“With this resolution, a new, stronger Lebanon can emerge with the world’s help,” said war criminal Condoleezza Rice.

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the Bush Administration knows no bounds.

Israel is losing. The myth of the invincible Israeli war machine has been destroyed. A few thousand disciplined guerillas fought them to a standstill, something that changes the entire political calculus of the region.

Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the bloodthirsty neocons wanted that Lebanon war as a prelude to invading Iran. But their poodle, Israel, couldn’t pull it off.

All of which makes them even more dangerous. They will be desperate for some kind of win, any kind of win, as support for Bush and Olmert disintegrates within their respective countries.

All the more reason to get in the streets today for the nationwide protests in support of the people of Lebanon and Palestine. These atrocities should never have happened at all. Let’s make sure they never happen again.

(I’ll be taking my new camcorder, and hope to have videos of the L.A. demo and speakers online by tonight or tomorrow morning.)

No Comments »

Nether World nails it.

One of the weaknesses of the resolution is that it still allows Israel to murder Lebanese civilians provided it calls such atrocities ‘defensive measures’, while Hezbollah must cease all attacks whether they are defensive or not. Another weakness is that Israel has been given permission to stay in Lebanon until a security force appears which could take months. I doubt Hezbollah will tolerate the IDF occupation of a square inch of Lebanon for any length of time.

This highlights the main problem; the UN can decide what it likes but it’s events on the ground which matter. Lebanon, despite accepting the resolution has already expressed doubts about it stopping the war.

Does anyone genuinely think the ceasefire will hold? Maybe it’s just meant to buy Israel some breathing room…

Also, the resolution was done without even consulting Hezbollah, who have members in the Lebanese government. The whole deal has such an air of unreality about it that, well, why did they bother? Probably to save face for Israel, that’s why.

1 Comment »

The Fair Use Network details the legal criteria in determining fair use, for example, a blogger posting content from a newspaper article.

1. The purpose and character of the use — whether the new use is commercial, nonprofit, or educational, among other relevant characteristics; and whether it is “transformative” or merely substitutes for the original.

Adding your thoughts and comments to the copied material can make it transformative vs. a straight copy with no comments, which is not. Short quotes are always better.

2. The nature of the original work — whether the original work is factual or creative; published or unpublished; in or out of print.

Factual and/or published generally tilts towards fair use, creative and/or unpublished doesn’t.

3. How much, and how substantial a part, of the original was taken — whether more was taken than needed, or whether the “heart of the work” was taken.

The “heart” of the matter can be quite small and still be considered NOT to be fair use.

4. The effect of the new use on the market for or value of the original work — whether the new use substitutes for the original work in the commercial marketplace, or reduces its value by supplanting demand for the original.

This is the big factor. Does your copying mean the original author could lose income or could there be less demand for it? If so, it’s probably not fair use.

EFF also has a useful explanation of the the 4 criteria. They note that noncommercial use is more likely to be fair and linking back to the original helps reduce the substitution effect. Linking back, in my view, should always be done, both for ethical and legal reasons. EFF also explains that simply because a site says, for instance, you can only copy a few lines, that would be their guideline, and is not the law.

No Comments »