Ramblings to distract myself before making dinner

[shadowkat]

Since job thing-a-mig is currently driving me batty, am distracting myself flitting about on my lj and looking at emails, and pressing the back button alot. Currently feel as if the universe is biting its thumb at me, and saying n'yah, n'yah, n'yah.

Things that I've distracted myself with today:

1. Copyright battle between Universal and CafePRess. Which has the Firefly fandom up in arms. I wandered over and put in my two cents at Whedonesque. Okay it was more like my five cents, but whatever. It is an interesting case - not the part about the infringement, the Serenity artwork in question was clearly in violation of Universal's copyright - or at least what I saw of it was, no what is interesting about it is the possible defense. Or rather in non-legalese, the thing that has the browncoats so pissed off. Universal as everyone knows used the existing Firefly fanbase to sell Serenity. Instead of spending millions of dollars on a promotional marketing campaign for the film, they went the guerilla marketing route and had the fans sell it to fellow fans. This saved them quite a bit of money, it also cost them a bit - because fans tend to only pass the word to freinds, family and well fellow fans - and those people would have seen the movie without a marketing campaign. The tv shows fanbase can't sell the film to the mainstream - non-cult, non-fan audience, which is off-net. And like it or not, for a movie or tv show to do *really* well or at least well enough to justify a sequel - it has to appeal to that broader audience. (Cases in point: Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter). So in a way, Universal's gamble didn't quite work out the way they wanted it to. My question is when Universal asked the shows fans to market the film did they give them permission to produce t-shirts, cups, fan-art on posters, etc - and did they do it in writing? If the fans can prove they did, and prove that it was not permission just for "promotional" reasons - then Universal may have a problem.


2. President Bush has expressed his dissatisfaction with what is happening in Iraq. He doesn't think things are going well over there - Or so I was told by ABC News. LOL! Say what you will about the current US Prez, but he certainly has a gift for stating the obvious. Now if only he'd admit that he's dissatisfied with the current economy, health insurance, and unemployment situation in the US and thinks that yes, perhaps the anti-trust law needs to be strengthened again to discourage all these stupid mergers and acquisitions that are causing people to get laid-off right and left.

3. Good news Studio 60 fans, while the show is not doing great ratings wise (no surprise there, after this week's episode, I've decided that I'm not the only one who is thinking it is too bright for tv - I think the writer of the show has also decided it is too bright for tv and has decided to tell us so. That said, die-hard fans, all 1000 of them, still adore it.), the income level of the fans watching is in the networks happy radar range - 69,000 and above. In short they are rich folks. No, wait, they aren't counting me. The currently unemployed folks. Goes to show you, market research is hardly an exact science. Also the network is behind it. Even though the network is currently trying to avoid bankruptcy and about to layoff a thousand employees, but hey, we'll ignore that, because Prez Bush says the economy is doing just peachy (if you say so, Mr. President) and guess what NBC Nightly News is beating ABC and CBS? Hee. Again no surprise. Considering it's the only one of the big three that is not touting the corporate line and actually presenting the news. ABC's Gibson's conservatism has begun to annoy me. I didn't like Katie Kouric when she was doing the Today Show.

4. Am tempted to swipe buffyannatator unpopular fandom opinions meme - it provides multiple opportunities for me to make sarcastic remarks, which will undoubtedly piss off my flist. So am resisting. We'll see how long that lasts. Been pressing the back button all day long.

5. Oh and a bit of good news, the New Jersey Supreme Court has figured out why not permitting same-sex marriage is a bad thing and granted certain legal rights to homosexual partners that used to only be granted to heterosexual ones. Okay for people who know zip about Property and Family Law - I'll clarify - basically, when two people get married this grants the person's spouse certain legal rights in case say their partner gets ill or dies or has a kid or they buy a house together. The reason people get married (ignoring the whole religious aspect of it for a moment) is so the state recognizes them as a couple and grants them certain legal rights as a couple. They can file taxes jointly (which in some instances gives you a tax break), if they buy a house - it is in both of their names and if something should happen to one of the two, the other one automatically has right of ownership. If someone is hospitalized, their spouse or partner has the right to oversee their care, sign off on surgery, ensure their bills are paid, etc. If they die, the surviving partner gets the shared property - it does not go "intestate" or to surviving family members. If one is working and has insurance and the other doesn't - the insurance can cover both as a "married" couple. That's why it is important. The religious/morality bit should not come into play here at all - if it does come into play - then you fall into a dilemma because - hello, last time I checked there was another nifty constitutional clause stating "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state". Us agnostics and athesists would really like that clause to stay in there.

Comments

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

I wonder why the government didn't go the civil union route earlier? No doubt they were afraid of offending the religious, but there's a lot of differences even between religions regarding sacraments. For example, my Methodist father-in-law baptized our kids, and I had to get special permission from the priests for the kids to get their First Communion. It always makes me amazed when people talk about how marriage is sacred and under the purview of God, since it basically started out as a business transaction.

ABC is becoming like Fox. Big mistake, when the national mood is changing. There's a reason Bill O'Reilly's ratings are going down and Keith Olbermann's are going up. I saw part of the press conference this morning and Bush looked, as always, resentful that he had to cajole the nation to go along with his plans. He has done the one deadly thing in politics--come to believe his own spin. He actually thinks that because he never sees dissent that it doesn't occur. He is convinced that he is in the right. But the slow, five-year build-up of bad economic indicators is coming to a head. *Lots* of people are underemployed and existing on credit. I read some economic news yesterday regarding the housing market that scared the pants off me. I spend a lot of time hoping that due to human nature there will always be a need for lawyers!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

There's a couple of problems Bush and the current Admin are facing - the biggest is Iraq and the number of body bags coming back. They aren't coming back to wealthy areas, either, but to the poor rural towns in middle America, where the people voted for Bush. Believed in Bush's War.
A War that appears to be endless and is requiring more and more people to go back for second tours. These are mostly reservists - folks who don't make a lot anyhow. Look what Vietnam did to Lyndon Johnson and to a degree Nixon and Ford? Iraq may be worse than Vietnam. Because unlike Vietnam, we can't just pull out of there. And by the time this thing is over? I won't be surprised if the death toll is higher than Vietnam.

Plus, people in Bush's own administration are already pointing fingers and stating how the whole thing is a huge mistake.

Agree - ABC is becoming like Fox. Thought I was imagining things. Look I don't necessarily want a liberal news cast either. I just want the news - bare bones. Uneditorialized. I'm missing Peter Jennings, big time. NBC right now is the only one that appears to be doing it, outside of maybe NY1 and PBS on occassion. Was looking at the Atlantic Monthly the other day and they had some interesting stats on how strongly people relied on or believed in the news they were watching. Republicans predictably believed Fox the most, but of those polled, only 30% trusted them. Democrats predictably trusted NPR the most, but also just 30%. CNN used to have the most of both parties , as did the Wall Street Journal, but both dropped way off. The Bush era has changed the way we look at the news media, we no longer trust them - we see them as clowns, which ironically is exactly what the great Edward R. Murrow once warned them about. With YouTube, John Stewart and The Colbert Report poking fun at them and taking the place of SNL, David Letterman and Leno as the latenight entertainment of choice - this only becoming more apparent. People trust the net more for information than their tv sets or newspapers.

Agree on the marriage thing. I honestly think the government needs to disassociate some of these joint-property laws from marriage. It's causing problems across the board. There are, ironically, people I know in South Carolina who have been living together for a while, who are older, in their 60's, who wouldn't mind getting married, but won't for fear of having to change how their property is set up. In Pennsylvania, my Uncle was told that to get more medicare coverage, he'd either have to divorce his wife or quit his job, because even though she had no money and no insurance, he was considered covered by his company and since they were married the state viewed them as both covered. That's a problem. While on the other side of the fence, you are have people who are life-long companions who can't approve surgery for a loved one or have power of attorney or even get death benefits, because they aren't considered legally a couple by the government. It's silly. I understand the history behind it and why they originally set things up that way, but come on, the world has changed.

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

Yes, with the news I want the facts, the reasons, and the implications. But I'd be pretty happy just to get the facts instead of spin. The Bush administration preemptively attacked the media the same way they attack everything--undermine it. That worked out well for a while, but now maybe it's working too well, with nobody believing anybody anymore. Except the "true believers," of course, on both sides.

I think maybe the only reason Iraq is killing Bush is because he's lied about it so much, and even true believers watch tv and can put two and two together. Otherwise, with no draft and no hippie marches, it doesn't really affect enough people to change the national mood. I have two nephews who signed up for the military and their families were happy about it; they figure it'll give the boys guidance and a good start on life. They just ignore the war and the probability that the boys will be shipped there. (Fortunately one's been rejected on medical grounds. I was very worried, because he's not stable.) I saw people on the news angrier about gas prices than the deaths in Iraq. People find meaning in war, it gives their lives a greater sense of purpose and depth. They think it'll make a man of their boys, hence the Army commercials made to convince parents to send their kids off to war. And it gives form and function to their vague feelings of anger and dissatisfaction. Of course, the farther off the war the more they like it!

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Yeah I'm really worried that Universal is going to drag this young woman into court because she just isn't doing enough to satisfy their complaint. It turns out that she DID get a C&D, but she merely removed obvious logos, and thought that that was enough to comply. That picture of the ship I showed you? She removed the word "Serenity" but left the Chinese characters and the quote, so it is still too obviously a trademark violation.... Someone at Whedonesque posted a link to a website called http://www.chillingeffects.org/ and I'm hoping they will give her some good advice (it would be so much wiser for her to close down her cafepress shop completely right now).
Personally I took down every single thing that was even remotely Firefly/Serenity related, because I'm a big coward (but I did leave my Discworld stuff up! LOL)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt they are going to drag her into court. What they'll probably just do is settle the matter out of court. 80% of these cases are settled out of court. Very few civil cases ever make to court - for a very good reason, going to court costs both sides tons of money and it is a nightmare. No, they are just scaring the beejeezus out of her is all. I know, I've talked to lawyers who do it for a living - ie. scare the beejeezus out of people.

She really needs to talk to an attorney and take it offline. I posted at her site and basically told her that. Go talk to an attorney. Stop discussing this on your site since you do not know who is lurking out there.

I don't think Universal will go after people on lj with firefly icons or journal backgrounds.
That's hardly an infringement and doesn't hurt Universal any. What she did, did hurt Universal - the guy at Chud actually does a good job of pointing out how it did. She made *money* off of products containing their copyrighted and trademarked property. How to explain - it is the difference between me say reproducing a picture of one of your paintings on my lj vs. me, reproducing it on a T-Shirt and selling the T-shirt for money. Not the best analogy in the world.
Since technically speaking I shouldn't be reproducing one of your paintings without your permission - but it's unlikely you'll sue me if it's just on lj.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

3) Yay!!!

4) You should! I will too. And then we can read each other's opinions and get really annoyed. But then we'll remember that diversity is the spice of life, and it'll all be good ;)

5) Well, yes. All excellent points. Too bad a good majority of Americans (and to be fair, a good number of Canadians too) don't quite see the situation the way you do! Alas.

last time I checked there was another nifty constitutional clause stating "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state". Us agnostics and athesists would really like that clause to stay in there.

Well, I'm a "mainstream" Christian and I'd like that clause to stay in there too :)

Much agreeage!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

3) - I'm watching studio_60 on my lj which in turn is obsessively checking status of the show. I think it will make an entire season at the moment. The network seems to realize they may be expecting *too* much from Sorkin and West Wing did not jump into the top ten Nielsen's off the bat, took people a while to find it. (I remember because for a while I was the only person I knew watching, then my whole family discovered it.)

4. Hee. Diversity is indeed the spice of life. It's why I love my flist - very diverse group of people. And it's why I love NYC, also diverse. Our mileage will vary...which is kinda cool.

5) Wish people thought like we did on this issue and saw it as a simple "mileage differs" or "diversity is the spice of life". What a lot of people including my last boss don't understand about "rights" - is once you start abridging other's rights, you abridge your own. That's why morality and religion should not be legislated or controlled by the state - because then it becomes a question of whose morality or religion governs. The last thing anyone should want is their government telling them what they should worship, believe in, who they should marry, love or where they should work. But many people don't get that.

[tyreseus.livejournal.com]

hello, last time I checked there was another nifty constitutional clause stating "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state". Us agnostics and athesists would really like that clause to stay in there.

Well, technically, the concept of "separation of church and state" - as we know it - is largely a matter of judicial opinion. Religious folks argue that while the state can't establish a religion or prohibit anyone from believing as they will, it doesn't prohibit religious folks from advocating and pushing for laws which reflect their beliefs. There's no convincing them, however, that their right to push laws which reflect their beliefs doesn't extend to the point of blatant discrimination.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I'm glad New Jersey decided discrimination against gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional, but I'm disappointed they left the door open to civil unions or another institution. Seperate but equal isn't equal. It's not "just" about the rights and responsibilities... there's also social status that comes from announcing you're "married" that announcing your "civil union" doesn't quite match. In that respect, the New Jersey court bowed to the religious conservatives who's most often made argument (when you discard the unscientific crap) is that legalizing gay marriage legitimizes gay relationships.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Not bowed, they did what they could. The Supreme Court can't make legislative decisions or create laws, all they can do is interpret what is already on the books. Sort of similar to the New York Supreme Court which ruled against gay marriage stating the NY Constitution did not uphold it. It's frustrating I know. But you don't want courts making legislative decisions or creating law. You want them interpreting it. If they create it - then you run into all sorts of slippery slope issues.

The hardest courses I took in law school were Constitional Law and Constitutional Litigation.
The reason was they were often the murkiest. People still don't agree on the interpretation of the "Right to bear Arms" - which to some means the right to defend yourselves from invaders or build a militia, and to others the right to own a gun no matter what. I remember hearing lengthy debates from both sides. The religion clause has numerous cases - the more famous ones are about whether a school has the right to have a nativity scene on it's property or a court house can display the "ten commandments". Each state differs on interpretations. And the cases exist for the reasons you state - people agree that the state should not dictate what religion they practice or prohibit them from practicing, but don't you wish you could make Scientology illegal, because they are so annoying? LOL! Freedom of Speech has the same problem. I have the right to say whatever I like and post a sign in my yard that Hillary Clinton is evil, but don't you dare post a sign in yours that Bush Jr should be Impeached. Life would be simpler, sometimes I think, if we agreed on everything - then again it would also be incredibly dull.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Religious folks argue that while the state can't establish a religion or prohibit anyone from believing as they will, it doesn't prohibit religious folks from advocating and pushing for laws which reflect their beliefs.

Yes, that's it exactly. And while I don't agree with what some of the members of my church push for, I can understand their desire to build a society that reflects their beliefs, just as those on the left side of the spectrum want to build a society that reflects theirs.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The desire to build a society that reflects our beliefs is agreeably an understandable and worthwhile cause - one that is the motivating factor behind the following historical figures:

Lenin
Mao Tze-Cheung
Adolf Hitler
Idi Amin
James Jones
Osma Bin Laden
Julius Caesar
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther King
Malcolm X
Queen Elizabeth I
Cromwell
Martin Luther
Jesus Christ
Mohammud
Moses

It's not the desire that is bad I think, actually the desire is quite admirable, but how we go about achieving it and to some extent the degree in which we believe that the ends justify the means no matter what the cost. Some of the people on the list above went about achieving their desire with love and tolerance and understanding and self-sacrifice, other's not so much.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Um. Okay.

I'm going to leave it that, because I'm not sure any response I give would come out right.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Good advice actually. It's why I've been hitting the back button all day long. ;-)

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Oops. I responded below before I saw this comment. The back button is a wonderful thing :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

That's okay, I did the same thing before I saw this post. Yes, must learn to use back-button, saves on the need to delete.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I apologise for my earlier comment, s'kat. You may have noticed that, once in a while, something you write or the way you write it will ping me. And instead of trying to clarify/respond, I end up dropping it because I don't want to cause friction or (honestly) spend a lot of time working out what I want to say. Does that make any sense? Unfortunately, there's a good chance it doesn't!

Anyway, in response to your list of historical figures, my opinion is that there are shades of grey to nearly everything that doesn't involve a body count (quoting Sorkin here). Except for Jesus Christ (whom I consider perfect because, well, Christian here) I'd say that all human beings are imperfect, they make mistakes, even when they have the best of intentions. Moses wanted to free the Israelites from slavery, but before he had God guiding him, he committed murder and tried to cover it up. Thomas Jefferson helped found a nation rooted in freedom but he owned slaves. Malcolm X advocated black pride and called white people "devils".

Sometimes circumstances limit what good men can do, push them into destinies they might have otherwise wanted to avoid -- like Lincoln and Martin Luther. For all that I tease my dad by saying communism is Christian, I don't like Mao or his violent revolution. Still, Mao had been fighting off Japan for years before Pearl Harbor and the Americans finally got into the mix.

Anyway, I guess I was mostly reacting to the implication (not that you're necessarily implying it here, but like I said (http://scrollgirl.livejournal.com/397397.html), I'm reacting to various posts) that fundamentalists/right-wing people are the ones who believe "the ends justify the means", while those on the left don't do that kind of thing.

I'm a Christian, born again and everything, and so is HonorH, a registered Republican. And there are quite a few others I could name here in LJ. And I can promise you that none of us want to get rid of the clause separating church and state.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification.

I do agree with what you state above, more than you may realize. And was trying to make a point, that was more or less along those lines. The agnostic/athesist line was by the way a joke. A bad one. But a joke. I have, as you may or may not have figured out by now, a brutal sense of humor. Could give Spike and Cordelia a run for their money. And it comes out when I'm stressed and unhappy. You really should take half the stuff I write in a certain tone with a hefty grain of salt. ;-) (I usually delete these lines. Realizing they may hit people the wrong way or I'll state I'm joking.) I know, of course, that no sane person would want that religion clause out. I remember talking to a man about Turkey several years back and he stated that he prayed Turkey's government stayed non-secular, because the moment it got secular and took on a religious cause, watch out.

Religion despite what many people may think is not the root of all evil. It is unfortunately often used as an excuse for many horrendous actions. And people tend to generalize. I get angry at Religion a lot, but for reasons that are complicated and difficult to explain. But, I'm not really an agnostic. Not a true one in any event. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ. Yes there are days I think, well, you know it is possible we made it all up. But generally speaking, I believe.
My belief is a little different than yours - for Jesus does not need to be perfect for me, actually I prefer that he wasn't. Because that meant he was human, albeit briefly. I'm not explaining this very well, I'm afraid. Maybe a story is the best way to go - When my grandmother was learning how to bead, a Navajho woman taught her to make a mistake in her beadwork. My grandmother was taken aback.
Why? Because, it makes sure the evil can escape and isn't trapped inside. The evil? The pride and vanity that went into making the bead work. The beauty is in the imperfection. I believe Jesus's ability to forgive us was partly based on his ability to understand, and to truly understand you sort of have to walk in that persons shoes, feel their pain, make their mistakes. And he made them. Railing at the vendors in the marketplace. Trusting the wrong people. Yet at the same time, were they mistakes - if he learned from them. If others learned and grew. As you state, it isn't black and white. Never is. But sometimes, when I'm railing at the universe, I wish it were. If that makes sense?

In South Carolina, there's a Republican Sentator, my parents like, who voted against the torture law and anti-Habeas Corpus. Lindsey, I think is his name. And he's not pro-Bush. While if you look at the voting records, there are quite a few Democrat Sentators who did vote for the torture law.
And I've had numerous close friends who are Republicans. My evil boss, the one who was a borderline sociopath? Liberal Democrat. My nice boss, who went out of her way for me? Ultra-conservative, right-wing Republican.

In college, one of my close friends was a conservative, Christian, Republican, by way of England, she adored Ronald Regan - as a result I saw him in person. Afterwards she'd tell the following joke: "Regan comes on stage, I have tears in my eyes, rejoicing to see him and skat is looking at the protestors trying to decide if she should be joining them." LOL! Ah, diversity, it is the spice of life.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Re the agnostic/atheist line -- I guess since this is all just text, I have a hard time telling when you're being straight and when you're joking :)

I like the idea of making mistakes on purpose in your beadwork. I agree, there is beauty in imperfection. Kind of like a tiny mole drawing attention to the symmetry of a woman's face -- which is probably why they call it a beauty mark!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's impossible to tell sometimes when people are joking particularly with text. Should have deleted that line. Almost did a few times.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

Wait... Trusting the wrong people. I don't get it. Are you talking about Judas Iscariot? Because I don't think it counts as a mistake if Jesus was doing it on purpose.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what I was getting at. When it popped into my brain (so much of this is not carefully thought out so much as what pops into my brain willy-nilly), I thought okay, wait, he did that on purpose. No, maybe he didn't. Wait, why was that scene in there? What were we supposed to learn from it. What is God trying to tell me?

I could argue the Judas thing two ways. Also there's the other people - the people who adored him then turned their backs on Jesus.

Now that I ponder it, I wonder if it is meant, if we read it metaphorically as opposed to literally, as a lesson in morality. ie. Yes it is possible that people will hurt and betray you, but you are better off trusting people than shutting them out. Forgiving them. Taking the leap of faith. Even if it leads you to be crucified and whipped. Letting someone in is better.

Or another way to explain this thought - I'm still working it out...

"I knew you'd be the one to betray me."
"Then why did you trust me?"
"Because there was an outside chance you might not. And I don't regret the chance to get to know you.
As painful as the betrayal is. I wouldn't give up the rest. Besides this has to happen...there's a reason for it. "
Judas leaves confused.

That's not a direct quote from anything, just my interpretation of why it happened.

So, yeah he shouldn't have trusted Judas, but was that really a mistake? Sooner or later someone would have. He chose to trust him. It's like Buffy and Spike/Angel - she knows how risky it is to trust them, she knows the odds are against her, but she takes the leap. Bad example. A better one might be our trust and belief in God. Faith is not knowing. Trust is the same thing. You don't know, there's no certainity. Did Jesus know Judas would betray him? Or did he just know someone would?

Not sure I'm making sense, having troubles articulating this. May need to ponder it some more.