The “Sony Hack” Is The Greatest Thing For Media Responsibility Since… Pretty Much Ever

sony_pictures_logo

Earlier this week, Sony Pictures graciously suggested that it wouldn’t object if any major theater chains decided to drop “The Interview” from their schedules. If you’ve ever said to a woman, “I wouldn’t object if you took those panties off,” you’ll understand what was being conveyed in Sony’s statement. Insofar as you don’t become the head of a major theater chain by becoming a complete moron, by this afternoon Sony was able to state that it was withdrawing “The Interview” from distribution as a consequence of all those independent business partners of theirs deciding not to carry the movie.

Well, hoo-ray.


To explain why, I have to briefly digress into my personal theory of why the American political system has completely failed Americans over the course of the past forty years and why Occupy Wall Street could have gone some way to redress that balance. But I’ll make it quick.

Imagine a horizontal line with a left end and a right end. Not tough, right? Okay, that’s the famous two-party system. In that model, every political position is at some place on that line. Abortion on demand, regardless of fetal age or reason for wanting it done? That’s all the way to the left. Mandatory prayer and saluting the flag in schools? All the way to the right.

The way the system is supposed to work is this: Both sides stake out their positions on the far sides and the American people decide where the slider will be moved on that issue. Right now, abortion is cheap, legal, and easy, but there are restrictions regarding parental consent for minors and the age of the “tissue” in question. The American people have decided to move the slider away from third-trimester procedures, and they might move the slider a little bit further to the right as a consequence of this last election. The American people rarely move the slider all the way to the right or left — or, at least, to their perception of all the way right or left. The slider is now effectively all the way to the left on gay marriage thanks to a coordinated media campaign that has portrayed gay marriage as the most important social issue, no, strike that, the most important issue, period, facing the country today. As a consequence, the slider was “re-centered” at what had previously been the leftmost point. Remember that, it will become important in a bit.

I like to say that Mr. Obama’s tenure has produced a country where gay men are free to marry but they can’t afford the wedding they want because there are no jobs to pay for it.

Not everybody thinks that’s funny.

For a conservative counter-example, look at concealed carry. It’s now the law in nearly every state. The NRA et al very intelligently moved the guns debate from nerdy stuff like 100-round drum magazines and .50 BMG semi-auto rifles to the idea that a woman could prevent being raped if she carried a gun. The bad news is that having a gun isn’t the same as having the opportunity, and willingness, to use it. The good news is that the statistics on rape keep losing buoyancy, so maybe it’s not as big a deal as we all thought. Consider this: Rolling Stone had to go through the trouble of making up a rape incident on America’s campuses, but just twenty-three years ago I actually observed the aftermath of a date rape in a dorm at university and chased said date-rapist halfway across campus with the stated intent of kicking his ass.

He outran me at about the 500-yard mark, near King Library, when my right knee gave out and I dropped like a stone to the pavement. However, I did see him again, the following weekend, in the room of the same girl who claimed he’d raped her the weekend before. They were kissing and she’d unbuttoned her shirt halfway. Whatever lesson I could have learned from this I promptly abandoned as it did not fit with my left-leaning feminist-ally mindset of the time. But the college students of today are not the college students of 1990. They’ve been re-centered by a media that plays God with people’s minds.

Back to politics. The purpose of the two-party system is to give people a choice. But in order to give the people a choice, you have to have elections, and in order to have elections, you need money to campaign. Which means that there’s a third influence at work: corporate and one-percenter money. Think of it as a magnet placed above that aforementioned line. There’s still a left and a right to the line, but now the entire line bends towards the magnet. So a given law will be somewhere on that left-right spectrum, but it will always bend towards the corporate money.

There is no magnet or force opposing the corporate money, because in all but the most sharply drawn social issues “left” and “right” are simply an illusion. Think about this: Was there any effective opposition, left or right, to DMCA? Of course not. Did anybody with any power push for Net Neutrality? Have any Congressmen or Congresswomen, left or right, ever done anything to undermine BP or ADM or GM or Chase or Goldman Sachs?

While you’re worrying about abortion or gun rights or gay rights or free sexuality or flag burning, the entire body of legislation in this country is being written to permanently enshrine the existing distribution of capital. The media bleats night and day about Ferguson while the Fed engineers the largest transfer of wealth in history from the middle class to the one percent. We worry that Christ is being taken out of Christmas and ignore the fact that all the presents under the tree come from sweatshops in China.

When Occupy Wall Street appeared on the scene, I thought we had rediscovered the only possible opposing force to that corporate magnet: populism. Populism says that sure, you can send the jobs overseas, but we’ll burn the containers in the docks. You can steal the money and give it to Goldman Sachs, but we’ll make it unsafe to be seen entering the GS elevator. You can show whatever crap you want on the TV or the Internet, but if gets too outrageous we’ll knock over the broadcast tower. Good, solid populism does with force of arms what the corporations do with the force of money. It’s a balancing force.

Not that I endorse violence in the course of justice — but isn’t the perversion of our legislative bodies by corporate money a form of violence that is no less repugnant? When laws are passed to place companies like Monsanto above the law, does that not necessarily suggest that the only way to deal with those companies is extra-legal? When we hand out lifetime prison sentences to marijuana dealers but let the bankers of Goldman Sachs go free, does that not suggest that someone should be measuring ropes for the people whom the law cannot touch?

Of course, Occupy Wall Street got shut down the minute they started occupying the ports. It was easy for the cops to shut them down because OWS hasn’t yet attracted the attention and empathy of the entire generation of jobless veterans out there. Once those guys get involved — once those guys realize that nobody’s ever going to have any work for them and they’d better take matters into their own hands — then we’ll have some real change in this country. When the day comes that Wall Street can’t pay as many guns as a talented populist demagogue can recruit for free, we’ll have some real change in this country.

Which brings us to the Sony hack and the threats of violence. I am no friend of North Korea. I’m not even a friend of Dennis Rodman, who is a friend of North Korea. But I’m pleased to see someone stand up to the media machine and knock it flat on its ass. I’m pleased to see the untouchable opinion leaders and tastemakers of this country revealed as the lying, hypocritical, racist, thieving scumbags they are. I’m happy that these people have been subjected to the same losses of privacy and identity that they’ve foisted on ordinary Americans.

Global media companies like Sony have been attacking the fundamental values and identities of Americans for more than half a century now and it’s time they got a taste of their own medicine. For too long, our media overlords have believed that they could attack and destroy as they chose from their bully pulpits and that nothing could be done in return.

When Seth Rogen and James Franco made “The Interview”, they must have felt awfully powerful as they considered their ability to lampoon an entire culture and country. No doubt they expected some backlash from North Korea, but they expected that it would fall on the American and South Korean soldiers overseas, not on their own pocketbooks. They thought they were invincible, untouchable, above reproach or risk except within their own media community.

Turns out they were wrong. Now let me tell you this: anything North Korea can do in “cyberspace”, the #GamerGate community can do just as well or better. Any threat of violence that North Korea can make against a movie theater can be more effectively made by Americans. And Sony showed that they will crack at the first threat of aggression or violence. From now on, the global media will have to consider the repercussions of their actions, particularly when those actions are meant to attack or denigrate a group of people. In other words, they’ll be just like the rest of us, who have to consider the impact on our jobs, our lives, and our families of every statement we make in public.

About time.

48 Replies to “The “Sony Hack” Is The Greatest Thing For Media Responsibility Since… Pretty Much Ever”

  1. mnm4ever

    Posts like this one is the reason I read your site. Excellent work. You could be a political writer as well as an auto blogger. I’d love to see you on TV debating with the talking heads.

    Reply
  2. Kiki

    I have things to say, but I’ll say them to you when I’m able. One thing I will say in terms of our continuing abortion debate is this: until you grow a female reproductive system, I’m not interested in your recriminations. Everyone has their own journey and generally, it’s not yours.

    Reply
    • Ronnie Schreiber

      Because logic, reason, and the value of human life are dependent on what kind of plumbing you have, correct? Oh, right, using logic is “mansplaining”, while anything stated by a female is to be accepted without question because ovaries.

      Pray tell, what reproductive choices do men have?

      Reply
    • Nue

      I’ve got things to say to you as well, but this is all I can say at the moment and probably the only thing anyone should ever respond to you with:

      wat

      Reply
    • JackJack Post author

      This has nothing to do with you in particular, champ, I was just using it as an example of a classic liberal position.

      With that said — I believe plantation owners in the South offered the same reasoning with regards to slaves. They owned the equipment (the slaves) and therefore only they should have a say. This was commonly accepted for some time because slaves weren’t considered to be people, the same way modern Americans believe that a baby is not really a baby until it passes through the magic gate that changes tissue into humanity.

      Alternate response — maybe we should restrict making gun law decisions to people who own guns. After all, the guns belong to them. So what if the guns are used to kill people?

      But this was not me standing on an abortion soapbox, I suppose I could have used another left-leaning position. The problem now is that the country has re-centered on liberal political positions to the point that abortion is really the only place that the Democratic platform differs from the “centrist” platform.

      Reply
      • Nue

        Waste. Of. Time.

        Your article was obviously not read by this shitposter. Or perhaps it was and the brakes were abruptly applied right when abortion was mentioned. Whatever the case, it really pisses me off that you’d even dignify the troll with an explanation. Hats off to you good sir for being level headed enough to bother responding.

        Reply
    • Will

      Ah yes the hypocrisy of the feminist is always exposed when it’s about abortion:

      Feminist: We believe in equal rights for all! Men and women are equal!

      Man: Is abortion a right?

      Feminist: Of course it is! A fundamental right of choice.

      Man: OK, so what’s a man’s right to abortion?

      Feminist: Men don’t have any, it’s not their body.

      Man: So you’re saying that men and women are in fact not equal at all even though the child is half mine. By that logic, you’re saying the sexes have different rights.

      Feminist: Yes. Women deserve more.

      Man: Hmmmm.

      Reply
  3. Dirty Dingus McGee

    I had opportunity to witness the political meat grinder on a state level from a partial insider view as a lobbyist for a non profit(motorcycle rights). The “wheeling and dealing” that goes on would boggle the mind. I learned that the true definition of an “honest” politician was one that accepted your “contribution” and would then tell you when your opponents had donated more. And that trustworthy local political reporter on your local tv station? Yeah about that. I had interviews with 2 different stations during my tenure and both were cut and edited to reflect THAT station, or reporter’s, political views. They have the ability to make you look like a shining pillar of wisdom, or a mouth breathing yokel, in the editing room. And as evidence has proven, the national networks, be they left or right leaning, try the same thing on a regular basis. I worked inside the CNN headquarters as a contractor for a few weeks and overheard discussions on how to present certain news stories. How about this? Tell me what happened and let me make up my own mind. Often times these days when a news organization does an expose of a politician, it is on one who has opposite political views. And the media wonders why people are turning away from traditional news sources( newspaper, broadcast networks). As for the drivel that comes from Hollywood, or is presented on the lobotomy box for entertainment? If I told you what I really thought, Jack might be tempted to thump me with the ban hammer.

    (climbs down from the soapbox, and stomps away)

    Reply
  4. -Nate-Nate

    ” climbs down from the soapbox, and stomps away)”

    Naw , don’t do that , then we’d only have NPR for truth in news….

    =8-) .

    ” Pray tell, what reproductive choices do men have?”

    ~ being a responsible Adult for one , or if you’re still 25 Y.O. and acting like a child , try French Letters .

    Me , I chose the vasectomy , it works and I wasn’t askeert like so many ‘ men ‘ are .

    -Nate

    Reply
    • Dirty Dingus McGee

      ” climbs down from the soapbox, and stomps away)”

      Naw , don’t do that , then we’d only have NPR for truth in news….”

      We’re doomed, doomed I tell ya.

      Reply
    • Ronnie Schreiber

      “” Pray tell, what reproductive choices do men have?”

      ~ being a responsible Adult for one , or if you’re still 25 Y.O. and acting like a child , try French Letters .”

      Tell that to a woman and you’ll be labeled a misogynist hater.

      Reply
      • -Nate-Nate

        “Tell that to a woman and you’ll be labeled a misogynist hater.”

        I’m stumped here : either you never tell the Women or you need to begin dating a higher class of them .

        Acting responsibly makes them think you’re a misogynist ? really? .

        Wow , I’m pretty low on the Cultural totem pole but no Woman I’ve ever bedded , would have said this .

        -Nate

        Reply
  5. Will

    I have no problem with the hack per se (quite enjoyable in fact), but I do have a problem with the threat of violence. I always say that these things are a test of free speech in a way, and it always becomes bigger than what was originally intended; Sony chickened out (and the writers too) to not show the movie and should not have. Any threat of violence against speech undermines the very thing we live for and at some point one must stand up to those who threaten this, regardless how real or empty the threat is. In response Sony should have released the movie for free on youtube (or any other streaming service) so that the threat would have backfired. It’s a sad day when we lose to a third world country regardless of the juvenile drama that might be exposed.

    Reply
    • JackJack Post author

      What I’d suggest in response is that Sony is very comfortable with the threat of violence.

      Distributing a Sony Pictures property online can lead to a DMCA charge which can lead to life in a violent federal prison. “Stealing” Sony’s property leads to tougher sentences than child molestation or dealing heroin.

      Sony helped pay to put that law through, to make federal criminal penalties apply to what probably should be a civil matter.

      Reply
      • -Nate-Nate

        So then : why didn’t they release the damn thing ? .

        Everyone (I hope) knows it’s just another juvenile American Comedy , watch it , laugh a bit then forget it and move on .

        Why all the hubbub , bub ? .

        -Nate

        Reply
      • Will

        The threat of legal retribution for theft and the killing of others for seeing a movie that offends is quite different. The penalties maybe unnecessarily harsh (I agree with you), but the posting of “stolen” property online is not the equivalence of a bomb threat. The hack I don’t have a problem with, it’s the threatening of people for seeing the movie that bothers me the most and is the most problematic.

        I think if we do anything creative, we all would like to protect our intellectual property. So on one hand going after someone that steals your creative work makes sense to me. It is your livelihood. However, punishment should not be life in prison.

        Reply
        • JackJack Post author

          I agree and disagree at the same time. Getting the United States Government to do your dirty work for you is criminal behavior.

          If someone stole everything I wrote I couldn’t get them thrown for life in prison. That remedy is only available to the media corps who get to play by different rules.

          Reply
          • Will

            I agree with both your statements, but you can use the law to your advantage. But crony capitalism (however disgusting) can always be changed through the example in your article of pointed populism and protest. I think the only issue is the threat of violence for showing a movie which is where it’s important to not cower to those fears.

            A true cynic like me knows they’re not showing them because they fear the lawsuits if anything were to happen, rather than the 1st amendment principle I stated.

  6. Rock36

    Curiously enough, I just read an article about how the US government is going to “respond” to North Korea. So what did Sony really learn other than their US government benefactors will step in to deal with big bad North Korea for them with additional sanctions or other “proportional” retaliation? Not a whole lot I’d wager.

    Besides, if there was an attack or whatever against this movie upon release, the victims wouldn’t be Sony executives. Sony office buildings or studios. It would be regular moviegoers, largely middle class folks would be the ones to suffer and pay with life, limb, or eyesight.

    Reply
  7. Widgetsltd

    When crony capitalists lobby/connive/cajole congress into enshrining their interests into law, the government enforces those laws. That’s a more powerful and inescapable situation than that created by “mainstream” supposedly “liberal” media crafting the coverage of an issue. One can view/read/listen to that coverage, or choose not to. One may check out other media sources whose coverage of issues differs markedly from that of the allegedly “liberal” media. Furthermore, I would argue that The Wall Street Journal, the National Review and Fox News are also “mainstream” news sources, and they are far from liberal. Until Jack-booted government thugs start shutting down those conservative news sources, I have a hard time seeing the problem here. The crony-created laws, though: we are all compelled to follow those. THAT’S the travesty.

    Reply
  8. arbuckle

    I think you are nuts. I’m definitely not going to cheer for the country bending over to threats from mother-fecking North Korea.

    No matter what kind twist you want to put on it this is embarassing and bad.

    Reply
    • fvfvsix

      Since when did Sony Pictures become “the country”? Once you’ve made that leap of logic, you’ve already been played.

      Reply
  9. stevelyon

    I’m with Arbuckle; you’re nuts on this. Cheering on a scummy dictatorship effectively censoring American media? Would you have cheered the same if the South Park guys had gotten the same treatment for Team America? Would you cheer the same if some nutbag Ferrari fan went after you for publishing an unflattering review?

    I’m no fan of Sony; I had an ex who worked for SPE for a couple of years and hated every moment of it. It’s a scummy company. Not only that, I do agree that Sony, along with the other major studios and the MPAA, are shitting on the American public whenever it suits their bottom line.

    But in this instance, you’re not only cheering Sony’s demise (SPE probably won’t survive this – nobody is going to want to take a chance on financing another SPE project after this), you’re also cheering a dangerous precedent. North Korea and every other half-baked fuckwit will now pull the same bullshit whenever anything critical gets aired.

    Reply
  10. vaujot

    You offer an interesting perspective but along the way you make quite a few statements that seem uninformed to outrageous. Before I get to your the main subject, let’s go step by step.
    – I think some would debate whether abortions in the US are available cheaply and easily. From what I have read, in some places, you’ve got to travel a few hundred miles to have one. Not easy when you’re poor.
    – I doubt gay marriage really was brought forward by a media campaign. It seems to me it was more a legal campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
    – State of the economy: US unemployment rate is currently below 6%, at the level it was in the summer of 2008 (before the crash)
    – I agree with your point on lobbyism and corporate money. Like in gay marriage, legal decisions had an important impact, leading to the rise of super PACs for instance.
    – Now to your outrageous point: do you seriously believe the federal reserve is engaged in a conspiracy to steal from the poor and middle class for the benefit of the upper one percent? Sorry, but that is just crazy talk. That monetary policy may be underreported in the media as compared to Ferguson protests, gay marriage etc. is relatively easy to explain. Few journalists understand monetary policy well enough to write about it. And, if you look in academic circles, a lot of it is uncharted territory where even the academics don’t agree on the right course. That being said, if you look for it e.g. in The Economist, you can find some pretty good information on the subject.
    – Appart from that, Ferguson respectively unarmed minority people being shot by law enforcement is a more important topic than you admit. I think you’d need to walk in a black man’s shoes to fully appreciate this.
    – On occupy wall street and the right to violent resistance: Recent world history offers plenty of examples where governments were overturned by protests. I think occupy failed because the situation in the US, in spite of your examples, isn’t nearly bad enough for this. Here’s hoping it stays that way.
    – If you sympathize with whoever caused Sony and the cinema chains to withdraw this film, what do you think of the violent reactions to the Mohamed caricatures? Or about the German Nazis threatening cinemas into not showing the 1930 film All Quiet on the Western Front (this happened before the Nazis’ rise to power)?
    – “Global media companies like Sony have been attacking the fundamental values and identities of Americans for more than half a century now” – That is also an outrageous claim. Can you substantiate it?
    – How do you know, The Interview “lampoons an entire culture and country”? Have you seen the film?
    – “anything North Korea can do in “cyberspace”, the #GamerGate community can do just as well or better.” – That’s probably true but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where some sexist nerds decide which films I get to see. Apart from that, note that death threats have been made during the gamergate controversy and prevented public appearances by Anita Sarkeesian. Do you think that is a good thing? (I have no opinion on Ms Sarkeesian, all I know that she cancelled public appearances after threats against her).

    Reply
    • JackJack Post author

      I’m traveling so I can’t address your concerns properly, but I’ll say this: unemployment in the US is at Great Depression levels or close to it.

      Reply
      • vaujot

        The number of People looking for a job these days may be similar to what it was in the 1930s. But the US population is about 2.5 times what it was then. That makes a big difference.

        Reply
    • Ronnie Schreiber

      So much projection on the left. You worry about “sexist nerds” deciding what films you get to see but I see no similar concern expressed about the likes of Miss Sarkeesian deciding what games those supposed nerds can play.

      Frankly, I think that the notion that Sarkeesian was the target of actual death threats has the same credibility as those many campus incidents of nooses, hate graffiti, and now gang rape that have proved to be hoaxes. She wears those “threats” on her sleeve much like that attention whore on the Columbia campus schlepps around a fake mattress so she can character assassinate a man over regretted sex. They relish those supposed threats just as surely as a preacher on the Berkeley campus relishes getting mocked for his faith.

      Ultimately it’s about power and submitting to the will of totalitarians like Sarkeesian (and quite possibly you).

      Normally, my views on liberty would have already put me at odds with you social justice warriors but having been on the receiving end of a smear campaign painting me as a racist I’m not willing to extend to your side any more civil behavior than you intend towards me. “Rolling donut” and “the horse you rode in” on come to mind.

      A young black man has a far better statistical likelihood of graduating from law school or medical school than getting killed by a cop. A young black man is in greater danger from other young black men than he is from cops. I say that as someone who can’t write about law enforcement without being called a “cop hater”.

      Here are some truths: Cops are jerks. Some cops are racist. This isn’t Bull Connor’s Birmingham. Attitude gets more young black men killed (usually by other young black men) than racist cops.

      What you don’t recognize is that all of the laws and regulations that you endorse create far more situations where the average person, white, black or polka dotted, comes into contact with armed law enforcement (does the USDA really need guns?) and any, I repeat, any contact with armed law enforcement can go wrong with you ending up dead.

      I’m Jewish. Tonight is that last night of Chanukah, which commemorates, in part, the Jews’ reaction to a state power trying to force them into abandoning their faith. Through history, the worst episodes of murderous Jew-hatred have happened when the haters had the power of the state behind them, so you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not so enamored of the leviathan state.

      Reply
      • vaujot

        I’m not yet worried about the gamegaters censoring films.
        As far as I know, Ms Sarkeesian did not threaten violence against anyone but was threatened for exercising her right of free speech against video games that she disagreed with.
        Peacefully protesting films or videogames or anything else you disagree with is fine and anyone’s right. Threatening violence is not. Do we really need to discuss this? Do you really think I am a totalitarian for saying this?
        I am not sure what point you’re trying to make when you point out that black males have a higher chance of graduating from college or of being shot by other blacks than of being shot by the police. Does that excuse any shootings by the police? Certainly not.

        Reply
  11. VicMik

    Jack, I am with you in that our government’s role in dismantling the constitution is inexcusable. Any businesses that lobby for preferential treatment are scum.

    However, you’re mixing up a lot of ideas in your post making it in-cohesive – you make no distinction between captialism and crony version there of. You make no mention of individual rights that give origins to a woman’s right to an abortion and gun rights making the left/right spectrum analogy an inaccurate oversimplification….if you like me and coming from a libertarian point of view.

    I think many of us can love the fact that Sony got their butt hole exposed and hate that they’re are caving in like a bunch of pussies. They should have a made the biggest world-premiere in the history of Hollywood instead.

    BTW, this movie will now rake in 3X more cash than it would have. No one was going to see this at the theaters, but the blu-ray sales will be off the charts.

    Reply
  12. josh

    jack, i often disagree with you but on this one you’re right.
    a few additional points:

    sony doesn’t really stand to lose much money by cancelling theatrical distribution. the real money is when the movie goes to video. this is awesome publicity for them so if they successfully distribute via cable and the internet, the whole episode is actually a net gain for them.

    i think i heard that the social security numbers, etc. for sony employees was hacked. if that’s true, the north koreans could really do a number on them. so, even releasing to video would be a big risk.

    the best comment on the whole thing goes to fvfvsix:

    “Since when did Sony Pictures become “the country”? Once you’ve made that leap of logic, you’ve already been played.”

    my government is all concerned with the rights of a transnational corporation but i watched the same government illegally and violently evict the occupy wall street protesters in the middle of the night.

    Reply
    • VicMik

      josh…did you know that occupy wall street was trespassing on a privately owned Zuccotti park? It’s a privately owned property that is publicly accessible via an agreement between the City and it’s rightful owners.

      Public access privilege doesn’t include the right for bums to come and shit on it.

      Reply
      • josh

        VicMik… although i heard heard those private property claims repeated in the media, it is very misleading. Zucotti Park is what in new york is called a privately owned public space. these were created by zoning exceptions in the 60’s and 70’s.

        when u.s. steel tore down the historic singer building in 1968 to build the monstrosity that exists at 149 broadway today, they agreed to build zucotti park (originally called liberty plaza) in return for a building higher than zoning allowed. the landlord is required to maintain the public space and keep it open 24×7 in perpetuity. it was picked as the location of the protest for exactly those reasons.

        the occupy movement was evicted by means of public safety laws. the bloomberg administration claimed that the demonstrators had created an unsafe and unsanitary environment. basically, they were applying vagrancy laws. the eviction was done with overwhelming force in the middle of the night. the demonstrators were given no opportunity to pack up there belongings and anyone attempting to photograph or video the event was beaten by police including reporters with full press credentials from major media organizations. the city settled several lawsuits over the injuries.

        Reply
        • VicMik

          It shouldn’t sit well with any defender of private property rights that local jurisdictions force rightful owners to surrender chunks of their property in exchange for a permission to build a certain type of a building structure on their own land.

          Here in Arlington County, VA they pull the same stunt by coercing builders to put up some insane piece of art and allocate certain amount of the project towards “affordable” housing development.

          So, Zucotti was once a private piece of land that was mandated to be shared as a private/public park while burdening its rightful owner with clean-up, maintenance, etc.

          Reply
  13. Narcoossee

    There is no such thing as the “two party system”; there is only a pathetic lack of imagination of the citizenry to think in more than one dimension.

    The “two party system” is an concept which has been seized by the Democrats and Republicans with equal zeal, because it excludes the possibility of alternative choices.

    Reply
  14. tedward

    I kind of get it. I mean, I’m not rooting for Sony to take it on the chin in particular, but it’s a good reminder that company < nation. It's irrelevant at the nation level that Sony has teams of corporate lawyers on retainer, or that they have an incredible power of the purse in local and national media terms, or that all their least favorite politicians face well funded opponents every election cycle. If any person or group of people wants to play in the big leagues they have to accept that the big boy rule book basically doesn't exist. North Korea swatted an annoyance here, lets acknowledge that if this had been at all serious we would certainly be looking at a body count. I'd bet any amount of money we've done similar things ourselves, and, well, nothing is going to change that.

    Reply
  15. -Nate-Nate

    On a happier note ;

    SONY announced last night that the flick will be released to – morrow Christmas Day as originally planned .

    Not in your local Mega-Plex but still , maybe I’ll go see it .

    Didja know ? here in Cali. (Land of Fruits , Nuts & Flakes) , the Cops kill more White Folks than they do Black Folks .

    Weird , huh ? .

    -Nate

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *