We Are the Champions was released in 1977, so with a short (28 year) copyright term, it would be in the public domain now, which would mean that Trump and the RNC would have the right to play it.
The matter remains that Mr. Mercury would b marginalized by Trump / RNC policy so using his work to promote such a platform would be regarded in bad taste. (Then again -- and I'm guessing here -- Freddie, were he alive, might have enjoyed the irony, so long as Trump didn't actually win.)
Though, also, bad taste seems to run epidemic in polotics in general, let alone the GOP and its bedfellows.
That's probably the best explanation I've heard for the incident.
I'd rather Bush interpreted the question as his favorite book for kids (rather than his favorite book when he was a kid) than consider the implications that he had literacy problems or just lied for sake of lying.
It can have racial biases the same way mandatory minimums do.
A lot of people carry drugs, but in New York City and Chicago, blacks and Latins get spontaneously searched more often.
Some drugs have mandatory minimums where others don't. Crack Cocaine, used predominantly in black communities, has severe mandatory minimums where powder cocaine (a much more expensive drug, but the same stuff) does not.
And then there's Prosecutorial Discretion, in which the DA chooses which cases to prosecute and which ones to not. Black thugs convict more easily than nice white boys, and the DA doesn't want acquittals on his career record.
So yeah, mandated death sentences give power to the last person in the line who can position others in that line of fire, and they're going to preserve the ones they like and toss in the ones they don't.
I have no idea. But embarrassments are embarrassments, whether it's Quayle misspelling Potato(e) or George W. Bush's favorite childhood book being one that wasn't published yet when he was a kid (The Very Hungry Caterpillar) most of them just look stupid but are brushed off some will become part of the US lexicon of politicians being silly. And some might even make someone seem folksy.
But generally, using an artist's work without their permission will make a politician look like he thinks he's privileged, that he can take the little folk for granted. Even in the cases of popular music artists who aren't really all that little.
Firefox has Yahoo as a default search engine, which I had to change instantly after any installation. But their substitute for Google Now turns it into Yahoo search which cannot be changed without some incantations and a virgin sacrifice.
I ended up uninstalling Firefox from my phone since there was no evident means to undo the change or otherwise edit my parameters. Not for want of research to do just that.
I was thinking of Doc Brown's trunk of rods suspended in water.
It does raise the question, how often is contraband something rare, and super dangerous, as opposed to stuff that is out in the public in massive quantities? How often is the containment of contraband a matter of national security rather than party favors for an event, or a week's fix for the local addict population?
I thought everyone was responsible for their actions when intoxicated, hence the harsh penalties of DUIs, and the police gunning down crackheads that are even slightly buzzed out, even though PCP (the drug that turns people into naked violent super-monsters) has been out of favor for decades.
But if we did allow for recreational cocaine products and heroin products, we could regulate them. Make sure they were clean under the FDA, require warnings as per smoking and clearly visible addiction treatment vectors.
Part of the problem has been our treatment of addicts as pariah ever since the Reagan administration. I remember the transition of attitude in the early 80s when we started practicing zero tolerance, and users that wanted to be rehabilitated were driven underground.
Excessive recreational drug use is invariably self-medication, and yes, we have a long history of using drugs to cope with stress, and then the society allowing for elevated stress to match the tolerance, hence our illusion that two adults can work full time (each!) and raise a healthy family and sustain a home and still have time for recreation. No. They can't.
In fact, I wondered about that, and I wonder if it's possible for the courts to issue a special dispensation license for small amounts of contraband: the stuff that gets away.
Is there any contraband out there in which a small amount that is decriminalized by such a dispensation will make a critical amount of difference (say, a few kilos of plutonium)?
On the other hand this could set up a situation where law enforcement officers intentionally do illegal searches to willfully create decriminalized drugs, for a share of the take. But that smacks of cops selling drugs and guns out of the precinct backdoors, which is done anyway.
Considering our ridiculous conviction rate in the US, why would you consider an acquittal or a conviction by US courts to be any indicator of anything, except maybe whether or not a suspect has friends in the courts?
Would you trust the acquittal of a police officer charged for the murder of a suspect on the field?
The dependence of trickery (rather than ironclad evidence) to convict more demonstrates how the prosecution is less interested in seeing justice done, and more interested in packing penal facilities with bodies.
So yeah, my statement still stands: since there is considerable cause to doubt conviction assures actual guilt, all our prisoners convicted by our justice system are in fact political prisoners, convicted because someone doesn't like them, or they just got unlucky.
Sure, some are guilty, but we haven't determined that at all through the US system of justice, and now we may never be able to make that determination.