I just want to point out that J Fred Coots, the author of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town", was one of the great songwriters in the history of the genre known as the "Great American Songbook".
Jazz musicians would know the name from the lead sheets to "You Go to My Head" and "For All We Know" and pop aficionados would recognize, "Love Letters in the Sand", which were just a few of Coots' great songs.
He's said to have written "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" in just ten minutes. That was in the Tin Pan Alley days when songwriters were expected to churn out popular tunes. Generations of jazz musicians used those tunes as frameworks for their improvisations, including Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Clifford Brown and countless others.
J Fred Coots isn't put in the same category as greats like Jimmy Van Heusen, Harry Warren or Cole Porter, whose songs every jazz musician is expected to know, but he sure was a talent.
I no longer believe there are things that the United States government "would never do".
I've seen too many of those things happen in my lifetime. I remember my dad, a WWII vet, telling me that the US "would never torture a prisoner", and "would never assassinate" or "doesn't target civilians" or "doesn't spy on Americans who haven't committed a crime" or...
I never dismiss out of hand any outrageous assertion about our government's (or some private contractor's) misbehavior.
You don't have to rely on the NSA not breaking the law. This law could give an entirely new cause of action to groups like the ACLU and EFF to have the courts stop the NSA.
And, the law goes well beyond just the NSA, but I guess you k now that already. If fifteen seconds is too much for you to spend on this, then nothing is going to convince you. You probably aren't the kind of people the petitioners are trying to reach.
I'm guessing there's not much you'd spend your time on that didn't directly involve the welfare of your own pink (almost certainly) butt.
i) The agreements are unnecessary because the governments of these countries don't have a history of undermining investments with new laws.
ii) The agreements are counterproductive because they raise in the investor's mind the thought that there could be a problem where previously he had ignored the possibility.
iii) The agreements are pointless because everyone knows that the country in question will find a way to ignore them if push comes to shove (cf the treatment of UK and Antiguan internet gambling companies in the US)
This is important. It's not as if there has been no investment in the countries trying to ratify this obnoxious treaty. Amazing, the entitled mentality of the corporate elite.
It's too late to stop this. The only thing left now is civil disobedience on a mass scale. The elite are, for some reason, always afraid of large scale social unrest. That's why they try to attack these movements in the cradle, like they did Occupy.
There are no "political" solutions to stopping TPP and other "agreements" like it. At this point, we can only do our best to get in the way.
But remember, "getting in the way" worked back in the early part of the 20th century. We saw the rise of organized labor and the growing influence of the middle class, and the entire New Deal because elites were worried about the Great Unwashed showing up on their front lawns and getting in the way.
The worst part of the FDA is that they tell us to "limit our intake" of things we didn't know existed until just now.
Acrylamide is dangerous, we are told, and it appears in toast and coffee. Yet, we are not being told to avoid toast and coffee. In fact, there has been for the past year one article after the other telling us that coffee is beneficial.
Maybe the FDA would be helped by being an agency actually tasked with looking out for peoples' health in regard to food and drugs, rather than an agency looking out for what's best for industry. Until they stop trying to run from their role as a natural antagonist of the food and drug industries, they will not be useful to us.
The Boston PD is claiming that a conversation with a governmental PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER is private. How can any public official claim that any conversation they have with a citizen regarding PUBLIC business is private? We have paid for that conversation with our taxes, and the person who is having the conversation with this PUBLIC official wants the conversation to be PUBLIC.
Our government has really lost its mind. They really believe that they're supposed to be in charge. And this in Boston, where some of the guys who wrote the Constitution actually walked the streets. They must be turning over in their graves.
This story has absolutely nothing to do with "legislation, laws, court proceedings or anything like that".
This was a decision made by Google, nothing else. There was no lawsuit or court proceeding that this Rev Klingenschmitt could have brought that would not have been summarily dismissed by the first judge who got within 3 feet of it.
It is entirely Google's fault for not looking into these false claims of copyright infringement and simply shutting down an account of someone who has done nothing wrong.
If you want a very clear and instructive introduction to Lucid Dreaming, Steven LaBerge's Lucid Dreaming is still the best. There is also a very good chapter about lucid dreaming in the book Fringeology.
It takes a few weeks to get the simple techniques (you just have to be repetitive and consistent), but lucid dreaming is well worth the little effort it takes. I highly recommend it if you spend any amount of time solving problems. Plus, it feels really really good.