U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:37:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:57:21 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

Also it seems our incendiary Aussie friend can't tell the difference
between ten years of war and five months; can't tell the difference
between 58,000 dead and less than 200;

These statistics aren't the most important. More important, IMO,
are opinion polls of US support for the occupation of iraq.

From http://www.greenleft.org.au/current/547p14.htm:
A Detroit News poll, published on July 23, found that 48% of voters
believe the White House misled the US people about the need to
invade Iraq, while 47% didn't believe they were misled. Seventy-one
per cent were concerned that the US occupation of Iraq would be
"expensive, long and deadly".

I'd have to question the efficacy of conducting foreign policy by
opinion poll.

Oh, so would I. But it cannot be denied that politicians who want to
be re-elected pay attention to such factors; and that if public
policy on major issues strays too far from public opinion, leaders
get kicked out.

Based on the poll quoted from "greenleft" (wonder what
their particular political bias might be)

It's unlikely that they'd make up precise figures that can be
easily checked -- I know if I was writing a political polemic, I
wouldn't, since there is little to be gained from it and much to be
lost.

at ".au" (wonder how many
polls taken in the US they had access to and why they choose this
one,) I'd say a 1% difference is within the margin of error.

Typically polls use a sample of 1000, which means individual figures
have a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2%. So clearly the 1%
difference is within it. But the figure I found more interesting was
the 71% one.

I'd also say that the much larger sampling of polls that gets
published within the US indicates about 55% (lowest of seen) support
for the Bush administrations conduct of the war on terror, and about
70% support for Iraqi Freedom.

What precise question is being put to them?

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

"ArtKramr" wrote

But without judicial review it would have been unconstitional for the Supreme
Court to have ruled on a states right issue. Barron v Baltimore makes that
clear.

The State of Florida ruled that Bush had won the vote, and no amount of
recounts would ever create a condition where Gore could win. Where else
would Gore go to hear his federal petition against the state?

Subject: U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world
From: "Gene Storey"
Date: 9/12/03 7:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote

But without judicial review it would have been unconstitional for the
Supreme
Court to have ruled on a states right issue. Barron v Baltimore makes
that
clear.

The State of Florida ruled that Bush had won the vote, and no amount of
recounts would ever create a condition where Gore could win. Where else
would Gore go to hear his federal petition against the state?


You miss the issue entirely..You are talking about politics. I am talking about
jusidical law. If not for Madison vs. Marbury the Supreme Court would have had
no jurisdiction in Gore vs. Florida.
See Barron vs. Baltimore.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

The State of Florida ruled that Bush had won the vote, and no amount of
recounts would ever create a condition where Gore could win. Where else
would Gore go to hear his federal petition against the state?

You miss the issue entirely..You are talking about politics. I am talking about
jusidical law. If not for Madison vs. Marbury the Supreme Court would have had
no jurisdiction in Gore vs. Florida.
See Barron vs. Baltimore.

I'm not talking about politics?? I'm talking about the Supreme Court.

Even without Marbury, and all the case-law which follows, and even without
the 15th Amendment, the Supreme Court would still have to decide whether the
state of Florida did not have the power to block infinite recounts by counties
within its jurisdiction.

Barron is purely about a top-down process, while Gore v Florida was about a
bottom-up process.

In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.

im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well, since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know by now that even a
layman can find out things about laws that most lawyers don't bother to
find out. Like the basic ins and outs of copyright laws. And what
"fair use" is (or is not).

You, obviously, need to have one of your associates look this up for you
and prepare a short brief.

Where are you licensed?

I'm not. I just learned how to read and write at an early age.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Chad Irby wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.


im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.


Well, since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know by now that even a
layman can find out things about laws that most lawyers don't bother to
find out. Like the basic ins and outs of copyright laws. And what
"fair use" is (or is not).



Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are. so on all of
the above the copying news stories for the purpose of criticizing the
reporting is fair use.

Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

Vincent Brannigan








You, obviously, need to have one of your associates look this up for you
and prepare a short brief.


Where are you licensed?


I'm not. I just learned how to read and write at an early age.

"Vince Brannigan" wrote:
| Chad Irby wrote:

...

|
| Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.

Do you think AP/Reuters/.... would agree with your definition?

In article , says...

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

This could be fun... what about public schools run by for profit education
companies? Is it Philadelphia, among others, where such a thing is going on?

Cheers,
dba

"Aerophotos" wrote in message
...
Military people like me who is in training at present are cut off from
the world in initial training... so we have no knowledge or interaction
as we learn how to kill others...this is done to isolate us and make us
brainwashed and do what the military aka govt of day requests us to do.

You are an absolute idiot, the sooner the RAAF wake up what a fruitcake they
have on their hands the better.

This is a reason why vietnam and other war vets can not adjust to life
is cause thy are still in a military mindset. they have no idea how to
adopt to a civil world...

Bought that clue yet ?


I know a well respected friend of mine who flew BUFFs over nam ... he
QUIT the usaf cause of the bull**** the govt was doing in 1972.. he
couldnt handle it how they had ROEs and killing of civilians etc...

Why do I have this lingering doubt that you have any "friends" especially
American?

Vietnam wasnt declared a war at any time tho it lasted 17yrs

What history book are you quoting ? (that the war started in 1958) ?

If im ever asked to be deployed to fight a war with the US military i
am going to object in my unit and say no,regardless of the consequences

Good with idiots like you in our RAAF we don't need enemies.
btw, enjoy your time in prison.

- i joined to defend Australia. and that what i will do, not defend
some other pathetic superpower who cant even hold its own ground.

You still haven't got a clue why you joined. Do everyone a favour, and put
your name on everything you touch, so that someone can check it for safety.

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.

Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately. If your
point were true, then the Washington Post could use entire stories from
competitors' papers, verbatim, without having to pay syndication costs.

Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story. For a
parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered under
copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would not.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its entirety,
the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the "substantiality"
part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A sentence or so, up to a
paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole story.

so on all of the above the copying news stories for the purpose of
criticizing the reporting is fair use.

Nope. Using *excerpts* from a story might be okay, if you hadn't posted
the entire story. And as far as "criticism" goes, there wasn't any
criticism attached to the first post.

So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since it's
trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would probably
fall through, too.

The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.

Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot of
people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all of it.

It's like the old joke: "What do you call someone who graduated last in
his class at the worst medical school?" "Doctor."

(You should have noticed by now that "argument from authority" doesn't
fly too well on Usenet. But I've noticed that many lawyers rely on that
when they have a really weak case.)

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.