Why use Napster? All it has is crappy artists from the RIAA. There are only a few songs I've actualy liked and are worth my time to download that have been made over the past ten years. Otherwise, I go to much better places [mp3.com], where music is allways free and more likely to be worth listening to.
Hear-Hear! Now if mp3.com will just quit trying to shove Britanny Spears and Bon Jovi in my face...
Has anyone else noticed that ever since the 'agreements' with MP3.com started being announced, there have been more and more has-been, loser 'mainstream' artists being featured? I'm starting to wonder if part of the agreement didn't involve MP3.com being required to push this stuff....? Euyuck.
Griping on SlashDot, while possibly therapeutic, is just like flushing your opinions down the toilet.
Then why are you doing it? I find it incredibly overweening of you to defacto assume that/. posters are not active in other areas of 'life'. You might try taking your own advice, and I don't mean that in a smart-assed way. It is good advice; I just didn't care for your presumptiontive 'I know you're not doing this' presentation.
Essentially, these people view themselves AS the music industry, not the middlemen who frequently just get in between you and the artist because they can. Their contempt for both artists and fans came through palpably.
I have experienced the same. Music industry execs are patronizing assholes. Additionally, they frequently lack skills in either music or business. Plus they are totally lacking in taste. Younger artists frequently don't realize this, and get screwed very badly. The RIAA is a protection racket, nothing more, nothing less, and raketeering charges against them would be, imo, very appropriate.
I think the most effective way to combat these morons (the RIAA/industry types) is independant studios. If there are as many folks out there with basic studio skills as there are that can string together 3 chords on a guitar, the balance of power in the industry will change. Especially since the equipment to make quality recordings has gotten astoundingly affordable.
The RIAA and their ilk are a zombie industry. They're already dead, they just don't know it. Keeping hacking at them, and they will put themselves into the position of overtly trying to strong arm fans (through legislation and court action) into buying their over-rated, over-priced, mediocre crap. At that point we can finish them off, since they will have to resort to the organized crime tactics that originally spawned them in order to survive; e.g. expect RIAA thugs to be breaking kneecaps of non-member studios, bands, etc in a last desperate attempt to retain control. Many youngsters these days don't realize that the MPAA/RIAA/etc were originally direct offshoots of the east coast organized crime families. That's the main reason for their close involvement with drugs these several decades now...
I go to the Pepsi Campus of the University of Maryland (aka UM College Park) at one point, underground trafficking in coke was a huge and punishable buisness on campus.
Typical pansy east coast school; even your black markey was corporate-tainted. Acid and grass are more sustainable, requiring less corporate support;)
You make some good points, Dr Katz, but I think you have overlooked the fact that acadame has always been a tool of the moneyed classes. There was a time in Amerikan history when the disrtibution of such funds and influence was done a bit more discretely, perhaps, but it has always been done.
Acceptance of special interest money by a university usually seems to be accompanied by a corresponding 'exclusivity', too, it seems to me.
Is this some sort of twisted survey to find out what my position on
abortion is? Sheesh. First two replies I read, and they're both this
bullshit. Why do you care what I think about his nonsense? Or are
you just trying to nudge the topic into more demonpublicrat-acceptable
channels...?
By removing access to public property it could easily
be argued that the city effectively denied the protesters the right to
peaceable assembly. Had I not read some of your other posts I would
think that we were on common ground here.
Hrrm. Well, I will say again (no matter what you may choose to think
of me personally): the city of Philadelphia certainly did deny the
protestors their rights, obviously, openly, with intent and
premeditation. They only thing that hasn't been proven there is
why?...
How do you view similar laws that prevent abortion
protesters from approaching abortion clinics?
I am not aware of similar laws concerning protesting abortion clinics?
I am aware (firsthand) of murderous bastards (not
retro-hippies wearing camo) that have killed people in 'protest' of
abortion, and of others with the same agenda who continue to have a
strong desire to kill more people who perform abortions. Beyond that
I don't claim to be well-informed on the issue, because, quite simply,
it not something I particularly care about.
You seem to be reading a great deal into my repeated assertions that I
don't care about your issue, and will not take to the streets to
support it. I can't help that, but I can tell you that you are
totally off the mark in accusing me of advocating the denial of the
anti-abortion protesters' rights. I would be quite pleased if the
anti-abortionists could figure out how to execise their rights without
trampling the rights of (killing) others, and it's not my damned fault
that they can't.
Again, you seem to have no problem with impediments to
those you deem corrupt or evil, but have only contempt for those who
would exercise the same rights to free speech, assembly and
association if the object of their protest is counter to your own
beliefs.
I really must demand you back this up. And what do you imagine I deem
corrupt or evil? I really don't think you know what you're talking
about.
My statement was simply that 'the will of the people'
in some instances may not be any better than the will of the power
mongers.
And I don't disagree. In fact, I think it would be valid to summarize
my remarks as "In any instance, the will of the power mongers is no
better than the will of the people." I see that as being a bit
similar to what you said. You apparently believe otherwise?
The cops are sworn to uphold the law (so are
politicians, but that's another discussion).
Actually, no. That is exactly this discussion. What I have been
saying all along is that the politicians have not only failed in that
duty, they have molested the corpse of freedom. Interesting that
everybody seems to want to talk about everything and anything
except that.
The fact remains that you champion those who protest
one law while chastising others who do the same.
No, I pointed out that murder is not civil disobediance. And that I
frankly disbelieve mini-me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H eduardo when he claims that
the anti-abortion crowd is not a bunch of violent freaks.
That said, if you want to paint Eric Rudolph as a protestor, and class
murder as civil disobediance, I'm willing to discuss it, but be
warned: I will expect you to apply the same standard to the WTO,
Philly, and LA protestors. E.g. If they bomb the convention hall, you
have to admit that it was just civil disobediance, not murder, and
anybody who agrees with them should be allowed to get away with saying
'Oh no, not everyone who disagrees the demipublicans is a killer at
heart.'
I'll start:
the right of a protester against the status quo to walk thru the
convention hall, or at least down the street outside, wearing a real
bad attitude and combat fatigues. I mean realy, why wasn't Rudolph
stopped? He dressed funny, acted funny, stood out like a sore thumb,
and had an admitted desire to kill people. The reason he got away
with it is because the police have more respect for the rights of
abortion protestors than they do for those protesting agains the
demopublicrats...
These are very simple facts. I accepted it long ago, and have
been acting accordingly ever since. E.g. avoid fundamentalist nutcase
anti-abortion protestors, regardless of your stance on abortion. They
are dangerous.
You guys keep trying to pretend it never happened (imo), because
if you admit to yourselves that it did, it calls into question your
original stance on abortion, and you don't want to face that challenge
right now. I believe this, but eduardo seems to think it's some
psychic hotline mumbo jumbo, and it offends him, so I won't pursue it,
since my goal is not to be rude, but to get a point across...
It seems as though it is not the rights of the people
you champion but the rights of those aligned with your way of thinking
only.
Okay. That's right. I only champion my own rights, but they are
my rights, and you can't have them. If you don't like it, go
champion your own damn rights.
Keep living in your little dualistic world, where the people who disagree with you are just "eviiiiiil".
...You are the diet coke of evil, agusto... Dream on. You aren't good enough at what you're doing to be evil, in my book.
Don't need to prove that. Just like I don't believe that all animal rights people advocate terrorism.
So, you don't feel that you need to prove your assertion, but you do feel that I need to prove you wrong... hmmm. "Dualistic" was your word, but I'm sure you won't mind if I borrow it.
Your side ? I'm not talking about sides here, just how you like to paint people who don't agree with you.
Yes. My side. People who think that anti-abortionists are fundamentalist nutcases who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors. You may not have a side. I understand that. You're probably too politically correct to take a side... Not my problem.
Getting personal again ? So now I'm going to blow up a clinic too. Funny thing is, you don't even know what my stand on abortion is !!!! LOL !!! Just that I disagree, so I must be for blowing up clinics. Wow !
Sorry, I keep forgetting humor is lost on you. I didn't mean you personally were going to blow up abortion clinics, although I'm sure you support those that do...
So if I where to discuss why Communists should have a right to express their opinions, does that mean I'm a Communist too ?
Two things appear certain: 1) you aren't here to discuss the same things that I am, and 2) You prefer contention to discussion.
You got your jollies; I'm done with you. I won't respond to your igmo bullshit further. Take that how you want.
Surely you're not advocating prosecution without evidence?
Allow me to point out that I never claimed to have proof of any crime. But then, neither did the cop who detained the author of the article. Said cop was acting (purportedly) in the interest of the citizens of Philadelphia (the will of the people).
My only point on this is: "Why do we not apply the same standards of legal and moral behavior to outfits like the the WTO, the GOP, etc, etc that we do to the 'protesters'?" The protesters can no more be assumed to be criminals than anyone else. The fact that they are congregating to advance and agenda does not, de facto, make them criminals.
The mayor of Philadelphia obviously disagrees, since he took rather drastic measures to ensure in advance that the protesters would not be allowed to assemble, speak, etc. By the same token, he took very definite measures to make sure that the convention went forward unimpeded, while the criminal activities of the political parties are pretty well known. Of course, the mayor is a politician himself...
If you and I go out and block traffic with a march, it's called a protest. If the GOP does it, it's called a parade.
Except that the will of the people is often immoral.
Nevertheless, the laws have to come from somewhere. You're denial that said laws are supposed to originate with the people is hollow. Again, though, that sidesteps my original point that the cops (actually the bosses -- mayor, etc) should be acting in the interest of the private citizen, not the corporate or foriegn national interests.
The fact that the bosses are not
acting in the interest of the citizen is manifest in actions like throwing a 7 foot chain link fence around Philadelphia city parks the day before the protest.... I am personally outraged by that action. I was well publicized, yet no one seems to grasp the significance of it.
Well, first of all, I didn't make you the offer.
Second of all, your kids, your responsibility.
Third, if you can't figure out how to find a boat to get your family out of the US, you're too dumb, anyway.
Fourth, if you're already talking about a way to weasel out of it, you aren't serious.
A lot more serious than you, evidently.
And Nazi Germany actually tried to send its Jews away before it started gassing them;
Hmm. You mean like offerring them a one way ticket out of the country? No parallels, eh?
What I figured. Another blowhard 'love it or leave it' type. Grow up.
If you think the US is such a hopeless, awful place to live, I will pay for your one-way ticket to any country on the planet if you promise to never return to the US.
Is this for real? Somebody made me this offer once before an lately I've been kicking myself for not taking it. Does the offer include family members? I mean, it's mostly for the kids sake we want to go...
I mean, I'm not looking for a free ride, here, but you could really help me out, since I'm looking for a way to get the hell out of here before the first of next year, anyway. I just haven't been able to make enough cash, you know?
Also, what is the penalty for returning if I decide you're right and I'm wrong? Can I jsut repay the fare?
Please provide an email address, or something, if you're willing to back this up. Is there a time limit?
Or did you scoff at the jews on the platform trying to make the last train out of Germany, too?
Your "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt" was (or read) related your wrongly misquoting me as saying/impliying "I've protested, don't try it because it doesn't work". I can't make this more clear. Now you are attributing it to something else.
Well, your implication was quite clear; and you keep reinforcing it. As far as my 'benefit of the doubt' remark goes, it was intended to encompass your entire set of posts on (or more accurately, around) this topic. It's a very basic conversational device, and you should learn how it works. Contrary to what you appear to believe, it is not an insult, at least, not used the way I use it...
Nice way to carry on a conversation. I haven't expressed any feelings of inadequacy, just expressing disagreements with the apparent motives of the original poster.
Of course you have. Your entire thread expressed to me your frustration with your lack of understanding of the issue at hand. That is easily (and correctly, in most cases), viewed as inadequacy...
Are you refering to me when you say "original poster"? You responded to my post, right? Or do you mean the article? If you disagree with me, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but don't expect me to accept your pathetically weak arguments that seem to be based primarily on either my or [the author of the article's] lack (in your opinion) of character. That's just pathetic.
If that's how you carry on converstations with people you disagree, it's any wonder how you can learn anything.
What can I say. It serves me. What makes you think I learn anything? Why not just line up over there with the crowd that think's I'm a fringe wacko? I mean, I know the answer to that; do you?
Well, daemonenwind, while I can appreciate your facaetious pandering,
I cannot agree with the your rather innaccurate representation of my
position, or that of amerikans in general, for that matter.
On behalf of other Americans, I would like to
apologize for 0x0000's ranting. Like many others here, he seems to
think that just because a problem affects Americans, everyone else
should know about and appreciate its finer points.
Which 'other americans' would that be, exactly. You have a
constituency? Sounds like you're the one wanting to be in charge...
I wasn't so much thinking that everyone should appreciate the
finer points, as I was trying to answer a question that Augusto posed.
I understand now that he was he was not sincere in his request for
information about this uniquely American problem, and probably doesn't
give a rats ass about the details. Hence, I'm sure much of what I
posted was quite lost on him, which I regret, but these things
happen...
He also doesn't seem to realize that the sort of
protesting you did, if I read you correctly, moved a power that
wouldn't allow him to even post such messages.
Sounded to me like he robbed a kwicky mart and took a hostage. That's the easiest way to get shot at and tear gassed in my neighborhood. I did wonder about the "(not hit)" part, though, since our cops here are pretty good shots. So are the store owners, for that matter....
He seems like one of the people here who feel that if
they only were in charge, everything would be suddenly
better.
I started to resent this, but I just can't. You are so far off the
mark, it's laughable. Actually, I am in charge, and things
just aren't worth a shit. Can you help?
What he doesn't seem to realize is that we will always
have power hungry jerks in any form of government or human
society.
Boy, I must've really upset you. Or are you this patronizing with
everyone? No wonder you haven't managed to win friends and influesnce
people. I imagine you get on well at the republicratic gatherings,
though...
The nice thing about America is that we can all ignore
them and go on with our lives unless they do something truly
boneheaded, in which case the media will get massive ratings shoving
the story down our throats until we do something about
it.
Only if you're stupid enough to pay attention to the media.
The only thing here is that if you don't work to make
yourself successful, however you define success, you never will be
successful.
This is demonstrably false, Augusto. He's only telling you that to
get you to work hard for low wages to spend your money buying consumer
goods from his masters. Don't say you weren't warned.
I imagine this is the source of much of his
"undirected rage", he hasn't figured out this basic truth yet. Once he
ages past 17 (spirtually speaking) he'll likely understand.
Fuck you. My rage is quite directed, thank-you very much. And how
does one 'age' 'spiritually speaking'? Your problem is that I
understand quite too well.
who has no idea when someone might try to kill him, is
going to err on the side of caution if presented with someone dressed
in military attire who responds with extreme hostility to any
questions. Even if the person is just a peaceful protester, it is
better to detain that person (who was not arrested from anything I
read) than to allow a true nutcase to get through with real
grenades.
Sorry it took me so long to get to this one...
You're right, and I agree. I find no fault with the cop. The guy
took no measures to prevent himself from being detained, he was
detained. I have issues with the people who were calling his action
pointless, and who are saying essentially "if you look strange, you
should be locked up". Bottom line, if they guy wanted to get locked
up, he did an adequate job, and I don't hold with critizing him over
much for it. He made the cops sound downright polite. compared to
some.
Again my issues are with those who are critizing the whole concept of
the protest, and with the city officials who chose to close the parks,
which are the rightful areas for this type of protest. I mean, if you
don't want protestors in the streets blocking traffic, let them use
the park. I surptised the police themselves haven't complained about
that one. I would, if I were them.
IMO, the fencing off of the parks is the proof that the city was looking to supress dissent (probably at the behest of the GOP) rather that simply protect citizens and property.
You just have to be 40 or 41 and be born within this
country
I can neither confirm nor deny this allegation. I will point out that
I could be older than that and still remeber the election where Nixon
was elected. Or, I could just have parents who tell me things like
that. Also, I could have been born in Canada. The actual hippies in
their teens in the 60's, (if I were one I'd be over 50, if you do the
math) and draft dodgers could have birthed me. I also point out that
you don't have sure knowledge of my humanity, so you can't know that I
was ever, in fact born. I could be a bot. A slashbot, so to speak.
it works if you actually try
I will look forward to your success, then. You are saying that
'trying' is all that's required, right? No mentor, special training,
or priviledge of birth? Ooookaaay. Go for it, friend.
Oh that's right you would rather smoke pot and call
everyone a sellout to "the man".
Hey, it'd beat working for a living:). Actually, though, I
don't think I've ever called anyone a 'sellout to
"the man"'... I will admit to having been tempted to, a few times. It
just has such a ring to it, you know?
I am not a drone because I work within the frame the
system sets up.
I think you phrased that rather badly, as it doesn't actually say
what I think you meant. I will accept, however, that you don't think
you are a drone.
See all the hippies of the 60 and 70s got it together
and figured oput that siting ther and doign nothing wasn't really
going to work at all.
Y'know, you'd be a lot more credible claiming to know something about
this if you realized that a lot of '60's activists would take it real
ill you implying that they were 'sitting there doing nothing'.
Especially the ones who were busy designing the internet while they
were working through that really wierd trip...
That's right they actually figured out that trying to
become part of the system and then change it from within was the best
idea.
I submit that the current situation is proof positive that you are
wrong, and that they, if they actually did as you claim (which I
personally doubt very seriously), were wrong.
Few, if any, of their objectives, have been accomplished. The
children of the 'hippies' are far more constrained than the hippies
themselves ever were.
I take it from the tone your posts have been made in that you
identify at least somewheat with the hippie ideas. The hippies didn't
vote for Nixon I actually did bother to look at the stats.
What, you mean peace, love, and understanding? Sex, drugs, and
rock'n'roll? I suppose I do 'identify' with those ideas, yes. I can
certainly understand why a group of people might find such things
desirable, whorthwhile goals, yes.
However, I think you will find that by the time Nixon was elected, the
'hippy' movement was quite dead, and was being rapidly replaced by the
'yuppy' ideology. So no, hippies probably didn't vote for Nixon.
There weren't any left, to speak of. I can tell you that the 'silent
majority' that elected Nixon consisted primarily of persons who had
loved ones who were eligible, or soon to be eligible for the draft,
that they didn't want to wind up in 'nam. These people were 'silent'
because they couldn't afford to be vocal about it after what happened
to the 'hippies', the 'communists', the 'beatniks' etc,etc. Nobody
needed to be lumped into those groups, since those groups had all
been ground to a pulp by the military/industrial complex.
The fact is, if your assertion that the system can be fixed from
within were true, somebody would've succeeded at it by now, and the
current mess wouldn't exist.
And I am quite aware of how the electoral process
in the US works... or doesn't work, as the case may be, thank-you-very-much. Why do you think people are screaming bloody murder about it, anyway?
The demopublicans and republicrats will, of course, give you a
somewhat different version of events....
Are you seriously trying to convince us that "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" is right-wing propaganda!? You obviously have never seen the show.
Did I say right-wing? I don't usually. Not what I meant. I meant: "It's on television, therefore it's propaganda and should be distrusted." Like "How to tell when a politician is lying: His lips move." -- of course, Gore seems to be able to speak without moving his lips.... The media, imo, sells itself to the highest bidder, they are not inherently "right-" or "left-wing". They're like politicians in that respect.
And you're right, I've never seen the show. I don't watch t.v. news. Not since Cronkite. I get all my news from/.:)
In the US, there is no such thing as treason during peacetime. What they are doing may be fraud, extortion, bribery, and assault, but nobody in the US today is committing treason, period.
But the US is not at peace, is it? The war on drugs, and the ongoing "state of emergency", the war against the napster... wait, that was Seagrams; they're canadian... or are they german, now...
Also, legally, current officeholders are largely immune to prosecution to anything other than treason.
Right. I think I knew that, or should have. Isn't murder and exception, as well (under the law, I know it's routinely overlooked)?
In conclusion: Support the only true form of participatory democracy: Assassination.
Last I checked was about 15 years ago. States included Georgia, Alabama, Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada... iirc. It's been awhile since I did any hitchhiking....;)
While it's popular to jokingly accuse all politicians of being criminals, if you
honestly believe each one of them is a criminal you need to get your head examined.
Well, I'm not joking, and you're not the first person to say I need to have my head examined; I'll consider it if we can get piss tests for members of congress and state goveners(sp?) mandated.
Find a politician and prove he is guilty of a crime
Well, now, proof is a bit different, isn't it. I'm flinging unsubstantiated accusations, and you're saying "You can't prove it." Your right, I can't, and furthermore, since I've seen what happens to those who try, I don't think I would try it if I could, so don't worry, your pet politicos are safe, at least in that respect...
Who said anything about prosecuting someone based on the "will of the people"?
Well, I guess I did. You know, the will of the people; the electorate; the ones those lawmakers are supposed to represent....? Get it? Pretty basic stuff from amerikan govt for you to be quibbling with...
[the WTO] What crime are you considering prosecuting them under?
Oh, I don't know, crimes against humanity, maybe?
I'm sure we could trump something up. How about loitering, possesion with intent to distribute, hate crimes, spitting on the sidewalk, speeding, overtime parking, transporting untaxed liquor across state lines, and jaywalking? We should be able to make at least a couple of those stick... it's no more ridiculous than some of the charges against the protestors, after all.
The WTO plays a very important role.
As do the protesters. The question is not "is it important?" but "important to whom?"
If your countrys reps end up representing corporations instead of their people, that's a beef you should take up with your politicians
So you're saying maybe we should... like... protest at the republicrat and demopublican national conventions to make our feelings known before the elections in November? Say! What a wonderful idea! Like, what do you suggesst we do if they do something like fence off all the parks and arrest us if we assemble in the street?
Are you smoking crack?
No, why, are you dealing? Care to try to prove that to a cop?
How the hell does being there have to do anything with self-defence?
You know self-defense. The inherent human right to defend your person against violence perpetrated by another, be it a country, corporation, or individual (I didn't look it up, btw, so you are free to correct me if I'm wrong, that's my own personal, operational definition).
I think if you examine what you said, you will see that the definition you really need is for "violence".
No credentials, just the North and South stuff people born in the US spout, amazes me all the time.
Probably because you have never suffered the fallout from it.
And I disprove your assertion by counter example, since all the ones I know do not think that way.
Oh wow. Did so. Did not.
How about you provide statistics showing that anti-abortionists don't kill people? Should be easy, right?
Then let's go to 'advocate' (your word, I point out that I intially used more provable terms e.g. "anti-abotionist have blown up clinics and shot doctors dead", which I stand by and challenge you to disprove, btw).
You asserted that anti-abortionists in general don't advocate killing abortionists. Can you prove that? Didn't think so.
You may prove that they haven't actually killed very many people, but that doesn't say a damn thing about what they advocate. That was my point. I don't claim to have any information beyond personal experience showing what the intentions of anti-abotionists are.
So. My word against yours, eh?
Fortunately, no one on my side as bombed an abortion clinic, so I feel I have the stronger credibility of the two opinions.
You are, of course, encouraged to disagree. I would prefer if you did it elsewhere, however, since I don't really give a shit about your stand on abortion, or how many clinics you blow up, unless you care to somehow tie it back to the movement, and the recent activities in Philly, which is what brought me into this, and is my only interest here...
Yes, that's about right. I will take at face value your assertion that you really don't understand what the protests were about, or why the guy went to Philly in the first place. In fact, I have a great deal of trouble believing that of you, or anyone else. It seems quite obvious to me....
I do have a problem with people just protesting against anything and it not being clear.
Fascinating. Why do you have a problem with that?
Do you feel it's wrong that someone might not have fully sorted out just exactly why and how they are outraged? Does it bother you that if a person feels wronged, violated, and oppressed they might go out into the street and complain in a loud voice, even if they don't fully understand what is happening to them? Hey, welcome to the human condition. At least he didn't kill anybody.
I don't get from what I read that this guy was protesting against Republicans, cops, the city, or anything. For all I know, he might have been protesting against his mommy.
Your 'benefit of the doubt' with me ends with that statement. If don't know that the protesters are protesting against the current US political/economic system, you are fooling yourself, and only yourself.
As to how the protest as a whole will be regarded in the future, that's another matter altogether and not what I'm talking about. This all started (In defense of the action) discussing the guy's motives. Which I will repeat, are not clear, and in fact seemed (just by reading his stuff) just to get arrested. No purpuse or statement.
Well, it's what I'm talking about, and if you check back, you will find that I'm the one who started this thread. There are those of us who can see where this (the protests) should go, and don't have a lot of patience with those of you who are playing word games that favor no one but the existing power structure.
The future is the point. How oftern do you want to go through this scenario before society evolves?
You should go back to watching CNN if you need to be spoonfed the context, and don't want to accept the reality. Quit trying to blame your feelings of inadequacy on the messenger.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say you said soda....
Has anyone else noticed that ever since the 'agreements' with MP3.com started being announced, there have been more and more has-been, loser 'mainstream' artists being featured? I'm starting to wonder if part of the agreement didn't involve MP3.com being required to push this stuff....? Euyuck.
I think the most effective way to combat these morons (the RIAA/industry types) is independant studios. If there are as many folks out there with basic studio skills as there are that can string together 3 chords on a guitar, the balance of power in the industry will change. Especially since the equipment to make quality recordings has gotten astoundingly affordable.
The RIAA and their ilk are a zombie industry. They're already dead, they just don't know it. Keeping hacking at them, and they will put themselves into the position of overtly trying to strong arm fans (through legislation and court action) into buying their over-rated, over-priced, mediocre crap. At that point we can finish them off, since they will have to resort to the organized crime tactics that originally spawned them in order to survive; e.g. expect RIAA thugs to be breaking kneecaps of non-member studios, bands, etc in a last desperate attempt to retain control. Many youngsters these days don't realize that the MPAA/RIAA/etc were originally direct offshoots of the east coast organized crime families. That's the main reason for their close involvement with drugs these several decades now...
You make some good points, Dr Katz, but I think you have overlooked the fact that acadame has always been a tool of the moneyed classes. There was a time in Amerikan history when the disrtibution of such funds and influence was done a bit more discretely, perhaps, but it has always been done.
Acceptance of special interest money by a university usually seems to be accompanied by a corresponding 'exclusivity', too, it seems to me.
You seem to be reading a great deal into my repeated assertions that I don't care about your issue, and will not take to the streets to support it. I can't help that, but I can tell you that you are totally off the mark in accusing me of advocating the denial of the anti-abortion protesters' rights. I would be quite pleased if the anti-abortionists could figure out how to execise their rights without trampling the rights of (killing) others, and it's not my damned fault that they can't.
I really must demand you back this up. And what do you imagine I deem corrupt or evil? I really don't think you know what you're talking about. And I don't disagree. In fact, I think it would be valid to summarize my remarks as "In any instance, the will of the power mongers is no better than the will of the people." I see that as being a bit similar to what you said. You apparently believe otherwise? Actually, no. That is exactly this discussion. What I have been saying all along is that the politicians have not only failed in that duty, they have molested the corpse of freedom. Interesting that everybody seems to want to talk about everything and anything except that. No, I pointed out that murder is not civil disobediance. And that I frankly disbelieve mini-me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H eduardo when he claims that the anti-abortion crowd is not a bunch of violent freaks.That said, if you want to paint Eric Rudolph as a protestor, and class murder as civil disobediance, I'm willing to discuss it, but be warned: I will expect you to apply the same standard to the WTO, Philly, and LA protestors. E.g. If they bomb the convention hall, you have to admit that it was just civil disobediance, not murder, and anybody who agrees with them should be allowed to get away with saying 'Oh no, not everyone who disagrees the demipublicans is a killer at heart.'
I'll start: the right of a protester against the status quo to walk thru the convention hall, or at least down the street outside, wearing a real bad attitude and combat fatigues. I mean realy, why wasn't Rudolph stopped? He dressed funny, acted funny, stood out like a sore thumb, and had an admitted desire to kill people. The reason he got away with it is because the police have more respect for the rights of abortion protestors than they do for those protesting agains the demopublicrats...
These are very simple facts. I accepted it long ago, and have been acting accordingly ever since. E.g. avoid fundamentalist nutcase anti-abortion protestors, regardless of your stance on abortion. They are dangerous.
You guys keep trying to pretend it never happened (imo), because if you admit to yourselves that it did, it calls into question your original stance on abortion, and you don't want to face that challenge right now. I believe this, but eduardo seems to think it's some psychic hotline mumbo jumbo, and it offends him, so I won't pursue it, since my goal is not to be rude, but to get a point across...
Okay. That's right. I only champion my own rights, but they are my rights, and you can't have them. If you don't like it, go champion your own damn rights.Sorry, I keep forgetting humor is lost on you. I didn't mean you personally were going to blow up abortion clinics, although I'm sure you support those that do...
Two things appear certain: 1) you aren't here to discuss the same things that I am, and 2) You prefer contention to discussion.You got your jollies; I'm done with you. I won't respond to your igmo bullshit further. Take that how you want.
My only point on this is: "Why do we not apply the same standards of legal and moral behavior to outfits like the the WTO, the GOP, etc, etc that we do to the 'protesters'?" The protesters can no more be assumed to be criminals than anyone else. The fact that they are congregating to advance and agenda does not, de facto, make them criminals.
The mayor of Philadelphia obviously disagrees, since he took rather drastic measures to ensure in advance that the protesters would not be allowed to assemble, speak, etc. By the same token, he took very definite measures to make sure that the convention went forward unimpeded, while the criminal activities of the political parties are pretty well known. Of course, the mayor is a politician himself...
If you and I go out and block traffic with a march, it's called a protest. If the GOP does it, it's called a parade.
Nevertheless, the laws have to come from somewhere. You're denial that said laws are supposed to originate with the people is hollow. Again, though, that sidesteps my original point that the cops (actually the bosses -- mayor, etc) should be acting in the interest of the private citizen, not the corporate or foriegn national interests.The fact that the bosses are not acting in the interest of the citizen is manifest in actions like throwing a 7 foot chain link fence around Philadelphia city parks the day before the protest.... I am personally outraged by that action. I was well publicized, yet no one seems to grasp the significance of it.
What I figured. Another blowhard 'love it or leave it' type. Grow up.
I mean, I'm not looking for a free ride, here, but you could really help me out, since I'm looking for a way to get the hell out of here before the first of next year, anyway. I just haven't been able to make enough cash, you know?
Also, what is the penalty for returning if I decide you're right and I'm wrong? Can I jsut repay the fare?
Please provide an email address, or something, if you're willing to back this up. Is there a time limit?
Or did you scoff at the jews on the platform trying to make the last train out of Germany, too?
Are you refering to me when you say "original poster"? You responded to my post, right? Or do you mean the article? If you disagree with me, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but don't expect me to accept your pathetically weak arguments that seem to be based primarily on either my or [the author of the article's] lack (in your opinion) of character. That's just pathetic.
What can I say. It serves me. What makes you think I learn anything? Why not just line up over there with the crowd that think's I'm a fringe wacko? I mean, I know the answer to that; do you?I wasn't so much thinking that everyone should appreciate the finer points, as I was trying to answer a question that Augusto posed. I understand now that he was he was not sincere in his request for information about this uniquely American problem, and probably doesn't give a rats ass about the details. Hence, I'm sure much of what I posted was quite lost on him, which I regret, but these things happen...
Sounded to me like he robbed a kwicky mart and took a hostage. That's the easiest way to get shot at and tear gassed in my neighborhood. I did wonder about the "(not hit)" part, though, since our cops here are pretty good shots. So are the store owners, for that matter.... I started to resent this, but I just can't. You are so far off the mark, it's laughable. Actually, I am in charge, and things just aren't worth a shit. Can you help? Boy, I must've really upset you. Or are you this patronizing with everyone? No wonder you haven't managed to win friends and influesnce people. I imagine you get on well at the republicratic gatherings, though... Only if you're stupid enough to pay attention to the media. This is demonstrably false, Augusto. He's only telling you that to get you to work hard for low wages to spend your money buying consumer goods from his masters. Don't say you weren't warned. Fuck you. My rage is quite directed, thank-you very much. And how does one 'age' 'spiritually speaking'? Your problem is that I understand quite too well.Sorry, I didn't mean to scare ya...
You're right, and I agree. I find no fault with the cop. The guy took no measures to prevent himself from being detained, he was detained. I have issues with the people who were calling his action pointless, and who are saying essentially "if you look strange, you should be locked up". Bottom line, if they guy wanted to get locked up, he did an adequate job, and I don't hold with critizing him over much for it. He made the cops sound downright polite. compared to some.
Again my issues are with those who are critizing the whole concept of the protest, and with the city officials who chose to close the parks, which are the rightful areas for this type of protest. I mean, if you don't want protestors in the streets blocking traffic, let them use the park. I surptised the police themselves haven't complained about that one. I would, if I were them.
IMO, the fencing off of the parks is the proof that the city was looking to supress dissent (probably at the behest of the GOP) rather that simply protect citizens and property.
VA? Heh; UCITA.
I will look forward to your success, then. You are saying that 'trying' is all that's required, right? No mentor, special training, or priviledge of birth? Ooookaaay. Go for it, friend.
Hey, it'd beat working for a living:). Actually, though, I don't think I've ever called anyone a 'sellout to "the man"'... I will admit to having been tempted to, a few times. It just has such a ring to it, you know?I think you phrased that rather badly, as it doesn't actually say what I think you meant. I will accept, however, that you don't think you are a drone.
Y'know, you'd be a lot more credible claiming to know something about this if you realized that a lot of '60's activists would take it real ill you implying that they were 'sitting there doing nothing'. Especially the ones who were busy designing the internet while they were working through that really wierd trip... I submit that the current situation is proof positive that you are wrong, and that they, if they actually did as you claim (which I personally doubt very seriously), were wrong.Few, if any, of their objectives, have been accomplished. The children of the 'hippies' are far more constrained than the hippies themselves ever were.
What, you mean peace, love, and understanding? Sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll? I suppose I do 'identify' with those ideas, yes. I can certainly understand why a group of people might find such things desirable, whorthwhile goals, yes.However, I think you will find that by the time Nixon was elected, the 'hippy' movement was quite dead, and was being rapidly replaced by the 'yuppy' ideology. So no, hippies probably didn't vote for Nixon. There weren't any left, to speak of. I can tell you that the 'silent majority' that elected Nixon consisted primarily of persons who had loved ones who were eligible, or soon to be eligible for the draft, that they didn't want to wind up in 'nam. These people were 'silent' because they couldn't afford to be vocal about it after what happened to the 'hippies', the 'communists', the 'beatniks' etc,etc. Nobody needed to be lumped into those groups, since those groups had all been ground to a pulp by the military/industrial complex.
The fact is, if your assertion that the system can be fixed from within were true, somebody would've succeeded at it by now, and the current mess wouldn't exist.
And I am quite aware of how the electoral process in the US works ... or doesn't work, as the case may be, thank-you-very-much. Why do you think people are screaming bloody murder about it, anyway?
The demopublicans and republicrats will, of course, give you a somewhat different version of events....
Did I say right-wing? I don't usually. Not what I meant. I meant: "It's on television, therefore it's propaganda and should be distrusted." Like "How to tell when a politician is lying: His lips move." -- of course, Gore seems to be able to speak without moving his lips.... The media, imo, sells itself to the highest bidder, they are not inherently "right-" or "left-wing". They're like politicians in that respect.
And you're right, I've never seen the show. I don't watch t.v. news. Not since Cronkite. I get all my news from /. :)
Last I checked was about 15 years ago. States included Georgia, Alabama, Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada ... iirc. It's been awhile since I did any hitchhiking.... ;)
How about you provide statistics showing that anti-abortionists don't kill people? Should be easy, right?
Then let's go to 'advocate' (your word, I point out that I intially used more provable terms e.g. "anti-abotionist have blown up clinics and shot doctors dead", which I stand by and challenge you to disprove, btw).
You asserted that anti-abortionists in general don't advocate killing abortionists. Can you prove that? Didn't think so.
You may prove that they haven't actually killed very many people, but that doesn't say a damn thing about what they advocate. That was my point. I don't claim to have any information beyond personal experience showing what the intentions of anti-abotionists are.
So. My word against yours, eh?
Fortunately, no one on my side as bombed an abortion clinic, so I feel I have the stronger credibility of the two opinions.
You are, of course, encouraged to disagree. I would prefer if you did it elsewhere, however, since I don't really give a shit about your stand on abortion, or how many clinics you blow up, unless you care to somehow tie it back to the movement, and the recent activities in Philly, which is what brought me into this, and is my only interest here...
The future is the point. How oftern do you want to go through this scenario before society evolves?
You should go back to watching CNN if you need to be spoonfed the context, and don't want to accept the reality. Quit trying to blame your feelings of inadequacy on the messenger.