![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 11th, 2006
As though we could hate the RIAA more.
Dec. 11th, 2006 07:51 amSo, get this: you remember all those starving artists that file-sharing pirates are stealing bread from? The RIAA has decided that they should give them less money.
At least they aren't being shy about the fact that, really, it's the lining of their own pockets that they're concerned about.
From the article: "In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music."
At least they aren't being shy about the fact that, really, it's the lining of their own pockets that they're concerned about.
From the article: "In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music."
Tis the season...
Dec. 11th, 2006 08:48 amThis Article brings up some interesting things to think about. What happened was that an airport in WA set us some pine trees -- er, 'Christmas' trees, I guess. A Jewish Rabbi complained and asked that a large menorah be set up as well. the airport then removed the ribbon-decorated trees. Said Rabbi is now upset, and thinks it's a shame that the airport would remove all their decorations rather than concede his request. Really, was it that much to ask?
I'm not trying to pick on the Jews -- I think their great people. Some of my best friends are Jews. I think the same points would stand to be made if it was any other group requesting that they be recognized, too. But that's the point here, really. There *are* other groups out there. And they all want to be recognized. And when they aren't, they feel slighted and cry for reparations. If a menorah was set up, we'd have the Jews and the Christians, but who else might get bothered by the fact that *they* don't have decorations up?
I agree with the rabbi -- it's sad that they had to take the decorations down. But I think they *had* to take the decorations down because they really couldn't do *everything*. You can't please everyone, and somebody somewhere would feel left out. But I think that's the bigger crime, really. That people can't just be satisfied.
This case is a special one, I think, in that the decorated trees, unless I'm missing some detail, weren't ostensibly Christian in any way other than that's what we use to decorate. I don't see how 'Christmas' trees, devoid of crosses or angels or any of the other religious-specific bits, could be any different from, say, a Yuletide decoration or anything else. But even if it *were* religion-specific, even if it were, say, a nativity scene... -shrugs- I don't know. If it means that much, why not just organize a group yourself and offer to set up decorations yourself, instead of demanding The Stare (or airport, or whatever) does it for you? If they bar you from doing that, yes, make a social outcry. I'll be right there with you. But...
The thing is, it's sad that the decorations were taken down, but it's sadder still that they *had* to be taken down, because our society will be satisfied with nothing but complete and ubiquitous equality -- either everything at 100% or nothing at all.
I'm not trying to pick on the Jews -- I think their great people. Some of my best friends are Jews. I think the same points would stand to be made if it was any other group requesting that they be recognized, too. But that's the point here, really. There *are* other groups out there. And they all want to be recognized. And when they aren't, they feel slighted and cry for reparations. If a menorah was set up, we'd have the Jews and the Christians, but who else might get bothered by the fact that *they* don't have decorations up?
I agree with the rabbi -- it's sad that they had to take the decorations down. But I think they *had* to take the decorations down because they really couldn't do *everything*. You can't please everyone, and somebody somewhere would feel left out. But I think that's the bigger crime, really. That people can't just be satisfied.
This case is a special one, I think, in that the decorated trees, unless I'm missing some detail, weren't ostensibly Christian in any way other than that's what we use to decorate. I don't see how 'Christmas' trees, devoid of crosses or angels or any of the other religious-specific bits, could be any different from, say, a Yuletide decoration or anything else. But even if it *were* religion-specific, even if it were, say, a nativity scene... -shrugs- I don't know. If it means that much, why not just organize a group yourself and offer to set up decorations yourself, instead of demanding The Stare (or airport, or whatever) does it for you? If they bar you from doing that, yes, make a social outcry. I'll be right there with you. But...
The thing is, it's sad that the decorations were taken down, but it's sadder still that they *had* to be taken down, because our society will be satisfied with nothing but complete and ubiquitous equality -- either everything at 100% or nothing at all.
Guys, guys! Jesus was *Jewish*!
Dec. 11th, 2006 10:18 amAn interesting read regarding the familial values of Judaism and how it shaped Catholicism.
Teacher fired for her past.
Dec. 11th, 2006 12:34 pmAlong the same lines of that children's show hostess I mentioned a while ago (and who was re-mentioned when I noted the "shred your internet history" service for kids of rich, influential, easily-embarrassed parents), Here is a teacher who was fired because it came up that, 12 years ago, she was in pr0n.
Now, right-off, I think that it's generally poor for to hold someone's past against them. We are not the people we were. If she was currently in porn or something I might be a bit more sympathetic, but that's not the case. In short: judge people on who they are, not who they once were.
But even beyond that, as the article says, this woman has a real success story of climbing out of bad circumstances to become a better person. She had an alcoholic father, went into porn, then joined the military in order to get a college education and become a school teacher. That's actually a pretty positive, admirable story and, like the article states, it gives something of a good role model for kids. it says, "yeah, we make mistakes. But you can over come that. You don't have to tie yourself to your failings."
Now, right-off, I think that it's generally poor for to hold someone's past against them. We are not the people we were. If she was currently in porn or something I might be a bit more sympathetic, but that's not the case. In short: judge people on who they are, not who they once were.
But even beyond that, as the article says, this woman has a real success story of climbing out of bad circumstances to become a better person. She had an alcoholic father, went into porn, then joined the military in order to get a college education and become a school teacher. That's actually a pretty positive, admirable story and, like the article states, it gives something of a good role model for kids. it says, "yeah, we make mistakes. But you can over come that. You don't have to tie yourself to your failings."