He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.
Those things are bad - yes but it doesn't explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren't willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).
So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.
"Look at video games," King said during the segment. "Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence."
If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.
Incidentally I don't think your analysis is correct. Simply to say "He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans." is not an adequate explanation - it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.
If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.
1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.
2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.
3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs - even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.
Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare - otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree - so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O'Reilly's does.
They lump all of the money together, take out their cut (of course) and then distribute the rest to the top x
To be fair - this is true in the US - but in other parts of the world (eg UK) the money is distributed to everyone. This does create something of a bureaucratic nightmare, however, and most still get only very small sums.
Most musicians don't make a living, period. That has always been the case.
And always will be the case under any conceivable regime.
The reason is simple - any change to the financial arrangements for musicians that makes making a living easier will simply suck more people in to try to make a living until the former state (in which most musicians can't earn enough) is restored. There is an inexhaustible supply of competent amateur musicians just waiting for the opportunity.
It is a simple fact of economics - any activity which many people enjoy doing for free will always have a large group who are able to make some money from doing it - but not enough to live on.
Hmm - when I read this I thought - surely, since the patent has expired - anyone could now make such a toy. The I realised - Marvel/Disney owns the Spiderman copyright - and they will use that to prevent competition. Maybe the inventor should have argued that the contract effectively exchanged a share of the patent with a share of the copyright - and hence the contract should not expire until BOTH had ended.
If he didn't wite the contract that way then hwe should have.
And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
Yes - but it only works when you are preaching to the converted - because those who don't accept your point won't accept your meaning of the word.
The problem I have is that although I totally agree with the underlying point you are trying to make I think it is foolish to hang the argument on a meaning of a word that is not generally accepted. That way you antagonise not just the people who disagree with your point - but also those who agree with your point but are unaware of or dislike your use of words. How can that be a good strategy?
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change.
Yes that is true - although many dictionaries seem to make them the same.
In any case the difference is not your difference. I would say that the difference is that an invention is a change that required some effort to make and gives a positive technical improvement whereas an innovation is simply any change large or trivial, good or bad. This is quite close to the reverse of your version.
Also the medieval meaning where innovation==heresy is a really inconvenient for your point, in fact it plays into the hands of your opponents, and the legacy of that meaning still persists in many minds and will continue to do so because old documents that use the word that way.
In every field outside of economics/business the extra baggage of your interpretation of the word is meaningless and so the word will continue to be used simply to denote any change no matter how mainstream the technical/business world becomes.
Innovation is creating something that people want.
This is a recent re-definition of the word that is not universally accepted.
In any old dictionary the two words mean the same
The meaning you are referring to was invented originally by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter - and may have become commonly understood amongst econiomists - but to the rest of the world innovation and invention are differentiated by the fact that invention requires some kind of effort whereas an innovation can be any arbitrary change in an established pattern. Most dictionaries still agree with me on this point.
In short the use of the word innovation in this sense is itself an innovation - but not one that I (and many other people) want.
I agree totally with the sentiment that you are trying to convey, that there is an important difference between creating something new and creating something new AND useful/desirable but I think it is simply confusing to try to hijack the English language to the cause.
Please try and find a word that really already means what you want and stop confusing people and creating false conflict with economists jargon.
The one i'd thought of was gay rights groups suing churches for much the same reason.
Or the other way around.
Or anyone from religion X suing people from religion Y or the other way around.
Also works for non-theistic ideologies, fans of sports teams players and other celebrities
Free speech means that you are free to hold any opinion and express it freely.
The problem with this law is that it is over general - and then gives exceptions - where it should be very specific such that the exceptions are not needed.
The law should require that both
1. The allegation in false.
2. There is a disparity of status, money or influence that makes it impossible for the "victim" to effectively rebut the allegation.
Hence a gay riights group wouldn't be able to sue a church because of it's general stance on the issue but an individual who had been singled out by a church for particular criticism would (unless that individual was a major politician or other public figure - who would be able to defend themself.
Terrorism is what the British called our own countries actions
and they were right.
The British military having cleaned out the other european colonies from most of N America, the British simply wanted a perfectly fair contribution to the bill. The American colonists were the mot ungrateful peole on the planet. Without the preceding british military actions N America today would be like S America, a mish-mash of smaller separate states.