PNAC not only holds the ear of our government, they make up the highest levels of it. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush brother Jeb are main players of PNAC. John Bolton is a high-ranking PNAC soldier; his vociferous diatribes are scattered throughout the PNAC's library of essays.
And one form of research has great potential for curing disease, and the other has remarkably less so. The material in stock prior to Bush's decision is unusable due to contamination.
You statement . ..the decision that breeding our own kind for parts was unethical exposes your bias and ignorance. Please make sure to differentiate between science and ideology.
You have just described the exact process for creating a terrorist militant. This has been going on in the Middle East since approximately 1914 and the events of the latter half of the 20th Century accelerated that process.
Conditions have gotten such that ever-increasing numbers of formerly rational people are now ripe targets for fundamentalist wingnuts with a political axe to grind.
Remember, people don't put on a bomb jacket just because it's chilly in the morning.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The conclusion of the CRS report in question stated that the legal rationale given by the Bush administration is weak at best.
The NSA program is, strictly speaking, illegal. FISA, however, grants authority to circumvent if given "by statute". BushCo claims the AUMF as the statute in question (citing "in re: Hamdi" as authority). The CRS report says that read is pretty flimsy. No legal scholar yet has agreed with BushCo's justification.
Why people like you so serious about breaking the law that you'd give Bush a free pass without an independent inquiry?
And the saddest thing about it, the insurance agent was probably confusing "the lower 48" with "the US". I've seen policies that only insure inside the lower 48 contiguous states.
Jesus.. if anyone had ever asked me if I'd gotten a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, I'd lie too!
I think Clinton should have been impeached for being the most powerful man in the world and getting sexual favors from a fat neurotic pig like Lewinsky. As Kennedy proved, POTUS can do *MUCH* better...
I agree with you. I greatly respect Congressman Conyers, but I totally disagree with him on this subject. However, for the record, here's JC's response from his blog:
I have been hearing today that a lively discussion is taking place around the internet about my cosponsorship of the "Digital Transition Content Security Act," a bill that attempts to plug the "analog hole." Because the tone of some of these discussions has become so vitriolic, I decided to respond here.
First, some who disagree with my cosponsorship of this bill have imputed motives to me in a manner that I think is unfair. My cosponsorship has been labeled a "sell out," a "giveaway" or a "handout" to the movie/music industry, among other things. It has been said that I must have had "a lot of [my] time bought by the content industries" to cosponsor this bill.
The content industries would be very surprised to hear these assessments, which belie a great unfamiliarity with my legislative record and statements about these issues. Over a more than 40 year Congressional career, I have stood up clearly and consistently for the artists and others who work in the content industry. In my view, they are being squeezed from two sides. When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.
To say I am somehow beholden to the content industry ignores a number of actions I have taken. Here are a few from recent years. At a meeting of the Future of Music Coalition (an artists' rights group) in 2002, I rebuked the industry saying "[t]echnology is forcing the record labels and the artists and the writers and the composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly." I also proposed a series of reforms to benefit artists that was strongly opposed by the RIAA.
When the recording industry slipped a provision to reclassify recording artists songs as "work for hire" into a satellite television bill and thereby deprived artists of reversionary rights to their songs, I fought back, saying among other things, "[i]t is about time we separate the people in the recording industry from the recording artists. I keep hearing from the recording industry telling me what the recording artists want. I know a few recording artists, and we will be checking on this. This is appropriately a sensitive subject." I have been outspoken about the industry practice of pay for play (or "payola") as well.
When the film studios have moved film production to Canada or overseas, thus costing American workers their jobs, I stood up to them.
When the publishing industry sought to deprive freelance writers of their rights (something fellow Kos poster Jonathan Tasini knows quite a bit about), I introduced a bill to protect freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers. The publishers did not like that very much.
I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.
To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?
Some say we do not need to do anything because uploading di
This is Congressman Conyers' response (reposted from his own blog.
I have been hearing today that a lively discussion is taking place around the internet about my cosponsorship of the "Digital Transition Content Security Act," a bill that attempts to plug the "analog hole." Because the tone of some of these discussions has become so vitriolic, I decided to respond here.
First, some who disagree with my cosponsorship of this bill have imputed motives to me in a manner that I think is unfair. My cosponsorship has been labeled a "sell out," a "giveaway" or a "handout" to the movie/music industry, among other things. It has been said that I must have had "a lot of [my] time bought by the content industries" to cosponsor this bill.
The content industries would be very surprised to hear these assessments, which belie a great unfamiliarity with my legislative record and statements about these issues. Over a more than 40 year Congressional career, I have stood up clearly and consistently for the artists and others who work in the content industry. In my view, they are being squeezed from two sides. When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.
To say I am somehow beholden to the content industry ignores a number of actions I have taken. Here are a few from recent years. At a meeting of the Future of Music Coalition (an artists' rights group) in 2002, I rebuked the industry saying "[t]echnology is forcing the record labels and the artists and the writers and the composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly." I also proposed a series of reforms to benefit artists that was strongly opposed by the RIAA.
When the recording industry slipped a provision to reclassify recording artists songs as "work for hire" into a satellite television bill and thereby deprived artists of reversionary rights to their songs, I fought back, saying among other things, "[i]t is about time we separate the people in the recording industry from the recording artists. I keep hearing from the recording industry telling me what the recording artists want. I know a few recording artists, and we will be checking on this. This is appropriately a sensitive subject." I have been outspoken about the industry practice of pay for play (or "payola") as well.
When the film studios have moved film production to Canada or overseas, thus costing American workers their jobs, I stood up to them.
When the publishing industry sought to deprive freelance writers of their rights (something fellow Kos poster Jonathan Tasini knows quite a bit about), I introduced a bill to protect freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers. The publishers did not like that very much.
I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.
To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?
Some say we do not need to do anything because uploading digital content is already illegal. In a digital world, and an internet that spans the globe, lo
You're a fucking twit. Read some history of WWII and then begin to understand why Nazi paraphenalia is outlawed in Germany. It may offend your sense of armchair-libertarianism, but the Germans take that stuff *very* seriously (as well they should, given the facts of their past). Commerce in Nazi paraphenalia is considered inciting violence, for the very reason that the Nazis are responsible for some of the worst genocide in human history.
And if you can't or won't understand that, you're either a troll or too pathetically dimwitted to bother with.
And if you want enterprise-class scheduling of Field Technicians for everything from window installation to HVAC to heating oil to landscaping and don't want to pay a few million dollars to license a local copy, the equipment to host it on, and the people to care and feed for the system, try ForceField.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all about the "O"...
PNAC not only holds the ear of our government, they make up the highest levels of it. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush brother Jeb are main players of PNAC. John Bolton is a high-ranking PNAC soldier; his vociferous diatribes are scattered throughout the PNAC's library of essays.
"breeding your own kind for parts" necessarily implies that the writer feels that embryonic stem cell research as a whole is unethical.
In its current form it is not. The potential for abuse is there, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Please don't tell me you're so naive as to believe this taxpayers' group nonsense.
And one form of research has great potential for curing disease, and the other has remarkably less so. The material in stock prior to Bush's decision is unusable due to contamination.
You statement . .
No, the people who are suing are those who voted against the bill, trying anything they can to enforce their ideology on others.
As someone who has something to gain from this research, I hope I live long enough to see some results.
Didn't a bunch of people in South Park, Colorado die of SARS from tainted blankets given to them by Indian casinos?
I wouldn't hit you over the head with one of those shitty EMC motherboards Fry's pushes in their bait-and-switch ads.
The sun never sets on the American Empire...
LBJ and Nixon come to mind.
Although I guess you have to base that on what you mean by "willingly"....
You have just described the exact process for creating a terrorist militant. This has been going on in the Middle East since approximately 1914 and the events of the latter half of the 20th Century accelerated that process.
Conditions have gotten such that ever-increasing numbers of formerly rational people are now ripe targets for fundamentalist wingnuts with a political axe to grind.
Remember, people don't put on a bomb jacket just because it's chilly in the morning.
I find your lack of faith disturbing...
psssst: The US Constitution already does this:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The conclusion of the CRS report in question stated that the legal rationale given by the Bush administration is weak at best.
The NSA program is, strictly speaking, illegal. FISA, however, grants authority to circumvent if given "by statute". BushCo claims the AUMF as the statute in question (citing "in re: Hamdi" as authority). The CRS report says that read is pretty flimsy. No legal scholar yet has agreed with BushCo's justification.
Why people like you so serious about breaking the law that you'd give Bush a free pass without an independent inquiry?
And the saddest thing about it, the insurance agent was probably confusing "the lower 48" with "the US". I've seen policies that only insure inside the lower 48 contiguous states.
"Ich bin ein Terrorist!"
Jesus.. if anyone had ever asked me if I'd gotten a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, I'd lie too!
I think Clinton should have been impeached for being the most powerful man in the world and getting sexual favors from a fat neurotic pig like Lewinsky. As Kennedy proved, POTUS can do *MUCH* better...
You forgot your mullet.
I agree with you. I greatly respect Congressman Conyers, but I totally disagree with him on this subject. However, for the record, here's JC's response from his blog:
I have been hearing today that a lively discussion is taking place around the internet about my cosponsorship of the "Digital Transition Content Security Act," a bill that attempts to plug the "analog hole." Because the tone of some of these discussions has become so vitriolic, I decided to respond here.
First, some who disagree with my cosponsorship of this bill have imputed motives to me in a manner that I think is unfair. My cosponsorship has been labeled a "sell out," a "giveaway" or a "handout" to the movie/music industry, among other things. It has been said that I must have had "a lot of [my] time bought by the content industries" to cosponsor this bill.
The content industries would be very surprised to hear these assessments, which belie a great unfamiliarity with my legislative record and statements about these issues. Over a more than 40 year Congressional career, I have stood up clearly and consistently for the artists and others who work in the content industry. In my view, they are being squeezed from two sides. When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.
To say I am somehow beholden to the content industry ignores a number of actions I have taken. Here are a few from recent years. At a meeting of the Future of Music Coalition (an artists' rights group) in 2002, I rebuked the industry saying "[t]echnology is forcing the record labels and the artists and the writers and the composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly." I also proposed a series of reforms to benefit artists that was strongly opposed by the RIAA.
When the recording industry slipped a provision to reclassify recording artists songs as "work for hire" into a satellite television bill and thereby deprived artists of reversionary rights to their songs, I fought back, saying among other things, "[i]t is about time we separate the people in the recording industry from the recording artists. I keep hearing from the recording industry telling me what the recording artists want. I know a few recording artists, and we will be checking on this. This is appropriately a sensitive subject." I have been outspoken about the industry practice of pay for play (or "payola") as well.
When the film studios have moved film production to Canada or overseas, thus costing American workers their jobs, I stood up to them.
When the publishing industry sought to deprive freelance writers of their rights (something fellow Kos poster Jonathan Tasini knows quite a bit about), I introduced a bill to protect freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers. The publishers did not like that very much.
I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.
To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?
Some say we do not need to do anything because uploading di
This is Congressman Conyers' response (reposted from his own blog.
I have been hearing today that a lively discussion is taking place around the internet about my cosponsorship of the "Digital Transition Content Security Act," a bill that attempts to plug the "analog hole." Because the tone of some of these discussions has become so vitriolic, I decided to respond here.
First, some who disagree with my cosponsorship of this bill have imputed motives to me in a manner that I think is unfair. My cosponsorship has been labeled a "sell out," a "giveaway" or a "handout" to the movie/music industry, among other things. It has been said that I must have had "a lot of [my] time bought by the content industries" to cosponsor this bill.
The content industries would be very surprised to hear these assessments, which belie a great unfamiliarity with my legislative record and statements about these issues. Over a more than 40 year Congressional career, I have stood up clearly and consistently for the artists and others who work in the content industry. In my view, they are being squeezed from two sides. When it comes to working and contractual conditions, they are squeezed by the content industry. When it comes to piracy, they are being squeezed by illegal file sharing. Collectively, this squeeze has led to a lower standard of living for artists and lower profile workers in the content industry.
To say I am somehow beholden to the content industry ignores a number of actions I have taken. Here are a few from recent years. At a meeting of the Future of Music Coalition (an artists' rights group) in 2002, I rebuked the industry saying "[t]echnology is forcing the record labels and the artists and the writers and the composers to come together...[t]he Internet says to the industry that you folks are yesterday's news, you're following outdated models, your business strategies don't work anymore, and your profit motive is showing rather vulgarly." I also proposed a series of reforms to benefit artists that was strongly opposed by the RIAA.
When the recording industry slipped a provision to reclassify recording artists songs as "work for hire" into a satellite television bill and thereby deprived artists of reversionary rights to their songs, I fought back, saying among other things, "[i]t is about time we separate the people in the recording industry from the recording artists. I keep hearing from the recording industry telling me what the recording artists want. I know a few recording artists, and we will be checking on this. This is appropriately a sensitive subject." I have been outspoken about the industry practice of pay for play (or "payola") as well.
When the film studios have moved film production to Canada or overseas, thus costing American workers their jobs, I stood up to them.
When the publishing industry sought to deprive freelance writers of their rights (something fellow Kos poster Jonathan Tasini knows quite a bit about), I introduced a bill to protect freelance writers, illustrators, cartoonists, graphic designers, and photographers. The publishers did not like that very much.
I hear from lots of people that artists don't care about piracy. While it is true that some artists struggling to make it into the business don't mind file sharing because it exposes their songs to a wider audience, many - many - artists have come directly to me saying that piracy is threatening their ability to make a living. I have heard similar complaints from animators, writers, grips, and cameramen, who have seen job opportunities diminish in part because of piracy.
To be sure, as I have said above, piracy is not the whole problem - industry practices are part of the problem as well, but it is part of the problem. So what should we do about it?
Some say we do not need to do anything because uploading digital content is already illegal. In a digital world, and an internet that spans the globe, lo
Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) wrote about this in 1982.
no shit, you humourless twat.
You're a fucking twit. Read some history of WWII and then begin to understand why Nazi paraphenalia is outlawed in Germany. It may offend your sense of armchair-libertarianism, but the Germans take that stuff *very* seriously (as well they should, given the facts of their past). Commerce in Nazi paraphenalia is considered inciting violence, for the very reason that the Nazis are responsible for some of the worst genocide in human history.
And if you can't or won't understand that, you're either a troll or too pathetically dimwitted to bother with.
And if you want enterprise-class scheduling of Field Technicians for everything from window installation to HVAC to heating oil to landscaping and don't want to pay a few million dollars to license a local copy, the equipment to host it on, and the people to care and feed for the system, try ForceField.
Re: relativistic "year" measurements:
Try explaining that in a movie and keeping 99.99999% of your audience...