So you're in favor of the government stepping in and removing the bodily autonomy of a woman because a "life" is at stake?
When can we expect to see you lobbying congress to introduce the Forced Organ Donor for All Citizens bill? After all, we could save millions of lives each year if everyone was forced to give up that extra kidney, lung, liver tissue, bone marrow, or blood. And let's not get started about how many people could benefit from your body parts after death, and hey, at that point we wouldn't even have to violate your bodily autonomy to get them so that should be mandatory for everyone, right? After all, this is about preserving life and not about controlling women, isn't it?
*One caveat: the trailer for this film was released in May. Where the hell were all these outraged actors back then? Why is it only now the film has made the news that they are releasing statements, speaking out, and filing lawsuits? Did none of these actors bother to view the movie they were in before the mainstream media picked this up?
Seems the answer lies in a letter from another actress in the film that OC linked to:
I did not consider this to be an unusual thing, seeing as I have had an experience with something like this before. I did a movie once where the script was written in a foreign language and only my parts were translated into English and accordingly, I was provided with my scenes only. Having experienced that, I thought the same thing was happening with “Desert Warrior”. Aware of the fact that the supposed producer and the script-writer of the movie (known as Sam Bassil) was a foreigner (thanks to his accent), I thought that the original script was written in his native tongue and that not all scenes were translated into English. Also, the filming dates of the movie had to be rescheduled last minute to fit my schedule (I had other films to do right after the “Desert Warrior” outside CA). Because of this rushed rearrangements, I thought that the production first forgot and then did not consider it necessary to send me the script, and again - I did not find this unusual, since I knew what role I had, I knew about my character and I knew about the story of the film.
My character Hilary was a young girl who is sold (against her own free will) by her parents to a tribe leader known as GEORGE. She is one of his (most likely, the youngest) brides in the movie.
The film was about a comet falling into a desert and different tribes in ancient Egypt fighting to acquire it for they deemed that the comet possessed some supernatural powers.
The movie that we were doing in Duarte was called “Desert Warrior” and it was a fictional adventure drama. The character GEORGE was a leader of one of those tribes fighting for the comet.
There was no mention EVER by anyone of MUHAMMAD and no mention of religion during the entire time I was on the set. I am hundred percent certain nobody in the cast and nobody in the US artistic side of the crew knew what was really planned for this “Desert Warrior”.
Basically the intent of the film was obscured by the producer and the process. They wouldn't have known to search for the YouTube release as they weren't even informed of it. The letter actually does a very good job of explaining how such a thing could have come about without the actors involved realizing.
Or maybe, just maybe, the demand for HD content will push ISPs to improve their network and technology and the demand for better internet connections will push content providers to make improve their HD content and make more of it available.
Not to mention that there are people and organizations outside of the ISP and content industries which are making improvements all the time on the very technology that those two industries use, which acts as an outside force to push the average standard higher.
I fully expect that when--not if--the legislative shackles are unbound from intellectual monopolies and technology that it will advance for the sake of nothing more than progress itself, and the average consumer will reap the benefits of that work.
A Pirate Bay spokesperson told TorrentFreak that this measure is going to do very little to stop people from accessing their site, as there are many ways to circumvent it. “This will just give us more traffic, as always. Thanks for the free advertising.”
Prior to the passing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, privately run airport security required visitors to pass through a metal detector and to x-ray luggage/bags they carried with them. The ticket counter agents were required to ask passengers if their luggage had been out of their immediate control since being packed and if they had been asked to carry anything onto the aircraft by someone unknown to them.
You're either entirely ignorant of the decades of airport security that preceded the implementation of the TSA or you are purposely being dishonest with a false dilemma of "all or none". You still lose. Care to try again?
I'll give you that no harm is done to innocent travelers and you'll still have to explain why we're spending $8,000,000,000 per year on an agency that does not fulfill its purpose. You cannot deny this; they themselves have admitted in their own top ten list that they've never caught one terrorist trying to board a plane.
If you want to go the route of claiming they provide additional benefits beyond the scope of their mission then you'll still have to explain why they are off task and off their mission and why are we paying it to do something it was not created for.
I'll give you all the cards you want and you'll still be holding a losing hand.
"Three years ago a notice was published in the Federal Register re the TPP and requesting comments, pro and con, from EVERY member of the public. It is hard to reconcile the continuing mantra "We have no opportunity for input" when at the very start a request for input was published."
Honestly this document is so bland and so lacking in detail that to claim there is sufficient information for the public to comment on is flimsy at best. The most info it provides are the topics that may be covered; the best anyone who is not privileged enough to actually have a seat at the table can do is make guesses about the details that will be discussed and try to comment on that, which is a farce of public involvement.
"Now, it seems that so many are focused on "secrecy" associated with its negotiation. This is not at all unusual while substantive discussions are taking place. Lest this be misunderstood, there is the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth". I believe it applies here. Once negotiations are substantially complete, a draft will certainly be published for public comment before the agreement is signed."
By invoking the tiresome phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" you seem to be saying that less input is better, because more input would make for a poorer outcome without actually providing supporting evidence for why greater input on international trade agreements/treaties would result in a worse outcome than lesser input. I could just as easily invoke the antonym phrase "many hands make for lighter work" as the justification for claiming that secrecy is unnecessary. It's nonsense. What I will say is that due to the vast number of citizens across signing nations affected by such agreements, it makes sense that the number of participants from public interest groups should at least equal if not outnumber the private corporations involved. Also if the sum of affected entities (corporations, the public) cannot come to an agreement, did it occur to anyone that perhaps the best course of action would be to not enter into an international treaty at this time?
Also publishing a public draft of treaty after the negotiations are complete is also useless. The best outcome from that scenario is another grassroots uprising like we saw with SOPA & PIPA that pressures the government to back down at the last second. The stakes are really too high for the public to be content with being allowed to comment after all the real work has been done.
"I do agree that what appears to be preferred access is a legitimate complaint. What I have to ask, though, is if there is anything preventing other groups from likewise meeting with the TPP negotiatiors? Frankly, I do not know the answer. I hope the answer is yes. I understand that a public presentation intended to solicit public input is to be held at the Australia Round of negotiations in March. Hopefully, those who feel left out of the process will attend and present their views and concerns."
What exactly is the use in meeting with TPP negotiators if the negotiations themselves are secret? Any negotiator who wanted to keep their seat at the table would be mad to disclose any pertinent, useful information. Also including the public at one time in Australia? If they're going to allow it once, why not have public inclusion at every negotiation? It makes it pretty clear that any such "inclusion" is probably another farce so everyone can pat themselves on the back and say they got "public" input.
"A final point. It is not reported if this is an executive agreement, or one authorized under authority conferred by Congress. I understand that Congress has held hearings concerning the negotiations, which suggests to me that this is not an executive agreement. Importantly, congressional participation does not mean that the resulting document will be a treaty, and courts have upheld agreements in which Congress participated under conditions other than its treaty powers."
Hopefully the executive branch doesn't try and whip out this "executive agreement" nonsense again; as the TPP clearly covers IP laws & issues and therefore falls under the authority of congress, no matter how much the president, the corporations, and their shills wish it were otherwise.
Are you seriously making a comparison between copyright infringement and sexual assault? Are you really seriously honestly saying copying a set of bits over the internet in violation of the laws of various nations is on the same level morally and criminally as violently sexually violating someone against their wishes?
The subtext of your statement is that you honestly believe that copyright infringement is so heinous that copyright infringers should be treated the same as those who sexually violate other people;
you're believe that rape is so insignificant and unworthy of attention that it sits on the same moral and criminal shelf as copyright infringement.