gay Marco's bid to win N Sync tickets, the ever infamous Most Offensive Song Contest, Homeless Shopping Spree, the 55 Gallon Drum Challenge, Has-Been Corner...and that's just what immediately comes to mind. The past two years? I can't think of thing done that would qualify for classically memorable in that vein.

       Don't get me wrong, the talk part of the show is still compelling when they have things to talk about and guests who are willing to be interviewed. However, the element of randomness has been taken from the show and that is one of the Opie and Anthony Show's great strengths in that they could put shit together on the fly and make it into good radio. But without participation from listeners in studio or from interns; without contests and the jockeying for the host's attention/praise/approval that comes from such contests/promotions/giveaways, that chaotic element is lost and causes the show to suffer.

      Even the loss of the rivalry between the two companies  hurts the show and not just from the comedy crucible that is competition but because many old bits where that competition is showcased have now fallen into an abyss of sorts. This also goes for classic bits done by the show. Anything that runs afoul of corporate policy cannot be aired even though it has already been aired so more bits fall into the abyss never to be heard from again unless you've been obsessively recording the show. And such bits require quite a memory on the part of the listener because Opie and Anthony can't even mention the bits on air that they can't play to help listeners find them. That Most Offensive Song Contest? Even though it aired on REGULAR radio and no songs had any language in them that would run afoul of the F.C.C. (that is not to say some of the songs were not censored to make them F.C.C. compliant), the contest cannot be done again or even replayed on SATELLITE RADIO! Satellite Radio if you will recall, is the HBO of radio. You can curse, talk graphically about sex and other bodily functions, use ethnic slurs, and all sorts of other things that the F.C.C. would normally fine a radio station for but even with that elevated status and mind you, this is also a service being paid for, such a contest is no longer possible on satellite radio (and yes, technically it would be permissible on terrestrial radio still so long as your company would stand behind you but that would be less likely given the consolidation of media in general to just a few companies that started in the mid-1990s thanks to deregulation so no, it's not you when you wonder if radio really has gotten worse over the years...it actually has!)

      So while I would occasionally stop what I was doing and listen intently to what was being said on the show, I found myself doing it less and less because so much more of the show had become filler and again, and I can't stress this enough, I don't actually blame the show for this. I thought about it for weeks. My original plan was to stick it out to the end of their contract in October when I felt the show would actually end because Opie's disgust with the company is more than obvious but after weeks of thought, I pulled the plug on my subsciption (a subscriber since October 2004, when the show debuted on XM Satellite Radio). I don't know what I will do with my newfound free time. I imagine it will take a few weeks before it all settles in and I begin to rediscover those things I had generally kept on hold or had otherwise put aside but I look forward to those days.

      In a way, I am free. I am not happy with how it has come about but it is done.

YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER...

      I don't care if you're depressed or otherwise "lacking motivation" in life. It doesn't excuse being disrespectful. If you're gonna take the time to ask for advice, you have two basic choices: You can either take the advice given or you can use the advice given as a basis to figure out what it is you should actually be doing because I am a believer that even wrong answers can be used to find the right ones. But what you don't do...what you never do, is ask for advice and then do nothing.

IS IT WORTH ANYTHING? NO.

      I take exception to the idea that modern coin issues could ever be valuable and by that I'm not saying that certain issues don't sell for more than or even way more than their face value/issue price, because some have (e.g. the 1995-W Silver American Eagle (≈$3,300) and the 1983-P Washington quarter (≈$30)). No, what I mean by valuable is that the coin carries a premium in circulated grades, especially all circulated grades. Otherwise, all you have are condition rarities.

      A condition rarity traditionally is a coin whose value suddenly skyrockets above a certain grade. For whatever reason, the supplies of that coin grow particularly scarce above certain levels of preservation. I will give three examples to illustrate this jump in value:

1924-S Buffalo nickel: F-12, $96 : VF-20, $455 : XF-40, $1,100
1927-S Standing Liberty quarter: VF-20, $285 : XF-40, $1,000 : AU-50, $2,650
It's especially dramatic with the following example:
1921-S Walking Liberty half dollar: F-12, $210 : VF-20, $750 : XF-40, $4,850

      However, the 1983-P Washington quarter I referenced? Anything below MS-60 (that's mint state), and it's 25¢. I thus cannot consider a 1983-P quarter valuable if it is only so in uncirculated grades. This trend is starting to appear with the recently ended Statehood Quarter series as well, but with these, only the super-duper uncirculated will do (MS-65 or higher). This allows for some "rarities" like the 1999-D Georgia quarter which is currently $200...in MS-67 (the scale maxes out at 70 and MS-70 would be a flawless, perfectly struck coin) while the MS-65 grade (something you will never find ever in pocket change so don't bother looking) sells for a measly $4.50. So hey, if you were lucky enough to receive such a high-graded specimen in your Mint Set (the cheaters' way to get uncirculated coins...a set I personally wish the Mint would not offer because for me, it is like the collectors' equivalent of a person buying a fully-powered up character for a MMORPG --- you're getting high-grade stuff not by luck and perseverance, but by simply paying for and receiving it from the source), good for you but as for the rest of you, that Georgia quarter is 25¢.

      This also applies to silver and gold coins who value exceeds face by virtue of their metal content. They still need a premium over that value for it to count in my eyes. That means, most dimes and halves after 1933 and quarters after 1940 have little value below high level circulated grades. For this reason, they are referred to simply as "junk silver" and sold in bulk as it is not worth the time or effort to grade and sell them separately.

      This "race to the top" is merely the result of modern coin production which results in both ridiculously high mintages and ordinarily high production quality. It causes collectors to obsessively focus on minor aspects of coins to enhance their value. They need that little something extra, that something about the coin to be rare in order for them to be happy. On older issues, it's "full diamonds" on Indian Head cents, a "full horn" on Buffalo nickels, "fully split bands" on Mercury dimes, and a "full head" on Standing Liberty quarters. For modern issues, it's "full step" Jefferson nickels and "full bell lines" on Franklin half dollars. This level of nitpicking can lead to some ridiculous values for modern issues (e.g. the otherwise common 1953-S Franklin half in the uncommon grade of MS-65 sells for $65, but that same coin in the same grade but with "full bell lines" sells for $16,000 - no joke). I could never own such "perfection": I would be constantly afraid of damaging the coin ever so slightly through accidental mishandling and absolutely destroying its value. I prefer circulated coins both because I like having coins that were not only made for commerce but actually used in commerce (makes them more authentic don'tcha think?) and I like having coins that are already "damaged goods" so to speak so I don't have to worry as much about them. It would be nerve-wracking to own a coin which could go from $16,000 to $33 with just one nick (and you know that one nick would be on the bell line!).

      I don't say these things to discourage coin collecting, just to discourage pointless speculation. As for modern issues, collect them for fun from your pocket change and try to fill up a Whitman folder or two. Let the joy and sense of accomplishment which comes from patience, diligence, and completing a set be your motivation, not dollar signs because you will surely not find them. Avoid high-priced junk from the mint like commemorative coins as speculation. Only buy commemorative coins if you like the design or support the cause. While you might get lucky and be the proud owner of a low-sale coin (which will thus rise in value like the 1995-W SAE and the 1997 Unc. Jackie Robinson $5 gold piece), most likely you will be holding a coin with little chance of even maintaining its issue-price value and this goes for proof and mint sets too. And if you do go venturing into the actual valuable stuff, learn about the coin, numismatics, and grading before you commit your money to them.

      I am not satisfied with this entry at all, but am posting it anyway...

WHERE'S MISS MANNERS WHEN YOU NEED HER?

      Having been on the other side of the equation myself, I find that I feel uneasy going about my business as a funeral procession passes by. I feel like I should be doing something, anything that would indicate to those who happen to see me as they pass by a gesture of respect.

      Having been on the other side of it, especially with a close one like my father, I could not help but notice on the way to the cemetery all the people going about their lives, laughing and smiling and whatnot, totally unaware or unconcerned with our procession. It's not their fault, I understand this. They did not know him anymore than I knew the dead stranger and his/her surviving relatives as they slowly passed on by, but when you're on that side, you can't help but feel a twinge of anger like "how dare they be happy on a day like this!" as you pass by. It makes me wish there were a universally recognized stance and/or gesture which could be made as a show of respect as a procession passes by.

      This may not sound like much of a big deal to most but I happen to live near two funeral homes so this is something I actually encounter more than anomalously. We don't wear hats anymore so that traditional gesture of removing your hat, placing it over your chest, and looking down sorrowfully is out. Without the hat, it would look like I were gawking at their procession out of morbid curiosity rather than what I had intended.

       Just something I wonder about from time to time...

LINE OF THE DAY, part XXV

      In the comments section of this article on Gawker, missdelite wrote (Line of the Day is in purple, full quote for context):

"Among those ages 18 to 34, nearly nine-in-ten (88%) say they either have or earn enough money now or expect they will in the future.

How nice. How much of this comfort level is due to the fact they're still living with their parents and that mummy and daddy bail them out when they spend their phone money on weed or require vital dental work? Who exactly did the fine folks at Princeton include in their "nationally representative sample"? Most certainly not young people born into destitution whose parents are no better off today than they were 20 years ago. Even if they made a concerted effort to contact those people (doubt it), they never answer the phone just in case it's the collection agent hounding their ass.

Let's face it: we're not dealing with a level playing field here. If you've never woken up in a cold sweat worried you won't be able to make the rent from one month to the next, seen what an eviction notice looks like, had to put up with borderline psychotic roommates cause you can't afford your own place, looked forward to caulking your cupboards to stem the flow of roaches or been forced to do questionable shit to make ends meet, then stfu. Life could be A LOT worse.

In fact, I'd posit that if you live in a comfortable place, can afford food, clothes, transportation and the occasional recreational outlet and you're still not happy, then maybe your problem isn't financial at all."

      I have a couple of friends who need to hear that though I'm not confident they would listen/accept it. I'll have to remember the line and relay it when the opportunity arises.

      missdelite received a lot of negative feedback for this rant but gave me a good laugh with this response to one of the critics:

"... I have to ask: Do you type with your pinkies up? Cause DAMN, you sound pretentious as hell."

SONGS THAT CAN JUST GO AWAY, part X

"Fight for You" by Jason Derulo

Look, I know Toto is getting a piece of this song, but seriously, how the hell is this not plagiarism? What do they call this musical style where you're outright stealing the hook from another song and recomposing them as if they were your words all along? Is this the next phase of sampling? Listen to the song if you haven't heard it. You won't have to for long before it hits and you realize the sheer wrongness of it all. Jason Derulo has done this at least one other time with "Don't Wanna Go Home" in which he "samples" the lyrics of "Banana Boat" by Harry Belafonte. For the sake of argument, I will refer to this style as "splicing".

I wouldn't call it stealing but would still be leery of it if the title of this composition at least mentioned the spliced song like: "Fight for You (feat. lyrics from "Africa")" by Jason Derulo since "featuring" seems to be the current in-thing to do with music these days too because apparently no one is capable of holding their own anymore without the assistance of an established artist. And while this style is not brandy new, I find it sends a bad message especially from let's say, a school's point of view where in English class you are taught to not only name your sources but also to not plagiarize the work of others. Both rules are violated here. I posted the official video link for the Jason Derulo song and nowhere is it mentioned that lyrics from Toto's "Africa" have been spliced into it (nor for the other three examples linked). What kind of message does that send to schoolchildren who are told plagiarism is wrong only to have it done in popular music? Songs get covered all the time for better or for worse, but these songs aren't covers. These songs basically say that you can use the art of another and pass it off as your own. Even though the original artists are getting paid, it is still a theft of sorts. I even consider cover songs to be a form of theft simply because the titles don't reflect the original performers. "'Roll Over Beethoven' by Chuck Berry as performed by The Beatles" would be an appropriate way to present the song but instead it's displayed dishonestly and I call it dishonest because how many times in your life have you been surprised to learn a song you liked was actually a cover song (though this one is even more surprising I think)? You may or may not have liked the original upon hearing it, but for me at least, it felt like a betrayal by the artist I liked. It's also a cheat since the covers were originally hits and are thus more likely to get airplay rather than the artist achieving this on their own merits.

Simply put, splicing is dishonest and since it is clearly a thing and no longer subject to dismissal, it should be presented honestly so as not to create the impression that it is acceptable to assimilate the works of others into your own and then passing it off as one's own entirely. The flattery is certainly not sincere.