|Tuesday, October 4th, 2005|
10:26a - Reasons The System Is Broken, Number 12,543,019...
Here's a trick question:
You hear that company X has sued person y. Do you assume that X is evil, or that y is guilty?
Now let's plug in some real values: X = RIAA, y = a disabled single mother in Oregon.
Oh it gets better than that.
I knew it was only a matter of time before they finally sued the wrong person -- someone who was a) innocent, b) capable of generating a LOT of sympathy from a jury, c) had absolutely nothing to lose.
We've all known for years that the threat of a lawsuit is often used to bludgeon the weak and small into submission. Innocence is meaningless in this country, being in the RIGHT is meaningless, unless you have the money to prove it.
I think a lot of mainstream america either doesn't know it, or assumes that people being sued by the RIAA are already guilty. Let's see how much press this little story can generate, and maybe they'll be slower to judge.
Hey, I can dream.
current mood: annoyed
(1 comment |comment on this)
3:43p - Creative Editing as Parody?!
I originally posted this as a comment to a post by elfs, and then realized that it deserved to be shared with my friends list. Be aware that either link could fall prey to a cease and desist letter or bandwidth limits without warning:
At last I have found the perfect artwork to go with this piece of twisted brilliance (warning: 5.4 Mb file). I first encountered it 10 years ago when it was making the rounds at Apple, where it induced painful laughter.
(BTW, readers in Office Land should know that this is sorta kinda not work safe. I mean, they don't actually say ANYTHING that wasn't said in the original series, obviously, but context is everything. You'll understand when you hear it.)
* Yes, this is a real song. I even have it in my iTunes. So there.
current mood: silly
(3 comments |comment on this)
4:50p - Random Political Naiveté Hitting Your Screen from Sunny Alameda!
Forgive me as I ponder some political irony.
So, Bush has announced that he's nominating his own lawyer -- the same one he tasked with finding him candidates -- for the vacant Supreme Court seat. Miers has never been a judge, but believe it or not that's not a requirement.
Hold on, let's look up the relevant bit:
- Article. III, Section. 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
There are age restrictions for Congress and Senate, as well as President. There are all sorts of qualifications to be president (which is why the Govenator can't become Pres). But that's about all there is regarding the highest court in the land.
There is no constitutional restriction against W collecting every name in this country and pulling it at random. *I* could be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Anyway, that's not why I'm chortling.
It hit me today that the conservatives are FUMING that Bush Baby didn't pick someone more to their liking. Which means that there are probably a few senators squarely in their pocket who are already looking down the barrel of re-election (or not) next year.
Chances are that, if Roberts was confirmed, that moderates on both sides would be perfectly happy to make her a Supreme. Which means the hard core right wouldn't have the votes to keep her off.
You see this coming, don't you?
That's right folks: The only way they could keep her from being confirmed is to (say it with me now) FILIBUSTER.
Except they don't dare. Not after hanging the "nuclear option" of repealing that right over the Dems heads for so long.
It was recently noted that, if the quiet fearful rumblings are true and BOTH the Dick and the Bush had their fingers in that whole "Plame" CIA outing (we all KNOW they did -- the trouble is they might actually have been CAUGHT this time) that there would be the fascinating specter of Miers being forced to recuse herself from any Supreme involvement in an Impeachment proceeding.
Think it can't happen? There's a scenario, still admittedly a long shot, wherein a protracted White House scandal would give one or both houses to the dems in late '06. It might not be enough to pull impeachment off in terms of kicking both of them out of office, but wouldn't it look bad on top of indictment?
current mood: amused
(comment on this)
5:07p - On the Bleeding Edge
First to answer the obvious question: No, it's not slow today. Been writing like a fiend. But there's somehting about writing support e-mails that lends itse;f to blitting these out once in awhile. You have to remember, I write the way some people talk -- i.e., as if vaccinated with a phonograph needle.
(Yo watches as he completely loses the under 30 audience with that one)
Anyway, I ran into this in src's LJ:
Horrific or Funny... Or Both!
* Yes, my iTunes DOES seem to have a sense of the appropriate today...
current mood: giddy
(2 comments |comment on this)