This can go on and on. Suffice to say neither of us is going to change. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. Time and history will tell. As an aside to that: Years ago, after China started to open up to the west, a French journalist asked Chairman Mao what he thought of the French Revolution. Mao answered, "it's too early to tell."

Agreed. Besides, we've neglected the Religious Thread too long.

Agreed. Besides, we've neglected the Religious Thread too long.

The ferocity of some recent personal attacks against political leaders (far more extreme than I've seen in this thread) have reminded me of religious fanaticism.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Agreed. Besides, we've neglected the Religious Thread too long.

The ferocity of some recent personal attacks against political leaders (far more extreme than I've seen in this thread) have reminded me of religious fanaticism.

It's called fighting fire with fire.

Oh, BTW, as one parting shot, you'd better hope that some politically connected developer, with ties to city hall, doesn't covet your house, the conservative Supreme Court says he can have it (and don't expect market value).

---

Account frozen...

Oh, BTW, as one parting shot, you'd better hope that some politically connected developer, with ties to city hall, doesn't covet your house, the conservative Supreme Court says he can have it (and don't expect market value).

I don't agree with that decision at all, but it did say that there is nothing to bar states from enacting their own restrictions of property seizure. Most state legislatures have rushed to enact such limits as soon as possible. The problem is that Supreme Court decisions carry the weight of law immediately without time for the market (and legislatures) to adapt.

The abuses by local town councils will only get worse. If you have a small business in direct competition with a business owned by a member of local or county government, watch out.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Oh, BTW, as one parting shot, you'd better hope that some politically connected developer, with ties to city hall, doesn't covet your house, the conservative Supreme Court says he can have it (and don't expect market value).

In Hawaii, there was a law (repealed just last year) that a renter could force the owner to sell the property being rented, under some circumstances. It was aimed at forcing large land holders to break up their holdings, so it's effect was just the opposite of the Supreme Court decision, yet it was based on the same principle of forcing a private owner to sell their property for other than a (traditional) public purpose.

No one is trying to police the whole world.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because frankly this is exactly what has to happen to protect this stuff.

While admittedly, I have no faith in the U.S. to avoid draconian restrictions on U.S. citizens, those same restrictions have failed to materialize when one shelters or launders money offshore or when one evades taxes offshore. The costs of enforcement are prohibitive.

Thank you for the discussion. 8^]

Well, the fact is we have a right wing conservative President, a Republican controlled Congress, and a soon to be completely conservative Supreme Court (6-3).

Keep in mind two things:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.

---

Account frozen...

In Hawaii, there was a law (repealed just last year) that a renter could force the owner to sell the property being rented, under some circumstances. It was aimed at forcing large land holders to break up their holdings, so it's effect was just the opposite of the Supreme Court decision, yet it was based on the same principle of forcing a private owner to sell their property for other than a (traditional) public purpose.

Tom, I agree with you wholeheartedly. What is mine and no one else's. But you see what I'm getting at, that the extreme politicos, whether they be on the left or right are a danger to the freedoms which we all cherish. There are moderate Dems which I like (you slagged him with a bad pix), and there are moderate Republicans I would vote for, McCain and Dole come to mine.

---

Account frozen...

Beware of what you wish for, you just might get it.

And for those of you that agree with using gov't force to force others to do/pay for stuff you agree with, well, then you can understand why other people want to use gov't force to you to do/pay for crap you don't agree with.

Sometimes that gets you Medicare, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and the rest of it.

Other times that gets you new-gen nukes, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the CIA, corporate welfare, and war in Iraq. Are you happy?

You support the system, you just disagree on what to spend the takin's on.

to Dogbytes

Clinton decided not to attack a country which hadn't attacked the US, at least not without provocation.

I guess you have forgot about a few places like bosnia, somalia, and Haiti.

i'm from AR and when you think AR you do not think about a good heathcare system well payed teachers (rated next to last in the us), do you. He could not fix a small state (he had many terms) so you think he could do anything for a large county...

---

to Dogbytes

Clinton decided not to attack a country which hadn't attacked the US, at least not without provocation.

I guess you have forgot about a few places like bosnia, somalia, and Haiti.

i'm from AR and when you think AR you do not think about a good heathcare system well payed teachers (rated next to last in the us), do you. He could not fix a small state (he had many terms) so you think he could do anything for a large county...

Let's see, in Bosnia we went there to stop the Serb's from committing genocide while the European powers sat on their hands and put a stop to it. In Somalia we went there to help aid agencies get aid to starving people, and in Haiti we went there to attempt to stabilize the country (which no one is capable of doing). In all cases, we didn't "attack" them. We made a good faith effort to stand between waring factions, and attempt to stop the bloodshed. In some cases quite successfully, and in others not. Actions of aggression, I DON'T THINK SO.

Get your facts straight boy before you make a fool of yourself!

As far as Clinton's governorship of AR, win some lose some. Hell, he hasn't even lived there for years, so what's your point. But AR like MS has a history of being mired in backwardness for the last dozen decades. Maybe they've been too busy with ol' timey religion, a strange version of family Darwinism, and Intelligent Design. And then there are the Knight Riders trying to beat everyone to the January white sales at Wal-Mart.

---

Account frozen...

My facts are right.. I was there. why don't you ask the Kurds and Southern Arabs (offten called swamp arabs) about genocide and lack of food in northern Iraqi. Ref about AR why don't you visit to see what it is like there vers. believing a stereotype

---

I've read Google's own statement on Google Print in the Wall Street Journal (ironically, it's not available on the free part of wsj.com!) and it brought one new, significant fact to my attention.

Google claims that it is not making any money from referrals to booksellers.

This does not totally exonerate Google Print for three reasons. It hasn't said it is providing the bookseller links for free; it is acting against the expressed wishes of the recent content providers; and it enjoys an indirect economic benefit from hosting Google Print. That said, the fair use defense is considerably strengthened if the claim of no monetary gain can be substatiated. The issues become less clear-cut and court decisions wander into the range of coin-flip odds.

Google states that it does not make a cent from referrals to booksellers. This means that the bookseller links are not click-thru ads, but Google's statement did not say that the links were provided for free. They might be, and Google might be forced to provide those links for free in order to convince a judge that Google Print is fair use.

Google stated that authors and copyright owners can opt out of the system. As I explained above, opt-out is appropriate for websites because unencrypted web pages can be reasonably presumed to be marketing materials that are meant to be located by the public. The copyright notices in books and magazines almost always expressly forbid "reproduction by mechanical or electronic means" and recent works exclude "storage in any data retrieval system." It can be reasonably presumed that books and magazines are products that the copyright owners wish to limit to paying customers... an opt-in approach is appropriate here. Many authors grant their publishers license to market their works, so Google should not have to track down every individual author.

Google Print, even if it doesn't directly generate a dime of revenue, has indirect benefits to the company that constitute use of protected intellectual property for gain. One of Google's selling points is the breadth of its search capabilities. The vast majority of "hits" in a web search generate no direct revenue for Google, but the cumulative effect of them is to steer web surfers to the Google search engine. The inclusion of Google Print into the search database broadens this capability even further, granting an indirect yet very real benefit to Google beyond "good PR." Google would likely claim that this is no different than the pro bono work done by professionals. Reasonable people could disagree on how much of a stretch this is (recipients of pro bono legal services are unlikely to ever be paying customers, so the benefit is entirely "good PR," etc.).

To illustrate the third point, universities used to enjoy virtual immunity from patent infringement cases because of a fair use provision of patent law called "purely philosophical research." For years, no one challenged the assumption that this applied to academic research. Eventually, a dispute over laboratory equipment designs brought the issue to court. The judge's decision defined "purely philosophical research" in such a way that it did not apply to universities conducting scientific research. The rationale is that universities are in the business of conducting research (a reputation of impressive research can lead directly to grants and indirectly to enrollment). In a similar vein, Google is in the business of providing search results... anything that enhances Google reputation for providing relevant search results cannot be considered purely altruistic.

I maintain that Google is misappropriating protected intellectual property for gain, but I can see a judge buying Google's fair use argument. I would propose that Google remove all question of motives: sign agreements with the publishers, track down the independant authors, and bring database entries online as they become explicitly authorized (I don't think that anyone is going to get too bothered over an unauthorized database entry with a "skip me" flag while the company attempts to get permission). It is in the authors' best interest to participate in Google Print, but just because something is in one's best interest does not grant a corporation the right to force it upon someone.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

My facts are right.. I was there. why don't you ask the Kurds and Southern Arabs (offten called swamp arabs) about genocide and lack of food in northern Iraqi. Ref about AR why don't you visit to see what it is like there vers. believing a stereotype

So what if Saddam was killing his own country men (verses Serbian nationals killing Bosnian nationals or Somalis killing foreign aid workers). That's Iraq's business and they should have risen up against him. I case you haven't noticed, now that we've captured Saddam, the Iraqi's are rising up against us in a big way, those that aren't can't stand our guts anyway and want us out. So much for appreciation. I guess if the US got out of the world policeman business you would have to file for unemployment. If you're so worried about things, go to Rwanda or Sudan; tell me where does it stop (be sure to send a postcard)?

We had a right to attack Afganistan (read the Taliban) which was actively supporting and giving sanction to Osama and his crowd. But that is as far as it goes.

BTW, I was in AR last summer (two weeks), and I had a very nice girl of about 20 ask me, looking a my license plates, where Nevada was when I was gassing up my car. I tried to explain to her that it was east of California, west of Utah, north of Arizona, and south of Idaho, but that only got her more confursed. I then told her that if was a long ways west of here, and left it at that since that appeared to satisfy her (I almost wanted to ask her if she knew what the capital of Arkansas was). She worked at the convience store and was taking a smoking break near the fuel pumps. Sterotype, no unfortunately not. I had similar experiences in the same region, i.e. the southern Ozarks.

Lightning rod extended...for safety reasons.

---

Account frozen...

My facts are right.. I was there. why don't you ask the Kurds and Southern Arabs (offten called swamp arabs) about genocide and lack of food in northern Iraqi. Ref about AR why don't you visit to see what it is like there vers. believing a stereotype

So what if Saddam was killing his own country men. That's Iraq's business and they should have risen up against him. I case you haven't noticed, now that we've captured Saddam, the Iraqi's are rising up against us in a big way, those that aren't can't stand our guts anyway and want us out. So much for appreciation. I guess if the US got out of the world policeman business you would have to file for unemployment. If you're so worried about things, go to Rwanda or Sudan; tell me where does it stop (be sure to send a postcard)?

We had a right to attack Afganistan (read the Taliban) which was actively supporting and giving sanction to Osama and his crowd. But that is as far as it goes.

BTW, I was in AR last summer (two weeks), and I had a very nice girl of about 20 ask me, looking a my license plates, where Nevada was when I was gassing up my car. I tried to explain to her that it was east of California, west of Utah, north of Arizona, and south of Idaho, but that only got her more confursed. I then told her that if was a long ways west of here, and left it at that since that appeared to satisfy her (I almost wanted to ask her if she knew what the capital of Arkansas was). She worked at the convience store and was taking a smoking break near the fuel pumps. Sterotype, no unfortunately not. I had similar experiences in the same region, i.e. the southern Ozarks.

Lightning rod extended...for safety reasons.

Let's see, in Bosnia we went there to stop the Serb's from committing genocide while the European powers sat on their hands and put a stop to it. In Somalia we went there to help aid agencies get aid to starving people, and in Haiti we went there to attempt to stabilize the country (which no one is capable of doing). In all cases, we didn't "attack" them. We made a good faith effort to stand between waring factions, and attempt to stop the bloodshed. In some cases quite successfully, and in others not. Actions of aggression, I DON'T THINK SO.

make up your mind you can not have both sides. i was in CA (LA)and had to tell them that New Mexico was part of the US not Mexico. I gave a geo class in Seaside CA(98) and most of could not find AR on a map. As far as Iraqi's not like the US have you been there? Have you asked someone who lived there? I thank you have second hand or a "they report".

---

Let's see, in Bosnia we went there to stop the Serb's from committing genocide while the European powers sat on their hands and put a stop to it. In Somalia we went there to help aid agencies get aid to starving people, and in Haiti we went there to attempt to stabilize the country (which no one is capable of doing). In all cases, we didn't "attack" them. We made a good faith effort to stand between waring factions, and attempt to stop the bloodshed. In some cases quite successfully, and in others not. Actions of aggression, I DON'T THINK SO.

There are a couple mistakes in your reasoning, but they are counterintuitive.

Militaries don't exist to perform peacekeeping operations. One oft-quoted definition is "armies are there to kill people and break things." There are two problems with using troops as peacekeepers. The first is that it is simple to turn a "soldier" into a "peacekeeper" but it is hard to turn a "peacekeeper" back into an effective "soldier." The second problem is that military deployments, even for "peaceful" purposes, remain highly lethal and threatening by their very presence. It's like scratching someone's back with the barrel of a pistol... nerve-wracking enough to constitute harm.

We use military personnel as peacekeepers for the same reason we use them for riot control and sandbag-piling... the military are good at following orders, they are organized, and they don't get paid overtime. This does not mean that every use to which the military is put is appropriate.

It is not the United States' job to clean up every injustice in the world. The US prodded and prodded at Europe to handle the Bosnian mess right in its own back yard. Just because the US was invited to participate does not mean that it was right to do so. The US didn't do anything that the UK couldn't have done (let alone all the other nations involved) but it furthered the expectation that the US was the enforcer of international will. The reality is that the US doesn't have the manpower to hose down all of the hotspots in the world, and picking and choosing where to go without a clear self-interest only leads to the perception that the US is uncaring about the suffering in X, Y or Z placed (because the US did send troops to A, B and C, which were no more compelling). Europe should have handled Bosnia. Africa should have handled Somalia. A case could be made for the US going into Haiti.

Note that the Somalia operation was already underway when Clinton took office, so blaming Clinton for "invading Somalia" is incorrect. Under Bush I, it was a support role with a clearly defined scope. Under the Clinton administration, however, the State Department took every silly UN suggestion and morphed the mission into nationbuilding. In project management this is called "scope creep." While the US military could competently provide security for aid workers, it was stretched beyond its capabilities when it was asked to impose law and order, arrest specific warlords, build a national infrastructure, etc. The results were disasterous.

There were direct attacks upon the United States during the Clinton administration, but terrorism was treated as a "law enforcement" issue rather than a "low-intensity war" issue. Many claim that this was criminal negligence, but I call that accusation 20/20 hindsight. That said, the Clinton administration did not treat terrorism as a serious issue (law enforcement or otherwise). The problem was exaccerbated by the inexplicable decision to build a wall between intelligence and law enforcement. No previous administration had felt the need to tie intelligence's and counterintelligence's hands this way. Then again, no previous administration feared that intelligence would uncover evidence that communist China had bankrolled its presidential campaign and hand that evidence over to a special prosecutor.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Sorry, to break up this love fest, but I've got to leave town for a few (California ;>P). Besides, I think I just saw a rabbit wearing a top hat and anxiously checking his watch go down a hole in the ground.

---

Account frozen...

I maintain that Google is misappropriating protected intellectual property for gain, but I can see a judge buying Google's fair use argument.

Odd how that works out, eh?

Odd how that works out, eh?

When "take for public use" gets interpreted as "take to be resold to a private developer," there appears to be a large gray zone in the middle where decisions are effectively random.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

When "take for public use" gets interpreted as "take to be resold to a private developer," there appears to be a large gray zone in the middle where decisions are effectively random.

Which, frankly, I think is a pretty accurate way to describe the morass of American jurisprudence. 8^]