Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Miss Candy Matson was a famous old-time-radio private investigator out of San Francisco. Tonight, for your delectation, here she is in her YUkon 2-8209 show performing the Cable Car Case episode (1949, 30:29).
Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
For those of you keeping score at home, Candy Matson is a parody of classic pulp fiction, which I do admit is a favourite of ours here in the studio. And for those of you who like this sort of thing (Abraham Lincoln said, “For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like”), for your weekend listening pleasure you may also be interested in our previous SDA LNR old-time-radio pulp fiction shows: Phillip Marlowe, Dragnet, and the Canadian Backbone episode of I Was A Communist For The FBI.
Reassessment of your home will begin in Saskatoon in 2009. All home owners should be afraid, be very afraid. With home prices rising in the last two years like we have never seen you can expect to get a big bill from city hall. This could be a massive tax grab.
“A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth”
It must be REALLY hot there…
Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/13/afghanistan-prison.html
“About 1,170 inmates were believed to have been in the prison and may now be roaming the streets of Kandahar city.”
What would the Soviets do?
OBAMASSIAH NEWS
There have been widespread concerns that Barack Hussein Obama (aka “The Messiah”, “The One”, etc) might not be constitutionally eligible to run for President, due to questions about whether he was born in the USA.
This concern has now been completely dispelled by a posting at a very informative Obama website:
http://tinyurl.com/4tmqob
H/T to James Taranto of the Opinion Journal.
http://tinyurl.com/5nxlnw
Half – informed, heavy handed Chicago politicians who mean well, could set back the clean car movement with a big backlash.
============
** What’s worse, suffering under $4 gallons of gas or having to buy a new, more efficient (but also very expensive) vehicle?
For the drivers of the 6,700 taxis in Chicago, this question is being forced upon them by the City government.
Two Aldermen are trying to pass a rule that will mandate that all of the city*s taxicabs go green (in this case, this means a *gas-electric hybrid or powered by innovative fuels, including compressed natural gas, biodiesel, propane and hydrogen,* according to CBS2 Chicago) soon.
Since cabs in the city need to be replaced every four years, and the proposed rules would mandate that each new cab meet those green parameters. The Windy City’s entire fleet would be cleaned up by 2014 if the rule kicks in next year as hoped.
Currently, there are only 50 hybrid taxis in
Chicago.**
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/hybrid.taxis.aldermen.2.746761.html
===================
As you know, I am all for electric vehicles, so what*s wrong with this picture?
Plenty! Pushy aldermen get Chicago cabbies to go Hybrid, but if a gas boycott happens, [ Iran / US skirmish in Hormuz], Hybrid cabs can not move a block without gasoline.
Hybrids do save gas, but are dead in the driveway without gas. No gas? [remember 1973 or -77?]
That could cause an awful setback for the move to EVs. Chicago cabbies know how to make their outrage known. = TG
PS: Same page for 10 Smartest / dumbest dog breeds.
My friend Tonto says he had a vision. He sat in the sweatlodge and burned sweetgrass. Then he went in a trance. He says he saw a futuristic vehicle that was completely transparent, it was shaped like a ball or a large bubble. . The passengers sat in it and the device levitaded and took off at lightning speed. He says it had no power train; it was controlled by the passenger’s concentration. When I arrived at the lodge, he looked at me and said: “Kemo-Sabe, soon the need for gas will be over. I have seen the future. We will travel in strange machines that are powered by the mind.” Hopefully, Tonto is seeing the right future. Hi-Yo Silver……
lone ranger.
was Tonto also envisioning this vehicle fueled by a white powder in his Native nose.
Could someone explain mill rates to dj? Or has S’toon never before gone through reassessment?
Excellent article on subsidies and farming:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=622f067f-60e7-491f-af4d-2b39f0c1f95c
In the whole of the industrialized world, the OECD ranks Australia’s and New Zealand’s farming sectors as the healthiest. Not coincidentally, they are also the freest and least dependent on government handouts.
The State is your enemy.
The State’s “scary tombstone campaign (“Don’t die of ignorance”),”.
This from the same people who are spreading the Global Warming “scary tombstone campaign”.
…-
“The exploitation of Aids
The Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the last 30 years”
http://tinyurl.com/4zn6mb (guardian)
Here is Mr. Canadian socialist AIDS:
Stephen Lewis Speaking
Maclean’s Canadian of The Year
Available for Speaking Engagements
“The Post has reported that outright bans on handguns have been tried from Great Britain to Japan, almost invariably resulting in a rise, rather than a decline, in violent crime.”
“It’s time for a ban on handgun bans”
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=583259
…-
“Rock under the gun
Marty Gobin, Special to The Windsor Star
Published: Friday, June 13, 2008
In his recent column in The Windsor Star, former Minister of Justice Allan Rock described the federal Tories’ use of an amnesty for long gun owners as being “undemocratic trickery.”
How odd that he should say that.”
http://tinyurl.com/59shg9
…-
“Double shooting shakes gun-weary Toronto
Globe and Mail – 4 hours ago
TORONTO — It was just after midnight yesterday when Alan Dudeck’s cellphone rang, bearing the worst tidings a parent could hear: His son, Oliver Martin, and his son’s lifelong friend Dylan Ellis had just been shot.”
Homosexual activist, Stephen Lock (see previous thread, “Imagine if an anti-gay bureaucrat . . . “, June 12) is quoted in Xtra: “Make no mistake: I have no sympathy for the views of the CCC or the Rev Boissoin, believing them to be poisonous. I want people like him to go away and allow us all to live in peace and harmony.”
These comments—made four years ago and quoted by Ezra at his blog on June 12, 2008—are quite ironic: there are a lot of people who think LOCK’S views are poisonous and wish he’d just go away and leave them in peace. But truth is no defence for this apparently heretical view of gays . . .
Now that I’m started: the gay lifestyle and the agenda of the gay activists—to completely normalize it—is no joke. ’Any surprise that a certain Bruce W. is openly a member of EGALE, the most prominent gay lobby group in the country? Like our “friend”, EGALE has used oodles and oodles of the taxpayers’ hard earned cash, via the Liberals’ Court Challenges Program, administered by homosexuals for homosexuals—this is beginning to sound like the HRCs!—to use our court system to make the rest of us march in lock step.
There’s a very dark side to the gay culture, which is quite openly celebrated: check out the Folsom Street Fair videos, especially the dog collared, female toddlers, with big grins on their little faces as they navigate among the largely naked leathermen—like their two “dads”—many with erections, some fellating each other. (Sorry for this disturbing image, part of the problem when trying to discuss the unsavoury aspects of the gay lifestyle. People tend to “shoot the messenger”.)
Read Xtra, one of Canada’s gay publications. (Really, it’s free: READ IT.) E.g., A lesbian mother of a five year old, who found her sex toys, wonders if she should explain to the child how she and her partner use them. One doesn’t find this kind of advice column in straight publications . . . the difference being that there are horrible things going on in the straight universe, but, unlike in the gay version, these things are not openly celebrated: “Hey, we’re just folks.” Check out the multiple public perversions during “Gay Pride”—allowed by public officials and actually “protected” by the police. ’Just like Caledonia . . . “Move on folks, nothing to see here.” (IMO, it’s the “whistle blower” Christians who deserve an apology in this out of kilter country.)
And, like the Muslims, gays are now protected by “hate speech” laws—and the opprobrium of all the elites of the West, so that the juvenile and dangerous thoughts and actions, both well embedded in these groups and well known to many, are beyond criticism—and truth is no defence. Ironic.
Also, like the “moderate” Muslims who never seem to speak out about the dark underside of their culture, where are the “moderates” in the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) community, willing to distance themselves from the seamy and dangerous lifestyle of the activists? (Nowhere, IMO)
These activists are also infiltrating the school system in a many pronged initiative—often by stealth. (I know of a sympathetic principal who declined to inform parents, of students as young as seven, about a visit to the school by two gay activists, whose visit was filed under “anti bullying”, though the purpose was also to buy sympathy for gays. After what’s been happening to the Brockies, Kemplings, Henrys, Boissoins, Knights of Columbus, etc. in this country, does one think that observant Christians would be allowed in schools to present anti-bullying seminars?)
What else is ironic—with a few gays, cottoning on, Stephen Lock included—is that this kind of silencing, if it keeps up, is likely to end up with the Muslims doing truly bad things to the gay community. (Why not the other way round? Well, Muslims far outnumber homosexuals, who comprise about 1-3%—really—of the population, while Muslims have lots of kids and homosexuals don’t. It’s the demographics. Whoops: I’m not supposed to say that!)
Christians are already toast, as we’re experiencing—the canaries in the Western mine: suppressing free speech doesn’t work well at all except for the biggest bully. The homosexual community has been a very big bully in Canada, using the HRCs and courts to force their will on the rest of us—who aren’t allowed to talk back. Now the Muslims have figured it out and are doing the same thing.
Something’s got to give!
Socialism takes a hit; but, socialists/socialism will rise again.
Socialism is a hydra, a serpent with many heads.
…-
“LISBON TREATY IN TATTERS
EU in Chaos after Ireland’s ‘No’ Vote
Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum has plunged the EU into a new crisis. The continent’s leaders, who are in shock and have no idea how to proceed, are travelling to Brussels this week to discuss possible next steps.”
http://tinyurl.com/4orgdw (spiegel)
Well-put, lookout.
We’re looking at a tinder box here, sitting in the middle of street, with onlookers simply passing by.
What’s it going to take for Canadians to WAKE UP?
I’ll answer my own question: a huge explosion.
In the whole of the industrialized world, the OECD ranks Australia’s and New Zealand’s farming sectors as the healthiest. Not coincidentally, they are also the freest and least dependent on government handouts.Posted by: allan at June 14, 2008 4:11 AM
No surprise there. Prices, freely determined – and without distorting subsidies, payments, and preferential treatment of some farmers – allows price changes to signal the market to adjust production.
There will be some who make out better than others – this is not simply a reflection of the market – but of life, and freedom – in an of itself.
Think of this as our Minister of Industry pours $20 billion dollars PER YEAR into preferential treatment of regions, industry segments, and most certainly – individuals (how do you spell Bombardier? Or Molson. Or General Motors. Or Ford. Or General Electric. Or… )
Welcom to Central Planning, comrade – that $20 billion per year is taken right from your pocket and given to a welfare case who has his hand wrapped around his MP’s.
A zero sum economic waste of time – with an exception. By transferring a dollar of yours to a welfare case in a business suit – it takes bureaucrats. Thus, only $0.75 cent of your tax dollars get to the panhandler, the rest feeding the bureaucracy.
The only ‘benefit’ accruing is to anyone is the politicians and the empire builders who seek power (and a paycheque :-)) on someone else’s dime. No risk, fully indexed pension, and 25 days per year holidays. All while performing a zero sum transfer of wealth from the whole – to the favoured.
Perhaps someone can tell me – in context of the HRC’s (dictatorial, arbitrary, not bound by normal process of law, and driven by political correctness), how the forceful grab and redistribution of tax revenues to private enterprise in an equally arbitrary way is any less an abuse of governmental power against the citizen?
That’s what I think. And that’s why I comment on it. 🙂
“and (assume) that the subsidy was awarded on the basis of sophisticated economic reasoning, and not the usual grubby political process, in which assiduous lobbying and hefty donations of cash play their usual part. Under all these assumptions, it’s possible to imagine a world in which subsidy made sense.”
http://tinyurl.com/4dbbkp
Hardboiled, my understanding that the “commission” of government is more like $.40 on the dollar. This talk of government subsidy/corporate welfare reminds me of a quote I read a couple of years ago: “government is very poor at picking winners; but, losers are very good at picking government.”
Doesn’t anyone find it strange that few, if any, conservative oriented blogs have even mentioned, let alone analyzed and condemned, the newly-introduced and infamous Copyright Act?
This anti User Rights draft legislation is a travesty to Canadians and a blatant gift to American corporate suits, and if we let our CPC government get away with it, we all deserve to be viewed in the same light as Bush Sheeples.
Shame on us.
Everybody gets a turn.
Sadly, well liked Tim Russert just got his turn yesterday.
The trick is to try and understand where each person on this plane of human existence or understanding with his maker is is when the light switch of human existence is pulled.
Tim was well beyond those who strap explosives on themselves to leave this plane of consciousness.
The good news in US media is that Laura Ingraham will be on FOX Channel at 5 pm staring next week.
Too bad for puffy Duffy’s time spot.
Even though she’s in the US, she makes a heeluva lot more sense that Liberal lickspittle Duffy does in Canada.
Murphy, of course, is a Newfoundlander from Newfoundland. Newfoundland was the home of the Beothuk Indians. The Beothuk Indians are extinct.
The Beothuks were extincted by the French and the Micmac Indians from Nova Scotia.
When “the House stood still” in Ottawa was there any mention/apology of/for the extinction of the Beothuks?
…-
“Globe | Rex Murphy: The day the House stood still — It is not often we give our politicians the benefit of the doubt, and for good reason. On many of the major issues of the day most of them have all the conviction of a windsock.” (via jack’s)
“The Origins of Political Correctness”
“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.”
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
…-
The Canadian Human Rights Act is the sharia law of the socialists-leftists/political correctness.
The HRC commissions/tribunals are the enforcement agencies of political correctness.
The commissars of the HRCs are paid employees/bureauc-rats of the State.
This anti User Rights draft legislation is a travesty to Canadians and a blatant gift to American corporate suits, and if we let our CPC government get away with it, we all deserve to be viewed in the same light as Bush Sheeples. Posted by: burpnrun at June 14, 2008 11:42 AM
I agree that this legislation is very poorly drafted, and toadying to corporate interests. Although whether ‘American’ in origin – or Bush related – is irrelevant. That’s just a low grade smear – an appeal to anti-American sentiment.
Criticizing Prentice for bringing forward legislation that is poorly worded, subject to numerous caveats, and won’t bring the benefits as touted by the government – is the best way to address it.
Prentice obviously knows little about copyright in the digital age – and is toadying to profit driven interests without Canadians’ best interests in mind.
It don’t matter whether its’ American in origin, or not. It’s just bad law. And not ‘conservatism’ in any which way, shape, or form.
I felt such a surge of civic pride this morning when I was perusing our local rag. Seems our city may about to enter the moonbat big leagues. Hello Berkley, here we come.
Cyclists stage cheeky protest
Ben Plamondon didn’t plan on spending Friday evening cycling the city in the buff.
But when the 19-year-old got word of Winnipeg’s first-ever Naked Bike Ride, he decided he might as well toss caution — and his clothing — to the wind.
“I heard about it probably less than an hour ago,” said the grinning University of Manitoba student, lounging fully clad on the legislative building staircase before stripping down for the cycling event.
World Naked Bike Rides, meant to raise awareness of oil dependency and protest car culture, have drawn thousands of participants in roughly 70 cities and 20 countries. But at Winnipeg’s premiere nude ride, gawking bystanders outnumbered participants at least 7 to 1.
Plamondon and half a dozen other cyclists eventually disrobed before a silent crowd of camera-toting spectators.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4186309p-4776621c.html
Hardboiled: I stand corrected.
But, why the utter lack of coverage and outrage on conservative blogs? Just a bunch of sheep? That’s how the US started its downward spiral.
Maybe, Hardboiled & Burpnrun, the reason many conservative and libertarian blogs are not outraged is that, like me, they don’t have that big a problem with bill C-61, and that they do have a problem with thieves and marxists stealing private intellectual property traded solely according to contract terms that they agreed to and then want to violate. Before going out too far on a limb on this, I’d like to suggest that you read Terence Corcoran’s analysis of the situation in the National Post: tinyurl.com/6qqbye
To Cal2: “Was it “white powder,” or “white power.” Can’t remember!!
Free Dominion is referencing a Liberal bill, apparently in 3rd reading, designed to pay social security benefits earlier to immigrants.
This is complete crap but, of course, it is designed/presented by the Liberals because they created the mess – so why wouldn’t it be a Lib bill trying to be slipped in quietly. Just another swarmy attempt by the Libs to regain power when an election can’t be far off.
How many immigrant elders came in under the Libs “vote for me” mandate, have contributed nothing to this country in the way of taxes, and they/their sponsors are now crying they are broke/dependent so pay me.
How may elders were allowed into this country on the basis of them being totally taken care of by those sponsoring them for 10years – whether it was based on compassion or based on bringing in a “baby sitter” to enable working mothers. Little of this “family reconciliation” was about growing Canada.
I can have bet that many of the sponsors have already been let off early from the financial hook that they agreed to (particularly medical), but to bring this into law – stop it already!
Would I bet against the Cons going along with this as they continue to pander for votes – perhaps $5 but nothing more. I don’t hear our Western MPs making much of a noise about this one.
BTW, the “Bruce” W. I mentioned earlier actually goes by the name Richard (his middle name is Bruce), and he’s also used loads of government bucks to payroll his pet causes, via the HRCs.
batb, I appreciate your comments.
This is pretty funny & about the way I feel towards the HRC’s & their government stooges.
http://www.stephenboissoin.com/Gnome.html
: Before getting all snitty about legitimate criticsm of the CPC’s latest disaster (and I’m a senior, long-term die-hard CPC supporter), perhaps you would actually choose to read the draft bill yourself?
Secondly, I’d hardly consider Corcoran’s comments as either thorough or expert. Fair, but totally incomplete. For that I’d rely on Geist, whose general reaction gives new meaning to the word “disaster”.
Thirdly, if you had taken the time to read my blog post on this Bill, you’d realize that I’m fully “for” prosecuting illegal copiers, downloaders, etc. I just believe that the CPC has consciously ignored (or trashed) any constuct of “users’ rights”.
Finally, not everyone who criticises the almighty CPC is a thief or marxist, as you allude. Still the Sheeple contingent at work, I fear.
List of parties to international copyright treaties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_treaty_table
Who was in charge of Canada at the time and what did they do about this except sign?
Is Canada in default of its international obligations?
Is the CPC trying to put this right?
Are ordinary Canadians going to be criminalized?
Is there another way out?
I heard Michael Geist on Dave Rutherford’s show, and I finally had to turn it off out of frustration — he was long on ominous warnings, but couldn’t seem to come up with one reasonable scenario in which the warnings he was giving would (realistically) happen. He talked about locks on certain content, to prevent multiple copies from being burned, for example, and how unfair it was that people wouldn’t be allowed to circumvent that.
Everyone I’ve heard so far who’s massively opposed to the legislation somehow comprehensively avoids listing the downfalls, in terms of saying, if you do A, B will happen to you. I can only assume that it has something to do with the opponents of the bill feeling like they can’t justify A. So that just don’t spell it out.
I have an autonomic BS detector, too, when people pull out the “A” bomb — American — without backing it up. I’ve heard enough of the BushHarper crap to know its usually the sign of a losing argument. And in the same ballpark, people are saying that this legislation puts us in danger of turning into a police state, etc., and again, there is, for some reason, a similar absence of specifics or examples to back it up.
CBC had some dude on who’s opposed, and it’s pretty apparent that for some people — almost exclusively youngish people — for whom actually buying a recording or a movie is an alien concept, they don’t even see a problem with that; it’s just about being able to do what they want — it’s a little bit like, during a couple of years when locks on doors weren’t yet invented, they got used to going in and grabbing what they want, and now they don’t have a clue about property rights.
I don’t know all that much about the new legislation, I’m just noting that, so far, its opponents keep the argument against it in the realm of vague warnings and negative descriptions — “disaster” — without coming clean about real-world, specific examples of harm that will be caused.
If it sounded, Burpnrun, like I was calling you or Hardboiled a thief or marxist, then I appologize, that was not my intent. As you mention, we agree about a lot of the parts of the problem. We don’t apparently agree on some of the margin cases. And that’s ok.
I think that one of the reasons that we don’t yet have a proper functioning micro-payments market for on-line copyright content is that the extent of theft of said content makes such market currently intractable. However, if we succeed in limiting such theft, then I think that a micro-payments infrastructure would flourish.
Why I can’t I pay, say, a dollar an hour to watch massive libraries of all recorded video, audio, and text, for profit, instead of just the stuff that leaks out to Google & YouTube? Why can’t I watch any Johnny Carson show ever, for a dollar an hour? Why? Because right now, it’s too easy to steal, so there’s no market to fix that. People won’t pay the dollar, they’ll steal the content, because they are immoral, and/or there’s no effective punative penalty, and/or therefore there’s not alternative tractable mechanism.
Sure the bill is less than optimal, all government bills are less than optimal. Yet this is a long-term problem in a young medium. I don’t want to see the market killed by either too tight or too loose regulation of private property rights. C-61 will probably be on the one hand fixed and on the other hand corrupted beyond recognition in committee, and then it will probably die on the order paper, but the evolution of property rights in the light of the new medium will go on.
In that regard, should you choose to argue any specific item or issue in the bill, that might be interesting, it’s just that I don’t think your sheeple epithet is reasonable.
Vit:
I agree that wholesale downloading of content that you haven’t paid for is and should be illegal. But tell me how I should proceed in this case:
I like Steely Dan. I bought two vinyl copies of their first album, but both ended up warping so badly that they couldn’t be played even if I taped a weight to my turntable. Neither store that I bought the albums at would replace them.
A few years after, I purchased the same album on cassette tape. That ended up being tossed out the window in a fit of pique after it turned into a mess of spaghetti somewhere between Toronto and Montreal.
Finally, I purchased it on CD, and thought that would be the end of it, but the CD was stolen out of my car (while it was in an auto pound, BTW; we stayed out a bit later than we had thought, and missed the 2 am limit we were allowed to park at my friend’s apartment. My insurance company refused to reimburse me).
Now, I have paid for this music *FOUR* times. Do I feel the slightest bit of guilt downloading it? Not at all. And, should I buy an MP3 player, will I feel any guilt about transferring it from my PC to the player? Nope.
I am purchasing the music and song, not the medium, which is what the RIAA and their thugs (I suggest you visit Slashdot, and search for this to find the underhanded and illegal methods they have used in their efforts to enforce this disgusting law in the US) are trying to enforce. Let’s compare it to a book – does Penguin tell me that I have to purchase one copy of a book to read at home, another to read on the subway, and a third to enjoy in my car? This is what the RIAA wants, and it’s nothing more than government-sanctioned intrusion on my rights to do what I want with my legally purchased goods.
On a totally different topic, today is Flag Day in the United States, and I saw a brief bit on TV news showing the many different ways Americans are honouring their flag. It occurred to me that in Canada, we have more coverage of “Pride Day” (e.g. “Fag Day”) than we do of our own Flag Day. Points to anyone who knows when it is without having to look it up. (I had to!)
Let’s say you buy a TV, Kevin. Let’s say it’s stolen. Should you now be able to steal a TV to replace it because you’ve already paid for one? Let’s say you buy a TV for your living room. Should you be able to steal another one for you bedroom because you’ve already paid for one?
Ok, let’s say that like our bit-copiers you had an atom-copier. Should you be able to put your TV in your atom-copier and give the result to your friend, thus denying compensation to the holder of the intellectual property rights of the TV design that your friend would have had to duly account for if he had bought his TV in the contractual transaction market? People are confused because this bit-copying technology is new, and they don’t yet appreciate the atom-copying analogue.
I think that if you legally purchase one copy of bit-content, then you should be able to make as many copies of it as you want, solely for personal use. It’s like, if I buy a book, I should be able to write out my own copy of chapter four as many times as I want. Unless, of course, the market contract for the book I purchased says no. In that case, if I don’t like it, I shouldn’t buy the book. After all, who do I think I am?
So lacking notice otherwise, the statutory default should enable personal use copies, but the purchase transaction contract may override with specific limitations. Are you buying the medium or the song? Look at the contract. If you don’t like the contract, don’t buy. Sing. You can sing, can’t you?
The current situation in the bit-copying medium is, as I mentioned, young, somewhat of a mess, and under flux. Any government intervention is going to have its strengths and weaknesses, and there are certainly some details in C-61 that I think need to be fixed; my broader point here is rather that I don’t think there is anything such as a free lunch-download, and as EBD noted, I don’t buy the “police state” sky-is-falling rhetoric that is being perpetrated by greedy children and anti-property marxists.
McGuinty is Liberal-socialist Premier of TO.
Are MSM’s blinkers/blinders starting to dissolve?
If only.
…-
“McGuinty angrily denies that he may raise taxes
The Canadian Press”
“McGuinty seems to dislike questions about tax hikes after breaking a promise not to raise taxes in his first term by introducing a new health care premium of up to $900 for every Ontario worker.
He called reporters silly for daring to raise the issue.”
This blog entry was written in 2006.
…-
“Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
…-
Jack says:
“It’s because the same thing happened in Canada when the Charter was introduced and as a result we’re in debt up to our ears as the feeding frenzy continues to this very day.
We [Canadians] never got a referendum either and that upsets me everytime I think about it. I don’t want to see it happen to anyone else.”
http://jacksnewswatch.com/2008/06/14/jack-labours-perfect-storm/
Re: the Court Challenges Program, which the current government terminated a year or two ago.
On or about April 11, the Supreme Court decided to award costs to a person who brought a case involving language rights in New Brunswick, on the grounds that if the Court Challenges Program had not been eliminated, the person would likely have been able to acquire some funds from it.
Lawyers: is this kind of decision by the Supreme Court justified?
Vit: “Let’s say you buy a TV, Kevin. Let’s say it’s stolen. Should you now be able to steal a TV to replace it because you’ve already paid for one? Let’s say you buy a TV for your living room. Should you be able to steal another one for you bedroom because you’ve already paid for one?”
Oh, what a specious argument, and far beneath your usual standard. If I steal a TV, I’m depriving its rightful owner of the use and enjoyment of it. If I copy a song I’ve already paid for, please tell me who is being deprived of anything, except maybe the RIAA companies of extra revenue that they wouldn’t get except they don’t guarantee the physical media they distribute their products on.
If you can remember, the recording industry made the same arguments when cassette tapes appeared, and the US courts ruled that making copies of your records for your own personal use was legal. (You might want to look up the “Audio Home Recording Act” for the details.)
To use your technique of hyperbole, let’s assume all the car manufacturers bought up the bus and taxi companies, and then all of the manufacturers form the MVIAA and modify their sales contracts to say that you cannot transport anyone but immediate members of your family in your car; otherwise, you have to take a bus or taxi. Do you seriously think that such a contract could stand?
History is rife with examples of dinosaur industries that try to restrict or prohibit the use of emerging technologies. AT&T and Bell Canada fought long distance competition on grounds as specious as the RIAA’s; now, instead of paying $0.56/minute to call Vancouver from Toronto on Bell, I can do it for pennies. Various crafts and guilds in the 1600-1800’s fought against the emerging industrial competition. Even buggy makers in the early 1900’s tried to prohibit the use of automobiles on public roads. All of them failed.
But hell – in a country where we’ve meekly surrendered our right to our own ideas to HRC’s, surrendered the rule of law to anarchist aboriginals, and are on the verge of subverting hundreds of years of English common law to retrograde sharia, why should I be surprised that we’re going to allow companies to tell us what we can and cannot do with legally purchased material in the privacy of our homes?
Re: new copyright act,
Sticking with the TV example for a moment, imagine you wanted to move your TV from the den to the family room but were told doing so was illegal. If you want to watch TV in a different room you must first but a new TV, even if you had no intention of ever entering the den again.
This is a better example of what people are afraid of with the new bill.
As you wish, Kevin, pardon my specious rhetoric.
And don’t forget, the economy is crashing too 😉
With regard to the copyright bill that was obviously written by the entertainment industry lawyers…the solution is simple. Starting the day this bill becomes law I will NOT buy another CD or Movie. I will ONLY use and enjoy pirated copies. I WILL NOT VOTE CONSERVATIVE, I’ll vote Green, NDP, or Liberal first. The CPC will lose it’s $1,500 that they have been getting every year. This BS on top of the horrible INACTION with regard to the CHRC is it. I’m done. They’re as useless as the Lieberals were. Enough with the Quebec ass kissing! BE CONSERVATIVES! THAT’S WHAT YOUR SUPPORTERS VOTED FOR!
Is there any law, current or proposed, Griffin, that prohibits you moving your legally acquired TV from your den to your family room? Furthermore, should there ever be such a law? Should not whether or not you legally allowed to move your TV from your den to your family room depend on whether or not you signed a free market contract that said: by purchasing this TV for your den, you agree to not move it to any other room? Don’t like it? Don’t buy it.
People are afraid of all sorts of things that never come to pass. The point remains that if we want a free-market volitional contractual transaction system, then (unless we want anarchy), we are going to use the powers of the state in one fashion or another to constrain violators of the system. Yes the devil is in the details, but of course it is, otherwise we wouldn’t be arguing about them.
nv53, why does your little horror story about the lack of due process by or propriety of our judges not surprise me? It’s like the Ontario HRC passing judgement on Macleans, after admitting it has no jurisdiction.
Thanks for sharing that.
And, yes, the Court Challenges Program was terminated by the Conservatives. The L(l)iberals are trying to restore it–of course.
Yes, well, thank you for sharing, Bart. You’re entitled to your vote.
Vit,
In our system today there are legal constraints against “unreasonable” conditions in contracts. For example, changing the conditions after you bought the product. Currently, I own a number of CDs, since I bought them in Canada I can make a copy of the original for my car or convert the format and store the contents on my MP3 player. From what I understand, I may no longer be able to enjoy that freedom under this new bill. Note I did play by the rules when I first acquired the music, I paid for it. My concern now is that the free market contract I agreed to may be altered without my consent.
I am also concerned about the shift in understanding regarding what I am buying. From what I can see this bill redefines what I am buying from “music” to “music in a particular format.” This narrowing of the definition of the terms of sale restricts my freedom of how I enjoy my music. You are of course correct that I, as a law abiding citizen, can exercise my right not to purchase music in future but how does that further my interests as a consumer and those of the artist.
I have seen all of these problems before. I do not know if you were involved in the software industry back in the 80’s but there was a battle between producers of software and consumers of software over software rights. As the license agreements became more and more onerous more and more consumers began to pirate software. This situation continued until Borland Software came out with their very unrestrictive “no nonsense” license agreement. This agreement changed the way software was licensed and was a boon for the industry. In essence, the license said “you can do whatever you want with our software as long as you buy it.”
I see this current bill as the antitheses of this spirit of consumer freedom. A step backwards for consumers and for artists. It offers no new freedoms and removes freedoms I currently enjoy. Like you, I am against thievery in any form but I am also against restrictions (excluding safety restrictions) on my legally owned property.
I found the TV argument inadequate but was trying to work within the example you gave. Sorry if I misled you.
Ahh, Griffin. It turns out that I have been a professional software developer since 1971. My equity position in the fruit of my brow is principally protected by copyright law. I’ve seen and been through every IP trend since then. I grok.
I don’t think C-61 is going to prevent you from format-shifting your legally acquired copyright content for personal use. Others may disagree, that’s democracy, and the bill is not in final form.
I would note though that I think that you, Griffin, really captured the solution to the problem, as exemplified by the Borland case (I once signed that no-nonsense license agreement). If some producers are being unreasonable, and we have a free market, then some other bright producer will step up, offer a more reasonable product, and reap his just profit for his product or service well provided, according to the actual market’s definition of well.
The open question is whether or not bill C-61 is a step in the right direction, or the wrong direction. Well, I’m not sure it’s much at all, other than our government taking yet another swipe at something they don’t really understand, yet it remains the case that I am in particular not convinced that C-61 is some sort of egregious violation of the already less than optimal normative processes we and our government try to use to make some sense out of the whole mess.
In the interim, I’ve never violated a software or content lock in my 37 years with this new technology and this new medium, and I’m doin’ fine.
EBD :
You forget. We have no private property rights in the Charter of Rights. Those laws we do have are only as good as the leaders of the day deem them. There fluid, not fixed or protected as in the US.
That was PET’s first target. You know the rest of the story.
How many Grits feel about Dion;
In the meantime, Liberal MPs will get behind their leader like good soldiers. Not because they necessarily share his vision– rather because removing him would be too destructive. In the words of one Grit: “He has won the right to lose the next election.”