I think this bit of video perfectly illustrates the differences between the two candidates behavior during the two previous presidential debates.
If you’d like to watch the entire debate, you can do so at C-SPAN.
Online Home of Derek Meister
I think this bit of video perfectly illustrates the differences between the two candidates behavior during the two previous presidential debates.
If you’d like to watch the entire debate, you can do so at C-SPAN.
I sometimes get the feeling that people have this strange idea that by being assigned the film genre of “documentary” a film is automatically without subjectivity on behalf of the director, which in truth rarely happens.
Consider the film WINGED MIGRATION, which many hold as a shining example of a beautifully shot documentary about wildlife. How can one insert politics and remove objectivity when one’s shooting birds in their natural habitat one might ask. But objectivity is thrown out the window and politics are shoved, if subtly, onto a manipulated audience.
Winged Migration is full of staged scenes presented as “captured from nature”. Most of the birds used in the film were raised from hatchlings by animal trainers alongside the crew of the film in order to allow them to imprint on them so that they could be filmed from the ultralights and other vehicles as they flew.
The duck that escaped from a net early in the film thanks to a child with a nife, only to carry a piece of the net throughout the film. What you’re not told is the scene with the child was staged, and the net was removed at the end of each day’s filming and tied back on at the beginning of each new day in order to create a “moving symbol of man’s world and it’s affect on animal life”.
There’s also a scene in which a rusting truck surrounded by litter is seen in the middle of the pristine desert. You’re not told that the truck in question was actually hauled into that desert by the filmakers in order to create the “mood” of that scene.
Finally, consider how Europe is portrayed in the movie, with most scenes involving ugly, polluting factories being everywhere, and a completely staged scene in which a bird sinking in oil … except that the bird in question was put there by the filmmakers and “rescued” as soon as the filming stopped.
It’s all subjective, because you can use all the tricks one does in normal movie making to portray the same person, place or thing in a different light depending on how you do it.
Senator Hatch of course is the person behind the PIRATE Act of 2004, or “Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act”, this last May in which any and all petty copyright infringement would become a crime, as opposed to being a civil violation, and force the Department of Justice to handle all instances of copyright infringement.
However, the senator is now back with new legislation, the INDUCE Act, or “Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act”.
This act would make illegal anything that “intentionally” “aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures” others into actions that constitute piracy, which unfortunately thanks to the wording in this law means tha if a device or application can be used for infringement, it makes the producers of such devices liable, even if it’s the end users committing the violation.
And what the hell is with the blatant “ZOMG! THINK OF TEH CHILDRENS!” card being played within the name of the act? There seems to be a growing trend that any legislation introduced these days which uses an acronym as its name is automatically bad. PATRIOT, PIRATE, INDUCE, etc.
Courtesy of Alternet:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, “Our active military respond better to Republicans” because of “the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans.” The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans’ health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was “immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system.”
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died a-borning after it hit the newspapers.
In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, “I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay.” A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in “imminent danger” pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).
A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living “in decrepit and dilapidated military housing.”
With the release of the 2006 budget, we’re constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for making his tax cuts permanent.
Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In 2006, it plans to cut veterans spending by $910 million.