Angst-filled missives on the fate of American Democracy -- half-hearted or completely botched attempts at humor and constant, unadulterated whining!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Joe Biden speaks for me
Rips Lieberman a new one in the process in the Wall Street Journal, a follow up to Lieberdick's wankitorial there this week wherein he gave McSame a desperate reacharound. Best section:
The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.
The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
Do McCain's medical records demonstrate he suffers from the 'military-industrial complex'? Because he's acting all junta-riffic:
"I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill," [Barack Obama] said. "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue."
An angry McCain answered in a statement released by his campaign.
"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," said McCain
Only military guys can have opinions on military issues and thus be 'Commander-in-Chief'.
Sounds like a good idea -- for a military dictatorship.
So I guess FDR must have sucked at the job, huh?
Christ almighty, this HAS to be the last Vietnam War veteran to pick a fight. Is it a fight he picked with 5-Deferments Cheney? 2-Deferments Lieberman? AWOL-Bush?
I keep hearing how reluctant McCain is to wave this around...and yet he keeps doing it.
A Pentagon audit of $8.2 billion in American taxpayer money spent by the United States Army on contractors in Iraq has found that almost none of the payments followed federal rules and that in some cases, contracts worth millions of dollars were paid for despite little or no record of what, if anything, was received.
The audit also found a sometimes stunning lack of accountability in the way the United States military spent some $1.8 billion in seized or frozen Iraqi assets, which in the early phases of the conflict were often doled out in stacks or pallets of cash. The audit was released Thursday in tandem with a Congressional hearing on the payments...
The mysterious payments, whose amounts had not been publicly disclosed, included $68.2 million to the United Kingdom, $45.3 million to Poland and $21.3 million to South Korea. Despite repeated requests, Pentagon auditors said they were unable to determine why the payments were made.
“It sounds like the coalition of the willing is the coalition of the paid — they’re willing to be paid,” said [Rep. Henry] Waxman
My extra virgin olive oil [the Purity Ball of viscous fluids] is getting really pissed for having kept its chastity while "crude" oil is doing this:
Oil sped to new peaks for a third straight day on Thursday to top $135 a barrel as investors fretted over long-term supply constraints and a big drop in U.S. crude stocks.
Meanwhile, it brings us back to a simpler time before we were overcome by simple men:
Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.
If it wasn't so pathetic, you'd laugh yourself to death.
That was late-June 2000. The price of a barrel of oil was about $30 a barrel. It remained at about $30 a barrel well into March 2003 when the Chimperor made his awesome, "Let's invade Iraq" declaration.
Frank Rich, an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, has signed on with HBO as a creative consultant to help develop new programming, while still writing his weekly column, HBO and Times executives said Wednesday.
He will be barred from writing in his column, which deals primarily with politics, about either HBO or its parent company, Time Warner, Mr. Rich and Times editors said....
Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of The Times, said that he had signed off on Mr. Rich’s deal with HBO, and that the top newsroom editors and the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., were informed and did not raise any objections. “There was no concern that there was a conflict of interest, because he no longer has any connection to news coverage of HBO or any related entity,” he said.
This little snippet from when the Senate called up the CEO's of the major oil companies, like Marlon Brando summoned "the heads of the five families" and berated them about the price of gas:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) added that in his state, "regular was $3.89, medium was $4.04, super was $4.12." Asked the senator: "Where does this end?"
"I would like to be able to answer that," Exxon's [CEO Stephen Simon] said. But "it's absolutely impossible" to predict. "I'm not smart enough to do so."
He only made $32.7 million last year, so obviously he's not spending it on doctoral research, or even capable of picking up a phone and asking someone who is much smarter and paid much less.
FBI agents who assisted with overseas interrogations of suspected terrorists after Sept. 11 often clashed with their military counterparts and refused to participate in the most aggressive intelligence-gathering methods because they doubted they were legal or effective, a long-awaited Justice Department audit found.
At the same time, the report released Tuesday by Inspector Gen. Glenn A. Fine faults officials at FBI headquarters for failing to provide prompt guidance to agents in the field on what to do if they witnessed interrogations using snarling dogs, sexual ploys and other abusive techniques that violated long-standing FBI policy.
According to a report in yesterday's Los Angeles Times, FBI agents were distraught and concerned about the military's overly aggressive interrogation tactics. Now I realize that not many of us see the FBI as the bastions of sound criminal justice policy because of an entire history of mistreatment, abuse, illegal wiretapping and all many of questionable surveillance and eavesdropping. But you have to wonder exactly how far was the military willing to go in conducting illegal interrogations? We know about some abuses which I will not rehash here. However I would wager that we do not know about all of them by a long shot. If so, what does this say about our government? While the NeoCons have created an unholy mess of foreign policy, I often wonder if they meant to do so...
Imagine the deep and lasting damage to the image of the United States and the U.S. Military's reputation in the world which causes political instability at home? Maybe the NeoCons are trying to destabilize American politics for years to come -- maybe they did mean to do all of this if the right opportunity arose. Then 9/11 happened, a horrible tragedy but a perfect opportunity to enact several draconian political measures and the open door to NeoCon's much desired military adventurism.
Imagine running up a huge bill (which is happening) and then you do not have to pay for it when it comes due.
We might have a scorched earth political policy which leads to many messes that the next president -- a Democrat -- has to try and solve. And because of the extreme and unitary actions of the NeoCons the problems become so intractable that real damage is also done to the Democratic party when a Democratic president tries to solve them. Then another NeoCon (or worse a religious nut-job NeoCon) swoops in with all kinds of promises and is elected for eight more years of NeoConservative political and governmental realignment. Sounds far fetched? Who would imagine a situation in which the FBI is troubled by interrogation techniques?
In the end it is never wise to fight extremism and terrorism with more of the same. Maybe we should listen to the FBI on this point.
But as the long and often deflating nomination fight reaches its end a bloodied but relatively unbowed Barack Obama has regained momentum against McCain in the general numbers.
Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton...
...The poll also found Obama expanded his lead over Clinton in the Democratic race to 26 percentage points, doubling his advantage from mid-April as Democrats begin to coalesce around Obama and prepare for the general election battle with McCain.
"Obama has been very resilient, bouncing back from rough periods and doing very well with independent voters," pollster John Zogby said. "The race with McCain is going to be very competitive."
The poll was taken Thursday through Sunday during a period when Obama came under attack from President George W. Bush and McCain for his promise to talk to hostile foreign leaders without preconditions.
Obama's gains followed a month in which he was plagued with a series of campaign controversies and suffered two big losses to Clinton in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
I do think that despite low points that are inevitable in campaigns (and there will be a few more groaners to come I'm sure) the battle between Obama and Clinton has been good for the likely nominee. It has, indeed, toughened him up and given his campaign a good idea where to hit and where to repair during the general campaign.
Plus, this has quite possibly been the highlight of the McCain campaign. He only has started to get coverage of any critical variety and despite the laughable common wisdom of national security being a Republican strength (which is sooooooooooo 2004) he has come out the obvious loser for obvious reasons:
But Zogby said the attacks on Obama by Bush and McCain, who have been critical of his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran, did not appear to hurt Obama. If anything, he said, it reminded voters of McCain's ties to Bush, whose approval rating is still mired at record lows.
"The president is so unpopular. To inject himself into a presidential campaign does not help John McCain, particularly when McCain is tied to Bush," Zogby said.
And therein lies the rub. McCain is not comfortable with domestic issues, where he loses -- so he wants to concentrate on international matters, especially jingoism and wars where he feels most comfortable.
...and where he is tied most clearly with Bush, who's policies in these areas are grossly, grossly unpopular. The policy McCain has is the one clear idea that Bush has tied his Presidency to. McCain cannot talk about the area he is comfortable in without sounding just like the monstrously unpopular President, widely recognized because of these same policies as one the poorest President since the antebellum period.
There is some good news for McCain:
McCain led among whites, NASCAR fans, and elderly voters.
Okay first of all, "whites" & "NASCAR" fans is a bit redundant.
Second, McCain is not way ahead in the white polling and the elderly polling will change when McCain's social security policy is revealed as Bush's horribly unpopular social security policy, which began the second Bush term out with an anvil of unpopularity around its already sinking feet.
It's fairly common knowledge that the position of President in Iran holds very little actual power. Back when moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami held the presidency, we were regularly reminded that he was pretty much of a figurehead with no real power. Now that the confrontational and controversial Ahmadinejad holds the office, we don't hear so much about how the president is not really the top dog.
Yep.
Anybody remember who the elected political leadership of Iran were when Khomeini was the Supreme Leader?
I thought not.
So it's telling that McCain knowingly perpetuates this lie and the press is generally too lazy or ignorant to bring it up. They don't know, they don't care, and crazy Members-Only Jacket man is too easy a target for making Iran scarier.
Meanwhile, Republican Chuck Hagel has a few things to say about McCain's statements and clearly falls more on the liar side of the equation:
"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."
Denver August 2008, Monday or Tuesday at the Democratic National Convention.
Senator Ted Kennedy steps to the rostrum in prime time and gives a stem-winder as memorable as his 1980 speech all in support of the Democratic Nominee -- and ripping the Republicans a new one for how they have treated the nation he and his family have had such an integral part of -- in triumph and tragedy.
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die."
It's simple to behold — a single mattress, tucked into a dark, curtained back room of the showcase space. On it: a lithe brunette. She's perfectly quiet, but once you sit or lie down, she responds to your every move. Lie on your back, she snuggles up right next to you in a log position. Curl up in the fetal position, she spoons. The only hitch: She's 2-D. "Yeah, you can't feel the girl. That's the thing," Burrows explained as he demonstrated his invention, an "infrared sensitive" light projection (meaning it reacts, and the projected woman moves, based on an infrared sensor) called INBED. "Still, it's so nice if you're tired and worn out to have someone to curl up with."
Ok, I can handle many strange ideas, deviant behavior, and more but this leaves even me feeling a wee bit uncomfortable... I just love how the reporter is pushing the creepiness factor in the story as well. Thanks a lot.
Yesterday I read about Clinton supporter Cynthia Ruccia, who is indulging in a fit of pique because HRC is, well, not winning:
Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said.
Leaving aside Ms. Ruccia's incredibly poor choice of metaphor, I'd like to direct her attention to this report by Jeffrey Toobin about a recent speech by the man she would prefer to win the election:
[John] McCain plans to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, George W. Bush’s conservative counter-revolution at the Supreme Court....
In short, this one passage in McCain’s speech amounted to a dog whistle for the right—an implicit promise that he will appoint Justices who will eliminate the right to privacy, permit states to ban abortion, and allow the execution of teen-agers.
(Just as an aside, in addition to a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, the right to use birth control emanates from that right of privacy for which Ms. Ruccia apparently has so little regard.)
The question, as always with McCain these days, is whether he means it. Might he really be a “maverick” when it comes to the Supreme Court? The answer, almost certainly, is no. The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.
For all the elisions in John McCain’s speech, one unmistakable truth emerged: that the stakes in the election, for the Supreme Court and all who live by its rulings, are very, very high.
Perhaps Ms. Ruccia is living in a bubble that will protect her from those rulings. If so, would one of you please pierce it and clue her into the fact that the rest of us will have to live with those decisions and that this election is not about the dashed hopes and dreams of Cynthia Ruccia? Thanks.
The fact that Americans, still at this point, don't understand international politics and such -- due both to determined ignorance and incredibly shoddy and scant coverage by the media explains the fact that American politics has to be more pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian, than Israel's internal politics.
I won't take the time to recapitulate the whole article. But you should read it because it covers a basic reality -- by conflating being pro-Israel with supporting the continued colonization of the West Bank, many of Israel's 'friends' in the US are placing Israel in great danger and doing no favor to the United States either.
It is infuriating and incredibly bad for Israel that its most important international supporter has become so myopic. At this point, thanks to the poison of the Neo-Cons and the Bush Administration taking less than the full-on Likud position on anything gets you labeled as a potential "anti-Semite" or having a "jewish problem" [even when polls show most American Jews agree with your position -- just not the ones who speak about Israel on the tee-vee]
It is the road to disaster for all of us, but especially Israel and the Palestinians.
Not surprisingly the reporting on the very legitimate point brought up by Obama at a campaign appearance in Oregon, that Iran poses a significantly smaller threat than the Soviets who we always talked to, has brought out the insanity of those with no historical "bearings" whatsoever.
But really, let's compare:
1. Revolutions: The Soviets shot the Tsar, his family, his servants, his dog, his stuffed animals, his draperies, his yearbook editor, etc. Millions of Russians also died. The Shah died of natural causes...terminal dickishness. Hundreds died. And we can have an accurate position on this because America backed the losing side both times -- so there's that [USA! USA! USA!].
2. Evil Leaders: The Soviets had Stalin. They win. Plus there was nothing about Stalin that rhymed with "ass-a-hola" so it really cut down on T-shirt sales.
3. World War II: No matter how you want to slice it, the Soviets started off pretty badly, but then kicked Germany's ass in the most deadly and brutal war ever fought. Iran hosted a summit that got Stalin to wear his summer generalissimo outfit [dude was definitely "a summer"]. In comparison Khomeini was the Iranian "man in black". Mr. Blackwell would definitely vote Comrade.
4. Key Moment of Victory: Stalingrad, 200 days killed 750,000 Germans, captured 250,000. Iran, hostage crisis lasted 444 days, all American hostages freed safely.
5. Weapons development: The Soviets developed nuclear weapons more than 60 years ago, the H-bomb well over 50 years ago. The Iranians have "enriched" some uranium, yay! Although it should be noted the Iranians have been widely-used test subjects on the effects of chemical weapons. Which would explain a few things, if George Bush gave a damn -- but he doesn't so continuing on...
6. Number of Nuclear Weapons: The Soviets possessed about 30,000 of them at the end of the Cold War...most all of them pointed at the United States. Iran...uh, that would be zero. But, on the other hand you can honestly say that all existing nuclear missiles are pointed at the United States...or Israel depending on who an American politician is speaking to.
7. Eyebrows: Brezhnev in a split decision over Khomeini.
8. Clown-like Leadership, non-George W. Bush Division: Khrushchev banged his shoe with more authority than Ahmadinejad wears that Members-only Jacket. This is especially true in that Khruschev actually ran things, while the latter just drives the tiny, tiny car around the circus.
9. Allies: The Soviets had a "bloc" comprising half of Europe through the Warsaw Pact [coincidentally comprised of nations they occupied, funny that], the Iranians were tossed in with North Korean and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil" [much to the surprise of Iraq & Iran, see #5 above] because Bush learned his history from Dixie Cup sayings.
10. Movies: "Red Dawn" much cheesier than "Not Without My Daughter"
11. Military Spending: In the mid-1980s the Soviet Union spent 15 to 17% of its GDP on the military. Iran, as of 2006, spent 3.5% of its GDP on the military, the least as a percentage of the country's gross national product (GNP) in the region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on its military. Saudi Arabia spends more than 10 times what Iran spent. Oh, and not matter what you hear about oil, the Soviet Union had a much, much, much (add a few more) bigger economy than Iran [damn commies had oil too].
The thing about Bobo Brooks is, he can be as laughably wrong as Bill Kristol, but he manages not to outright lie. You see, Bill, that's how the pros do it.
McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.
Yet the graying men in the shadow of their glittering daughters were the true focus of the night. To ensure their daughters’ purity, they were asked to set an example and to hew to evangelical ideals in a society they say tempts them as much as it does their daughters.
“It’s also good for me,” said Terry Lee, 54, who attended the ball for a second year, this time with his youngest daughter, Rachel, 16. “It inspires me to be spiritual and moral in turn. If I’m holding them to such high standards, you can be sure I won’t be cheating on their mother.”
...
The girls, many wearing purity rings, made silent vows. “I promise to God and myself and my family that I will stay pure in my thoughts and actions until I marry,” said Katie Swindler, 16.
So if daddy stays pure, then daughter will stay pure? And if daddy strays, is daughter's purity compromised? Is daughter's purity the only way for daddy to control himself?
If I'm a teenage girl with impure thoughts somehow straying into my gray matter, in addition to feeling shame because I've broken my promise to God, am I also thinking, "I've got to stop because if I don't, daddy will cheat and mommy and daddy will divorce?"
That's an awful lot of pressure for a teenage girl.
Mr. Straight-Talks attempts to counter blows to his metaphorical gut are so over-the-top yet lame, only Sean Hannity could be inspired, this is a pretty bad sign of the self-immolating campaign they plan on running:
Aggravated over persistent questions surrounding their new policy on lobbyists working for the campaign, Team McCain sought to change the topic tonight by raising Barack Obama's ties to a 60s-era radical.
“Just a few years ago when Barack Obama was beginning his career in politics he was launching it at the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist...
If this is the card McCain wants to play, then Mr. Straight-Talk deserves all the attention he gets for his terrorist & Chalabi coddling lobbyist buddies and consultants.
It also means McCain opens the door completely to his Charles Keating days.
How much barbecue is that guy going to grill anyway?
I really have to credit Bill Kristol, for being transcendentally wankerish across various mediums. It really is a notable accomplishment. Matching Bill O'Reilly's ability to be a douche on TV, Radio, and newspaper.
And to think they are both stars in the FoxNews firmament.
Obama took Bush to be alluding to Obama’s willingness to meet, without preconditions, with Iran and North Korea, and attacked Bush. The conventional view in Washington is that Obama was smart to pick a fight with the unpopular Bush. And when McCain intervened, Obama was able to attack Bush and McCain in the same breath. But over the longer term, it can’t be in Obama’s interest to divert voters from a focus on gas prices or health care to the question of what he hopes to achieve by negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Well, that's your opinion asshole. I'm sure that jaw jaw being better than war war, the Churchill quote Kristol-types always forget while tonguing random bulldogs because of their resemblance to "Winny" has no popularity when compared to "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran". And again, enough with the lying scumbaggery about Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran is named Ali Khamenei -- which is why he is called "Supreme Leader Khamenei". I bet if you asked Kristol who the "Supreme Leader" of Iran is he'd get the answer wrong.
And the wankery doesn't end there:
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago...
Yeah, and Obama said he's cool with it. But Bill, you know who else is cool with it? California's Republican Governor, Ahhhhhh-nold.
If you think the Democrats are going to lose California this year Bill, then your hypocrisy over medical marijuana is showing.
Of course, the underlying premise of Kristol's article is that the GOP brand is a disaster...apparently because those idiots listened to douchebags like Bill Kristol. So, thankfully Bill Kristol has some helpful advice for how fine things actually are for John McCain.
I love stuff like this...a trip down old computer advertising lane.
My first computer, 1988, Leading Edge, 8088, MS-Dos 3.11, 512k of memory, later boosted up by 128k for $250.00; two 5.25" floppy drives...and for cutting edge 14" amber monochrome monitor with a 1200 baud moden...1200 fuckin' baud!!!
Along with a 9-pin dot matrix printer it was all mine for $1800.00.
Charlotte's diversity of housing options and home affordability were two of the reasons users nominated the city, Nickerson said. The city's strong economy, boosted largely by the banking industry, was another selling point.
The biggest surprise on the list is Charlotte, N.C., which is ranked ninth. Charlotte has undergone tremendous economic growth the past decade, while the population has soared 32%. But the current picture isn't as bright. Employment growth has not kept up with population growth, meaning unemployment rates are up more than 50% compared with 10 years ago. Charlotte scored in the bottom half of all six categories we examined and ranked 140th for violent crime....
....*Misery Measures are derived at by ranking the 150 largest metropolitan areas on six criteria -- income tax, violent crime, Superfund sites, commutes, weather and unemployment – and then adding their ranks. For example, New York ranked worst (150th) for commutes, 150th for income tax, 99th for unemployment, 78th for number of Superfund sites, 105th for violent crime and 86th for weather, which add up to its Misery Measure of 668.
Whatever. My hometown is fourth on the "Misery" list. I wish some of the zillions of tourists who throng New York year-round now knew that. (And Philadelphia is fifth, so take that, Duncan Hack!)
I cannot honestly fathom anyone, not named Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing this:
The reasons for Romney go beyond McCain's image problem and party doubts. Romney was the first GOP presidential candidate to publicly warn back in January that Obama would be the likely GOP opponent, and then say that he could beat him. This was not mere political braggadocio. He like Obama sold himself as the change guy who can go to Washington cut the cronyism, bureaucratic and congressional inertia, and restore public confidence. McCain is the walking embodiment of the much loathed Washington insider establishment.
Considering my agnostic sensibilities, I naturally find it hard to believe that either "Old World" virgin Jesus or "New World" serial marrying Jesus love me this much.
Mitt Romney proved one thing this election cycle.
He is the biggest effing phony to come down the political pike in years. He certainly is not the only phony, but he's the only one that is so obscenely artificial in construction that 75% of the country finds him a walking, talking, buffoon.
If McCain picks Romney he'll instantly plunge at least 5% in the polls. People really have a visceral dislike of the guy, especially independents. And the thought that "old man" McCain would have a higher than normal likelihood of being succeeded by his VP choice if elected is a factual point Democrats would relish.
Kennedy, 76, is reportedly resting comfortably at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston while doctors run tests to determine the problem. A family friend told TIME on Saturday afternoon that he was awake and joking with family — his old self. Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and dozens of others joined McCain in expressing concern and sending prayers.
His advice for those candidates who will return to the Senate after failed presidential bids? It boils down to following his example. "They'll work their way through it. It's a great opportunity for service," Kennedy said. "You know, running for office is not the purpose of this business; it's service. And there's opportunities for service as President and there's also important opportunities as Senator and I'm sure they relish that." Kennedy certainly has.
Well, we should soon have the answers to some of these questions.
As we have reported repeatedly on this blog, last October the Recording Industry Association of America - RIAA - achieved what many commentators on the industry described in unison as a significant victory when alleged file sharer Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay in excess of $222,000 for music piracy by sharing access to his music files. This conclusion sent a shockwave throughout the music community.
But persistent and important legal questions which we have commented upon here remain. These questions hang on the idea of sharing versus downloading. And this is far from settled, it remains a sticky mess for the RIAA. The question is focused upon whether the act of simply making a song available for others to copy is an active and indefensible act of infringement. There remains the possibility of a new trial and the thuggish tactics of the recording companies (in several cases going to extreme and potentially illegal steps to find file sharers, especially on college campuses) are not going to serve them well in a new trial.
[Some] courts have said that making a song available on one’s computer for download does constitute infringement, while others have decided that an unauthorized download must be proven to have occurred as a result of the song’s being made available. In the Jammie Thomas case, which is the first and only music-sharing case to go to a jury trial, the judge specifically instructed the jury that if Ms. Thomas had made songs available, she had committed copyright infringement.
And at long last it appears that this instruction conflicted with a binding precedent from the very same court. And, of course that is a bit of a mistake for a court to have committed. The presiding district judge said he may have committed “a manifest error of law” in his jury instructions that would require nothing less than a new trial for Thomas. Given that the RIAA and individual record companies point to the Thomas case as their "standard" regarding file sharing, they may have a serious problem here.
This is especially important given the increased efforts of the association which has been going after college file sharers with renewed vigor following the Thomas case. So, this mess may have profound and long lasting consequences for these college (and a few high school) file sharers threatened with fines and lawsuits by the RIAA. This could force a realignment over these issues which could potentially lead to a very good outcome. It is far past the time when the association should embrace and use file sharing in some way as a means of getting music into the ears of fans rather than attacking them for their devotion to the music.
There is a serious flaw in what the Association has done in concentrating its efforts on catching college students who share music. The flaw as we have consistently reported here is that the record companies have publicly acknowledged that they have no identifiable way of telling if a student (or other user whatsoever for that matter) is making an illegal download from shared files. It can only tell one thing and one thing alone: when users have potentially made music available for others to download. Last I checked, you cannot convict on the possibility.
So, as you can see the RIAA has a big problem here.
Isn't negotiating with people we don't like (so much we we're at war with them) what led to John Sidney McCain III getting released from the Hanoi Hilton?
All so he could come back and run for President and proclaim he will not negotiate with people we don't like?
