There has been some small conflict between a group calling themselves "Protect Marriage" and a group dubbed the "Courage Campaign". They hate each other. "Protect Marriage" is focused on keeping the word "marriage" defined as a sexual-legal relationship between a man and a woman exclusively. Whereas the "Courage Campaign" finds this to be derogatory against homosexuals. So they bicker and squabble over this issue every time they get the chance.
One of those chance, that became a rather humourous debacle, is as follows:
In order to combat Protect Marriage and their "Yes on 8" campaign, the Courage Campaign created a logo for "Tracking the Progress" of Proposition 8 in California. The Courage Campaign's logo is a very obvious parody of Protect Marriage's. So obvious, in fact, that Protect Marriage thought they might have a case against them for plagiarism. It does seem, speaking very objectively, like the Courage Campaign did nothing more than simply deface Protect Marriage's logo. Physically, there is very little difference.
So Protect marriage took the Courage Campaign to court, demanding that they change the logo. They claiming that the logo is too similar to their own logo to not be an infringement of copyright. The Courage Campaign declared that it was parody and thus protected as free speech.
Protect Marriage may have had a case, really, looking at it objectively. But the reality is, this is dealing with a rather subjective, relative, and emotional issue. True, the logos are very (very, very) similar, but if you are a group that is insisting that gay marriage is an abomination and should not be supported but the law; that it is very, very different than marriage between a man and a woman; then there is a very substantial difference between the two logos: one is a man and a woman, one is two women.
On the other hand, if you are a group that insists that marriage between two women is just as legitimate as marriage between a man and a woman; and there isn't a substantial difference; then you should admit that the logo isn't substantially different and really borders on plagiarism. Perhaps crosses over into plagiarism.
Ironic.
If you are like me, you say that yes, it is really quite the plagiarism. There is very little difference between the two. But it is also a parody, and a funny parody, and thus trumps plagiarism. Because I like comedy.
As is this entire scenario.
Barring the central issue: the ban on gay marriage. That's just prejudicial and bigoted. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one and shut up.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Greenfingers (movie)
"Greenfingers" is a pretty fun little movie. It's probably the least depressing movie about a prison you are likely to see.
It's all up beat and stuff, for the most part. It's about a more "restorative justice"-like prison system than your usual barred window variety. Though all the characters have committed atrocious crimes (or have been accused of committing atrocious crimes), they are being given a chance to rehabilitate, not just be incarcerated. What a nice, novel idea.
There are some really interesting characters and some fun interactions between these people who thought their entire lives were over after being introduced to prison. Some characters are not quite so explored as I would like and some plot strands are simply left hanging. This is another movie I feel is hampered by the usual requirement that a movie be about 1.5 hours long. It could be longer. However, the film is based on a true story, so I have to wonder: perhaps there isn't much known about those hanging plots.
Then again, it is just a movie based on facts. There is undoubtedly a lot of fiction in there as well. Unknown plots can be filled in if the authors so choose.
Anyway, it's interesting and "fun" and has a little empathy; I enjoyed it.
It's all up beat and stuff, for the most part. It's about a more "restorative justice"-like prison system than your usual barred window variety. Though all the characters have committed atrocious crimes (or have been accused of committing atrocious crimes), they are being given a chance to rehabilitate, not just be incarcerated. What a nice, novel idea.
There are some really interesting characters and some fun interactions between these people who thought their entire lives were over after being introduced to prison. Some characters are not quite so explored as I would like and some plot strands are simply left hanging. This is another movie I feel is hampered by the usual requirement that a movie be about 1.5 hours long. It could be longer. However, the film is based on a true story, so I have to wonder: perhaps there isn't much known about those hanging plots.
Then again, it is just a movie based on facts. There is undoubtedly a lot of fiction in there as well. Unknown plots can be filled in if the authors so choose.
Anyway, it's interesting and "fun" and has a little empathy; I enjoyed it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Pebble and the Penguin (movie)
"The Pebble and the Penguin" is... um, about what I expected, looking at the picture for it--which is to say I didn't like it. It is not what I expected going into a Don Bluth film. It doesn't look like it (quite), it's not so dark, and Dom DeLuise isn't in it. Which is a pity for ol' Dom because the character he plays in most of Bluth's films was finally the main show, not a supporting role. It makes "The Secret of NIMH" look like an extravagant and flawless production. I was disappointed. The Odyssian plot is less back-and-forth with pointless quests, but I wouldn't actually say that it is better.
This movie reminded me of what little I saw of "Happy Feet". Not only are there penguins, but it's a 'Beauty-and-the-Beast story' with penguins. In both cases, the protagonist is some sort of doofus who doesn't have what he needs to go courting, and then gets knocked adrift in the antarctic.
I don't really know much more about "Happy Feet".
I suppose I shouldn't be so shallow as to say the character designs were laughable, but that is the first thing about this movie which turned me off. I was excited by how much the makers liked music, they opened with characters dancing on sheets of staff music!, but the actual songs were really rather bad. Only good when remembering that Tim Curry sang as the Transsexual Transvestite from Transylvania. It lends to his character, Drake, in this movie.
I'd found the movie to be "lackluster" and can't recommend anyone to see it. Try something else of Bluth's because he is usually far better than this.
This movie reminded me of what little I saw of "Happy Feet". Not only are there penguins, but it's a 'Beauty-and-the-Beast story' with penguins. In both cases, the protagonist is some sort of doofus who doesn't have what he needs to go courting, and then gets knocked adrift in the antarctic.
I don't really know much more about "Happy Feet".
I suppose I shouldn't be so shallow as to say the character designs were laughable, but that is the first thing about this movie which turned me off. I was excited by how much the makers liked music, they opened with characters dancing on sheets of staff music!, but the actual songs were really rather bad. Only good when remembering that Tim Curry sang as the Transsexual Transvestite from Transylvania. It lends to his character, Drake, in this movie.
I'd found the movie to be "lackluster" and can't recommend anyone to see it. Try something else of Bluth's because he is usually far better than this.
Communist Capitalism
A popular theory of economics is that, in any transaction, both parties gain. Everyone benefits! Some people take this to mean that everyone is forever becoming better off, and everyone always will be; and this is why economies need to forever grow. Unfortunately, this equation is missing a few little variables. Like time. Nothing may last forever, but everything else doesn't so everyone is constantly replacing their decayed things and repairing their broken things. Time is a very hungry beast.
This is also assuming that every purchase is actually made freely and voluntarily. Which isn't necessarily true. Sometimes, a person can be forced to buy something, against their will, at gun-point or litigation-point. If every choice was voluntary, then people wouldn't grumble for months after being ripped off by the used car salesman. They might not have needed the car, and they did make the transaction without being forced to, but the illusion of being forced is really the same thing when considering a third assumption:
Everyone knows all about whatever market they are dealing in and know what something is really worth. If "negative reciprocity" wasn't a real thing, then we wouldn't have some people worth a billion times more than others. A billion is a very, very big number. People are getting exploited all the time, to insist that they aren't because every transaction is voluntary is as idealistic and naive as saying we could stop mining tomorrow because we have all the resources we need. Both are possible in theory, I would like them both to be true, but since I'm not God, they aren't. Life continues to be hard.
The free-market can't regulate itself. That's the same thing as government regulating itself if it was free. Then you get a million little kingdoms constantly battling each other until one conquered all the others and there was one nation. After that, how do you escape what that nation tells you to do? They have the supreme power of a dictatorship.
In America, the founding fathers came up with a great idea: "checks and balances". No one part of the government can become too powerful and all of it is, supposed, to remain in the control of the people who elect representatives. It was a great idea.
But now the "nation-state" is not the most powerful group. The most powerful group is in the "private" sector. Businesses are battling each other until one reins supreme and can then control all the peons under them. Many can already do it: they can demand that you buy from them even if you do not want to because there is no competition or alternative. If you want to live in our society, you simply have to give them your money. See Microsoft, the Oil and Gas industry, the Housing Market, cellular phones. Insurance, which may, shortly, be legislated mandatory.
I believed, for a long time, that I could simply boycott them all. But it's not really possible in America. You can't function as a normal person; it's hard to get a job, you can't even vote if you try to be address-less. I still succeed in not supporting many of these, but I can realize how improbable it is to expect anyone else to even try. Especially since most people don't have the means I had to try. To think that anyone could just escape the system shows that this thinker never had it that hard themselves. Some people do, even in America.
Where would you go, anyway. Even the bushmen have been globalized. It's not a question of "is it worth it to buy this thing?" it is a question of "what will happen if I don't give this company $3000?"
Our founding fathers have a good solution again. There should be imposed checks and balances, under control of the proletariat (to use a good "communist" term) to limit the free market. Freedom is fine, but anarchy is not. Our "free market" is really more of the latter and just approaching "communism" from the other direction.
This is also assuming that every purchase is actually made freely and voluntarily. Which isn't necessarily true. Sometimes, a person can be forced to buy something, against their will, at gun-point or litigation-point. If every choice was voluntary, then people wouldn't grumble for months after being ripped off by the used car salesman. They might not have needed the car, and they did make the transaction without being forced to, but the illusion of being forced is really the same thing when considering a third assumption:
Everyone knows all about whatever market they are dealing in and know what something is really worth. If "negative reciprocity" wasn't a real thing, then we wouldn't have some people worth a billion times more than others. A billion is a very, very big number. People are getting exploited all the time, to insist that they aren't because every transaction is voluntary is as idealistic and naive as saying we could stop mining tomorrow because we have all the resources we need. Both are possible in theory, I would like them both to be true, but since I'm not God, they aren't. Life continues to be hard.
The free-market can't regulate itself. That's the same thing as government regulating itself if it was free. Then you get a million little kingdoms constantly battling each other until one conquered all the others and there was one nation. After that, how do you escape what that nation tells you to do? They have the supreme power of a dictatorship.
In America, the founding fathers came up with a great idea: "checks and balances". No one part of the government can become too powerful and all of it is, supposed, to remain in the control of the people who elect representatives. It was a great idea.
But now the "nation-state" is not the most powerful group. The most powerful group is in the "private" sector. Businesses are battling each other until one reins supreme and can then control all the peons under them. Many can already do it: they can demand that you buy from them even if you do not want to because there is no competition or alternative. If you want to live in our society, you simply have to give them your money. See Microsoft, the Oil and Gas industry, the Housing Market, cellular phones. Insurance, which may, shortly, be legislated mandatory.
I believed, for a long time, that I could simply boycott them all. But it's not really possible in America. You can't function as a normal person; it's hard to get a job, you can't even vote if you try to be address-less. I still succeed in not supporting many of these, but I can realize how improbable it is to expect anyone else to even try. Especially since most people don't have the means I had to try. To think that anyone could just escape the system shows that this thinker never had it that hard themselves. Some people do, even in America.
Where would you go, anyway. Even the bushmen have been globalized. It's not a question of "is it worth it to buy this thing?" it is a question of "what will happen if I don't give this company $3000?"
Our founding fathers have a good solution again. There should be imposed checks and balances, under control of the proletariat (to use a good "communist" term) to limit the free market. Freedom is fine, but anarchy is not. Our "free market" is really more of the latter and just approaching "communism" from the other direction.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sherlock Holms (movie, barely read)
Eh, I thought it was "Okay". Nothing great, but better than most modern dramatically action-oriented adaptions.
Sherlock Holmes was, at least, an interesting character full of flaws and not the Perfect Creature that he has been made out to be. He is intelligent, but such a drug addict that unless he has a good crime to put his mind to, he goes pretty batty.
That is the primary source of humor in the movie.
The fight predictions were an interesting touch, too.
Watson was also a better character than he often is and a more major part of the story. Really, it is more about their partnership and the duo than just ol' Holmes.
Other than that, it was fireballs and major city destruction to industrial-age England. Meh. I'm kinda bored of fire on a screen. I'd rather go camping.
If you are a avid (rabid) fan of Sherlock Holmes, it might be important to you to know that the chronology is highly manipulated. That's the only detail that I know is screwy. I haven't read much of Sherlock Holmes and my information comes from friends.
Otherwise, it's good. Better (read: smarter) than most action movies. But not something I would normally spend money on.
Sherlock Holmes was, at least, an interesting character full of flaws and not the Perfect Creature that he has been made out to be. He is intelligent, but such a drug addict that unless he has a good crime to put his mind to, he goes pretty batty.
That is the primary source of humor in the movie.
The fight predictions were an interesting touch, too.
Watson was also a better character than he often is and a more major part of the story. Really, it is more about their partnership and the duo than just ol' Holmes.
Other than that, it was fireballs and major city destruction to industrial-age England. Meh. I'm kinda bored of fire on a screen. I'd rather go camping.
If you are a avid (rabid) fan of Sherlock Holmes, it might be important to you to know that the chronology is highly manipulated. That's the only detail that I know is screwy. I haven't read much of Sherlock Holmes and my information comes from friends.
Otherwise, it's good. Better (read: smarter) than most action movies. But not something I would normally spend money on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)