Why should African-Americans support Badnarik / Campagna?
* Repeal federal regulations that prevent African Americans from starting their own businesses * End the War on Drugs which targets young black men * End taxes so African Americans have the resources to invest and start businesses and provide their children with quality education. * Opposes racial profiling * Advocates the right to keep and bear arms so that African Americans can defend themselves where police response is inadequate.
Fact: Badnarik is campaigning in New Mexico August 8-15th Fact: Badnarik TV and Radio commercials are running statewide now Fact: Badnarik polled 5% in New Mexico on August 4th Fact: Bush and Kerry were "even" in New Mexico until August 4th, when Kerry pulled ahead 48% to 43% Fact: Bush announced on Saturday that he was coming to Albuquerque
Did Kerry Save More Lives as a Protester Than As a Warrior?
Did Kerry Save More Lives as a Protester Than As a Warrior? August 9, 2004 | 3:30 p.m.
God bless the "forward" button. From a friend of a friend, Swami received a fascinating e-mail late last week, tracked down the author, and got permission to publish this...
John Kerry saved my life.
In 1971, as a lost 17-year-old with no future, I was about to enlist in the Navy. I had no illusions about saving the world from the "domino theory" or the Red menace. Like countless others, then and now, I saw military service as a way out, a free education and a shot at the G.I. bill.
Then I heard about Kerry's congressional testimony as a Vietnam Veteran Against the War. Not only did his passionate and eloquent testimony profoundly influence the course of our involvement in that misbegotten and mismanaged war, it changed the course of my life in a way I couldn't truly appreciate or understand for years.
For a man to go before Congress and declare, with chilling documentation, that the country he loves and nearly gave his life to defend is on the wrong course and must change--as he is rightfully doing now--is the height of patriotism.
Contrary to the partisan attacks of his detractors--the veteran "brothers" who claim to have served with him but didn't, and who insist his valor is a lie--John Kerry's anti-war activism took more courage than anything that happened on his swift boat.
In effect, he pulled me and possibly thousands of others like me from the water, saving us from being the last ones to "die for a mistake."
--James Morrison
And what, you may ask, did James Morrison do instead of going to Vietnam?
This:
My father, though firm about my "duty to serve if called," wasn't sure he wanted to sign for me to enlist. My mother pleaded with me to reconsider and finish high school (which I did). They'd already had one son, my older brother, serve a tour in Vietnam. He came home safely, but it wasn't a hell either of them wanted to revisit if they could help it.
We were living in Anchorage then. Whenever the subject of the draft came up, my mother volunteered to pack me a really big lunch and drive me to the Canadian border if my number was called. When the Veterans Against the War started protesting in earnest, most of my friends were relieved--to put it mildly--as the draft loomed in the next year or so for all of us.
In the year following Kerry's testimony, I decided to become an actor and couldn't see how being in any branch of the armed forces could further that career path in any practical sense. The draft ended when I was 19, and that, thank God, was that.
I've since become one of the rarest actors: one who makes a living at it. I'm also a Hatha yoga instructor, teaching and learning peace, and, in the last five years, a father. If they ever come for my son, they'll have to pry him from my cold, dead hands.
-James Morrison
Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha.
Copyrighting the President Does Big Media have a vested interest in protecting Bush? You betcha. By Lawrence Lessig
The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is "free." But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?
Though Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has grabbed the headlines, another documentary is at the center of this debate. In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, NBC's Sunday morning talk show. In the clip, the president defends his decision to go to war - astonishingly unconvincingly.
Greenwald asked NBC for permission to run the one-minute clip - offering to pay for the right, as he had done for every other clip that appears in the film. NBC said no. The network explained to his agent that the clip is "not very flattering to the president." Greenwald included it anyway.
Copyright law gives NBC the power to deny anyone the use of its content, at least presumptively. If you want to rebroadcast Meet the Press or sell copies on the Internet, you need NBC's permission. There are exceptions, at least in theory. The law, for example, exempts "fair uses" of copyrighted material from the control of its owner. If a clip is short enough, or if its use is sufficiently transformative or critical, then the law allows its use, whether permission is granted or not.
In practice, however, the matter isn't that simple. Because copyright law is so uncertain, and because insurance companies that indemnify films don't much like risk, the practice among auteurs seeking major distribution is to cut any clip for which permission isn't granted - fair use notwithstanding. The costs of defending a fair use right in court - and, more important, the costs if any such defense should fail - make the risk prohibitive for most filmmakers. Defense of fair use could run hundreds of thousands of dollars - several times the budget of a typical documentary. And losing this type of claim could expose the filmmaker to $150,000 in damages for each copyright infringed. In a world in which Fox News sues comedian and author Al Franken for parodying "fair and balanced," a cautious director can't be too careful.
Greenwald's struggle demonstrates a more fundamental point. Many are concerned about the ever-expanding reach of copyright law. More are concerned about the ever-increasing concentration of the media. Greenwald's dilemma highlights how the two trends are linked: As media becomes more concentrated, competition to curry favor with politicians only increases. This intensifies during an election cycle. Networks able to signal that they will be "friendly" - for example, by ensuring that embarrassing moments from interviews won't be made available to others - are more likely to attract candidates for interviews and so on, than networks that don't. Concentration tied to copyright thus gives networks both the motive and the means to protect favored guests.
NBC insists it is remaining "neutral" by denying others use of the interview. But there's nothing neutral about restricting either critics or supporters from repeating the president's words. But the issue here isn't really NBC's motive. It is the president's. Why would any president allow a network to copyright his message? No self-respecting president would speak at a club that excluded women: Whatever rights a private organization may enjoy, a president stands for equality. So why did the current leader of the free world, who rarely holds press conferences, agree to speak on a talk show that refuses to license on a neutral basis the content he contributed? Is vigorous debate over matters as important as going to war less important than protecting his image?
This question is crucial, and thus Greenwald has decided to defend his fair use right, even if it means staring down a bunch of lawyers in court. The argument: It's hard to tell "the whole truth" about the Iraq war when you censor bits of that truth because a network tells you to. But what this incident demonstrates most is what many increasingly fear. Concentrated media and expansive copyright are the perfect storm not just for stifling debate but, increasingly, for weakening democracy as well.
Email Lawrence Lessig at lawrence_lessig@wiredmag.com.
The quiz below was submitted by Kevin Houston. Posted by Stephen Gordon.
For each question below, please write the name of the candidate for which the statement is true.
1) Which candidate received nearly $1 million from donors connected with both Citigroup Inc. and the National Association of Realtors?
2) Which candidate is a multi-millionaire?
3) Which candidate owns: Between $1000 and $15000 worth of Intel and Microsoft stock? Between $15000 and $50000 worth of Proctor and Gamble stock?
4) Which candidate has promised to: a - Spend tax money to create new jobs? b - Spend tax money to collect data on everyone in order to find terrorists? c - Pay for health care for uninsured children with tax money? d -Dramatically increase federal funding for colleges, senior high schools, and elementary schools? e - Support creation of a single head for all intelligence agencies? f - Continue a US military presence in Iraq until Iraq is a stable democracy? g - Continue the failing war on drugs? h - Impose tariffs as a solution to jobs moving overseas?
5) Which candidate supports not allowing homosexuals to marry?
6) Which candidate's father: Flew airplanes during W.W.II? Worked in the foreign service as a diplomat?
7) Which candidate belonged to the elite, secret "Skull and Bones" club at Yale?
8) Which candidate supports extending the assault weapons ban?
The answer to every one of these questions (and many others besides) is:
BOTH
That's right, BOTH George W. Bush and John F. Kerry is the correct answer to all of these questions.
#2 and #3 Personal financial disclosure of the candidates http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000807 2_2002.pdf" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000807 2_2002.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.opensecrets.org/pf... http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000024 5_2002.pdf" title="http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2002/N0000024 5_2002.pdf" target="_blank"http://www.opensecrets.org/pf...
#4 Issues of the candidates from their own web site. http://www.georgewbush.com/" title="http://www.georgewbush.com/" target="_blank"http://www.georgewbush.com/ http://www.johnkerry.com/issu...
Kerry Declares Democrats the Party of “Belief Without Evidence”
- Sun, Aug 1, 2004
Boston, Massachusetts, July 31, 2004 Special to The Raving Atheist
Vowing to supplant the Republicans as the “party of faith,” presidential hopeful John Kerry announced Thursday night that the Democratic Party would heretofore formulate all its policies by reference to vague, undefined and completely unsubstantiated supernatural beliefs. “Let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith,” Kerry said in his convention acceptance speech at Boston’s Fleet Center. “In particular, we welcome people whose thoughts are completely untethered from reality and logic. We will strive to be the party of belief without evidence, and, if possible, belief contrary to all evidence.”
Quoting Abraham Lincoln, Kerry noted that it was important to pray that we be on God’s side rather than to have God on our side. “Although in either case God and we are on the same side, the important thing is to make a pious, dramatic-sounding, meaningless distinction about our ideological alignment with a supreme deity and insist it has some impact on our ‘values,’” Kerry said. “And more importantly, let us remember that it does not matter which position anyone takes on a particular moral issue, so long as the resulting “value” is attributed to baseless speculation about the desires of some nebulous being no one has ever seen, heard or otherwise detected.” Kerry added that “faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday” and that he prays every day that he was on God’s side when he committed atrocities in as a soldier in Southeast Asia.
Kerry faulted President Bush for relying on intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction. “Faith requires less, much less,” he said. The Senator endorsed the call of 9/11 Commission for more “imagination,” stating that foreign policy decisions should be based on a “wild, unbridled imagination which readily attaches itself to any passing, God-related delusional fantasy.” If elected, Kerry said, he would act decisively to push back the invasion by hordes of pogo-stick-bound cockatoos over the Bering Straits. He also vowed to replace the Republicans once-popular “Contract with America with a “Pre-Nup with America,” a document modeled on his own prenuptial agreement with his billionaire second wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.
