Friday, 14 January 2011
Palin fails at finding her moment
Following Sarah Palin's videotaped statement today, let there be no doubt about her total lack of seriousness -- a character trait, in fact, that's utterly dwarfed by her chronic inability to construct prepared, teleprompter-presented remarks without virtually choking on her own tongue.Sarah Palin could have used her time to be a leader -- to take the high road and talk about the heroes and the victims of this terrorist attack. She could have used the time to discuss responsible gun ownership. She could have taken the time to address her people and mitigate the anger and political hatred that's bubbled up around this tragedy. Instead, she diminished the tragedy by conflating it with the attacks against her and her record of inflammatory statements...
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
REpost: Why pay $25,000
Pictures of Banksy in Jamaica by Peter Dean Rickards (from 'Afflicted Yard')
Sites that publish these photos are usually handed a cease and desist take down notice by Banksy's solicitors while at the same time they deny it is him.
Radiohead - Live From The Basement [Full Show] (2010)
Track Listing
-------------
Weird Fishes/Arpeggi
15 Step
Bodysnatchers
Nude
The Gloaming
Myxomatosis
House Of Cards
Bangers and Mash
Optimistic
Reckoner
Videotape
Where I End And You Begin
All I Need
Go Slowly
http://www.fromthebasement.tv/
DVD torrent link (requires PLG free registration):
http://www.purelivegigs.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9801
the AustinBrock account @ youtube has also a lot of complete Radiohead concerts.
Check it out!
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Supreme Court declines to review Appeal Court's Starr VS Sony decision
America's Supreme Court has knocked back an application by the four major record companies - EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner - to stop a lower court from reconsidering price-fixing allegations that have been made against the US record industry.
A group of American consumers led by Kevin Starr (well, his name comes first on the court papers) launched a class action lawsuit against the four majors a few years back, alleging that the big players of the US record industry - controlling, as they do, about 80% of the market - had colluded to keep the wholesale price for digital downloads at 70 cents and, in doing so, had broken the country's competition, or anti-trust, laws.
In 2008, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the plaintiffs had not presented enough evidence for an anti-trust case to be fully heard in court. But Starr et al appealed, and last year the US Appeals Court in New York ruled in their favour, declaring there were enough facts on the table to at least allege there had indeed been an antitrust price fixing conspiracy. The appeals court ordered the original judge to reconsider the case.
Legal reps for the majors quickly scurried to the US Supreme Court, arguing the appeals court had got it wrong, and that the plaintiffs simply lacked sufficient evidence for their case to be considered anew. But the Supreme Court yesterday declined, without explanation, to review the lower appeal court's ruling, meaning the anti-trust case will presumably now return to the original judge for new consideration. Funtimes.
@'CMU'
A group of American consumers led by Kevin Starr (well, his name comes first on the court papers) launched a class action lawsuit against the four majors a few years back, alleging that the big players of the US record industry - controlling, as they do, about 80% of the market - had colluded to keep the wholesale price for digital downloads at 70 cents and, in doing so, had broken the country's competition, or anti-trust, laws.
In 2008, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the plaintiffs had not presented enough evidence for an anti-trust case to be fully heard in court. But Starr et al appealed, and last year the US Appeals Court in New York ruled in their favour, declaring there were enough facts on the table to at least allege there had indeed been an antitrust price fixing conspiracy. The appeals court ordered the original judge to reconsider the case.
Legal reps for the majors quickly scurried to the US Supreme Court, arguing the appeals court had got it wrong, and that the plaintiffs simply lacked sufficient evidence for their case to be considered anew. But the Supreme Court yesterday declined, without explanation, to review the lower appeal court's ruling, meaning the anti-trust case will presumably now return to the original judge for new consideration. Funtimes.
@'CMU'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
