You may see this as a dumb argument. But boycotts have been, and are a legitimate mechanism for changing the behavior of the powerful. Indeed, they are about the only thing that are understood by many who control the generation of what you so generously call "art."
But if you want to bring about change, then it has to be a demonstration of power against power, not whining against power. So far whimpering about copyright and DRM has done nothing utile but increase the span of copyright holders by many-fold. And increase the litigious locus of copyright to include billion dollar suits for the marvelously creative innovation of rounded corners.
It is totally ridiculous to believe that change will be effected through sniveling on a blog. If you want to make a difference, then you will have to demonstrate to the powers that be, that they are going to suffer if they do not change their ways.
If this is important to you, thenyou are going to have to fight for it.
OK, you have done a whole lot of nay saying, but I have yet to hear you come up with any kind of alternative.
Any stronger statement by the the ACLU would likely lead to the attention of Mr Hang_Them_Without_A_Trial. Lower level politicians would also make hay of their opponents being weak on crime. Even though the crime rate is at a low.
While I agree with jury nullification in principle, it is a double edge sword. The cop I mentioned earlier who murdered a citizen who asked to see a nonexistent search warrant was nobilled by nullification in one of the more egregious abuses of the police state.
Between 2003 and 2014 years some 53 US citizens were killed in terrorist incidents. That number includes the perpetrators (https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf)
2016 is the first year that numbers of citizens killed are being counted. Many innocent of any violation, misdemeanor or crime, far more killed for no more reason than disobeying a cop. The number of citizens killed is expected to total around 1600. Large numbers of others have been beaten, mutilated, falsely charged and convicted. Yet the authorities and citizens refuse to make police responsible for their crimes.
Yet citizens are terrified of Muslims, but trusting of police. What kind of an answer do you have for this Ahem?
weruious was a typo, but your anger is making you wearisome. It is making you blind to the need for these and stronger jury instructions. That the juror is in the box to determine not only the behavior of the defendant, but the appropriateness of the law. As well as the behavior of the State.
You claim that the jury system is there to protect the citizen from the state, then complain when there are attempts to re-balance the levels of power that currently are overweighted in favor of the state.
Some jury instructions (yes, even for a grand jury) might have led to a better result than what happened. In the following case:
"A North Carolina grand jury chose not to indict a sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed a man after he demanded to see a warrant to search his home last year.
Harnett County sheriff’s deputies banged on John Livingston’s door last November, searching for an assault suspect who was not at the home.
Livingston demanded to see a search warrant, but the deputies had none, so Livingston shut the door in their face.
That prompted deputies to kick in the door where they dragged him out on his porch, placed him facedown, and began beating, tasering and pepper spraying him."
I strongly believe that the ACLU's jury instructions are insufficient. If cameras are a part of the uniform of the day and missing or nonfunctional, or if the recording has been altered, the suspect is free to go, and the officer should be fired and have their peace officer license permanently lifted.
Such behavior on the part of the police is malfeasance, obstruction of justice and criminal.
Police should not have the ability to turn off a camera at any time while they are armed.
I consider myself a strict constructionist. But there were/are some major difficulties with some parts of the Constitution that needed/need addressing.
Slavery, women's suffrage, the truly screwed up language of the 2nd Amendment. The failure to provide real protection for citizens from governmental atrocities, or significant punishment for governmental authorities who do commit crimes. A failure of providing a mechanism for addressing grievances in a reasonable time.
These are but a very few of the failures of the Constitution. There are parts of it which embody some of the most wonderful concepts ever conceived of by man. But what value are they when they are unenforceable?
Unfortunately this technique, and others like it are nothing new. You will see more and them exercised more frequently in the coming months. This is quite possibly Comey's *quid pro quo* for the meaningless emails.
It solves the problem of the FBI committing multiple reprehensible crimes, because there is a new generic defense *ante ex post facto*. One (typically a member of upper government) may not be prosecuted for breaking a law that is currently no longer a law, no matter how heinous and blatant the crimes were.
You really need to shake the idea that this is a Democratic v Republican issue. The first massive data collection effort that I know of (outside of IRS and the census) was the 1987 sale of bundles of pen data to governments large and small by a leading communications company. That was as I recall a Republican administration.
This data gathering is a characteristic of parties in power, not their brand.
And no, I am neither D nor R, but rather a strict constructionist. The Constitution and the Amendments mean what they say they mean, not some asinine interpretation to fit some power hungry despots self serving twisted exegesis.
Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. The DOJ, FBI, et al, will abuse this to the point where nothing is private. Almost all notebooks have cameras and microphones, as do many desktops. Your computer is the panopticon of the future, if not the present.
And you really believe that elitism, prevarication and secrets are the within the unique purvey of the Democrats. I can't decide whether you are funny or sad. That either party gives a damn about your or your existence is just so amusing.
Yes, there is a lot to read. But the net is full of TL;DR opinions. It is my opinion that that it is important to read the entire site No, it is not mine, nor do I have any affiliation with ther than reading it, and making the occasional donation.
Clean, honest and accurate voting is key to the survival of a democratic republic. An understanding of just what is happening is vital to the preservation of our form of government. And that can only be gained through slogging through the history.
Fifty years ago I didn't have the time (or the willingnes to accept the 1.2% risk of death) as I was forced to take a step forward and accept a two year induction to an absolutely meaningless war that served no purpose other than to kill almost 60,000 Americans and severely damage another 600-900,000. This was to no purpose. Never mind the deaths of two million or so Vietnamese. It also cost me the graduate school and studies of my choice. This was painful to me. yet others suffered so much incredibly more. This was for one of the most ridiculous wars under the face of the sun.
Yet Americans, when asked to read the history of how their voting rights were stolen, have little to say other than TL;DR
Just in case you haven't noticed, this is not a debate. Further, in debates, refutation is the primary mechanism for winning.
I am not interested in a debate, but rather trying to provide information. To provide a single court decision, or a single quote is meaningless on the net. It is the closest we have come to the "million monkeys" meme.
Perhaps I have an advantage in that I was not taught things so much, as how to find things. With the net you have the ability to look up a practically unending stream of information. Further one has the ability to follow threads of interest that lead to information previously unknown.
A reference to an extremely obscure subject that is not search-able MIGHT call for a URL. for example: "When did Dr Smith remediate the error in the computation of the relaxation time of a loaded sphere?"
But for topics that are abundant, multiple searches are both educating and mandatory for determining truth (or as close to it as we are likely to get.)
Perhaps you read "some political daily," and believe every word in it. But especially for those topics that appear to suffer from prevarication, I will read not only those articles that are aligned with my political thought, but also those opposed. If appropriate I will read multiple foreign papers as well.
Spoon fed information is rather meaningless. Especially in this day and age when alternate views are so easily obtained.
Your favorite hobby must be putting words in other peoples mouths.
I never claimed that this election was decided for any candidate by rigged voting. My issue is computerized voting. It is impossible to to have any assurance that the vote is valid. That the vote is private. "Voting" is now nothing more than an anodyne that provides an appearance of a democratic republic.
Yes, there were problems with the old mechanical machines. A favorite tactic was to "vote" in the oppositions territory, hold down a candidates lever, and pull the main sweep lever. That would disable the machine and make the lines even longer. But that was small potatoes.
One thing that I find truly amusing is that those who are reputedly on the left call me a rightist. Those on the right call me a leftist. My belief is that we need honest elections, and the electorate will have to live with their choice for four years.
Left and right are no more than pejoratives to be thrown about meaninglessly. Anyone who proudly declares themselves to be completely aligned with the platform of one party or the other is incapable of thought, and merely a dog on a leash.
We know that the US government can not control the security of their computers because they have admitted it. At least 21 million individuals (I was one of them) had their dossiers, job applications, security checks and so on stolen by someone. Today it was admitted that about 130,000 sailors on active duty had their data stolen by someone. Many others inbetween these two incidents.
How can anyone believe that a soda pop can of a voting computer is not hacked?
Is that proof? No. Does it demonstrate an incredibly high probability of occurrence? Yes.
If you want as much proof as you can get over the 'net, try