Hollywood’s lobbyists are running all over the Hill to sneak in a copyright filtering provision into the stimulus package. The amendment allow ISPs to “deter” child pornography and copyright infringement through network management techniques. The amendment is very, very controversial for a couple of reasons:
1. First, infringement can’t be found through “network management” techniques. There are legal uses for copyrighted works even without permission of the owner.
2. Second, it would require Internet companies to examine every bit of information everyone puts on the Web in order to find those allegedly infringing works, without a hint of probable cause. That would be a massive invasion of privacy, done at the request of one industry, violating the rights of everyone who is online.
A group of senior bankers today warned they would sue if they are denied million-pound bonuses.
The bankers, all at managing director level and some with more than £1 million bonuses, have taken on a leading lawyer to prepare for legal action if an attempt to clamp down on payouts is made.
Ronnie Fox, who specialises in employment law, has been contacted by managing directors who fear they could be denied their bonuses despite their departments making money.
Mr Fox, of Fox Lawyers in Cornhill, is preparing to launch a legal battle against the unnamed banking giants if the Government presses ahead with plans to impose a blanket ban on bonuses.
Legal experts today warned that plans to stop bonuses may be a breach of bankers’ human rights.
C&Ler Dan sent in this clip to us. I know we wrote about Boehner’s tobacco ties when he fought to become minority leader … In this 1996 documentary by PBS called “The People and the Power Game,” John Boehner is caught red-handed in an amazing act of corruption, and his biggest critics are fellow Republicans.
Boehner: Mine asked me to give out a half dozen checks quickly before we got to the end of the month and I complied. I did it on the House floor which I regret and I should not have done, it’s not a violation of the House rules, but it’s a practice that’s gone on here for a long time.
Were the checks from tobacco companies?
Boehner: Ahh, I think if my memory serves me correctly, I think it was a tobacco company, yes.
Q)….but in this case tobacco’s well timed contributions helped save its subsidy. The people that were passing out the checks won.
Out of the 13 countries in Western Europe (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Swtizerland, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britian), the number that have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States : 13
That have a higher life expectancy than the US (for both men and women): 13
That have a lower murder rate: 13
That have a lower poverty rate: 11
Hearing conservative politicians use Western Europe as a cautionary tale against developing social programs: Priceless
Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism — genetics — by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more.
By propounding “Darwinism,” even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one “theory.” The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” The point is that making a master teacher into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching. So let us now kill Darwin.
Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. “Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And “isms” (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. “Darwinism” implies that biological scientists “believe in” Darwin’s “theory.” It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.
Using phrases like “Darwinian selection” or “Darwinian evolution” implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, “Newtonian physics” distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So “Darwinian evolution” raises a question: What’s the other evolution?
Into the breach: intelligent design. I am not quite saying Darwinism gave rise to creationism, though the “isms” imply equivalence. But the term “Darwinian” built a stage upon which “intelligent” could share the spotlight.
“We listened hard to what our customers said they wanted most out of their home entertainment system, and then we pumped out this impossible-to-use piece of shit.”