Found this on The Drudge Report and it made me laugh... Bush dancing.
At least he is trying... Although, when he tried to play the Djembe is when I lost it. He really has absolutely no rhythm, and should not be anywhere near that drum.
On the other hand, I like the beat - maybe I can learn it.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A little something called parenting...
A Knoxville father decided to take an interesting measure to punish his middle-school aged child who he found was involved in drug use.
The father, who found on his child's MySpace page that his son had been using and selling marijuana and Oxycontin, forced his child to stand outside of his middle school with a sandwich board sign that said "I abused and sold drugs." Some called it an extreme measure... I say the punishment fits the crime.
Drug abuse is a serious crime, and as a parent you have a duty to make sure your child learns the lesson. Grounding them, taking away their television, or doing something more mundane doesn't carry the same threat level as forcing your child to stand in front of his school and embarass himself. At least the father didn't make the kid sit in jail.
Another thing, what the hell was the kid putting this on his MySpace for? I think the kid was screaming for attention... Beyond that, why does a middle school kid have a MySpace page in the first place? Internet sites like MySpace and Facebook are dangerous places for young children who don't quite understand the social ramifications of what they post. Thank god the father was monitoring it.
Parents should take a lesson from this Knoxville father though. Watch your kids. Don't let them watch TV or get ont he internet unoomnitored. And if you find them doing something extremely harmful, take extreme steps to stop it.
The father, who found on his child's MySpace page that his son had been using and selling marijuana and Oxycontin, forced his child to stand outside of his middle school with a sandwich board sign that said "I abused and sold drugs." Some called it an extreme measure... I say the punishment fits the crime.
Drug abuse is a serious crime, and as a parent you have a duty to make sure your child learns the lesson. Grounding them, taking away their television, or doing something more mundane doesn't carry the same threat level as forcing your child to stand in front of his school and embarass himself. At least the father didn't make the kid sit in jail.
Another thing, what the hell was the kid putting this on his MySpace for? I think the kid was screaming for attention... Beyond that, why does a middle school kid have a MySpace page in the first place? Internet sites like MySpace and Facebook are dangerous places for young children who don't quite understand the social ramifications of what they post. Thank god the father was monitoring it.
Parents should take a lesson from this Knoxville father though. Watch your kids. Don't let them watch TV or get ont he internet unoomnitored. And if you find them doing something extremely harmful, take extreme steps to stop it.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Too little too late?
Al Gore has finally decided to try to change his energy-guzzling mansion into something that sort of resembles the environmentally friendly houses he tells people to live in. He has requested for a permit to install solar panels on his house.
Gore, the self-made poster child for global warming awareness, caught a lot of flack when someone looked at the power bill for his gigantic Belle Meade mansion. Lets just say it is less than efficient. The man just looked like a hypocrit.
Gore claims that he purchases "carbon offsets" so that his environmental footprint is technically zero. Honestly, I am not buying this, nor his recent attempt to install solar panels. If he really walked the walk he would give up the big mansion, and move into a space that suits his needs. While he encourages reducing and living with less, he is living the life of excess that contributes to the environmental problem he so avidly fights to cure.
Some might think Gore is truly green, but I'm not buying it.
Gore, the self-made poster child for global warming awareness, caught a lot of flack when someone looked at the power bill for his gigantic Belle Meade mansion. Lets just say it is less than efficient. The man just looked like a hypocrit.
Gore claims that he purchases "carbon offsets" so that his environmental footprint is technically zero. Honestly, I am not buying this, nor his recent attempt to install solar panels. If he really walked the walk he would give up the big mansion, and move into a space that suits his needs. While he encourages reducing and living with less, he is living the life of excess that contributes to the environmental problem he so avidly fights to cure.
Some might think Gore is truly green, but I'm not buying it.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Congressional diplomacy? Where in the constitution is that?
Last time I checked, the president was responsible for diplomacy and executing foreign policy - not the speaker of the house! Where in the constitution does it say that the House can negotiate peace deals or treaties? Apparently, Nancy Pelosi thinks it does. Someone needs to send her back to grade school and give her a lesson on the role of the legislative branch.
While I highlight Pelosi, my criticism applies across the board. The power to conduct foreign diplomacy resides in the executive branch. There is a reason why the legislative branch does not share this negotiating power. Pelosi's trip does nothing but send mixed messages, and decrease the credibility of the White House. Whether you agree with Bush's policy towards Syria or not, is irrelevant. Pelosi should not be taking matters into her own hands. We might be divided as a nation internally, but abroad we need to projecting a consistent, clear message. That message is set by the President.
Who knows what will come of this, but it must be stopped. Seperation of powers lies at the heart of our governmental system, and quite frankly Nancy Pelosi needs to learn that lesson!
While I highlight Pelosi, my criticism applies across the board. The power to conduct foreign diplomacy resides in the executive branch. There is a reason why the legislative branch does not share this negotiating power. Pelosi's trip does nothing but send mixed messages, and decrease the credibility of the White House. Whether you agree with Bush's policy towards Syria or not, is irrelevant. Pelosi should not be taking matters into her own hands. We might be divided as a nation internally, but abroad we need to projecting a consistent, clear message. That message is set by the President.
Who knows what will come of this, but it must be stopped. Seperation of powers lies at the heart of our governmental system, and quite frankly Nancy Pelosi needs to learn that lesson!
Friday, March 23, 2007
Now Viacom is getting sued over Youtube...
I love Youtube. As most can tell from my past three post subjects, but here is an interesting twist on the Youtube/Viacom showdown. Now activist organizations are suing Viacom for requesting the removal of a parody of The Colbert Show. While it contained clips from Colbert, they groups claim that they were protected under "fair use" doctrine and that Viacom erred in requesting its take-down.
Got to love it when trying to protect your copyrighted material comes back to bite you in the ass. For me this just illustrates another flaw in the "take-down" request logic embodied in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Inevitably someone (one of these Youtube scanning employees at these big time corporations) is going to screw up and request that something be taken down that probably has a right to be there. With the volume of take-down requests that go out every single day, it is unlikely that there is much oversight. One employee steps on the wrong persons toes, and the company gets tied up in a free speech lawsuit potentially costing it big bucks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of a scenario.
Ultimately, I think this just adds fuel to Viacom's larger complaint/suit against Google and Youtube. Now, take down requests come with teetch if they are not executed carefully. THis limits the ability of the copyright holder to effectively manage the massive volume of postings each day on Youtube. Inevitably copyright privileges will be violated, and there is not much the company can do about it under current law.
Got to love it when trying to protect your copyrighted material comes back to bite you in the ass. For me this just illustrates another flaw in the "take-down" request logic embodied in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Inevitably someone (one of these Youtube scanning employees at these big time corporations) is going to screw up and request that something be taken down that probably has a right to be there. With the volume of take-down requests that go out every single day, it is unlikely that there is much oversight. One employee steps on the wrong persons toes, and the company gets tied up in a free speech lawsuit potentially costing it big bucks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of a scenario.
Ultimately, I think this just adds fuel to Viacom's larger complaint/suit against Google and Youtube. Now, take down requests come with teetch if they are not executed carefully. THis limits the ability of the copyright holder to effectively manage the massive volume of postings each day on Youtube. Inevitably copyright privileges will be violated, and there is not much the company can do about it under current law.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Political advertising not just for the rich anymore...
The dimensions of political campaigning are transforming yet again as tech-savy activists exploit Youtube as a forum for posting cheap, provocative campaign ads. If you haven't seen it yet - here's the link for the new "1984" Anti-Hillary Youtube ad.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Youtube under fire...
I wondered how long it would take for someone to attempt to slay the internet video goliath ... and once Google bought Youtube the money got real big.
Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?
In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.
While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.
Does Viacom really stand a chance? The Viacom lawsuit certainly raises interesting questions concerning internet copyright laws and whether or not techonology holders are responsible for copyrighted material posted on their websites. But, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act seems fairly clear... as long as Google/Youtube responds to the "take-down" requests of copyright holders then they are not liable for copyright infringement. Despite providing the medium for communication of the material, Google is not posting the copyrighted films. Individuals are posting this material, and rightly, should they not be the ones liable?
In the end, it all comes down to money - Google has it and the individual does not. If Viacom sues Joe Bob they are likely to get nothing, but if it sues Google and wins - we are talking billion dollar settlement.
While Google does seem insulated for the time being, keep an eye one this case. My bet is it will end up in the Supreme Court. The mass popularity of Youtube means that the "take-down" request protection is truly inadequate. No copyright holder can possibly keep track of the thousands of posts a day. Google bears some responsibility. Thus, Google might win a few battles, but ultimately - Viacom is going to win the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)