Indeed, I amn't dead after all. I disagree Jesse: they all jump the shark. Lieberman strikes me as evil, as a proponent of the restriction of freedom of speech (and crime against the Bill of Rights) known as 'censorship'. However, it doesn't particularly matter to me; so long as Bush continues to lay the smackdown in the polls against all ten democratic candidates, and with the donkeys as flagrantly divided as they stand, I can't see a liberal outcome for the Presidential Election.
Ah well. On the RIAA, I don't really have anything to say. I believe the best quote to address the situation is 'This is unprecedented... Suing one's best customers? The music industry seems to have irrevocably lost its grip on reality'.
What did everyone think of the Pledge? Does it abridge civil liberties? Is it a blatantly political move by a conservative government in the face of an upcoming presidential election? Your call, not mine.
Cheers,
Franson
Of all the Craaazy Democrats running for presidental Nomination THE ONLY ONE that doesn't jump the shark would have to be Liberman. Dean lies about everything he says, and looks to be a sneak. His entire base is based on insulting everything the repulbicans do. I meen, C'mon I dont think the man can even come up with a logical argument. I meen if Bush were to say to him "The Sky is Blue" Dean would retort with "No its not you egotistical bastard"
And California, I change my vote to Gary Coleman! "Whatchu talkin' 'bout"
The Democrats really need to get their act together. With the coming of Presidential election season, 2/3 of people have no idea who any democratic presidential candidate is and the party itself is in shambles, unable to agree on anything. With Howard Dean as the frontrunner for the Presidential nomination, I would be really concerned if I was a democrat. Bush leaves so much to be desired, and can be probably beaten on almost every issue imaginable, yet he is leading in nearly every poll taken. The democrats fail to capture the public's imagination the way they used to and are in need of a major makeover. Unless one of the current candidates is able to change the face of the party, which doesn't look likely, we can look foreward to four more years of Dubbya.
I believe that artists should get their fair share, but the RIAA and the Record Companies have done nothing to prove to me that it is worth it to buy a $15 CD for two or three songs when the artist will only get a fraction of the profit. Their first mistake was shutting down Napster, as it only publicized the logic behind cutting through the crap and getting the music you want. There was once a time when artists and Record Companies prided themselves in putting out albums that were great in their entirety. The record companies are solely to blame for the steady fall of record sales. They expected the public to continue buying over priced CD's that were long on fill and short on value, instead of going through alternative means that allowed them to get just the music they want. To remedy this, the RIAA has decided to take users to court demanding settlement fines up to $30,000 and potential penalties of up to $100,000 per song and they can re-po your computer if you go to court and lose. This policy is destined to fail, and has done little to deter use of download engines. Given the Record companies have started to wise up and offer certain songs for download on pay engines like Rhapsody, these engines are prohibited from carrying hundreds of artists who have not allowed their songs to be downloaded while other engines restrict or deny your ability to burn the songs you download. The companies opened Pandora?s box when they took on Napster and they are going to have to do better than trying to shock the public into submission with ridiculous attempts at retaking ground lost to their own stupidity.
The other day, I see Grey Davis on TV, trying to beg the people not to kick him out of office. His excuse for everything that has gone wrong under his watch is that the vast right wing conspiracy is trying to gain control. Wake up asshole! Maybe people are going to kick your sorry rear out because you were arrogant from day one, and under you California experienced the worst energy crises in the nation's history and your state accumulated a debt large enough to accomodate the entire country. Davis can suck it, and he definitely deserves to be kicked out. Whoever has followed his progress as governor realizes that he is incompetent and arrogant in the face of crises. When his state didn't have power, he was lauding himself as a genius in front of the cameras. Now Californians have taxes through the roof, have to pay more than in any other state for energy, and face a 27 BILLION dollar debt which was nearly been classified with a "junk" rating from the S&P. Have fun in the unemployment line Grey.
Gross, in my opinion, its never the "President's economy." The economy is too huge and too international for it to be on the shoulders of one man, and the President is hardly the person to give credit for a good or a bad economy. Alan Greenspan, for example, has much more influence on economic matters than the president does. I do believe, however, that the president can negatively or positively effect the economy. When a president lowers taxes, the economy is positively effected because more money is in circulation and the opposite is true when taxes are raised because less money is in circulation. So to answer your question, its not Bush's or Clinton's economy, but the Bush tax cuts did help the economy, although to what extent can certainly be debated.
The last time a recall election was called was some 80 odd years ago. Adding to that, Gray Davis has presided over the creation of a $38 Billion debt. These are undoubtedly extreme circumstances. Considering California has had more than its fair share of problems during its history and this is the first time that they have recalled a governor speaks to the magnitude of the problem. Every politician does things wrong but California needs help, and Gov. Davis has been unable to fix a big problem. Granted the Florida recall was stupid, but this is a recall that has come about due to serious problems that have only gotten worse.
As of late, I'm pissed at California. "For their movies?" you inquire. "For their music?" you confirm. Ohh noo... it's this fucking recall election. I'm all for recalling elected officials in a just cause, but from what I can tell, California is just acting retarded, almost as dumb as (dare I say?) Florida during the 2000 election (ALMOST). To recall an elected official on the basis that he's not done solving the problems he was elected to help, when he isn't finished is bad logic. If we were to recall any politician just because we didn't like what they were doing, nothing would get done. Once an official is elected, the term should be uninterupted unless major criminal activity is involved. Voiding an election is a big deal, and shouldn't be taken so lightly.
I am not very good with this whole economy thing, but hey Ben is it still Clinton's economy or does that only end when the bulls starting beating the bears in some one on one?
We all know that I am not a Bush supporter, but one event has gotten me very upset. In the STU speech that Bush made about the Iraq being supported by the African nation Liberia (?) (too late fo me) was fine. So what Bush got bad intelligence and embelished some intelligence to make it seem more severe than it was, as all politicians do. In all seriousness this small little detail would not have effected whether America went to war with Iraq or not. But here is what makes me angry at Bush, he refused, for three weeks to take any blame for this action. Kennedy took all the blame for the Bay of Pigs, which was probably less his fault than this was Bush's, and what happend? His ratings rose significiantly, because American's realized their pres. was in control. Bush refused to do that for us and it raised the question in my head, where does the buck stop? If our president is blaming other people for the mistakes in the office, it raised another question, who has the control? When we vote for Bush who are we voting for, because this incident defintely makes it seem that Bush is not in charge.
