If a radio station informs its listeners that they were paid to play a particular song, what they're doing isn't covered by the payola laws.
This is sort of off topic, but this actually happened with the avant-garde group The Residents. Back in the 70s, they released an album containing 40 one-minute tracks called "the Commercial Album", and bought 40 one minute ad spots on San Fransico's most popular top 40 station.
This is pretty funny if you are at all fermiliar with their music.
Nader was the only one who actually answered the question... but a hot dog? Why should I care what he thinks about hot dogs?
I think Nader is being self-centered more than ducking the question - he assumes the audience is aware of his role in exposing toxic ingredients used in hotdogs.
What are you, an idiot? Who the hell is going to stop you from taking a pen and writing in a candidate's name?
Those states don't allow write ins. I suppose if you want to write his name down on the top of the ballot and have it thrown out you could. Just don't see the point.
I may have been giving the impression that I'm fervent Naderite, as I've been using strong words to say he should have ballot access. But he's no saint. People should be aware of this.
Uh, garage bands that are successfull turn into standard RIAA bands. There's no way to win unless you eventually drop support for the band that USED to be a garage band.
Not always. There are independant labels that do pretty well.
But overall I agree that it's silly not to listen to a band because their record label is an RIAA member. Some artists on RIAA-affiliated labels put out some great music.
I wasn't trying to excuse the Republican efforts.
I agree that Nader should not knowingly accept a single signature from Republicans trying to hurt Kerry (he claims he is not, though he may well be).
But I don't think you should have to be registered with a party to sign a petition. After all, most people who will end up voting for Nader are independents and don't want to affiliate themselves with a party.
I say if you want to vote for Nader do a write in, no court can take your right to do that away
Unless you live in Oklahoma, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, or South Dakota.
If the Democratic Party doesn't want people to vote for Nader, it should give them a reason to vote for Kerry (as opposed to voting against Bush). They're really screwing Nader.
Not that I'm surprised. They're just trying to hold on to power using whatever legal means possible. Perfectly natural behavior.
Doesn't make it right though.
I agree that this is BAD NEWS in a big way. But...
In 10 years, will Fahrenheit 911 sequels ever reach the public ? YES.
Michael Moore's claims of "censorship" are laughable. If you make a high-budget movie for Miramax, you'd better believe they're going to release it. As long as that sort of financial backing is available, he's got nothing to worry about. Others have had more serious problems.
Though if we give it 100 years instead of 10... your guess is as good as mine.
Perhaps I oversimplified in my post. There are situations where some type of foreign aid is appropriate. The problem is the type of aid we're giving, and who we're giving it too. The public has no control over this - the current program of military aid is going to continue whether we vote for Bush or for Kerry (not to mention the horrible fumigation program in Colombia that is called "aid").
Disaster relief is an exception, as I believe most of the US population would approve of such aid. I am also curious as to Badnarik's stance on this.
As far as bases go, you make a good point. It's certainly true that bases in South Korea are deterring an invasion from the North. But I feel that if the local population doesn't want our bases there (as is the case in Okinawa and most of Iraq), we should leave. It's their country.
If the South Korean people want us there, and we are willing and able to help them, that's one thing. I was making an extremely broad statement (probably a stupid thing to do on my part); of coarse there are always exceptions. But overall, our giving of military aid has caused irreperable harm - not just to our reputation, but to the regions involved.
kov wrote:
I may agree in principal with items on your list but they just aren't high priorities for me (example, legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs).
I agree that there is value in prioritizing your platform. That said, issues such as drug legalization go straight to the heart of libertarian philosophy. The idea of individual freedom, in all cases where no one else is directly harmed, is central. As all harm (except to the user) of drugs is caused by prohibition, the current drug war regime is completely incompatible with libertarian thought. While you may not be personally affected by drug legalization in the sense that you're not a drug user, the issue has far-reaching societal implications. Look at our prisons. They're full of non-violent offenders. 54% of all inmates are "serving" for drug-related convictions. You and I are paying serious tax dollars to lock up (for whatever reason, disproportionately black) people for trading in psychoactive chemicals. Due to prohibition and high demand, drugs are an extremely lucrative trade. Which in turn supplies vital cash flow to organized crime - and in some cases, violent militias (like the AUC and FARC in Columbia and warlords in Afghanistan).
But yeah, I'd like to see whether Badnarik is more concerned with social deregulation or economic deregulation - the LP platform seems to equate the two.
While I think you make some good points about trade (especially in bringing up information asymmetry), I have to give you my take on a couple of your statements: Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"? That seems a little naive.
The big issue is "a rapid recall of our troops from around the world." We take it for granted in America that it's OK for our army to be stationed all over the world. How would you feel if there was a Chinese or Russian military base in your neighborhood? What would you do if German soldiers stationed nearby raped schoolchildren from your town? (this has happened with US troops stationed in Japan.)
And yes, there are plenty of examples of countries attacking each other despite trade, but it does help. Trade is not a solution to war in of itself, but it's part of a bigger picture. I do agree with you that Badnarik may be overstating its influence, but it is a significant factor.
And what's wrong with foreign aid? Can't we do something nice for people once in awhile? We certainly could use a better reputation as a country.
Actually, foreign aid is one of the reasons we're in the situation we're in. We give aid to the governments of Isreal and Saudi Arabia (though in Saudi Arabia's case we don't have to give them cash - after all, they're getting enough from all that oil. Instead we hook them up with weapons and military training). This is one of the biggest reasons why Arabs and Muslims hate America. I doubt Saudis and Palestinians being brutally repressed by these governments are thanking us for doing "something nice for people once in awhile".
I do think recalling our troops and ending foreign aid would go a long way towards ending terrorism. Would bin Laden give up the Jihad? Probably not. But it would make it a lot harder for him to find recruits (assuming we also got out of Iraq, as Badnarik proposes).
Where does Badnarik stand on "defense" spending (not just the amount spent, but how it is spent)?
Much of the current system contradicts Libertarian ideology. Several companies that could never survive without government contracts do all their business manufacturing for the military. Barring legalization of patriot missiles for private use, these companies would fall apart.
How would Badnarik deal with this - how does he propose to arm the military?
wasn't trying to flame. actually, i stupidly forget to set the comment mode to extrans. there was supposed to be at the end. it was a failed attempt at humor.
-End the "War on Drugs" -Pull out of Iraq. Now. -End military aid to ALL foreign coutries -Stop development of Star Wars defense system and new nuclear devices.
In Truckee, a mountain community near Lake Tahoe in California, USA Media Systems, recently acquired by Cebridge Connections, has a monopoly on broadband internet and cable TV access, according to Harry. Cable modem users there have often complained about the service provided by the company and satellite dish services were not a viable alternative because large snowfalls frequently block reception, he said.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices,"
Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations
Source: Wikipedia
... the bottom line($$$). These aren't the first people to figure out that they can capitalize on the polarized party allegiences that have developed. Just look at Fox News, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, etc etc etc.
People always have the deepest hatred for those who are similar but slightly different from themselves. I see the difference between Democrats and Republicans as similar to the difference between Catholics and Protestants - while they have many superficial differences (and some more deep structural ones, in this case much more significant than the structural differences between the political parties), they accept the same framework and share a similar worldview.
This "polarization" in politics we're always hearing about is just another example. Dems and Republicans have a lot more in common than either would like to admit (I of coarse would be ashamed to consider myself either one).
Slashdot Mirror
If a radio station informs its listeners that they were paid to play a particular song, what they're doing isn't covered by the payola laws.
This is sort of off topic, but this actually happened with the avant-garde group The Residents. Back in the 70s, they released an album containing 40 one-minute tracks called "the Commercial Album", and bought 40 one minute ad spots on San Fransico's most popular top 40 station.
This is pretty funny if you are at all fermiliar with their music.
Nader was the only one who actually answered the question... but a hot dog? Why should I care what he thinks about hot dogs?
I think Nader is being self-centered more than ducking the question - he assumes the audience is aware of his role in exposing toxic ingredients used in hotdogs.
True.
I didn't mean the only 2 possible. I meant they were equally plausible.
1. Democratic Party operatives stole the computers. 2. Republican Party operatives stage a fake theft to make the Democrats look bad.
A savvy and well informed voter
We could sure use a few more of those!
The grandparent post scared me. Nice rebutal.
Mod parent up +1 funny!
How about just putting cow bells around their necks?
What are you, an idiot? Who the hell is going to stop you from taking a pen and writing in a candidate's name? Those states don't allow write ins. I suppose if you want to write his name down on the top of the ballot and have it thrown out you could. Just don't see the point.
Mod parent up.
Here's a link:
Open Secrets - Nader's Personal Finances as of 2000 (pdf file)
I may have been giving the impression that I'm fervent Naderite, as I've been using strong words to say he should have ballot access. But he's no saint. People should be aware of this.
Not always. There are independant labels that do pretty well.
But overall I agree that it's silly not to listen to a band because their record label is an RIAA member. Some artists on RIAA-affiliated labels put out some great music.
I wasn't trying to excuse the Republican efforts. I agree that Nader should not knowingly accept a single signature from Republicans trying to hurt Kerry (he claims he is not, though he may well be).
But I don't think you should have to be registered with a party to sign a petition. After all, most people who will end up voting for Nader are independents and don't want to affiliate themselves with a party.
I say if you want to vote for Nader do a write in, no court can take your right to do that away Unless you live in Oklahoma, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, or South Dakota.
But now he's off for good.
Not that I'm surprised. They're just trying to hold on to power using whatever legal means possible. Perfectly natural behavior.
Doesn't make it right though.
these are suggestions to save additional money. not all-in-one solutions.
In 10 years, will Fahrenheit 911 sequels ever reach the public ?
YES.
Michael Moore's claims of "censorship" are laughable. If you make a high-budget movie for Miramax, you'd better believe they're going to release it. As long as that sort of financial backing is available, he's got nothing to worry about.
Others have had more serious problems.
Though if we give it 100 years instead of 10... your guess is as good as mine.
Disaster relief is an exception, as I believe most of the US population would approve of such aid. I am also curious as to Badnarik's stance on this.
As far as bases go, you make a good point. It's certainly true that bases in South Korea are deterring an invasion from the North. But I feel that if the local population doesn't want our bases there (as is the case in Okinawa and most of Iraq), we should leave. It's their country.
If the South Korean people want us there, and we are willing and able to help them, that's one thing. I was making an extremely broad statement (probably a stupid thing to do on my part); of coarse there are always exceptions. But overall, our giving of military aid has caused irreperable harm - not just to our reputation, but to the regions involved.
I agree that there is value in prioritizing your platform. That said, issues such as drug legalization go straight to the heart of libertarian philosophy. The idea of individual freedom, in all cases where no one else is directly harmed, is central. As all harm (except to the user) of drugs is caused by prohibition, the current drug war regime is completely incompatible with libertarian thought. While you may not be personally affected by drug legalization in the sense that you're not a drug user, the issue has far-reaching societal implications. Look at our prisons. They're full of non-violent offenders. 54% of all inmates are "serving" for drug-related convictions. You and I are paying serious tax dollars to lock up (for whatever reason, disproportionately black) people for trading in psychoactive chemicals. Due to prohibition and high demand, drugs are an extremely lucrative trade. Which in turn supplies vital cash flow to organized crime - and in some cases, violent militias (like the AUC and FARC in Columbia and warlords in Afghanistan).
But yeah, I'd like to see whether Badnarik is more concerned with social deregulation or economic deregulation - the LP platform seems to equate the two.
Does he think that a terrorist group planning an attack on the United States might stop and say "Hey, maybe we should leave the US alone, because I like Pepsi and Macdonalds"? That seems a little naive.
The big issue is "a rapid recall of our troops from around the world." We take it for granted in America that it's OK for our army to be stationed all over the world. How would you feel if there was a Chinese or Russian military base in your neighborhood? What would you do if German soldiers stationed nearby raped schoolchildren from your town? (this has happened with US troops stationed in Japan.)
And yes, there are plenty of examples of countries attacking each other despite trade, but it does help. Trade is not a solution to war in of itself, but it's part of a bigger picture. I do agree with you that Badnarik may be overstating its influence, but it is a significant factor.
And what's wrong with foreign aid? Can't we do something nice for people once in awhile? We certainly could use a better reputation as a country.
Actually, foreign aid is one of the reasons we're in the situation we're in. We give aid to the governments of Isreal and Saudi Arabia (though in Saudi Arabia's case we don't have to give them cash - after all, they're getting enough from all that oil. Instead we hook them up with weapons and military training). This is one of the biggest reasons why Arabs and Muslims hate America. I doubt Saudis and Palestinians being brutally repressed by these governments are thanking us for doing "something nice for people once in awhile".
I do think recalling our troops and ending foreign aid would go a long way towards ending terrorism. Would bin Laden give up the Jihad? Probably not. But it would make it a lot harder for him to find recruits (assuming we also got out of Iraq, as Badnarik proposes).
Where does Badnarik stand on "defense" spending (not just the amount spent, but how it is spent)? Much of the current system contradicts Libertarian ideology. Several companies that could never survive without government contracts do all their business manufacturing for the military. Barring legalization of patriot missiles for private use, these companies would fall apart.
How would Badnarik deal with this - how does he propose to arm the military?
wasn't trying to flame. actually, i stupidly forget to set the comment mode to extrans. there was supposed to be at the end. it was a failed attempt at humor.
-End the "War on Drugs"
-Pull out of Iraq. Now.
-End military aid to ALL foreign coutries
-Stop development of Star Wars defense system and new nuclear devices.
People always have the deepest hatred for those who are similar but slightly different from themselves. I see the difference between Democrats and Republicans as similar to the difference between Catholics and Protestants - while they have many superficial differences (and some more deep structural ones, in this case much more significant than the structural differences between the political parties), they accept the same framework and share a similar worldview.
This "polarization" in politics we're always hearing about is just another example. Dems and Republicans have a lot more in common than either would like to admit (I of coarse would be ashamed to consider myself either one).