Slashdot Mirror
RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts
An anonymous reader writes "Following the appointment of RIAA's champion Donald Verrilli as associate deputy attorney general, here's a complete roundup of all the RIAA and BSA-linked lawyers comfortably seated at top posts at the Department of Justice by the new government. Not strange, since US VP Joe Biden is well known for pushing the copyright warmongers' agenda in Washington. Just in case you don't know, Verrilli is the nice man who sued the pants off Jammie Thomas."
It's all about influence. The more influence you can inject into a government, the more you'll see laws that favor your business model.
Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.
Bush 43? Nope ...
Clinton? Yep
Bush 41? Nope
Reagan? Nope
Carter? Nope
Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.
[citation needed]
If you start at Washington, about 3/4 of our presidents were ex-military (31 according to wikipedia).
Most recently, Carter was ex-Navy. Reagan was an actor. Bush #1 was ex-Navy. Clinton studied law but was basically a career politician. Bush #2 was (kind of) ex-National Guard and then an oil man. Yes, Obama studied & taught law.
When you say "pretty much every President...", who exactly are you referring to?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.
I love it when somebody thinks our all volunteer military is somehow full of pitiful victims who are being railroaded into shooting innocent women and babies by their evil overlords. What a load of tripe!
When you join the U.S. military, you take an oath with full understanding of the meaning of that oath. If you don't, you're a fool who deserves whatever you get, but that's a separate argument. If people join because they think they'll get free travel, pretty uniforms, college tuition, and so forth, they're joining for the wrong reasons. Again, having served in Iraq, I have no pity for those types. Service is a calling. There is no other way to describe it. Freeloaders and opportunists need not apply.
So, you don't want to go fight when ordered to do so? Too bad. You swore an oath to do it and were given all kinds of opportunities to get out beforehand. Still object on moral (i.e. conscientious objector) grounds? Fine. You'll get your discharge and can go your own way. If you refuse to do the job you were hired (and sworn) to do, you deserve to be kicked out. You damn sure shouldn't have been inducted in the first place because you joined for the wrong reason.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
There's a key difference here, mate:
Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.
You are incorrect here.. very very incorrect. If you are ordered to do something or go somewhere, and you disobey.. you get a court martial.
You sign up for the military, you do as you are told till your obligation ends, then you get out.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Oh my FUCKING god. Is that the best FUD you could have come up with regarding this? That you are afraid your kid is going to call the government on you for not providing cookies?
Did you even read what you typed or are you just vomiting out whatever shit you think of and hoping some of it will stick?
This is something that has been law in many country since the 80's. Have you HONESTLY heard one peep from those countries concerning it? Any "All my children were taken away because I didn't bake enough brownies?" in the news?
Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just reading from some FUD manual?
Here is a quote
"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.
The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.
The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children."
Where does anything you've claimed appear in that or derive from that? WTF are you on?
about your false messiah, now? We told ya so. and we still have 'rendition', and we still have Gitmo. Plus 21 lobbyists in the administration, nearly every appointment a tax cheat, and 1.2 trillion dollars in kickbacks to party activist organizations and donors. Change we can do what again in?
A friend of the exwife asked for help regarding a math class she was taking in College. Pre-Calc, or some such. I sat with her to get caught up with what she was doing, and it was really disturbing.
She knew nothing of the theory or math. The assistance she needed was help plugging the formulas into her calculator, so she could use it to get the slope at certain points, and so forth. She said her teacher didn't explain any other way of solving the problem... she had memorized a rote set of steps. I don't think she was even clear on what a slope, or even a point, was. Granted, this is a girl that wasn't inclined to be interested in math in the first place, but it wasn't just that. Her textbook had big, easy to follow pages that explained exactly how to get the slope out of a TI-83 calculator. Pictures for the buttons, everything.
She learned nothing from the class.