Copyright is defined as "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work"
Whoa there. I know thats how the American Heritage Dictionary defines copyright, but that's just not right at all. First of all, copyright is not granted to publishers or distributors. They can license copyright from the copyright owner, but unless they paid for the work to be created (ie, "work for hire"), they aren't "granted" a copyright.
Second, "exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of..." is just a terrible way to describe the exclusive rights of copyright. The best way is "exclusive right to make copies." Copyright also grants exclusive rights to public display and performance of the protected work.
Third, that definition doesn't indicate who or how the right is granted. Copyright is created by the legislature. In the US, copyright is granted at the moment of creation.
Fourth "literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work" is a every limited description of what is actually covered by copyright. There is no need for the work to be "artistic" or "literary," etc. The work just has to be an original work of authorship. Per the Copyright Act of 1976: "Copyright protection subsists... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
If you actually read GP's post, at no point does the coward actually say that soldiers shouldn't write a wiki. What he(?) actually says is:
I wouldnt trust them [soldiers] to write a document I'm going to hand to fresh recruits... [some wikis] will probably end up being white washed by field experienced officers."
The GP's point is not...
That those that want to write shouldn't be allowed, that only the technical writers should have the ability and the grunts should just shut up and get shot at
...but:
I expect most soldiers will also expect the white wash to occur, but I think this is a very good compromise and positive adaptation of technology to shape doctrine and benefit from collective experiences.
You know, when you said...
I think a wiki is a fantastic idea... developing the wiki and similar programs should be encouraged.
...it sounds a lot like the GP's
I think this is a very good compromise and positive adaptation of technology to shape doctrine and benefit from collective experiences.
From Section IV of the majority opinion, edited to remove the citations (which, clearly, you weren't going to read anyway)(and with * marking the space between paragraphs, because slashdot is afraid of longish texts):
* A school official searching a student is "entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment." Pearson v. Callahan. To be established clearly, however, there is no need that "the very action in question [have] previously been held unlawful." Wilson v. Layne. The unconstitutionality of outrageous conduct obviously will be unconstitutional, this being the reason, as Judge Posner has said, that "[t]he easiest cases don't even arise." K.H. v. Morgan. But even as to action less than an outrage, "officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law... in novel factual circumstances." Hope v. Pelzer. * [New Jersey v. T.L. O.] directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search, "in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction," and as we have just said at some length, the intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot be seen as justifiably related to the circumstances. But we realize that the lower courts have reached divergent conclusions regarding how the T.L.O. standard applies to such searches. * A number of judges have read T.L.O. as the en banc minority of the Ninth Circuit did here. The Sixth Circuit upheld a strip search of a high school student for a drug, without any suspicion that drugs were hidden next to her body. Williams v. Ellington. And other courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches have read T.L.O. as "a series of abstractions, on the one hand, and a declaration of seeming deference to the judgments of school officials, on the other," Jenkins v. Talladega City Bd. of Ed., which made it impossible "to establish clearly the contours of a Fourth Amendment right... [in] the wide variety of possible school settings different from those involved in T.L.O." itself. See also Thomas v. Roberts (granting qualified immunity to a teacher and police officer who conducted a group strip search of a fifth grade class when looking for a missing $26). * We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case. We would not suggest that entitlement to qualified immunity is the guaranteed product of disuniform views of the law in the other federal, or state, courts, and the fact that a single judge, or even a group of judges, disagrees about the contours of a right does not automatically render the law unclear if we have been clear. That said, however, the cases viewing school strip searches differently from the way we see them are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law. We conclude that qualified immunity is warranted.
It's called qualified immunity. Essentially, its for borderline cases where a state official reasonably believed that their actions were legal, but a court determines that they weren't. The idea being that the official was just doing his or her job, and shouldn't be personally held accountable when they made a reasonable mistake. It's worth pointing out that this only applies to lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Â 1983, which can only (or very close to only) filed against governments and government officials. In other words, only public officials are vulnerable to these kinds of suits in the first place - its not like public officials are getting immunity that private actors aren't.
the odds of an accident for a typical driver may be X, but if you drive safely, or very rarely, or only in optimal conditions, etc., then your personal risk will be less than X...
That may be true, but I think drivers (especially people who would rather drive than fly, for this reason) find false security in their perception of control. It's easily forgotten that there are OTHER DRIVERS out there, and sloppiness by any one of them can result in fatal car crashes. Unlike airplane pilots, drivers, including yourself, aren't required to undergo thousands (number pulled out of my ass, but you get the point) of hours of supervised training. In fact, many drivers, unlike (probably) most commercial airplane pilots, have no formal training, and (potentially like some airplane pilots) may not be in a sober state of mind as they drive.
Also consider that its quite possible to cause an accident in which you don't die, but somebody else does. I personally don't consider that to be a preferable outcome.
How often are you a passenger? How often are you driving with passengers, the safety of whom you're responsible?
So, I don't believe people who say they feel safer driving than flying because they're in control. I think its more that they feel safer because there's a (perceived, and maybe actual) sufficiently wide spread between the number of car accidents in total vs. the number of fatal car accidents. For planes - if you fall out of the sky, it seems very unlikely there are going to be any survivors.
Oh, also, I want to throw out there that people also may not trust the bureaucracy. Its one thing to hear that a pilot has X thousand hours of training or experience, and trust that pilot personally (as one might trust a friend or acquaintance who is driving), but its another thing to trust the bureaucracy responsible for training, regulating, monitoring, supporting, etc. the pilot.
1. abolish legally binding precedent. The accepted interpretation of a law should be a consensus among the legal community, not a decision of one moron 150 years ago.
Old decisions, while they may be technically binding, are usually unpersuasive unless it accords to the general legal consensus within and without the jurisdiction. Publications like the restatements of the law (which are essentially just lists of contemporary legal principles, and not actually binding law anywhere, nor adopted by legislatures) are often much more persuasive to judges and justices than ancient decisions. In other words, courts will overturn ancient precedent when they think it's appropriate; lower courts will interpret ancient precedent (that hasn't been relied on by a higher court in that jurisdiction recently) as not to apply to "modern" circumstances, and higher courts often affirm those kinds of decisions (thus overturning the precedent for that circumstance or overturning it entirely)
Also, I want to point out that you're advocating judicial activism. 2. Hire someone competent [faqs.org] to rewrite the laws, aiming for clarity and precision.
The advantages and disadvantages of clear laws have been discussed elsewhere in the comments. I'll just add that flexibility in the law gives judges an opportunity to weigh normative values of what's just for the case before them when interpreting the law and making their decisions. This is especially important for plaintiffs overcoming, and defendants succeeding at, summary judgment motions. 3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch.
What you're describing is the difference (in the US federal system) between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code. Statutes at large are the bills passed by Congress (and approved by the president), in chronological order. The United States Code is the law of the United States organized by subject. Commercial annotated versions by Westlaw and LexisNexis are kept up-to-date with amendments, administrative rules, decisions, etc. The normal USC is updated every six years. 3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone.
There's more if you're willing to look at free services not provided by the government. There's even more if you're willing to look at commercial services from Westlaw, LexisNexis, and many others.
Also, the law libraries at public law schools are (usually) open to the public. You can even discuss, at great length, your research goals with law librarians, who will lend your their expertise for free.
The fact that legal research is so hard (and so important) is why legal researchers and lawyers get paid so much. (As a side note, another key reason lawyers get paid so much, and lawsuits are so expensive, is that good legal research resources are freaking expensive. Check out the going rate for westlaw or lexisnexis. One search (of any given complexity) of all US federal cases in Westlaw is something like 140 dollars. Viewing and printing the resulting cases usually has an attached fee as well. You can pay for time instead of by action - but you're charged per minute.) 4. If you find there is no law for something new, like, say, the internet, say so. Don't torture existing unrelated laws fo fit the new situation.
Very very often judges WILL admit that, and then proceed to torture existing laws to fi
Nope. Japan and China are "competing" for different things, presumably only one of which most westerners will support.
China is trying to own the supplies/means of production for rare earth metals. Apparently they own most of the existing supply/production, and are moving to own supplies and/or the mining companies that produce the supplies elsewhere in the world.
Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.
The BAD thing here (to most westerners) is that China is locking down the market for rare earth metals, which are apparently important for many renewable energy technologies. This is bad because western countries are being very aggressive about renewable energy, but China can either frustrate those efforts or make them really expensive.
The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.
If you take something that you think belong to you, you are not in a culpable state of mind because you didn't intend to nor knew you were breaking the law.
Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Culpability has nothing to do with knowing what the law is. It only has to do with one's mental state as they are performing the acts that constitute the crime.
Stealing bread you know doesn't belong to you in order to feed your starving family is criminal because it involves a culpable state of mind (knowing the bread isn't yours). Knowing or believing (mistakenly) that that the law prohibiting theft has an exception for stealing bread when one's family is starving DOES NOT remove the culpable state of mind. You still know the bread isn't yours. And, your mistake about the law is not a defense to the crime.
The exception to this is when the law specifically requires knowledge of the law - in that case, knowledge of the law is an element of the crime, and has a mens rea requirement.
In the case of TPB... they did not intend to break the law and did not know they were breaking the law.
I don't know about swedish law, but under the American system, ignorance of the law is no defense. I think what was actually at issue was whether they were breaking the law (ie, whether the law prohibited their actions), and not whether they intended to break it, which is irrelevant.
Their attitude is not an indication of their intent to break the law... and should therefore not really imply culpability.
Their attitude was an indication of their knowledge or recklessness in contributing to infringement, and thus does imply culpability. As you say, they knew their service was contributing to infringement (or likely was). Thus, they had a culpable state of mind for that action. The issue is whether providing a service that contributes (or likely contributes) to infringement is actually against the law. (That's the legal issue. Additionally, there is the factual issue of whether the service they offered actually contributes to infringement.)
I suggest you read up about the subject. Wikipedia isn't an authority, but it is a good place to start for lay research.
Have you ever heard of "mens rea"? A required element of almost every crime is a culpable state of mind of the actor. There's a huge difference between doing the actions required for a crime (like, taking someone's stuff) with a reckless state of mind, as opposed to a purposeful statement of mind. (Recklessness would be if one knows there's a good chance that the stuff they are taking doesn't belong to them; purposeful would be if one took the stuff because it didn't belong to them.)
For most crimes, negligence isn't a culpable state of mind. If you didn't know the stuff you took didn't belong to you, but a hypothetical "reasonable person" in your situation would have known it probably didn't belong to you, then you're negligent. But you didn't commit a crime. On the other hand, if you were reckless about it (and the prosecution can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt), then you did commit a crime.
The parallels to copyright infringement (if it's a crime and not just a civil cause of action) by torrent sites should be obvious. The Pirate Bay was clearly at least reckless - more likely, knowing, which is more culpable - where as mininova is probably trying to show that they were just negligent, and that their action in putting up a filter is an attempt to correct that negligence. The judge might interpret the filter as reducing their culpability from recklessness to negligence.
This is all based on American criminal law under the model penal code, not civil law, and not dutch law. IANAL, YMMV, infringement isn't stealing, etc.
"The primary cause of our deficits is not "skyrocketing health care costs", but most local, state and federal budgets that completely ignore the fact that tax dollars will rise and fall based on the economy. They project unrealistic income based on "good times" tax-revenue and spend accordingly. Then when revenue falls short (as it ALWAYS does), they have to raise taxes or cut spending. Continuing to "raise taxes" through these cycles can only last so long."
Lets change that around a little bit. "Most local, state and federal politicians completely ignore the fact that tax dollars will rise and fall based on the economy. They project unrealistic income based on "good times" tax-revenue and cut taxes accordingly. Then when revenue falls short (as it ALWAYS does), they argue cutting taxes is the only way to stimulate the economy. Continuing to "cut taxes" through these cycles can only last so long."
*****************
"When I get my trash fees in LA raised 4 times in the last 5 years to pay for the same 1000 police officers which are never hired, this is unreasonable."
Why?
"When as a home-owner, I'm responsible for public sidewalk repair adjacent to my property BEFORE I can sell my house -- regardless that taxes have already been collected to cover the cost, this is unreasonable."
Why?
"When I'm called "greedy" for balking at my hard-earned wages being taken from me to pay for support and aid to a 17 year old single mother -- when both my wife and myself made the choice to wait for the benefit of our future family, this is unreasonable."
Why?
My wife and I already pay 50%+ of our income in taxes. More than half my money being taken away is unreasonable. Particularly when it's spent as irresponsibly as local, state and federal governments have spent it.
What are your values here? Nobody should be required to pay for the common good? Are you unhappy that you're only living a middle class life? Do you think you shouldn't have responsibilities to your local community?
*****************
I can't say anything about the trash and sidewalk issues, because it sounds fact-specific and local. But objecting to government aid to underage single mothers? What do you want to have happen to that person? What about her child? Whether she made a mistake or was in a situation out of her control is irrelevant. She is what she is at this point. So what should happen to her? She has no skills (because she didn't finish high school) for a job, so she'll only be able to get minimum wage jobs if any. Which means she can't afford child care while she works. Which means she either has to not work, or not raise the child. If she doesn't work, she can't feed the child. If she doesn't raise the child, the child grows up without a family. You see where this is going?
It sucks that you, and I, and everyone else in the US, has to pay for her. But the alternatives - crime, death, future generations of equally destitute people - are worse. That's why government aid to the needy is public policy.
And anyway, you're forking over way more money to keep people in prison. Your tax money is paying for people who murder, rape, rob, smoke dope, embezzle, or send threatening letters to the president to spend time (sometimes their whole life) in jail, where they are fed, clothed, sheltered, and get medical attention all on your dime, and never contributing to society in any meaningful way. Why aren't you upset about that? How come that's not on your list? because those people are being punished while the single mother is getting aid? Would you really rather spend more money punishing people than helping them?
*****************
If you want to characterize taxes as the government "taking" your money, think for a while about how much the government is giving you. Where would the economy be without universal education? Cheap higher education? second chances for people who make a major life mistake? Ways out of the ghetto? minimal healthcare for those who can't afford it?
Do you think you'd be better or worse off if people living comfortably, like you, weren't taxed to pay for the needs of people at the more desperate end of society?
I don't know about canadian laws, but in the US, any documents relevant to a lawsuit can be sought a party to the suit, even from non-parties from facebook, and this can be backed up by a court with a subpoena.
Its all in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1): "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense"
F.R.C.P. 34(1)(a): "A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b)... to produce... any designated documents or electronically stored information"
F.R.C.P. 45 covers subpeonas.
Basically, the rules are: if its relevant to the suit, and not privileged (like spousal privilege or 5th amendment self incrimination rights), it can be sought by a party. Even private letters to friends. That this information was published to friends on an online service probably means that any privilege the material had was waived.
If you have evidence, you may be compelled to produce it. This shouldn't shock anybody - our justice system won't work without it. Whether or not it's "private" doesn't matter except as provided in the rules or protected by law as "privileged" material.
Finally - its right there in the facebook privacy policy: "We may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws."
"Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month. It's not like he is reneging on a campaign promise, it sure makes it seem like practically his ENTIRE stated message about transparency in government was total bullshit."
Whoa whoa whoa, lets look at the actual facts before accusing Obama of "total bullshit."
The reason this is in the news right now - ie, what actually happened recently - is that the National Security Archive (the good guys who are suing for the emails) filed a response to the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the suit. So what's in the news right now isn't about a recent Obama decision.
The motion to dismiss was made on January 21st, which is right after the inauguration. Now, if Obama's absolute top priority was to change the government's position on defending against this suit, he could have ordered the justice department not to make the motion. But, what's much more likely, this motion was made by staff attorneys at the Justice Department, completing the job they were ordered to do earlier in January. It seems likely to me that they had finished drafting this motion to dismiss on the prior business day. Since the inauguration was holiday, and the day before that was MLK day, and before that the weekend... its likely the motion to dismiss was ready to be filed on January 16th, and that's when the lawyers' bosses ordered it done.
Since Obama wasn't in charge of the Justice Department until Jan 21st, the day the motion was filed, it's very likely there's nothing he could have done to stop it - he, and his staff, probably didn't know the motion was ready and ordered to be filed, and probably hadn't replaced the drafting lawyers' bosses yet anyway.
In fact, that the motion to dismiss was made the day after the inauguration makes it seem very likely that Bush holdovers were just doing everything they could, as fast as they could, to keep the cover up going.
You should hold your outrage until Obama (who's been pretty damn busy - passing a 800B stimulus package in the first month is unprecedented, but more on point is is ordering all agencies to presume in favor of disclosure when making FOIA decisions) actually has a chance to take a stance in this case.
"We shouldn't call a Trillion dollars of pork a stimulus"
A whole hell of a lot of the stimulus package is tax cuts. Over 250 billion dollars worth. Another $350 billion is going to education, healthcare (like medicaid), and food stamps. You can't call any of that pork. That money isn't going to special projects in congresspeople's districts. All of it goes to the states, or relieves the tax burden on individuals and employers.
There's also things like highway maintenance, energy investment, and some telecom stuff. You might consider that pork. It's not - its an investment in infrastructure. Massive investments like this produce demand for labor and resources, and creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to form small businesses, or for small businesses to become big businesses. Some of it is short term, and in established markets, like road-work and building construction contracting. Some of it is long term, and investment in developing or new markets, like alternative energy and electronic medical records.
It is spending, instead of cutting. But look at the plan. It's not increasing the size of the national government. It's mostly aid to the states. You want to prevent pork? Then pay attention to your state legislature. They're gunna be the ones spending most of it.
"This is the real estate buying opportunity of a lifetime."
You can't buy if you don't have resources to pay with. If you have a huge amount of hard savings (cash or gold in your mattress), then you're right. Go out there and buy some foreclosed homes. If you have a huge amount of mutual funds, stocks, real estate, etc. then you've been losing value and probably can't afford buying new property. If you're like most people and borrow the huge amount of money you need to buy real estate, what assurance do you have that you can pay it back? Your job? How do you know you're gunna keep it through the bad economy? Nobody knows how bad this is gunna get.
This isn't an opportunity for buying real estate. The opportunity comes when the recovery is underway, as people feel more secure and credit loosens up.
"Maybe if "The People" (as in The Constitution) weren't so complacent as to wait for the government to hold our hands..."
The people are the government. That's the central premise of a Republic, and of a democracy.
"The people" aren't waiting for the government to hold their hands, they're waiting for "the people" to hold their hands. In other words, we ought to be holding each other's hands, helping ourselves (collectively through the institution of government) confront problems we identify.
Limited government activists either ignore or disregard the fundamental truth that by empowering government, we empower ourselves. This empowering is necessary because of the enormous power of nonpublic entities - corporations, foreign states, terrorists, etc. - that must be confronted by a free people who value their democracy.
Naturally, corruption is a problem with powerful government. But abuse of power is not an argument against the existence of that power. The constitution was designed to give great power to the national government, but also check that power through various means. Additional accountability, voluntarily taken on by the government is also needed.
I argue that the failure of the government to keep accountability commensurate to its power and ability is more to blame for "decades of neglect" than people's complacency. One man can turn this around, by using the power of his office to demand accountability on his own power, and the power of Congress.
I agree with you that the survey is somewhat conservative, and I think that your idea that it's a form of push poll is intriguing.
But, I think that on the whole, this sort of civics quiz is a good idea. Some of the questions do not have factually obvious answers. Many of the questions require thinking rather than pulling trivia from memory.
I would love to see a reputable, nonpartisan organization (I'm thinking a poli sci department at a university) create a somewhat more comprehensive (and more politically neutral) survey and submit it to elected officials and regular citizens. I like the idea of mixing fact-based civics questions with right and wrong answers* and opinion-based political questions that have multiple "right" answers, and maybe wrong answers too**
If the sample size is large enough, you could analyze correlations between people who got the civics questions right and wrong and their political leanings. I bet there'd be a ton of interesting data there. A lot more interesting that just a civics quiz (surprise surprise, Americans don't understand their governments) or a political poll.
*like, Article I section 8 of the Constitution: A) empowers Congress to... (blah blah blah) B) limits the federal judiciary by... C) lists the rights of states D) etc. etc.
**the form of government spending most likely to stimulate the economy is...
I disagree with you. You make a fundamental assumption that I think is unsound: that the best situation is to have a career doing what you have the greatest passion for. (otherwise, your comment is on target - its a shame so many college students just float through school)
In college, one of my favorite professors was a fine art sculptor. He was a real artist, too - his sculptures were both beautiful and thought provoking. He taught political theory, constitutional law, things like that. I was a poli sci student, and the most important thing I learned from him had nothing to do with political theory. It was: do your passion for free, and for yourself. Do what you're good at for money, and use that to subsidize your passion.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the best situation to be in is to get paid doing what they enjoy doing most. That's bullshit. Getting paid to do what you love turns your love into hate*. The reason for that is probably best described by the classic Marxist** theory of alienation - when you work for money, you don't own the product of your work. You programmers out there probably know this all to well. What you produce isn't yours - its your employer's property. The bottom line is: you're not working for yourself, and you don't own what you produce. The classic slashdot bitching about IT professionals not getting any respect, programmers being given unreasonable jobs, moaning about ignorant pointy-haired bosses, etc. etc. all stems from, I think, people doing what they love, but hating what happens to their work. In the end, trying to turn a profit off of your passion is a distraction from what you actually love, and its frustrating and soul-killing.
The better thing to do is make your profession what you're best at, especially if its not something you love. If it's really what you're best at, you should be able to make more money and make it through each working day easier. Rather than seeing your beloved work product squandered, mutated, mutilated, or trashed, you can just satisfy your work ethic doing the best you can. Then, you go home, and do your hobby - what you really love. Carpentry, experimenting with electronics, playing guitar, hell, playing video games. You don't make money doing it, but you do get to keep your work product - and you set your own goals, your own budget, your own methods, you even get to choose your own co-workers. In short, you own your own labor.
The basic reason this is true (or, I think its true) is because our economic system turns workers into cogs. Its efficient, it makes a lot of money, and even the cogs benefit, in terms of income. But its all geared towards making money, not towards making people happy and fulfilled. You gotta do that on your own time.
* I'm not saying its a bad thing to love what you do - that's lucky to land a job you find rewarding. I'm saying making money off of your passion is a Pyrrhic victory.
** cue the down-mods. I'm not endorsing Marx, just saying that his theory explains what I'm talking about well.
Lawyers don't win cases because they have, or represent someone who has, deep pockets. They win when they present convincing arguments.
The problem is that the average joe doesn't know how to present a convincing argument, especially not on matters of law. So, that's why tort suits are based on contingent fees, and criminal defense is provided by the state.
Don't forget, judges are lawyers too. And usually, they're the bad lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice.
Finally, you should also know that small claims courts feature a judge and no lawyers - just a plaintiff and defendant who argue their case before the judge. The small claims court is limited to cases involving less than 5 or 10K. Think Judge Judy. By definition, all other cases are sufficiently complex or significant (in terms of money involved) that lawyers should be the ones handling the legal arguments.
"it would be nice [if] lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer"
That's literally analogous to saying, "it'd be nice if the average person could every once in a while out-paint an expert painter."
Or better, "it'd be nice if a person who played a lot of guitar hero could out-play a real, expert guitar player." The relationship between what people think of the law and the way its presented in movies and tv shows, and how lawyers practice law is just about the same as the relationship between playing guitar hero and playing a real guitar.
"McCain is the only one who's even seriously TRIED to limit money coming in to campaigns and politicians. Obama blew off his oath to not seek private funds and will now be in the pocket of every major interest group."
Hold on there buddy. Obama has voluntarily restricted his campaign from receiving money from lobbyists and PACs. In other words, his only campaign contributors are citizens. He may or may not be in the pocket of interest groups, but campaign financing isn't why. McCain may have "tried" to limit campaign financing, in your words, but Obama actually has limited the money his campaign can receive.
Also, Obama does have a record of campaign finance laws - he sponsored a campaign and ethics reform bill, which included a gift ban, in Illinois in 1998.
Sorry, but I gotta say that you're going for imports that just aren't better than a lot of domestic brews. Try beers from Dogfish Head, Lagunitas, He-brew or Left Hand - they're nationally available "microbrews." I don't think of them as micro so much as "not mega." There's also a lot of good regional micros.
If you want to go imports, I think you're better off with mass-produced Belgians, like Hoegaarden or Leffe. German beer is also good, but not when you include Becks or Warsteiner. Get Bitburger instead, or Franziskaner or Optimator. Newcastle is good - brown ales in general are always worthwhile.
You're right - spending between 7 and 9 dollars for a six pack is about right if your goal is to have fun rather than get wasted.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is defined as "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work"
Whoa there. I know thats how the American Heritage Dictionary defines copyright, but that's just not right at all. First of all, copyright is not granted to publishers or distributors. They can license copyright from the copyright owner, but unless they paid for the work to be created (ie, "work for hire"), they aren't "granted" a copyright.
Second, "exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of..." is just a terrible way to describe the exclusive rights of copyright. The best way is "exclusive right to make copies." Copyright also grants exclusive rights to public display and performance of the protected work.
Third, that definition doesn't indicate who or how the right is granted. Copyright is created by the legislature. In the US, copyright is granted at the moment of creation.
Fourth "literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work" is a every limited description of what is actually covered by copyright. There is no need for the work to be "artistic" or "literary," etc. The work just has to be an original work of authorship. Per the Copyright Act of 1976: "Copyright protection subsists... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
If you actually read GP's post, at no point does the coward actually say that soldiers shouldn't write a wiki. What he(?) actually says is:
I wouldnt trust them [soldiers] to write a document I'm going to hand to fresh recruits... [some wikis] will probably end up being white washed by field experienced officers."
The GP's point is not...
That those that want to write shouldn't be allowed, that only the technical writers should have the ability and the grunts should just shut up and get shot at
...but:
I expect most soldiers will also expect the white wash to occur, but I think this is a very good compromise and positive adaptation of technology to shape doctrine and benefit from collective experiences.
You know, when you said...
I think a wiki is a fantastic idea... developing the wiki and similar programs should be encouraged.
...it sounds a lot like the GP's
I think this is a very good compromise and positive adaptation of technology to shape doctrine and benefit from collective experiences.
hmmmm.
Nerds and geeks are famously socially awkward, and you're disappointed that they (we!) aren't making good jokes?
how does it work? No, really. How. Does. It. Work?
is it better than an FMRI scan? If no, why? If yes, why?
You're missing the vital question.
Is it effective?
From Section IV of the majority opinion, edited to remove the citations (which, clearly, you weren't going to read anyway)(and with * marking the space between paragraphs, because slashdot is afraid of longish texts):
* ... in novel factual circumstances." Hope v. Pelzer. ... [in] the wide variety of possible school settings different from those involved in T.L.O." itself. See also Thomas v. Roberts (granting qualified immunity to a teacher and police officer who conducted a group strip search of a fifth grade class when looking for a missing $26).
A school official searching a student is "entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment." Pearson v. Callahan. To be established clearly, however, there is no need that "the very action in question [have] previously been held unlawful." Wilson v. Layne. The unconstitutionality of outrageous conduct obviously will be unconstitutional, this being the reason, as Judge Posner has said, that "[t]he easiest cases don't even arise." K.H. v. Morgan. But even as to action less than an outrage, "officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law
*
[New Jersey v. T.L. O.] directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search, "in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction," and as we have just said at some length, the intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot be seen as justifiably related to the circumstances. But we realize that the lower courts have reached divergent conclusions regarding how the T.L.O. standard applies to such searches.
*
A number of judges have read T.L.O. as the en banc minority of the Ninth Circuit did here. The Sixth Circuit upheld a strip search of a high school student for a drug, without any suspicion that drugs were hidden next to her body. Williams v. Ellington. And other courts considering qualified immunity for strip searches have read T.L.O. as "a series of abstractions, on the one hand, and a declaration of seeming deference to the judgments of school officials, on the other," Jenkins v. Talladega City Bd. of Ed., which made it impossible "to establish clearly the contours of a Fourth Amendment right
*
We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case. We would not suggest that entitlement to qualified immunity is the guaranteed product of disuniform views of the law in the other federal, or state, courts, and the fact that a single judge, or even a group of judges, disagrees about the contours of a right does not automatically render the law unclear if we have been clear. That said, however, the cases viewing school strip searches differently from the way we see them are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law. We conclude that qualified immunity is warranted.
Actually, the law they were sued under, 42 U.S.C. 1983, only applies to those who are charged with upholding the rule of law.
It's called qualified immunity. Essentially, its for borderline cases where a state official reasonably believed that their actions were legal, but a court determines that they weren't. The idea being that the official was just doing his or her job, and shouldn't be personally held accountable when they made a reasonable mistake. It's worth pointing out that this only applies to lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Â 1983, which can only (or very close to only) filed against governments and government officials. In other words, only public officials are vulnerable to these kinds of suits in the first place - its not like public officials are getting immunity that private actors aren't.
the odds of an accident for a typical driver may be X, but if you drive safely, or very rarely, or only in optimal conditions, etc., then your personal risk will be less than X...
That may be true, but I think drivers (especially people who would rather drive than fly, for this reason) find false security in their perception of control. It's easily forgotten that there are OTHER DRIVERS out there, and sloppiness by any one of them can result in fatal car crashes. Unlike airplane pilots, drivers, including yourself, aren't required to undergo thousands (number pulled out of my ass, but you get the point) of hours of supervised training. In fact, many drivers, unlike (probably) most commercial airplane pilots, have no formal training, and (potentially like some airplane pilots) may not be in a sober state of mind as they drive.
Also consider that its quite possible to cause an accident in which you don't die, but somebody else does. I personally don't consider that to be a preferable outcome.
How often are you a passenger? How often are you driving with passengers, the safety of whom you're responsible?
So, I don't believe people who say they feel safer driving than flying because they're in control. I think its more that they feel safer because there's a (perceived, and maybe actual) sufficiently wide spread between the number of car accidents in total vs. the number of fatal car accidents. For planes - if you fall out of the sky, it seems very unlikely there are going to be any survivors.
Oh, also, I want to throw out there that people also may not trust the bureaucracy. Its one thing to hear that a pilot has X thousand hours of training or experience, and trust that pilot personally (as one might trust a friend or acquaintance who is driving), but its another thing to trust the bureaucracy responsible for training, regulating, monitoring, supporting, etc. the pilot.
Plus, Terrorism.
1. abolish legally binding precedent. The accepted interpretation of a law should be a consensus among the legal community, not a decision of one moron 150 years ago.
Old decisions, while they may be technically binding, are usually unpersuasive unless it accords to the general legal consensus within and without the jurisdiction. Publications like the restatements of the law (which are essentially just lists of contemporary legal principles, and not actually binding law anywhere, nor adopted by legislatures) are often much more persuasive to judges and justices than ancient decisions. In other words, courts will overturn ancient precedent when they think it's appropriate; lower courts will interpret ancient precedent (that hasn't been relied on by a higher court in that jurisdiction recently) as not to apply to "modern" circumstances, and higher courts often affirm those kinds of decisions (thus overturning the precedent for that circumstance or overturning it entirely)
Also, I want to point out that you're advocating judicial activism.
2. Hire someone competent [faqs.org] to rewrite the laws, aiming for clarity and precision.
The advantages and disadvantages of clear laws have been discussed elsewhere in the comments. I'll just add that flexibility in the law gives judges an opportunity to weigh normative values of what's just for the case before them when interpreting the law and making their decisions. This is especially important for plaintiffs overcoming, and defendants succeeding at, summary judgment motions.
3. Law should be treated like software: any and all changes should be incorporated into the text, not distributed as amendments. The current legal system looks like Linux 0.01 with all the patches distributed separately up to 2.6.30, and you can win a case by confusing the judge and your opponent into forgetting a critical patch.
What you're describing is the difference (in the US federal system) between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code. Statutes at large are the bills passed by Congress (and approved by the president), in chronological order. The United States Code is the law of the United States organized by subject. Commercial annotated versions by Westlaw and LexisNexis are kept up-to-date with amendments, administrative rules, decisions, etc. The normal USC is updated every six years.
3. Make the up to date text of every law easily accessible and searchable by anyone.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://uscode.house.gov/
http://www.loc.gov/law/
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/guide/states.php
There's more if you're willing to look at free services not provided by the government. There's even more if you're willing to look at commercial services from Westlaw, LexisNexis, and many others.
Also, the law libraries at public law schools are (usually) open to the public. You can even discuss, at great length, your research goals with law librarians, who will lend your their expertise for free.
The fact that legal research is so hard (and so important) is why legal researchers and lawyers get paid so much. (As a side note, another key reason lawyers get paid so much, and lawsuits are so expensive, is that good legal research resources are freaking expensive. Check out the going rate for westlaw or lexisnexis. One search (of any given complexity) of all US federal cases in Westlaw is something like 140 dollars. Viewing and printing the resulting cases usually has an attached fee as well. You can pay for time instead of by action - but you're charged per minute.)
4. If you find there is no law for something new, like, say, the internet, say so. Don't torture existing unrelated laws fo fit the new situation.
Very very often judges WILL admit that, and then proceed to torture existing laws to fi
Nope. Japan and China are "competing" for different things, presumably only one of which most westerners will support.
China is trying to own the supplies/means of production for rare earth metals. Apparently they own most of the existing supply/production, and are moving to own supplies and/or the mining companies that produce the supplies elsewhere in the world.
Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.
The BAD thing here (to most westerners) is that China is locking down the market for rare earth metals, which are apparently important for many renewable energy technologies. This is bad because western countries are being very aggressive about renewable energy, but China can either frustrate those efforts or make them really expensive.
The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.
If you take something that you think belong to you, you are not in a culpable state of mind because you didn't intend to nor knew you were breaking the law.
Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Culpability has nothing to do with knowing what the law is. It only has to do with one's mental state as they are performing the acts that constitute the crime.
Stealing bread you know doesn't belong to you in order to feed your starving family is criminal because it involves a culpable state of mind (knowing the bread isn't yours). Knowing or believing (mistakenly) that that the law prohibiting theft has an exception for stealing bread when one's family is starving DOES NOT remove the culpable state of mind. You still know the bread isn't yours. And, your mistake about the law is not a defense to the crime.
The exception to this is when the law specifically requires knowledge of the law - in that case, knowledge of the law is an element of the crime, and has a mens rea requirement.
In the case of TPB... they did not intend to break the law and did not know they were breaking the law.
I don't know about swedish law, but under the American system, ignorance of the law is no defense. I think what was actually at issue was whether they were breaking the law (ie, whether the law prohibited their actions), and not whether they intended to break it, which is irrelevant.
Their attitude is not an indication of their intent to break the law... and should therefore not really imply culpability.
Their attitude was an indication of their knowledge or recklessness in contributing to infringement, and thus does imply culpability. As you say, they knew their service was contributing to infringement (or likely was). Thus, they had a culpable state of mind for that action. The issue is whether providing a service that contributes (or likely contributes) to infringement is actually against the law. (That's the legal issue. Additionally, there is the factual issue of whether the service they offered actually contributes to infringement.)
I suggest you read up about the subject. Wikipedia isn't an authority, but it is a good place to start for lay research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
Yet again, IANAL, and this is only about American criminal law.
Have you ever heard of "mens rea"? A required element of almost every crime is a culpable state of mind of the actor. There's a huge difference between doing the actions required for a crime (like, taking someone's stuff) with a reckless state of mind, as opposed to a purposeful statement of mind. (Recklessness would be if one knows there's a good chance that the stuff they are taking doesn't belong to them; purposeful would be if one took the stuff because it didn't belong to them.)
For most crimes, negligence isn't a culpable state of mind. If you didn't know the stuff you took didn't belong to you, but a hypothetical "reasonable person" in your situation would have known it probably didn't belong to you, then you're negligent. But you didn't commit a crime. On the other hand, if you were reckless about it (and the prosecution can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt), then you did commit a crime.
The parallels to copyright infringement (if it's a crime and not just a civil cause of action) by torrent sites should be obvious. The Pirate Bay was clearly at least reckless - more likely, knowing, which is more culpable - where as mininova is probably trying to show that they were just negligent, and that their action in putting up a filter is an attempt to correct that negligence. The judge might interpret the filter as reducing their culpability from recklessness to negligence.
This is all based on American criminal law under the model penal code, not civil law, and not dutch law. IANAL, YMMV, infringement isn't stealing, etc.
Things have never worked that way because we've never had a system meant to work that way.
That doesn't mean things can't work that way.
"The primary cause of our deficits is not "skyrocketing health care costs", but most local, state and federal budgets that completely ignore the fact that tax dollars will rise and fall based on the economy. They project unrealistic income based on "good times" tax-revenue and spend accordingly. Then when revenue falls short (as it ALWAYS does), they have to raise taxes or cut spending. Continuing to "raise taxes" through these cycles can only last so long."
Lets change that around a little bit. "Most local, state and federal politicians completely ignore the fact that tax dollars will rise and fall based on the economy. They project unrealistic income based on "good times" tax-revenue and cut taxes accordingly. Then when revenue falls short (as it ALWAYS does), they argue cutting taxes is the only way to stimulate the economy. Continuing to "cut taxes" through these cycles can only last so long."
*****************
"When I get my trash fees in LA raised 4 times in the last 5 years to pay for the same 1000 police officers which are never hired, this is unreasonable."
Why?
"When as a home-owner, I'm responsible for public sidewalk repair adjacent to my property BEFORE I can sell my house -- regardless that taxes have already been collected to cover the cost, this is unreasonable."
Why?
"When I'm called "greedy" for balking at my hard-earned wages being taken from me to pay for support and aid to a 17 year old single mother -- when both my wife and myself made the choice to wait for the benefit of our future family, this is unreasonable."
Why?
My wife and I already pay 50%+ of our income in taxes. More than half my money being taken away is unreasonable. Particularly when it's spent as irresponsibly as local, state and federal governments have spent it.
What are your values here? Nobody should be required to pay for the common good? Are you unhappy that you're only living a middle class life? Do you think you shouldn't have responsibilities to your local community?
*****************
I can't say anything about the trash and sidewalk issues, because it sounds fact-specific and local. But objecting to government aid to underage single mothers? What do you want to have happen to that person? What about her child? Whether she made a mistake or was in a situation out of her control is irrelevant. She is what she is at this point. So what should happen to her? She has no skills (because she didn't finish high school) for a job, so she'll only be able to get minimum wage jobs if any. Which means she can't afford child care while she works. Which means she either has to not work, or not raise the child. If she doesn't work, she can't feed the child. If she doesn't raise the child, the child grows up without a family. You see where this is going?
It sucks that you, and I, and everyone else in the US, has to pay for her. But the alternatives - crime, death, future generations of equally destitute people - are worse. That's why government aid to the needy is public policy.
And anyway, you're forking over way more money to keep people in prison. Your tax money is paying for people who murder, rape, rob, smoke dope, embezzle, or send threatening letters to the president to spend time (sometimes their whole life) in jail, where they are fed, clothed, sheltered, and get medical attention all on your dime, and never contributing to society in any meaningful way. Why aren't you upset about that? How come that's not on your list? because those people are being punished while the single mother is getting aid? Would you really rather spend more money punishing people than helping them?
*****************
If you want to characterize taxes as the government "taking" your money, think for a while about how much the government is giving you. Where would the economy be without universal education? Cheap higher education? second chances for people who make a major life mistake? Ways out of the ghetto? minimal healthcare for those who can't afford it?
Do you think you'd be better or worse off if people living comfortably, like you, weren't taxed to pay for the needs of people at the more desperate end of society?
Duh!
Its called discovery.
I don't know about canadian laws, but in the US, any documents relevant to a lawsuit can be sought a party to the suit, even from non-parties from facebook, and this can be backed up by a court with a subpoena.
Its all in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1): "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense"
F.R.C.P. 34(1)(a): "A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) ... to produce ... any designated documents or electronically stored information"
F.R.C.P. 45 covers subpeonas.
Basically, the rules are: if its relevant to the suit, and not privileged (like spousal privilege or 5th amendment self incrimination rights), it can be sought by a party. Even private letters to friends. That this information was published to friends on an online service probably means that any privilege the material had was waived.
If you have evidence, you may be compelled to produce it. This shouldn't shock anybody - our justice system won't work without it. Whether or not it's "private" doesn't matter except as provided in the rules or protected by law as "privileged" material.
Finally - its right there in the facebook privacy policy: "We may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws."
"Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month. It's not like he is reneging on a campaign promise, it sure makes it seem like practically his ENTIRE stated message about transparency in government was total bullshit."
Whoa whoa whoa, lets look at the actual facts before accusing Obama of "total bullshit."
The reason this is in the news right now - ie, what actually happened recently - is that the National Security Archive (the good guys who are suing for the emails) filed a response to the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the suit. So what's in the news right now isn't about a recent Obama decision.
The motion to dismiss was made on January 21st, which is right after the inauguration. Now, if Obama's absolute top priority was to change the government's position on defending against this suit, he could have ordered the justice department not to make the motion. But, what's much more likely, this motion was made by staff attorneys at the Justice Department, completing the job they were ordered to do earlier in January. It seems likely to me that they had finished drafting this motion to dismiss on the prior business day. Since the inauguration was holiday, and the day before that was MLK day, and before that the weekend... its likely the motion to dismiss was ready to be filed on January 16th, and that's when the lawyers' bosses ordered it done.
Since Obama wasn't in charge of the Justice Department until Jan 21st, the day the motion was filed, it's very likely there's nothing he could have done to stop it - he, and his staff, probably didn't know the motion was ready and ordered to be filed, and probably hadn't replaced the drafting lawyers' bosses yet anyway.
In fact, that the motion to dismiss was made the day after the inauguration makes it seem very likely that Bush holdovers were just doing everything they could, as fast as they could, to keep the cover up going.
You should hold your outrage until Obama (who's been pretty damn busy - passing a 800B stimulus package in the first month is unprecedented, but more on point is is ordering all agencies to presume in favor of disclosure when making FOIA decisions) actually has a chance to take a stance in this case.
"We shouldn't call a Trillion dollars of pork a stimulus"
A whole hell of a lot of the stimulus package is tax cuts. Over 250 billion dollars worth. Another $350 billion is going to education, healthcare (like medicaid), and food stamps. You can't call any of that pork. That money isn't going to special projects in congresspeople's districts. All of it goes to the states, or relieves the tax burden on individuals and employers.
There's also things like highway maintenance, energy investment, and some telecom stuff. You might consider that pork. It's not - its an investment in infrastructure. Massive investments like this produce demand for labor and resources, and creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to form small businesses, or for small businesses to become big businesses. Some of it is short term, and in established markets, like road-work and building construction contracting. Some of it is long term, and investment in developing or new markets, like alternative energy and electronic medical records.
It is spending, instead of cutting. But look at the plan. It's not increasing the size of the national government. It's mostly aid to the states. You want to prevent pork? Then pay attention to your state legislature. They're gunna be the ones spending most of it.
"This is the real estate buying opportunity of a lifetime."
You can't buy if you don't have resources to pay with. If you have a huge amount of hard savings (cash or gold in your mattress), then you're right. Go out there and buy some foreclosed homes. If you have a huge amount of mutual funds, stocks, real estate, etc. then you've been losing value and probably can't afford buying new property. If you're like most people and borrow the huge amount of money you need to buy real estate, what assurance do you have that you can pay it back? Your job? How do you know you're gunna keep it through the bad economy? Nobody knows how bad this is gunna get.
This isn't an opportunity for buying real estate. The opportunity comes when the recovery is underway, as people feel more secure and credit loosens up.
"Maybe if "The People" (as in The Constitution) weren't so complacent as to wait for the government to hold our hands..."
The people are the government. That's the central premise of a Republic, and of a democracy.
"The people" aren't waiting for the government to hold their hands, they're waiting for "the people" to hold their hands. In other words, we ought to be holding each other's hands, helping ourselves (collectively through the institution of government) confront problems we identify.
Limited government activists either ignore or disregard the fundamental truth that by empowering government, we empower ourselves. This empowering is necessary because of the enormous power of nonpublic entities - corporations, foreign states, terrorists, etc. - that must be confronted by a free people who value their democracy.
Naturally, corruption is a problem with powerful government. But abuse of power is not an argument against the existence of that power. The constitution was designed to give great power to the national government, but also check that power through various means. Additional accountability, voluntarily taken on by the government is also needed.
I argue that the failure of the government to keep accountability commensurate to its power and ability is more to blame for "decades of neglect" than people's complacency. One man can turn this around, by using the power of his office to demand accountability on his own power, and the power of Congress.
While you're right that antibiotics shouldn't be used when not necessary, focusing on human use of antibiotics isn't that productive. More than 70% of antibiotics are used in animal feed. Most cows in feedlots are fed massive amounts of antibiotics so that they don't die from being fed food they weren't evolved to digest. A very quick way to massively reduce the amount of needless antibiotics used in the US is to regulate the beef industry.
I agree with you that the survey is somewhat conservative, and I think that your idea that it's a form of push poll is intriguing.
But, I think that on the whole, this sort of civics quiz is a good idea. Some of the questions do not have factually obvious answers. Many of the questions require thinking rather than pulling trivia from memory.
I would love to see a reputable, nonpartisan organization (I'm thinking a poli sci department at a university) create a somewhat more comprehensive (and more politically neutral) survey and submit it to elected officials and regular citizens. I like the idea of mixing fact-based civics questions with right and wrong answers* and opinion-based political questions that have multiple "right" answers, and maybe wrong answers too**
If the sample size is large enough, you could analyze correlations between people who got the civics questions right and wrong and their political leanings. I bet there'd be a ton of interesting data there. A lot more interesting that just a civics quiz (surprise surprise, Americans don't understand their governments) or a political poll.
*like, Article I section 8 of the Constitution: A) empowers Congress to... (blah blah blah) B) limits the federal judiciary by... C) lists the rights of states D) etc. etc.
**the form of government spending most likely to stimulate the economy is...
I disagree with you. You make a fundamental assumption that I think is unsound: that the best situation is to have a career doing what you have the greatest passion for. (otherwise, your comment is on target - its a shame so many college students just float through school)
In college, one of my favorite professors was a fine art sculptor. He was a real artist, too - his sculptures were both beautiful and thought provoking. He taught political theory, constitutional law, things like that. I was a poli sci student, and the most important thing I learned from him had nothing to do with political theory. It was: do your passion for free, and for yourself. Do what you're good at for money, and use that to subsidize your passion.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the best situation to be in is to get paid doing what they enjoy doing most. That's bullshit. Getting paid to do what you love turns your love into hate*. The reason for that is probably best described by the classic Marxist** theory of alienation - when you work for money, you don't own the product of your work. You programmers out there probably know this all to well. What you produce isn't yours - its your employer's property. The bottom line is: you're not working for yourself, and you don't own what you produce. The classic slashdot bitching about IT professionals not getting any respect, programmers being given unreasonable jobs, moaning about ignorant pointy-haired bosses, etc. etc. all stems from, I think, people doing what they love, but hating what happens to their work. In the end, trying to turn a profit off of your passion is a distraction from what you actually love, and its frustrating and soul-killing.
The better thing to do is make your profession what you're best at, especially if its not something you love. If it's really what you're best at, you should be able to make more money and make it through each working day easier. Rather than seeing your beloved work product squandered, mutated, mutilated, or trashed, you can just satisfy your work ethic doing the best you can. Then, you go home, and do your hobby - what you really love. Carpentry, experimenting with electronics, playing guitar, hell, playing video games. You don't make money doing it, but you do get to keep your work product - and you set your own goals, your own budget, your own methods, you even get to choose your own co-workers. In short, you own your own labor.
The basic reason this is true (or, I think its true) is because our economic system turns workers into cogs. Its efficient, it makes a lot of money, and even the cogs benefit, in terms of income. But its all geared towards making money, not towards making people happy and fulfilled. You gotta do that on your own time.
* I'm not saying its a bad thing to love what you do - that's lucky to land a job you find rewarding. I'm saying making money off of your passion is a Pyrrhic victory.
** cue the down-mods. I'm not endorsing Marx, just saying that his theory explains what I'm talking about well.
Lawyers don't win cases because they have, or represent someone who has, deep pockets. They win when they present convincing arguments.
The problem is that the average joe doesn't know how to present a convincing argument, especially not on matters of law. So, that's why tort suits are based on contingent fees, and criminal defense is provided by the state.
Don't forget, judges are lawyers too. And usually, they're the bad lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice.
Finally, you should also know that small claims courts feature a judge and no lawyers - just a plaintiff and defendant who argue their case before the judge. The small claims court is limited to cases involving less than 5 or 10K. Think Judge Judy. By definition, all other cases are sufficiently complex or significant (in terms of money involved) that lawyers should be the ones handling the legal arguments.
"it would be nice [if] lay people would stand a chance against a seasoned lawyer"
That's literally analogous to saying, "it'd be nice if the average person could every once in a while out-paint an expert painter."
Or better, "it'd be nice if a person who played a lot of guitar hero could out-play a real, expert guitar player." The relationship between what people think of the law and the way its presented in movies and tv shows, and how lawyers practice law is just about the same as the relationship between playing guitar hero and playing a real guitar.
"McCain is the only one who's even seriously TRIED to limit money coming in to campaigns and politicians. Obama blew off his oath to not seek private funds and will now be in the pocket of every major interest group."
Hold on there buddy. Obama has voluntarily restricted his campaign from receiving money from lobbyists and PACs. In other words, his only campaign contributors are citizens. He may or may not be in the pocket of interest groups, but campaign financing isn't why. McCain may have "tried" to limit campaign financing, in your words, but Obama actually has limited the money his campaign can receive.
Also, Obama does have a record of campaign finance laws - he sponsored a campaign and ethics reform bill, which included a gift ban, in Illinois in 1998.
"Becks, St.Pauli Girl, Warsteiner, Newcastle, Grolsch..."
Sorry, but I gotta say that you're going for imports that just aren't better than a lot of domestic brews. Try beers from Dogfish Head, Lagunitas, He-brew or Left Hand - they're nationally available "microbrews." I don't think of them as micro so much as "not mega." There's also a lot of good regional micros.
If you want to go imports, I think you're better off with mass-produced Belgians, like Hoegaarden or Leffe. German beer is also good, but not when you include Becks or Warsteiner. Get Bitburger instead, or Franziskaner or Optimator. Newcastle is good - brown ales in general are always worthwhile.
You're right - spending between 7 and 9 dollars for a six pack is about right if your goal is to have fun rather than get wasted.