January 21, 2009
Related Posts
No related posts5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Detox Diet Tips
The initial ooh rah it calms some mellowing about year into it calms some mellowing about year into it calms some mellowing about year into his base once all his base once they get past the initial ooh rah it once all his training.
From just say it
Comment by just say it — January 23, 2009 @ 4:47 am
Posted by mikeg1124
Life changes can affect any relationship, regardless how strong. The best thing to do is to give space and be supportive. What goes around comes around
MILDRED SENT ME
Comment by mikeg1124 — January 26, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Posted by CatholicForever_Committed
I can understand you concern for your man and his new attitude, and I can understand you want to regulate the house, and set a good example for your children which is a great way to start, He should not be shouting commands at you like he is still in boot camp or on a platoon. He can ask you politely to do something for him but shouting does not get the job done and he needs to know the different between military and home life. Implement some rules that you both can agree on like how late you both stay out when one is home with the kids or you hire a baby sitter, and how many drinks you have a night to regulate drunkenness. he should set an example by not using dirty words that your daughter can pick up by no fault of her own. Maybe regulate the time you and him spend with friends and have time to spend with the family.
It is going to take some time for him to adjust to his new surroundings after being gone so long. Either way there are going to have to be some serious changes made, and you and him have to sit down and figure out what they will be.
Comment by CatholicForever_Committed — January 28, 2009 @ 12:12 am
Wake up Shawn Mallow, and all the staunch supporters of Israel. It is Pres. Obama and the AMETICAN PEOPLE that are tired of giving Israel 3 billion dollars annually of US taxpayer money, coupled with sophisticated weapons and intelligence, to maintain Israel’s brutal occupation, land stealing, genocide, racism, and terrorism of the Palestinian people. Americans are also tired of the US using its veto power in the UN to prevent adverse action against Israel for its atrocities and war crimes against the Palestinian and Arab people.
Americans want Pres. Obama to put US interest above all other, and that means resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The US has numerous enemies because of its relationship with Israel, and is currently fighting 2 wars because of Israel. It is a must for US national security that Pres. Obama use all the leverage he has with Israel to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This includes suspending aid to Israel, divestment, and reframing from using US veto power to protect Israel in the UN.
The US and world take the appropriate action to force Israel to return stolen land back to the Palestinians. This will pave the way for Israel to live in peace with the Palestinians and arab neighbors.
Comment by fern — June 19, 2009 @ 1:51 am
> The problem with your analogy is that the developers of LINUX choose to make their product available for free. If you download it you are not breaking the law. The music industry does not work for free. The reason I put this in my response (and you’ll notice I pointed out the difference) was to demonstrate that giving things away for free doesn’t somehow destroy them or make the "software creation" industry dysfunctional any more than piracy will kill music (profit concerns and pandering to the lowest common denominator has already done this). As for the music industry, well, as to its survival or demise, I don’t care. There will still be music. I reject the idea that "innovation" will suddenly go away if tomorrow you had some kind of hypothetical system in which there was no IP. People can’t stop making art for the same reason people can’t stop breathing. It has always been so. The overall mixture of quality would remain the same too. Might loose sooper dooper quadrophonic swishing sounds a bit - can’t afford those expensive engineers - but hey, life is fucking hard. > Mozart and Beethoven and Shakespeare did not work for free. Their work was created under a system of patronage and a wealthy person paid them to create it. I am well aware of that and I am in fact urging a return to this system, except with a distributed patronage system whereby musical works are released on a kind of "bounty" system. Upon release, the music just becomes free and "out there" for public consumption. So supposing a certain artist has an album ready to go. They might say something like, after I have received $200K in patronage payments, I will release it. Once released, it is free for everyone, but the artist sets the price beforehand. The recording itself as well as the payments could be held in escrow. This addresses several problems: * "I downloaded this because I was vaguely curious to hear it but wouldn’t ever pay for it," which comprises, I think, quite a lot of most people’s downloaded music collections - the same stuff 20 years ago kids were dubbing from their friends cassettes or taping off the radio. You would rely on the fans of a band who were serious fans to basically fund the release of an album. As for the music industry, if you remove distribution, manufacturing and packaging, what are you left with? Recording costs. Increasingly this is becoming less of an issue because home recording and home studios have become pretty viable, but even if not, recording costs could be factored into the price of the "patronage fee." * The artist is paid directly and chooses how and if to promote an album. In theory some of the promotional costs could even be transferred to online "street teams." For example, let’s say I am a big Radiohead fan. Radiohead says, ok, here’s our new record and we want $1 million for it. As a Radiohead fan, I may be able to kick in $5 or something for the patronage fee, but it will be in my personal best interest to promote the news of the release to other fans so they kick in money. Now, the relationship between fans and the artists becomes as that of the patron and artist. Once met, the album becomes free for everyone, one good free reason for people to become Radiohead fans, and, if the album doesn’t suck, a reason to be a patron for the next record. > "What DO you do for a living?" I am a technical writer. > Assuming you work, how would you feel if your boss showed up and told you that starting today, you won’t be paid for your work because the customer doesn’t want to pay for whatever goods or service you are providing. If I put my work in a digital format, where it could be downloaded, copied, and pasted by anyone, I would expect precisely that to happen, and it does. If I wasn’t paid to do it, I would write what I liked, where it would be pretty much in the same state, freely distributable, and get a job where I could make money - like mowing grass, which I’ve done. * Also all your stuff about socialism and communism is not what I’m talking about, but I know why you’d put it in those terms: What I am objecting to is the silliness of assuming, however much you want to posture about "OMG theft" that people will not tape off the radio, duplicate cassette and VHS tapes, rip and distribute DVDs and CDs, and yes, I am making the point that they are different from physical items, and always have been. > A starting performer may do open-mic performances because they need the exposure. They offer it for free - you take it for free. The contract is upheld on both sides. When their music gains in value because it is desirable (clearly it is or why would you bother stealing it? I am sure there are a lot of garage bands out there that would LOVE you to download their music for free and distribute it to a million of your closest friends on Kazaa…), the contract changes. Oh, but see, I’m one of those insufferable musical elitists who really doesn’t care about the charts, where some odious rapper’s tripe is apparently now "worth millions." Of course, I don’t pirate such crap either. In fact, the funny thing about this is I’m not much of a pirate, not that I’m going to claim I’ve never downloaded a track. It’s just that the vast majority of the garbage (and most of it, in all genres, is derivative garbage) I download winds up being deleted. I do however collect vinyl rips of 60s psychedelia, much or most of which is out of print, which I don’t apologize for…at all. * At the end of the day, no one on this thread defending this woman is really protesting the evil, evil capitalist system. That’s not what I’m doing either. I’m saying that whatever the circumstances behind the penalty, the dollar amount is ludicrous. And I’m also saying that at the end of the day, I buy Against Me!s CDs, which I leave still in their shrinkwrap, for a reason. As do, I suspect, most music pirates with their favored bands. If you want to make the overriding point that theft is wrong in some sense, I’m not going to argue with that. If you want to make out like on the scale of sins it’s some kind of substantial evil, I’m going to call that ridiculous. I’m for compensation of artists, but I think the idea of going into a sea of millions of pirates and picking out one and trying to "make an example" of them is like going after some kid who tapes off the radio, then dubs that tape for his friends because "technically it’s illegal" (as it is some but probably not all places). You work at cross-purposes to your cause because as I indicated, between saying it would be prudent for college students busted for this should maybe think of dropping out of college, wildly attacking grandmothers, attempting to stack the legal deck in their favor, and so on, the RIAA’s meddling with the system has just lost me any sympathy. As it has, pretty much everyone else. The music industry itself, as a whole, has basically conducted itself in ways which have resulted in also having zero sympathy - in fact, it has caused outright hostility from the public. And this is not going to change. Not with the moral argument you’re making. Especially not when most of the recovered money will go into the coffers of the companies, and not the artists. This is a boneheaded way of dealing with this problem because the way music is created and distributed is boneheaded and exploitative.
Comment by Tidiane Kassé — June 20, 2009 @ 9:24 pm