Roommate, friend, and hot shot movie extra Oscar and I got into a lively discussion a couple days ago about the world and our role in it. Our discussion mainly consisted of me posing hypothetical acting roles for organizations that Oscar may not like, and seeing if he would accept them (e.g. “would you appear in a Blockbuster commercial?” “Would you take a part in a McCain Campaign ad?” and so forth). His answers, as I’m sure he well knows, frustrated me by their neutrality towards all moral compass. He’d either take the gig or take the gig “as a joke.” My pleas of “Wouldn’t you be helping the enemy here?!” were met with “Wouldn’t it be hysterical?” There was no making a stand or sticking to your personal guns in light of monetary gain.
This speaks to how he and I view the world quite differently. At heart, I always feel like a feisty little world-changer, and I consider my actions important signals of my feelings. I’ll pay a little extra to buy something at a local store instead of going to Wal*Mart, as if my dollar is going to make the Walton family turn their heads. I boycott. I protest. I write letters. I get a little outspoken at times. I try to lead to the world as an example, knowing that if everyone did the same we’d be in a much better place. I know full well the world isn’t watching me, but I don’t care. Oscar, on the other hand, laughs at the world as it goes by. He takes the discount where he can get it, jokes and ridicules political absurdity rather than getting up-in-arms about it, and lives mainly for his own gain. I wouldn’t ever say he is any less of a world participant than I, or he is “wrong” while I am “right.” He’s a brilliant man and a wonderful influence on me and the world around him. At heart, he and I just play a different game. He threw a Horace Walpole line at me in our debate that’s been sticking with me since: “Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.”
I think Oscar could learn a lot from me, but I probably could learn even more from him. I’ve been snarking more at the world recently, though I still try and stay the feisty advocate. It’s been a complicated balance, but I think it is working. This morning I found a piece on Crooks and Liars that the advocate in me would be all upset about, but I’m beginning to appreciate as an observer. The Washington Post ran this piece by Dana Milbank, which is pretty good as a read, but really captures its alma as a video. Enjoy.
(Edit: For some reason the player is being a little finicky. See the original post here.)
Now, from an economic standpoint, we’re hurting. This has been a terrible year for many of us, in our industry and in our lives. There’s an active role we can take in considering the economics of the candidates and lobbying for better care taken in the assessment and treatment of our economy.
But it does feel kinda good to laugh about the situation, doesn’t it?
Hey, remember 15 hours ago, when I addressed the AP’s desire to work with bloggers and develop a rational licensing strategy? Remember how that, while I stressed the AP couldn’t set the terms of fair use, they were at least holding meetings to negotiate a fair balance? Remember how the AP stressed they weren’t going to act like the RIAA on this one?
Well, out the window all that nice talk goes.
Boing Boing is reporting this morning that the Associated Press has released their so-called quotation licenses. Here are the fees:
251 words or more - $100
101-250 words - $50
51-100 words - $25
26-50 words - $17.50
5-25 words - $12.50
Yeah, that’s right. The AP wants to charge you $12.50 to take five words our of their article. Unless those 5 words are like the first 5 notes in Strauss’ Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I’d say it wouldn’t be worth your money.
What’s far worse is that these blind blanket licenses do nothing to consider the finer points of existing fair use law. No effort is made to gauge substantially, nor is any effort made to gauge the derivative work. The AP’s actions do nothing to consider why we hold that highly factual works are more likely to be taken from fairly. We stress the balance of a free press in this country, and part of that balance is not only avoiding government censorship of the press but also allowing any and all to criticize or expound upon the existing press. In order to do that, quotation is not a fee you pay - it’s your statutory right that we must defend now.
Welcome to a world in which you won’t be able to effectively criticize the press, because you’ll be required to pay to quote as few as five words from what they publish.
Welcome to a world in which you won’t own any of your technology or your music or your books, because ensuring that someone makes their profit margins will justify depriving you of the even the most basic, commonsensical rights in your personal, hand-level household goods.
The people pushing for this stuff are not well-meaning, and they are not interested in making life better for artists, writers, or any other kind of individual creators. They are would-be aristocrats who fully intend to return us to a society of orders and classes, and they’re using so-called “intellectual property” law as a tool with which to do it. Whether or not you have ever personally taped a TV show or written a blog post, if you think you’re going to wind up on top in the sort of world these people are working to build, you are out of your mind.
I would urge all of my fellow bloggers to not pay for what the law provides you with for free. And if you do, I have some beautiful snake oil I would be glad to sell you.
I’m meeting OhRyan for lunch, so I’ll be quick here:
Bank robbery, lockdowns, and arrests in my almost-hometown of Fitchburg last night. Worcester T&G has the story.
I don’t know how Moog keeps breaking into my dreams, but they should keep doing it. Moog has released an electric guitar that only Moog could put out. But maybe they could let some of us proles have a go at it too? $6500 is a lot for six strings, even if it does have infinite sustain. (Insert Nigel quote here).
Speaking of psychedelia (and I’m sure that with a lower price on the above guitar, a lot more people will be speaking of psychedelia), Boston’s own Apollo Sunshine have a new one coming out in late August or early September, depending on who you ask. Shall Noise Upon is the title. No word if they’ll go the way of Girl Talk with it. Largehearted Boy has a preview, and it sounds pretty damn good.
Longtime accomplice Oscar is off this week becoming a movie star extra for Martin Scorsese, and I wish him the best. He’s going to be a naked mental patient in Scorsese’s adaptation of Shutter Island. It’s the part he was born to play.
I’m going to end this on a serious note: Dennis Kucinich spent 290 minutes on the floor of congress reading 35 articles for Impeachment for the President of the United States. While many feel that this is far too late to consider such action, I strongly disagree. My reasoning is matched to George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who was on The Countdown the other night:
What’s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the Floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. They are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs… they’re all over the place. [...] All that’s really lacking is political will. [...] [The Democrats] are afraid there might be a backlash if they try to Impeach. But of course that’s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives, and the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of Presidential crimes. And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass, where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.
“What it really says?” It says a lot, but not about the interaction between Barack and Michelle. It says a lot about how Fox does business. Here are my lingering questions:
There are body language experts?
You’re being serious?
Who calls it a “fist bump”?
Is there really this little going on in the world, E.D.?
Do we really need to trouble a distinguished Senator or the President of the United States (dubious a commander as he is) to ask them why they chest pounded or gave a wife the respect knuckles?
Who in the effing world calls that a “terrorist fist jab”? If you’re going to use a news organization for vile and revolting political maneuvers, you can’t even mask it a little? A little? An effing ounce?
Ignoring the ludicrous, offensive, blatantly political, possibly racist, and flat out useless nature of this discussion, let’s talk about information relevance. My dear friend (and recently married man) Webster and I were having a great discussion two nights ago about the Internet, TV and radio, and the original War of the Worlds radio broadcast. For those unfamiliar with Orson Welles’ amazing broadcast and the subsequent hysteria, take the time to read up or listen away.
We talked about how this world would probably not see an event like this again, partly due to the variety of information sources available to cross-check. He mentioned, and I agreed, that often Wikipedia is the best source of information during a major news event, simply because all of the article and related discussion is presented for you to explore any way you like. Rather than being fed information in one stream through a TV station, the information surrounds you, which beats being delivered information in both quantity and quality.
I suppose my major question for E.D. Hill and Fox would be: If you only have one stream, one shot at delivering information and making it relevant, why on earth would you spend valuable time and resources to deliver utter bilge that means nothing? It’s little wonder ratings are slipping.
Being an Obama supporter has been a dynamic experience.
I can hear his speeches and I see what he’s written, and I want to believe. For the most part, I do believe. Somehow I can see beyond the political history of my short life and still trust the senator from Illinois.
And this has been no picnic of a political life. There’s been much to hate about politics: the disgusting process, the love-turned-sour moments I’ve had with Dean in ‘04 and Bradley in ‘00, the myriad of occasions when politics has interfered with principle at a most basic level and in all areas of government. And that’s just the process. The actions of our country for the past decade, mostly done for political gain, may forever tarnish us. And even if it doesn’t, I feel a great sense of shame, a deep internal shame that is usually reserved for the samurai. I want to think Obama is going to be the refreshing face - the Kennedy or Lincoln or Han Solo to my trench run. I think of the power of his influence, and the countless people that I trust - in music, in law, and in life - unanimously coming out for Obama.
Either he’s either not a politician or he’s the greatest politician we have ever known.
Hey, I tried this once before on the site. Now that viewership has tripled, it’s time to reassess this tactic. Let’s have a little open thread.
Topic: WFMU has posted a wonderful little piece about awkward conservative presidential photo ops with currently-popular celebrities. Nixon had the shot with Elvis, Regan had the shot with Michael Jackson, I’m sure there’s a daguerreotype out there of Calvin Coolidge with Cole Porter or something…
… who should Bush have as his awkward pop icon photo op?
Taylor and I both posted about the McCain girls yesterday in the Blogagauntlet. And we certainly weren’t the first. McCain loves them, after some heavy flame war action the girls fired back, there was speculation from the New York Times, and in the end it turns out it’s all a joke from Jon Benjamin. A Worcester native, Comedian of Comedy, and the voice of some of the best modern cartoon characters, including Coach McGuirk from Home Movies.
So, Taylor has made his post. While his rhetoric is decidedly more boring then mine (Taylor, old white financial managers called. They want their copy of the Atlantic back). He leads with a neat analogy.
the facts are that Barack is Cleavon Little from ‘Blazing Saddles,’ whereas Hillary Clinton is Annette Bening from ‘American Beauty,’ and John McCain has just finished morphing from ‘On the Waterfront’ Marlon Brando to ‘Apocalypse Now’ Marlon Brando, with the final dreaded transformation into ‘Island of Dr. Moreau’ Brando set to commence upon his loss to Barack in November.
Not bad. But I think we can do better. Considering how hip and in the know Barack is, and how we made that a key point in both of our entries, wouldn’t it make more sense to take this metaphor out of the NYU film school and on to the streets of the Lower East Side? I’m speaking, of course, of Flight of the Conchords. Read the rest of this entry »
(This post is in response to today’s Challenge in the Blogagauntlet. See here for details)
Last winter I read a book called Blink by Malcom Gladwell. In this book Gladwell explores the idea of “thin-slicing:” the phenomenon of making snap decisions in the moment and the accuracies and inaccuracies of this system. In the spirit of Gladwell, I hope to attack Ryan’s question.
Friends, I am a Hopester (a term beautifully coined by a friend of a friend of mine, which I sadly cannot claim as my own). No surprise there. Obama is my candidate. I know it is Taylor’s too. And I could go down the laundry list and point out how I agree issue by issue, but let’s try thin slicing the men and woman in this debate.
So much of Presidency is about character. And this begs the question, How do we judge character? Both Longfellow and The Muppet Christmas Carol suggest we count the measure of a man by his friends. Seems sound enough to me. In that spirit, let’s look at friends: Read the rest of this entry »
Bostonist has the scoop on some rising legal challenges to City Council-approved rule which prohibits more than four students living in the same unit. Attorney Stephen Greenbaum is tackling the issue, saying:
- the new law is unconstitutional, prohibiting the rights of equal protection under law, and freedom of association.
- the law violates right of privacy, as students would have to make aware their status as students.”Students are under no obligation to release that information.” according to Attorney Greenbaum in the Allston-Brighton TAB.
- it violates the explicit ban of rent control, as ever-floundering Councilor Michael Ross confessed himself that the law was an “effort to reduce value of apartments.” (again as qtd. in the TAB article). Read the rest of this entry »
