Jan. 15th, 2008

jackofallgeeks: (Default)
So about the time I can physically feel my blood pressure rise whenever I
encounter a certain topic, I should probably consider laying off for a bit.
That having been said, I have every intention of reading and responding to
'debate' on Copyright. That the pro-Copyright guy blatantly couches his
point in terms of theft, illegality, and criminal vocabulary irritates me.
But what bugs me more, I think, is that the Anti-Copyright guy they got
seems to argue "every lock can be broken," which I think is the wrong way to
go about it. The argument is not "you can't keep us from doing it," but
rather that what you are doing is itself repugnant. That what you are doing
is stifling creativity, derivative works, fan activity, and treating
legitimate customers as criminals.
jackofallgeeks: (Default)
I think This
bothers me. So far as candidates go (or whatever we call them before
they're actually Presidential candidates), I've generally liked Huckabee.
And I imagine no one would be surprised if I told them that my moral and
philosophical principles line up with his fairly well. But that having been
said, I really don't think we should be re-writing the
, "word or the living God" or not. I'm not a strong
proponent of most "separation of Church and State" arguments in general, but
there it was a decided, willful choice on the Founder's part to not mention
God or religion in the Constitution (aside from that bit about not
instituting or persecuting). More general than that I think it's poor form
to "rewrite" the constitution, and though the mechanism of Amendments offers
functionality which is fairly close to that, I don't feel it's the same
thing by any measure and i certainly don't think it should be used to
contradict the main body of our Constitution.


jackofallgeeks: (Default)
John Noble

August 2012

   12 34

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 11:02 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios