Two conservative screenwriters say Al Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.
Just days ahead of an international climate change conference, global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by an inconvenient scandal -- one that's reverberated all the way back to Hollywood.
Two conservative screenwriters say Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.
The former vice president earned the Oscar in 2007 for his climate change manifesto "An Inconvenient Truth." He later went on to earn a Nobel Peace Prize and become one of the world's leading authorities on global warming.
But Roger Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, put out a statement Thursday calling for the Academy to take it all back in light of the controversy skeptics have dubbed Climate-Gate.
"I personally call for the Academy to rescind this Oscar," Simon said. "In the history of the Academy ... not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. ... I think they should rescind this one."
Though their demand will almost certainly not be met, it marks the latest effort by conservatives to draw attention to the controversy in the run-up to an international climate change conference next week in Copenhagen -- where Gore just canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are demanding hearings on the topic, after leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit showed scientists appearing to discuss manipulating climate change data.
Simon is the founder of Pajamas Media, whose Web site posted the Gore criticism Thursday. Chetwynd is a screenwriter.
The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group. The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.
Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.
President Daniel Ortega's attempt to run for re-election has run into a setback in Congress.
Lawmakers are refusing to recognize a Supreme Court decision that would allow Ortega to run again in 2011 by overturning bans on consecutive re-election and serving more than two terms. This is where Ortega packed the court w/ temporary judges when 3 of the Supremes were conveniently not informed of the meeting.
The National Assembly approved a resolution Thursday to oppose the top court's decision. Legislators say it is up to Nicaragua's electoral commission to choose which branch of government to heed.
The electoral commission's president says the Supreme Court's ruling is final. But he leaves the post in 2010 and lawmakers are betting his replacement will side with them. Which Commandante Ortega will pack w/ his lackeys
Posted by: ed ||
12/04/2009 09:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
A new Mason Dixon poll (625 RVs, MoE +/- 4%) for the Las Vegas Review-Journal shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing two potential GOP opponents.
General Election Matchups
Lowden 51 (+2 vs last poll, 10/6-8)
Reid 41 (+2)
Und 8 (-4)
Tarkanian 48 (unch)
Reid 42 (-1)
Und 10 (-1)
The showing should be of concern since this poll shows little movement after Reid hit the airwaves making the case for re-election. "It just shows that Reid has reached a point where people aren't listening to him anymore," Danny Tarkanian consultant Jamie Fisfis tells the Review-Journal.
Former state Republican Party chair Sue Lowden edges Tarkanian, son of the former UNLV hoops coach, in a nine-person primary (six of the candidates polled at just 1 percent or less).
Republican Primary Election Matchup
Lowden 25 (+2)
Tarkanian 24 (+3)
Angle 13 (+4)
Other 5 (+2)
Und 33 (-11)
#1
There will be a house cleaning next year. Project of the moment is to minimize the damage this group of clowns does before they start collecting their unemployment checks.
#2
While I certainly agree about minimizing the damage, it is unfortunate they will not collect unemployment, but rather, Congressional Retirement, including (I assume) the swell health care plan they have today.
So, when you think about it, the longer they stay in office, the lower the number of retirees on the public dole. A disadvantage of term limits, I suppose.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/04/2009 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Now that would be change you could believe in. "Reid's in trouble?" Usually he is a source of trouble.
#4
I'm a Nevada voter who is also a) poor (working poor, I hasten to add), b)has a disabled child, and c) is in the NRA... in short, exactly the sort of fellow that's supposed to vote for Reid per his local political triangulations.
And I'm still not going to vote for him. Here's why:
1)Though Reid isn't as bad as some, he's still the classic conservative at home, liberal when in DC Democrat. In northern Nevada he doesn't even put the fact that he's a Dem on his campaign material. Just a motto that says Independent Like Nevada... while he's the head of the damn Democratic party. Good grief: exactly how stupid does he think we are?
Which brings us to point two:
2)Reid lies a lot. I mean, A LOT. We're all sick of it. We're sick of Ensign too. It's not a partisan thing. They both need to go... and I hate to say that, because I always liked Ensign.
3)For its population, Nevada is the third largest contributor to the military in the country. Reid had a pretty good relationship with the military, but he's mucked that up totally now.
Tennessee Rep. John Tanner's decision to step down at the end of his term has Democrats worried that a trickle of retirements will turn into a flood.
Democrats won their majority in 2006 -- and built on it in 2008 -- in large part by running conservative Democrats in Republican-leaning districts. But with Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) and Tanner now heading for the exits, there's growing concern that the party's strategy may be unraveling just in time for 2010.
"It's the beginning of an avalanche on our side," one Democratic strategist said. "Morale is bad, and we're seeing guys in their 50s and 60s, who have some time left, who can make some money and have a phase two in their careers."
Continued on Page 49
The European Commission analysis of ACTA's Internet chapter has leaked, indicating that the U.S. is seeking to push laws that extend beyond the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Internet treaties and beyond current European Union law (the EC posted the existence of the document last week but refused to make it publicly available).
The document contains detailed comments on the U.S. proposal, confirming the U.S. desire to promote a three-strikes and you're out policy, a Global DMCA, harmonized contributory copyright infringement rules, and the establishment of an international notice-and-takedown policy.
I'm sure that all means something, probably something dreadful for all involved, but I'm afraid I haven't the slightest idea what.
#3
My limited understanding is the proposed law fills in the "holes" in copyright infringement law which effectively modifies the Safe Harbor provision in copyright, where an ISP, for example, can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement if it fails to fulfill requirements under the new law.
This change could change the exemptions some tech companies enjoy as carriers. For instance Infolink, ( a company which hosts my server ) can be held civilly and criminally liable if it fails to transmit a DMCA takedown to a customer, or if it impedes such procedures in any way, even if the carrier was unaware of any violation of its own rules.
As I understand it enforcing an AUP is not sufficient remedy to the issue of ongoing copyright infringement.
That would presumably include a requirement transmitted by a copyright holder to a carrier that a suspected copyright infringer be taken down without benefit of trial if the copyright holder shows sufficient ground exists to prevent further copyright infringement.
Under current law Infolink has zero liability based solely on the fact it is a carrier, in that it cannot control what gets transmitted; currently its only issue is bandwidth.
Every carrier under the new law would not only be required to enforce an acceptable AUP, but could also be required to go even further to mitigate its third party liability in copyright infringement actions.
The proposed changes fundamentally change the nature of current US communications law, making carriers effectively enforcement arms of any copyright holder.
Contains a breakdown of some of the things wrong with the ACTA draft. It's some pretty bad stuff.
Posted by: Bisa ||
12/04/2009 7:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Time to return to the original intent of the Founding Fathers - thirty years, no extensions. Tough, Mouse. The object was to end royal patents which were inheritable and to reward the individual. Now mega-corporations have bought both parties and returned us to royal patents.
#7
Procopius2k: I've long held the idea that copyrights and patents should be much like the General Mining Act of 1872.
In short, it said that anyone could stake a mining claim, but they had to improve that claim to a certain amount by every year, or lost that claim. This meant either spend $500 on improving your mine, or earn $500 profit from your mine, or a combination of the above to $500.
In copyright or patent, it is very possible to create something that is very unique and valuable, and have a company that makes only that, for far longer than 30 years. So under this scheme, if you were still making good money off of it, you would still be protected from things like cheap foreign knock-offs.
But if you made something, say a piece of music, and you marketed it for a while, but then refused to sell it any more, you would lose your copyright protection, so that anyone else could market it.
As an example, look at Disney Corp. It still makes millions every year off of Mickey Mouse, even after 81 years. It should be allowed to continue to do so, without others appropriating it for their own use.
However, Disney also created and marketed the movie, Song of the South, which it now refuses to sell any more, because people like Al Sharpton call it "racist". Well, fine, it is their right to not sell it. But they should also lose their copyright protection that prevents others from selling it.
This truly matters, because there are vast libraries of movies, books, music, etc., that their owners refuse to sell, but legally prevent others from selling as well. By stripping them of their copyright unless they are sold, the market will get a huge boost.
Another problem are companies that buy patents with no intention of ever producing anything with them. They hold the patents for their licensing rights to other companies; or worse, they wait until someone else has a similar invention, then they sue them for infringement when they try to use it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Just days ahead of an international climate change conference, global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by an inconvenient scandal -- one that's reverberated all the way back to Hollywood. 
