![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSince 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 03:19 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 05:18 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 05:32 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-26 06:00 pm (UTC)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.