There is too much schadenfreude going on … Too many people taking pleasure in others’ pain …
It is nice to hear Arnie say it how it is.
“It is only the politicians who draw lines and say this is a republican thing or a democrat thing”
Pop Culture: 1
John McCain: 0
This is based on the Rick Rolling meme.
BTW: The video in the background is the following:
Old war propaganda is entertainment. It appears old tax propaganda can be just as entertaining.Â “Taxes to beat the Axis! … Taxes to bury the Axis! … Taxes to sink the Axis!” Too bad our current wars are far from deserving of this sort of wide support and our current government does not care to collect enough to pay for the wars.
Some of the scenes remind me of Detroit Industry, a mural by Diego Rivera at the Detroit Institute of Arts.
Although this is nothing new, I think that supporters of both sides in the presidential race are creating the unnecessary division between Americans. Case in point:
Itâ??s no wonder that the slightest incitement from Sarah Palin or John McCain will turn one of their rallies into a lynch mob. Just talk to the folks who attend.
My camera was rolling for literally seconds before people happily said to me, on camera, that Barack Obama is a terrorist. If I hadnâ??t spent most of my time at the event inside, waiting for the candidates to show up, I could have gotten dozens of these people on tape.
I commented on the video and have decided to also comment here. The video and the attitude taken by the videographer adds to the ideological canyon that divides America. He hurts progressive causes by stirring the pot in this way and causes these sort of folks to ignore progressive messages, sight unseen, that are brought by others with more constructive methods.
Like a lot of other well meaning activists, his current methods are not effective and come off as contemptuous. If I were to witness something like this, I’d think the guy a nut and perhaps an ass for talking down to people. Instead, I suggest that all aspiring boat rockers instead provide constructive forums for debating people and provide educational material and resources to help explain your positions. For example, you can direct people to FactCheck.org which is equally scathing of both campaigns/parties for their inaccurate statements and portrayals of the other. You can also provide information about McCainâ??s role in the S&L crisis, deregulation of the financial services industry, and recent comments about the economy. And, it is extremely important to provide independent sources for your material that can be easily fact checked against. Direct people to use Internet searches and educate themselves. Too few people want to read let alone learn more than the sound bites they hear. This is an opportunity to give them a boost.
You may not convince everyone (like the guy who thinks Obama was raised from 1-6 by militant islamists) but I think you can convince a few outliers or centrists who can go either way. Each and every person who decides on Obama may in turn bring another one or two to their viewpoint. Talking down to people just make them dig in their heals and resist.
To be fair to the people in the video, a camera has a habit of pulling out the ignorance in people. Jackass comes to mind. Add to it that the fact he comes off as baiting people, I expect them to say ridiculous things or act like morons as does the woman jumping in front of the camera demanding he say when the first time he’d heard of Obama. Not that ignorance is excusable but this is a crowd of people who blindly follow a party based on an ideology they neither understand nor check the policies of. Sadly, the policies of the Republican leadership do more to hurt many of these people more than many of them comprehend or care to check. These are the type of people I grew up with. Sadder yet is that there are equal numbers of people like this on both sides.
BTW: Obama gets my vote because I think his team will manage the country much better and respect the Constitution more than McCain and the Republicans. We aren’t voting for a candidate, rather for the candidate and the party machine and philosophy of governing they bring.
“She’s not running for Vice President. She’s running for one heartbeat away!”
Wow, she came off as almost an idiot and made Bush look intelligent. It is all sound bites. And even then, they are strung together in such a way as to not make much sense. She comes off as ill prepared, over managed, and overwhelmed.
Sadly, her response reminds me of this answer to a simple question by a Miss Teen USA contestant:
This is worth watching, no matter which presidential team you support.
Tina Fey pulls off Sarah Palin very well. Uncanny.
I liked Obama’s acceptance speech tonight. If you haven’t heard or seen it, it is worth listening to.
The Obama web site highlights this portion of the speech. I felt it was a powerful statement.
That promise is our greatest inheritance.Â Itâ??s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours â?? a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.
And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincolnâ??s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.
The men and women who gathered there couldâ??ve heard many things.Â They couldâ??ve heard words of anger and discord.Â They couldâ??ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.
But what the people heard instead â?? people of every creed and color, from every walk of life â?? is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked.Â That together, our dreams can be one.
â??We cannot walk alone,â? the preacher cried.Â â??And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.Â We cannot turn back.â?
America, we cannot turn back.Â Not with so much work to be done.Â Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for.Â Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save.Â Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend.Â America, we cannot turn back.Â We cannot walk alone.Â At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future.Â Let us keep that promise â?? that American promise â?? and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
I liked the reference to Harlem (also known informally as Dream Deferred) by Langston Hughes, the poem that begins A Raisin in the Sun. Good poem.
What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore-- And then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over-- like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode? -- Langston Hughes
One theme I picked up on and have heard him say before is that we must be the change we want to see. And, like his other references to famous but unnamed persons/events, he channeled the ideas of Gandhi without specifically calling him out.
Needless to say, I’ve made up my mind. I think Obama will make a better President, manage the government better, and he will put better and more competent people in charge than McCain will.
Even then, I don’t like how either canidate handles the subject of the budget deficit. A deficit today is a tax tomorrow. Deferred taxation is not good policy. But both argue for tax cuts. If you disagree and want a tax cut, see whether Obama or McCain will cut your taxes more. http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
I recommend watching this video of Randy Pausch’s last lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams. He was a professor at Carnegie-Mellon who died this past week of cancer. This was his last lecture.
This video is likely entertaining only to folks who are forced to live with Microsoft hovering over Yahoo!, who are into video mashing and editing, or who like making fun of the first two groups. Even if you aren’t in those groups, watch anyway; it is short enough for everyone to watch and ponder.
I’ve wanted to post and comment on this video since I saw it a few weeks ago. Now I get my chance, as I work through some of my copyrights outline (test tomorrow).
I assume the Charlie Rose show is copyrighted. I also assume, Charlie Rose or the owner of his show can make out a prima facie case (this means they showed infringement of their copyrighted work). In that case, the maker of this video will need to argue a Fair Use defense under section 107 of the copyright statute.
Section 107 of the copyright act (usc title 17, section 107) provides four factors for courts to assess a fair use claim. It requires a court to consider: (1) the purpose and character of the use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
First, a court must consider the purpose and character of the use, analyzed along two axes: commercial versus non-commercial; and the superseding object of the original versus transformative uses. The commercial nature of a work is generally not dispositive and is given very little weight. Courts frequently provide this quote from an old case: “no man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” It isn’t entirely true, but sums up U.S. courts’ opinions about how they regard this requirement. Along the second axis, the video appears to be transformative because, to me, it appears to “add something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” Is it a parody? In which case it is given more deference. Is it only satire? If so, it gets less deference. I think that because the video’s creator adds another meaning, that of this philosophical conversation with self, it likely passes as transformative.
Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is as a published video of non-fiction. I’m assuming that the video was taken from archived copies of the Charlie Rose show. This part of the analysis matters very little unless it was an unpublished work that was intended to be sold for money. This was the case in the late 1970’s when the Nation Magazine scooped the juicy details that were to the “very heart” of former President Gerald Ford’s memoirs of his time in office. The Nation acquired a copy of the manuscript before it was published, and caused Time Magazine to cancel out on the advance it had paid to have first dibs on a review. D’oh! Here, if the video clips were taken from previously broadcast Charlie Rose episodes, Obi Wan Kenobi is not needed to say “There is nothing here. Move along.”
Third, a court will look at the amount ans substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. It seems this video takes very little of two separate shows. It is a toss-up how a court will come down on this. A court will not let someone take the heart of a work, as in the Nation Magazine scooping Gerry Ford’s story, even though it used a few hundred words of a 300 or more page book. I think it is unlikely they would consider this went to the heart of the Charlie Rose episodes in question because it was changed so much so that I’m not sure what was discussed beyond Yahoo! and Microsoft.
Fourth, a court will look at the effect upon the market value of the original, copyrighted work. It isn’t clear to me, but I doubt it will have much impact. The new video does not substitute for the original. In fact, I think it might lead people to want to view the shows to see what was said originally.
All said, I think this video will likely qualify as fair use.
I’m preparing for a Copyrights exam in less than 48 hours. One part of the test for copyright infringement asks whether the “ordinary observer” would find substantial similarity between the two works.
This video provides a good opportunity for you, as the ordinary observer, to decide whether songs are substantially similar to each other. There are several sets of provided, the original work followed by the allegedly infringing song.
And here is a second set to provide your opinion as the “ordinary observer.”