Thursday, June 19, 2008
Jim Prentice, you gutless weasel.
Go. Listen. Fuck, what a pants-pissing coward.
P.S. For the record, that interview did not last the promised 10 minutes, it lasted 7 minutes and 40 seconds. So Prentice is also a liar. I'm sure you're shocked.
AFTERSNARK: You can tell that Prentice is simply trying to run out the clock from the get-go, as he essentially filibusters what should be cut-and-dried questions. "Can I copy stuff from his CDs to his iPod, yes or no?" "Well, that's a very technical question, and we're going to get into details and blah blah blah ..." One can almost visualize Prentice with a timer in front of him, stretching every answer to its maximum. But that's not the worst thing that despicable douchebag did.
No, the worst thing Prentice did was to start some answers with (and I'm paraphrasing), "Well, it's a very complex and long document ...". Yeah, we understand that, Jimbo. But that's precisely why a lot of Canadians aren't going to read it. Instead, they just want to know what's legal and what isn't, you sleazy asswipe. And it's really obnoxious to take what should be a simple yes-or-no question, and wave it off because, well, hey, that legislation is some kind of complicated and you don't want to bother your pretty head over it, know what I mean?
Fuck you, Jimbo. If you can't even answer simple questions about your own legislation, you shouldn't be out there telling people how downright ducky it is and how terrific it is for us consumers.
The more I think about this, the angrier I get. Excuse me while I go open a bottle of wine. It's after lunchtime so I'm good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Wow. "As I understand it"? Shouldn't the Minister responsible for a bill know what's in it and how it works? Cripes.
Ya, Gordo, that struck me too.
Kind of like saying, "now don't quote me on this, but..."
An idiot and a coward.
Mrs Cake said...
I listened to the piece, and if Prentice was my MP I'd be phoning his office right now. His weasley waffling performance has convinced me that the bill is seriously detrimental to the Canadian public, because otherwise why would he do such an energetic fan-dance and kick up such a cloud of dust?
CBC's The House imposed house rules a few weeks ago, preventing the two party reps from slanging each other and keeping them to the issue. It was great! Prentice's interview should have been similarly refereed, maybe using "football minutes" instead of clock minutes to time the thing.
CC, all the Cons talk exactly the same in interviews -- stilted, waffly, with talking points lined up like cap pistol shots and habits of speech trained into them like cult apologists. Who is teaching them? Nobody talks like this naturally, somebody must have a neo-con dojo out these, a secret school where they get whapped with a bamboo cane if they actually answer a question or miss a chance of blaming everything on Teh Libruls. I am not joking. Who and where is the secret school?
Meanwhile, the legislation: "If they know you won't like it, they'll vote for it in the summer, or at Christmas, or last thing in the day before a long weekend."
Anyone running a pool on when this depleted-uranium -laden carcase goes up for a vote? June 27 or Aug 29, anybody?
PS Several times during the mini-terview Prentice said, well it's complex, well it depends, well I don't know.
I know that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but if the writer and chief apologist of this law doesn't understand it and/or can't explain it, is the law still binding?
"Heah you peasants, listen up! If you dare to quandle the garvifver, it'll go hard on you!"
PPS The Cons don't intend to arrest or prosecute alleged transgressors under this law. They expect the rights-owners to prosecute in civil court (as Prentice has said with a certain amount of clarity, mirabile dictu).
How is this not equivalent to putting copyright protection in the hands of private security forces, who will have the right to get warrants and perhaps police support to search homes and businesses, cart away all computer and digital storage devices, and look at (copy?) everything digital the premises may have stored, looking for rogue unauthorized Chordettes albums?
And being civil, not criminal, the limits on these prosecutions are far looser.
Pratchett said: "There is nothing so likely to strike fear into the hearts of innocents everywhere than the news that they have nothing to fear." Journalists, researchers, lawyers, psychiatrists, whistle blowers and uncooperative civil servants might be a bit... chilled by these prospects, d'you think?
Time to work and store everything on 4G flash cards, small enough to swallow if necessary.
Careful with that bottle of wine, CC. If it has a digitally locked cork, you won't be able to transfer the contents from the bottle to your stomach and bloodstream without incurring fines from the vinyard.
I'll listen to the interview when I'm at home, but I am not surprised that Prentice doesn't know his own legislation - that's likely because he didn't write it without lots of help from the media conglomerates. It was "made in Canada," all right...made in Canada by US media corporations.
Globe and Mail article deals with this bill in detail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wgtcopyrightchat0613/BNStory/Technology/home?pageRequested=all
Sheesh, there are problems I never thought of.
@gabe
Further complications if one attempts to format shift from bottle to carafe to glass to gullet. Or attempts to time shift by corking remainder for later consumption.
So we won't cut carbon emissions because the Chinese don't have to yet, but we are expected to submit to draconian police state digital lock laws, even though the Chinese simply laugh as they break each one with impunity.
@frank
Digital Inebriation Management is the worst thing to happen to booze ever.
very good point lib!
Post a Comment