Ugh, so I've let the blog slide again. Well, in this case, I at least have a minor excuse in that life has been pretty boring lately. *chuckle* No, it's not a good excuse, but it is an excuse.
Thanks to Moggy for adding the "most recent comments" code, as I had been asking about a little while back... I need to clean it up a bit to make the font match the rest of the page, but that's not a big deal.
I saw "The Medallion" on Saturday, since I've always liked Jackie Chan. This one isn't very good, though, so I'd recommend waiting until a rainy Saturday night or something like that to rent it. I'm sure his age is a big part of it... he's over fifty years old now, IIRC, and it's really starting to show. He still hasn't matched anything that he did in Rumble in the Bronx, especially the warehouse fight scene, but then again, that would be pretty hard to top.
In the news, the Supreme Court has decided to have a look at the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm extremely opinionated... however, there are very rare exceptions, and this case is one of them. Typically, such exceptions occur with me when both sides in a debate make so much sense that I can't bring myself to disagree with them. (Here's an opportunity for those with an opinion to sway me!)
Conservatives: This law is an infringment on free speech. If I want to spend a million dollars on a newspaper ad for a blockbuster film, or an automotive dealership, or anything else I want to, I can, and any law that said I couldn't would be immediately thrown out on its ear as a violation of my First Amendment rights. There's no reason that advertisements for political candidates or the like should be any different.
Liberals: Yes, there is. No right is absolute, and this is one of those occasions where it's clearly in the interest of freedom to restrict political spending. As it stands, our government is being auctioned off to the highest bidder. The reason you need limits here is that no one's freedoms are threatened by your million dollar ad for the movies or the hot sports cars.
OK, peanut gallery... have at it. :-)
Posted by Zathras at September 9, 2003 01:39 PMReason it doesn't match the rest of your page is because my code is HTML and the default template is a stylesheet. (I can work with CSS but I hate it.) *grin*
I'll have to think about the campaign finance reform law. Obviously I'm on the liberal side, I just haven't looked into the discussion before...been too busy laughing my ass off this morning at the RIAA making the huge PR error of suing a 71-year-old man that doesn't even know how to use his computer and a poverty-stricken 12-year-old girl. (What's also funny about this is that all of the serious file-traders know what they're doing enough to protect their drive contents from being scanned -- reinforcing the old saying that only the stupid criminals get caught.)
Posted by: Moggy at September 9, 2003 02:05 PMI used to like any and all Jackie Chan movies - but it seems as if he's been going through a rut lately. He's put out so many movies in less than 20 yrs. (and a shitload of movies in less than the 6 yrs. or so he's done his "breakthrough" Rumble). I dunno - I thought the near-end of Rush Hour II rocked - that chick from Crouching Tiger was (LITERALLY) da bomb.
As for campaign refinincing: the funny thing is that there are, indeed, limits on advertising in general (you can't put a cartoon character in a cigerette ad, nor can you advertise NC-17 in a shitload of newspapers). I think it's bloody hysterical that political campaigns actually spend more on advertising than the government spends on social services. Who needs education financing when you can buy pens that says "vote republican!"
Posted by: Shaw at September 9, 2003 07:50 PMand yes, I'm lauging at the RIAA's mess ups too. they're like the modern version of Keystone Cops.
Posted by: Shaw at September 9, 2003 07:51 PMI hate to change the subject here, but:
That 2k could've gone to that kid's college fund. Real fuckin' disgusting, if you ask me...
Posted by: Shaw at September 9, 2003 11:20 PMExcept there's no way the mother is going to have to actually *pay* that money. Benefits and funds are being set up for the family/kid faster than anybody can keep track of...it wouldn't even surprise me if the girl ends up doing commercials or earning actual money out of it somehow.
The victims in the RIAA attacks I feel sorry for are all the low-income adults that will be forced to settle and pay on their own because they're not "cute kids" that the public will embrace. It's the same shallow principles that lead a community to pay for absolutely everything for a couple that chooses to have (and keep) 6 babies through fertility treatments while the widow or young man next door goes without food the last week-and-a-half of the month -- that is, the young, beautiful, or rich come out on top, and the rest of us are screwed.
Posted by: Moggy at September 10, 2003 11:39 AMOr in this case, rich, ugly folks like Metallica and Enemin come out on top . . .
And I hope she gets tons of $ outta this from those benefits. The RIAA has gone way too far . . .
I think they should set up benefits for the victims (yes, that's right, victims) of this mess, esp. the low income adults. How could the RIAA think that this will increase cd buying? It won't. It'll have just the opposite effect. People will buy much less cd's out of spite.
Posted by: Shaw at September 10, 2003 12:12 PMAnd despite it being "illegal," Kazaa is still on sites like download.com
Posted by: Shaw at September 10, 2003 12:14 PMIt's not a surprise Kazaa/KazaaLite or the similar programs are still up for download -- *they* aren't illegal. All they do is provide a method of transferring files, just like email, FTP, or HTTP. Some people use the technology to pirate stuff, but a lot of us use it to quickly download files that are legal.
The whole situation overall is really sad if you think about it. 100 years ago, big corporations spent huge amounts of money to create public free libraries to enrich American society for both poor and rich. (Admittedly iirc this was a method of avoiding taxes, but still.) Now they find little loopholes that let them keep the money that should go to taxes, rather than donating it to improve things for others.
Also, don't forget, the artists aren't the ones being seriously hurt by lowered CD sales -- it's the execs. Artists only get a few *pennies* for every CD sold (13% minus a 10% "packaging" deduction) and a fraction of the concert proceeds: the rest goes to the RIAA execs. Here's a good essay of how it works by a guy in the industry:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
About campaign financing - the limits on soft money and pacs do exactly what the McCain-Feingold does, except more of it, and they haven't been found to be unconstitutional.
About file sharing - since all the hype about lawsuits in the media, file sharing has dropped by 22%. It has had NO effect whatsoever on the purchase of CD's. If the decline in CD sales were due to file sharing, CD sales would be picking up now. The two are to a large extent unrelated - the decline in CD sales is due mainly to the Bush recession.
Posted by: Matt at September 10, 2003 02:32 PMI always considered the mp3 thang as more of a "library" thang than anything else too. I can go into a gazillion arguments for file sharing, but they've all been covered by now on other sites.
It is really sad - the corporations seem get greedier and greedier, with no end in sight. I don't care if that poor kid settles or not, the girl was essentially raped by the RIAA, as far as I'm concerned.
And that Albini piece is good. Most bands LOSE money on records; RIAA pockets most of the moolah. I can name at least two bands/artists who went bankrupt just 'cuz they got screwed over by record co.'s/management - there's prob. a lot more.
I think that 22% is not just 'cuz of the Bush recession, but also because cd's have not gone down in price in a gazillion years. That and, honestly, the quality of the music that has come out in the past few years has been pretty bad. All of the cd's I have purchased in the past 6 months have been reissues over 20 yrs. old.
Oh yea - back to campaign financing. The problem with politicians is that everything is all talk talk talk and no real action. I don't see any real finance reforms in sight - esp. considering that they haven't even worked on voting reforms as of yet, like they promised about 8 yrs ago.
Anyway, back over to you...
Posted by: Shaw at September 10, 2003 03:49 PMThank you, Shaw, for throwing it back to me.
Posted by: Shaw at September 11, 2003 01:18 AManytime, Shaw, anytime
Posted by: Shaw at September 11, 2003 01:19 AMAnd not one blog I'm part of actually said anything about 9/11
amazing
Posted by: Shaw at September 11, 2003 10:10 PMAnother point about campaign finance - there is separation of church and state to prevent the abuses that happened when the head of the church was also the head of the government (Criticize the government? We have a divine mandate! off to the inquisition!)
I think there should be a 'separation of business and state'. The government should not have business leaders running it to prevent the abuses we have seen, and will see. (EPA stuff lately, corporate welfare, etc)
Some people think running the government like a business is a good idea (NYC Mayor Bloomberg) but in a corporate culture, everything has a monetary value, including human dignity and human life. If you can't pay for those (through lawyers), you don't get them.
Posted by: Matt at September 12, 2003 03:21 PMI agree with that fully - but sadly, the way one "palm" greases another in biz and gov., dont think it'll happen...
Posted by: Shaw at September 12, 2003 09:10 PM