So the link between fiction and law enforcement goes full circle.
There is little doubt in my mind that the contempt for due process that has been displayed by fictional detectives since... forever has influenced the behaviour of actual detectives - many of whom will have grown up watching these shows. Hell if a nice gentle forensic scientist like Quincy can threaten a newspaper man with "I can always come back tonight with a warrant and 20 officers tonight and 'trash' this place" in order to get a list of people who responded to a particular advert* - then why shouldn't I?
*old episode probably mad in the 70's I saw just the day before yesterday.
Weakening the US through internal struggle, taking pressure of their nearer concerns. Maybe even weakening the NATO.
The only reason why they have any of these concerns was that their attempt in the immediate post cold war era- to join NATO was rebuffed. It seems to me that many western politicians want to retain them as an enemy.
What exactly do you believe the Russians are trying to achieve here?
It's not as if they were trying to win the world for communism anymore.
In other words why do you think Russia doesn't like the west and - equally what is there about them to dislike?
After all Russia's interest in what it regards as its own backyard (ie Ukraine - incidentally Kiev was the original capital of Russia) is really no different from the US meddling in South and central America and the Caribbean ( Chile and Grenada spring to mind in an instant.
Also why do we complain about Russia's actions in Ukraine whilst turning a 40 year blind eye to Turkey's blatant military invasion of North Cyprus, Saudi Arabia's bombing of Yemen etc etc etc
Reminds me of David Penhaligon - sometime leading light in the British Liberal Party:
After an opinion poll that suggested his party might actually win the next election he was quizzed by a BBC interviewer who said: "If an election happened now then you would become Chancellor - that's ridiculous isn't it? (Penhaligon was known as something of a jokey character). His reply was along the following lines: " Well when I consider the great responsibilities of the chancellor I do think 'who am I to take on such a task?' but then I go down to the House of Commons and see the man who is doing the job now (Nigel Lawson at the time) and all my doubts vanish!"
...are unconstitutional. The copyright clause reserves that right to Congress. That is actually the original purpose of the clause - because before that state copyright laws had created a mess of conflicting rules.
During the 1780s the shortcomings of local protection for writings and technological innovations in the context of an emerging national market and culture were becoming apparent, at least to some. The efforts of Noah Webster (1758-1843) and others to secure state protection for their writings vividly demonstrated these shortcomings in the instance of copyright. The contest before state legislatures between John Fitch (1743-1798) and James Rumsey (1743-1792) over protection for the steamboat invention and the troubles of other inventors did the same in the patent context. In 1787, in preparation for the constitutional convention, James Madison (1751-1836) identified "the want of uniformity in the laws concerning naturalization & literary property," as one of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation's scheme of government. Later, when he defended the Constitution in the Federalist, Madison observed that "[t]he states cannot separately make effectual provision for either" copyright or patent. In 1787 F.W. Geyer observed that "a patent can be of no use unless it is from Congress, and not from them till they are vested with much more authority than they possess at this time." As it happened, when in 1787 a new scheme of government for the nation was created during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, in the form of the U.S. Constitution, it included a new federal power to legislate in the field of copyright and patent.
It's about a lack of respect for Artists. Those in power don't give a damn.
and it is up to the voters to vote in someone who does.
The fact is that not everything that is immoral is illegal - and with good reason.
The moment you start to confuse the two then you are in worse trouble than you could possibly arrive at by simply not being very moral.
As C.S. Lewis wrote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Re: I think the embarrassment that needs addressing...
.is that sometimes the artists whose music you use disagree with your politics, and they will voice that effect in this age of the internet and social networking. And that will make news.
Plus of course the purpose of copyright is not and has never been to prevent usage by someone in some cause that the creator disagrees with. It is designed to protect their financial/commercial interest only.
Even in the extreme case where one might successfullly argue that the usage had damaged the artist's public image and hence impacted his/her sales it would be a case under trademark or publicity rights law and most definitely NOT under copyright law.
Maybe we should be looking at removing all drugs from issues of legality.
Let's create the scenario, all drugs are legal. No restrictions on use and no restrictions on who can use. However, there are a couple of things that must take place now.
The first is that all people who willingly use drugs are now fully responsible for the consequences of their usage. That is, if they cause any kind of endangerment to the lives of other people, they will have mandatory death sentences applied. If they cause damage, they are fully required to restore said damage, up to and including life enslavement until full restitution is done.
Of course legalising drugs IS a good idea - but shortly after that I parted company from you.
The reason that legalising drugs is a good idea is that more than half the problems we have with drugs are related to the fact that they are illegal. In fact they constitute a "Criminal Business Opportunity".
If fact it is actually an International Business Opportunity - since that part of terrorist funding that doen't come from oil or kidnapping comes from drugs.
Legalising Heroin would have a major positive impact on Afghanistan.
Legalising drugs would also remove one of the major excuses for police harassment of minorities (and anyone whose face does not fit).
I think the one measure that would need to remain would be against promoting and marketing - as we have done with tobacco.
Perhaps the phrase "no sympathy" was a bit misleading - my real point was that in this case the phone was a piece of evidence left at the crime scene and the point of the search was to find the owner, so the situation is a little different from when the police stop someone and want to search his phone.
Do you think the police should have needed a warrant to say "home boy" to the dog?
The problem with scripture that requires interpretation is that even nine experienced jurists are unable to come to consistent conclusions as to what a given passage means, hence the ~40,000 schisms of Christian faith.
The moment you go from the authority of the Church to sola scriptura you get fragmentation like this. (Although it is also true that the moment you centralise the authority of the church in a single man you are in trouble too.)
Only protestantism is fragmented like this - and it is most fragmented in the US to which we europeans dispatched all our religious nutcases int he 17th century.