Big Talk, Big Stick

"Speak softly and carry a big stick..."

These were the words of Theodore Roosevelt, and for a long time our country lived by them as our foreign policy. We exercised real diplomacy, speaking with the leaders of enemy nations to help prevent war. We recognized that as long as we had that big stick in our hands we didn't need to make threats to other nations to keep them from attacking us or our allies. What I want to know is when we lost that realization. Now we have a politician that is being attacked for his idea that we should be meeting with people we're at odds with and try a good, old-fashioned conversation to see if we can reconcile our differences, while having that big stick (read United States Air Force) sitting in the background. It seems our idea of good foreign policy has become waving our big stick around and then yelling "You better not mess with us, this is what we've got if you do!" We don't talk, we don't ask, we just say "We're the boss" and then point to our stick.

This is not a foreign relations policy, this is a terrorist recruitment tool. This is a way for nations opposing us to find young, easily influenced people and say "America is our enemy, America is a threat." If we weren't going around the world pointing to our big stick, this wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is. I have to wonder if it has occurred to our current leaders Roosevelt's ideas of diplomacy could improve our nation's image in the eyes of the world. I have to wonder if they realize that real diplomacy, really working towards a peaceful solution, is going to give our enemies less of a reason to hate us and to get others to hate us. Maybe instead of attacking the idea of being diplomatic, the Republicans should pull their heads out of their asses and start a conversation that encourages peaceful solutions to international problems.

Who am I kidding. This isn't going to happen until we get some real change in this country, until our entire political environment changes. But this isn't going to happen. America isn't going to open its eyes, it's going to take someone forcing them open.

Swindled

Viacom, I think it's time that you invest in some new legal advisers. This lawsuit against YouTube is going to get you nothing except for paying out the ass in wasted legal fees. If your legal advisers were worth the money you pay them then you would realize that there are already two cases that have set a precedent for systems which can be used for both non-infringing and infringing copyrighted material. Hell, one of those cases has happened within the last four years! Haven't you read anything about the case against Grokster? That program was even design for the purpose of illegal file sharing, and it was still spared the chopping block because of the Sony Rule of 1984. An application that can be used for both infringing and non-infringing uses may not be held as a liable party for the copyright infringement of the people who use the program. In this particular case with YouTube, the service is clearly designed for a non-infringing purpose and is largely used as such. I would say put money on the fact that a higher percentage of what is posted to YouTube is non-infringing than is infringing. Grokster certainly couldn't boast that, but MGM still wasn't able to get them held liable because of the previous precedent which was set in 1984. You're claim regarding the Digital Copyright Millennium Act is a moot point as well, as Grokster was brought to court for this issue after the Act was put into place. I think it's safe to say that your legal advisers are swindling you if they're telling you that there's a chance in hell that you'll win this case. No, you're just going to look like the giant asshole of broadcasting networks that can't pull it's head out of it's ass and realize that the world around you is changing more rapidly than you're willing to adapt.

Oh yeah, and I still know all about the ONE campaign...

Johnny Boy

Oh Johnny Boy, you rascal you.

You have put so much emphasis on your military record, your time as a P.O.W., but you won't support a bill to help the young people of this country who have decided it is their duty to follow your lead? Oh no, you say you want to give them benefits, but the problem with the current bill is that the soldiers aren't getting in the way of bullets enough times. No, they should have to re-enlist two or three times before they get those health benefits, that help with college. They should risk there lives more than once in the defense of the nation they're so proud to serve before we will help provide mental health care, after coming home from seeing all those people die at their own hands. We need them to see more friends die, get hit with more shrapnel, get shot in more limbs before can help provide the care they need.

I understand that Obama hasn't served, that he doesn't know what it's like to go to war, but then again, neither did Bush and you seemed fine with him sending thousands of kids oversees. The truth is you are a hypocrite. If you're going to be so dead set on a person's need to serve the nation in combat, you better be offering them some great benefits when they come home with a broken mind and a missing leg.