tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post2359496432427109808..comments2023-10-08T05:00:23.559-04:00Comments on Clarissa's Blog: Why Did We Elect Him, Again?Clarissahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-53386136607114947332011-02-10T14:58:55.010-05:002011-02-10T14:58:55.010-05:00Sorry, I meant "ancient and modern".Sorry, I meant "ancient and modern".ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-54641351411917354462011-02-10T13:40:24.572-05:002011-02-10T13:40:24.572-05:00I've read a lot of philosophy, analytic and Co...I've read a lot of philosophy, analytic and Continental, ancient and mder, Eastern and Western, and have come to the conclusion that ALL of it can be cherry-picked! Though I am not a Rand fan (I don't really agree with any part of her philosophy), I didn't mean to get bogged down in a discussion on the finer points of her extant writings. As always, I enjoy your blog, as it is never boring! Keep rockin'!ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-68751890541570137912011-02-10T12:09:02.755-05:002011-02-10T12:09:02.755-05:00In case people haven't noticed yet, I'm qu...In case people haven't noticed yet, I'm quite a fan. :-)Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-72773074209401920072011-02-10T12:08:08.506-05:002011-02-10T12:08:08.506-05:00Ayn Rand's philosophy makes no sense if you ta...Ayn Rand's philosophy makes no sense if you take it apart and cherry-pick certain things you like from it. Her vision of capitalism only works for the kind of people she describes: those who are passionately and fanatically dedicated to their work and sexual realization. Unbridled sexuality is intimately linked with the kind of productivity that a person should achieve to be able to participate fully in the type of capitalism she proposes. Otherwise, the whole construct just falls apart.<br /><br />Tea Party is so not what Ayn Rand would have welcomed.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-42259449570408772702011-02-10T12:01:26.138-05:002011-02-10T12:01:26.138-05:00While it's true that Ayn Rand had no taste for...While it's true that Ayn Rand had no taste for social conservatism (neither did libertarian politician Barry Goldwater, who was friends with Margaret Sanger), her economic vision resonates with the Tea Party (hello Rand Paul!?). As always, social conservatives are courted for votes, and once certain economic policies are largely in place, the values voters are cast aside. This happened with Reagan in his second term. So whatever the Teabaggers' moral views are is just window dressing for a deeper economic motive on the part of their financial backers (oil and medical insurance companies, etc.): the consolidation of a plutocratic state.ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-78369540634001159932011-02-10T11:44:57.952-05:002011-02-10T11:44:57.952-05:00I'm not sure I get this, Eric. Can you give me...I'm not sure I get this, Eric. Can you give me a couple of examples of prominent Tea Partiers that would not make Ayn Rand want to barf? They are all religious fanatics, and we all know how Rand felt about that. They are all anti-choice, and she was passionately pro-choice. Also, her entire philosophy is based on feelings of profound superiority towards stupid people.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-52400436808260288682011-02-10T11:26:59.860-05:002011-02-10T11:26:59.860-05:00Despite his successes (a health care bill of any s...Despite his successes (a health care bill of any sort and DADT repeal) the president, like his mentor Clinton, subscribes to the 'third way' philosophy of a kinder, gentler neo-liberalism. At least the Teabagger-led Republicans are honest about what they want, which is neo-liberalism without its pragmatist sugar-coating, i.e. corporate fascism. (If I am sounding like Zizek here, that is because I find the form of argumentation in his critique of Ayn Rand appropo with regard to Obama's conforntations with the Tea Party right. Zizek argued that Rand was subversive because she espoused capitalism in its purest form, which is so offensive that not even right-wingers want to touch it--well, now they do!)ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-29159808018415832672011-02-10T00:58:15.467-05:002011-02-10T00:58:15.467-05:00Obama at election had a large Democrat majority, t...Obama at election had a large Democrat majority, the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression and a huge electoral mandate.<br /><br />FDR did more with less.<br /><br />That Obama achieved so little indicates that he didn't really want to achieve all that much, and that he is not what he claimed to be to get elected. <br /><br />No surprise for a politician, but disappointing still.<br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-72430546306655155042011-02-09T23:52:13.718-05:002011-02-09T23:52:13.718-05:00Canukistani, it's his move to the right of cen...Canukistani, it's his move to the right of centre.<br /><br />I don't know that he's in a position to do anything else. This is the dilemma of being an American President. Anyone would have this problem and the racist backlash only adds to it. I can't help thinking, though, that he could do better than this, and suspecting that he may be in more agreement with his own policies than some might hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-10886548559716575512011-02-09T19:45:42.775-05:002011-02-09T19:45:42.775-05:00Back to the topic. President Obama having taken a ...Back to the topic. President Obama having taken a shellacking in the last election is continuing his move to the centre.<br /> <br />“Reports that President Barack Obama's upcoming budget will propose steep cuts in the government's energy assistance fund for low-income Americans ricocheted quickly on Capitol Hill Wednesday, spurring some intraparty squabbling. “ Huffington Post<br /><br />Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) wrote a letter to Obama asking him not to drop funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by about $3 billion.<br /><br />"I understand that difficult cuts have to be made," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote. "But in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens. I request that the administration preserve LIHEAP funding at least to the Fiscal Year 2010 funding at $5.1 billion when it submits its FY12 budget proposal to Congress."<br /><br />Meanwhile that commie, Hugo Chavez has decided to continue his program of free oil for low income Americans in spite of lower oil prices and an economic downturn in his country.Canukistaninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-69466792678850963892011-02-09T17:23:53.609-05:002011-02-09T17:23:53.609-05:00”And no, he is not in favor of strengthening gover...”And no, he is not in favor of strengthening governmental restrictions to the point where our every breath is regulated”<br /><br />Some government restrictions are needed. Today is the deadline for CRTC submissions. Here a partial text of my original comment:<br /><br /> “ A piece by Stephen Scharper in the Toronto Star stated that the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission) “is seeking to relax restrictions concerning the broadcasting of specious information on radio and television.” Currently a Fox news or right wing American style radio shows cannot exist in Canada because the law stipulates that broadcasters “shall not broadcast any false or misleading news.” Last month the CRTC put a notice on its website that it wants to modify this law to “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.” <br />So who decides which information is false and endangers the public or is false and just funny entertainment for the masses? - A triumvirate appointed by (guess who?) our Conservative government. Of course we have nothing to worry about based on their long and distinguished commitment to transparency and evidence based policy i.e. two prorogations of parliament in one year, eliminating the census, increasing spending on prisons due to an increase in unreported crime. I could continue but I think that you get the picture. I can see in the near future where this new news channel which starts broadcasting in March could call the Liberal party a communist front organization which wants to bring a Soviet style regime to Canada while the CBC, referred to by conservatives as the Communist Broadcasting Company could not offer an accurate rebuttal without the threat of having its licence removed.”<br /><br />Of course, the more that you learn the worse the story becomes. Here are some quotes from an article by Heather Mallick in the Toronto Star today,” The smartest NDP MP, Charlie Angus, seized the nettle in the House of Commons and said the initiative slithered out of the Prime Minister’s Office as a way of protecting Sun TV from spouting lies. The response? The MP who chairs the relevant committee said the change was a delayed bow to an ancient Supreme Court ruling that said Ernst Zundel couldn’t be charged for disseminating false information. It’s hard to find the lowest point to which this government will sink, but if you’re allowing law to be based on a Holocaust denier (and admitted neo Nazis) in a hard hat, this would probably be it.” As for the argument that you just change the channel she states, “Canadians are busy people. They have jobs and families, commutes and errands. They perpetually need a haircut. They do not have time to fact-check the news because this is Canada and we tell the truth here... So when Sun TV does an even more fair and balanced version of fair-and-balanced Fox, a lot of Canadians will take it on trust and repeat it.”<br /><br />What can we expect? Here is Fox news segment on “Ethnic studies” in Arizona. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9A3JVLgLD8<br /><br />At first I thought that it was just another stupid mistake like the map showing Egypt next to Iran but on further inspection I discovered it was really a carefully crafted segment to mislead viewers into thinking that the controversy is about afro-Americans rather than Hispanics without actually lying. The last sentence gives the game away.Canukistaninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-63512344037086496462011-02-09T14:32:00.988-05:002011-02-09T14:32:00.988-05:00Patrick, I do think we're mostly in agreement....Patrick, I do think we're mostly in agreement. I am a bit high-spirited, but I don't like the idea of the entire culture being destroyed while 99.5% of items locked up in copyright are not in the public domain and not making anyone any money (most copyrighted items either earn out or earn nothing after 10 years, but do not return to the public domain for 100+ years, thus prohibiting any other use).<br /><br />As for opossums, I did almost pet one in the dark one time, thinking it was a cat. That would've been a big mistake.<br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-80169427224181337102011-02-09T14:22:48.041-05:002011-02-09T14:22:48.041-05:00Patrick, just to point out how you deliberately ig...Patrick, just to point out how you deliberately ignore answers your comments provoke just to carry on a question that has been answered:<br /><br />First, you specifically noted that your concern was about the welfare of technicians in the industry. I pointed out that do not, in fact, benefit from profits so your point was moot.<br /><br />You then relocated your concern to small production houses and claimed their suffering rendered your metaphorical heart. And suffer they did because surely they were no pulling the big profits? I pointed out what Mike expanded on, to wit, copyright is being used to create market monopolies for enormous multinational conglomerates which cannot be regulated by any one elected government, and they're actively promoting internet policing to kill off small production houses -- the ones you expressed great sympathy for -- because they cannot afford to compete with more marketing budget than their ten year production budget.<br /><br />You promptly turned around and said, "it's rather simplistic to say that since one group wants to share their creativity, then all should be forced to".<br /><br />So to summarise, you care about the technicians and smal production houses and exhort us not to support Clariassa's cause because it shouldn't just be about thumbing our noses at big media. Then your assumptions are proved incorrect and you then care about... we're not sure yet, but exhort us not to support CLarissa's (and Mike's) cause because it shouldn't just be about protecting small media.<br /><br />In other words, you've no opinion of your own, you lack the information to formulate one, but you'll keep attacking every other one that comes along? That must be it. You just like arguing, don't you? :-)Rimihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04344200811838569151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-78893316460936457672011-02-09T14:18:01.433-05:002011-02-09T14:18:01.433-05:00Arguing with Mike about copyright laws is useless ...Arguing with Mike about copyright laws is useless because he knows everything. :-)<br /><br />Opossums, however, are another matter altogether. :-)Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-77190385436947686762011-02-09T14:03:43.688-05:002011-02-09T14:03:43.688-05:00Mike said, "I am not sure if your question wa...Mike said, "I am not sure if your question was intended to highlight the current ridiculousness of copyright laws, but whether that was intended or not, it did so."<br /><br />I checked out your link to the PBS documentary, and I was incredulous at the negative impact copyright laws had on a valuable documentary. <br /><br />I think we're on the same road, Mike. I'm just in the right hand lane. :)Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-4419090508343655832011-02-09T13:47:47.266-05:002011-02-09T13:47:47.266-05:00"Who exactly do we have to pay a licensing fe..."Who exactly do we have to pay a licensing fee to for the singing of Happy Birthday? Who owns that?"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp" rel="nofollow">Here's who owns "Happy Birthday to You."</a><br /><br />And why should we pay anyone anything for "Happy Birthday to You?" The creator is long dead.<br /><br />What possible benefit to society does paying someone for that song that should have long been in the public domain?<br /><br />I am not sure if your question was intended to highlight the current ridiculousness of copyright laws, but whether that was intended or not, it did so.<br /><br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-26874604863106253892011-02-09T13:44:55.152-05:002011-02-09T13:44:55.152-05:00Clarissa said - "There are tons of people (in...Clarissa said - "There are tons of people (including me) who would not even consider watching a movie recorded this way. The low quality of the recording would make it useless to me. "<br /><br />It's not a question of whether or not you would partake in the distribution, but whether or not the distribution in such a manner should be lawful.Patricnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-49065324181898731812011-02-09T13:31:51.725-05:002011-02-09T13:31:51.725-05:00"I would believe that you would have to conce..."I would believe that you would have to concede that there is a major difference between being inhibited from showing news footage from 40 years ago and recording a motion picture on your cell phone for 'online distribution' two days after release."<br /><br />-There are tons of people (including me) who would not even consider watching a movie recorded this way. The low quality of the recording would make it useless to me. <br /><br />"But not for 95 years after they die. And not at the expense and cost of the entire public."<br /><br />-This 100-years before a work goes into the public domain has always seemed ridiculous to me. How much does the author care 80 years after they died, seriously?Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-22565755196279210712011-02-09T13:25:15.016-05:002011-02-09T13:25:15.016-05:00Patrick, I agree that the creator (and the actual ...Patrick, I agree that the creator (and the actual creator, not some large corporation) should have some rights to protect and profit their creation.<br /><br />But not for 95 years after they die. And not at the expense and cost of the entire public.<br /><br />Laws do evolve, that is true. However, when they evolve only in one direction -- to eternal copyright and no conception of the public domain while artists and the public get harmed -- I rebel.<br /><br />About your fiction, feel free to post it up. I like fantasy and promise even if it's bad that I wont make fun of it (too much). :-)<br /><br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-87062938912695874912011-02-09T13:25:12.894-05:002011-02-09T13:25:12.894-05:00Mike
Who exactly do we have to pay a licensing f...Mike<br /> Who exactly do we have to pay a licensing fee to for the singing of Happy Birthday? Who owns that?<br /><br />You make some great points - and there are obvious holes in the copyright legislation. However, I would believe that you would have to concede that there is a major difference between being inhibited from showing news footage from 40 years ago and recording a motion picture on your cell phone for 'online distribution' two days after release. The leash needs to be loosened, but not removed entirely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-1561811699231985902011-02-09T13:22:06.800-05:002011-02-09T13:22:06.800-05:00And to ramble on even more, yes I know that was ab...And to ramble on even more, yes I know that was about patents, but the same philosophy was applied by Madison and Jefferson <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml" rel="nofollow">to copyright</a>.<br /><br />And before anyone even starts, I currently own 200+ CDs. Before they got stolen in the Army, I owned 1000+ CDs.<br /><br />Including concerts, t-shirts, and all other forms of supporting music, I estimate I've spent somewhere between $20,000 - $50,000 on music and music-related items in the past 20 years.<br /><br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-29396664689901985932011-02-09T13:15:33.550-05:002011-02-09T13:15:33.550-05:00Mike - I'm not a US citizen, and my knowledge ...Mike - I'm not a US citizen, and my knowledge of the history of copyright law is cursory at best. <br /><br />I agree with you in principle - bad laws ought to be ignored and ultimately changed. However, I think where we split is that I'm not overly concerned with the original intent of said law. I'm more concerned with the impact and usage in the here and now; more or less, the evolution in the application of the law, and whether or not it's suitable. And I strongly believe in the right of the creator to protect their creations. <br /><br /><br /><br />Clarissa - you're not likely to be interested in my fiction - it tends to be of the fantasy genre.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-71155564814896206082011-02-09T13:05:57.644-05:002011-02-09T13:05:57.644-05:00Patrick, I am not sure about blogs, but copyright ...Patrick, I am not sure about blogs, but copyright law kept the wonderful documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092999/" rel="nofollow">Eyes on the Prize</a> for being shown for many years.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_on_the_Prize" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia has some information about this</a>.<br /><br />There are thousands of cases like this, and it will only get worse.<br /><br />My larger point is that if we allow large corporations to lock up most of our culture for 100+ years, then it no longer belongs to us. <br /><br />Yes, I agree that the creators of movies, music and ideas have some right to profit from them. But not for 100+ years. And it should be the creator profiting from them, not some corporation who forces anyone who wants to create into work-for-hire arrangements.<br /><br />However, it is <b>our</b> culture, not Disney's. Not Miramax's. Not HBO's. <br /><br />While I do agree copyright is desirable and necessary, it is not something that should be as one-sided as it is now. Right now, the large interests control the entire conversation and the entire legislative apparatus.<br /><br />To understand a tiny bit about the history of copyright law and its intent in the US, <a href="http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/" rel="nofollow">this passage from Thomas Jefferson is a good start</a>.<br /><br />I will fight for my culture. I am a militant liberal and I will not allow big corporations to monopolize it just because they can pay off some legislators. It is my culture, and all of ours. That so many people are so willing to give it up so that Steven Spielberg can make another billion is very puzzling to me.<br /><br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-48413852697576795712011-02-09T12:57:50.810-05:002011-02-09T12:57:50.810-05:00Oh, I'm glad that Mike joined the discussion b...Oh, I'm glad that Mike joined the discussion because he is very knowledgeable on this.Clarissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027134365260069910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3164556861454970487.post-36196106652699792482011-02-09T12:55:50.738-05:002011-02-09T12:55:50.738-05:00Patrick, I am not sure how much you know about the...Patrick, I am not sure how much you know about the history of copyright or even if you are a US citizen, but in the US at least copyright was envisioned to limit the rights of the <b>creators</b>, and make sure the rights of the general public got respected, not the other way around.<br /><br />Now, it's the opposite and that's not how it's supposed to be -- though it seems that the copyright industry has caused many people, you included, to buy into that myth.<br /><br />As an digression, personally I do not feel the least bit bad about downloading a song from a major studio that in nearly all cases is completely ripping off all but a few top artists (and even they get ripped off, but less so). It doesn't hurt the artist at all -- they would've never seen any money, anyway.<br /><br />However, I don't want to derail the argument with that meandering, which it inevitably will.<br /><br />So many people know so very little about the history of copyright in the US. I am going to assume that you are one of them until that is disproven evidentially.<br /><br />I thumb my nose at copyright law because it is unjust, it privileges large players over smaller ones, it allows those same oligopolies to bully and crowd out more innovative, smaller possibilities. It has lengthened the time it takes items to go into the public domain (which was the entire intent of US copyright law -- look it up, I am not making this shit up) to over a hundred years, in most cases.<br /><br />I could go on, but there's many good books out there that will do it for me.<br /><br />My point is that copyright law is an unjust law, and unjust laws beg out to by disobeyed. Which I will gladly and loudly do.<br /><br /><br />-MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com