[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] The record industry, RIAA and US law



On Sat, 12 May 2007 10:15:38 +0200
Joe Hart <j.hart@orange.nl> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Celejar wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:42:26 +0200
> > Joe Hart <j.hart@orange.nl> wrote:
> > 
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Celejar wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>>> Yes, I consider the USA my country too.  I have dual nationality, so I
> >>>> am American and Dutch.  I see the pros and cons of both systems of
> >>>> government, and I have no real preference to one over the other.  But
> >>>> the media issue is a strong point for the Dutch.
> >>> But as I asked you in another post, what does that have to do with
> >>> systems of government?
> > 
> > [snipped Joe's political views]
> > 
> > I have no problem with your views, but you apparently misunderstood my
> > question. I meant "How do your alleged differences in media relate to
> > systems of government?"?
> 
> The point is in the pressure applied by lobbyists is well received in
> the American system.  SIG's are quite alive and active.  The same is
> true in other countries, but overall the Netherlands is much less
> influenced by the interest of special groups (like the RIAA)

Lobbyists pressure government; if the government doesn't regulate the
news media, than we *still* don't have an explanation for how the
difference in news coverage can be related to differences in systems of
government.

> >>>> As for the foreign policy, the countries are actually similar, but the
> >>>> one big difference is that The Netherlands is not actively forcing
> >>>> democracy on other countries (although they do participate in Bosnia and
> >>>> in Afghanistan).
> >>> Of course. The question is, though, which way is better? Should we not
> >>> invade the Sudan to save innocent lives, because that would be forcing
> >>> our liberal notions of decency on the savages there? 
> >>>
> >> The only time the United States gets involved is when it is in their
> >> interests to do so.  Why didn't anything happen in Rwanda?
> > 
> > Rwanda is unquestionably a stain on our (and everyone else's) record.
> > 
> >  
> >> Sudan is different because it is Islamic fundamentalist that are doing
> >> much of the fighting, and we know that in today's war on terror, Islamic
> >> Fundamentalist are being targeted.
> > 
> > You're not addressing the question I'm posing: should we intervene in
> > the Sudan to save innocent lives, or would you object to that as
> > "forcing democracy on other countries"?
> 
> I am torn when it comes to the Sudan issue.  While I agree that
> something needs to be done to save the innocent people, I don't think a
> military action would be the right solution.  It would be very similar
> to what happened in Somalia, and that was quite a disgrace.  I am afraid
> that Africa on a general scale is a very difficult situation.

It certainly is, but as far as I'm concerned, the only question of
whether to invade is whether we can accomplish anything significant,
not any pedantic legal concerns.

> >> What I would like to know is why the United States backs Israel in what
> >> could be considered inhumane treatment of people under it's control
> >> (illegally for the last 39 years).
> > 
> > If you refer to our general support of Israel, that's simply explained;
> > Israel, for any faults it may have, is a friendly, democratic ally, the
> > only one in the region, and it's surrounded by vicious, savage,
> > murderous and sometimes lunatic neighbors. If you're referring to
> > support of specific aspects of Israeli policy that you consider
> > "inhumane treatment of people under it's control", please be more
> > specific. Incidentally, I believe that the charge of illegality is
> > debatable.
> 
> Well, the Israelis certainly would think it debatable, but even the UN

'Even' the UN ?! In addition to whom, the Arab League?

> declared Israels capture of the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip an
> illegal action, and issued a mandate for their withdrawal.

They certainly didn't declare the captures illegal; this is just flat
out false. As to whether the UN has declared the subsequent occupation
illegal, that's also debatable. Apparently Kofi Annan said so, and was
criticized for it in an op-ed piece in the NY Times by Columbia law
professor George Fletcher [0]; the actual resolutions aren't apparently
completely clear. Wikipedia has a helpful discussion of the issues
[1]; although one certainly can't cite it as an authoritative source on
such a hot button issue, my brief glance at the article (as it exists
today ...) seems to indicate that it's at least somewhat neutral. 

> I don't argue that Israel is in the middle of a hotbed.  I also don't
> argue that they have the right to protect themselves.  What I do argue
> with is the heavy hand they use in doing so.

We can debate that, but my point was that our support for them is
perfectly understandable.

> I also don't think a suicide bomber blowing up a restaurant in a crowded
> market place is right.  I can understand that the Palestinians can only
> mount so much of an attack, but attacking innocent citizens is not any
> way to gain sympathy for their cause.
> 
> Joe

[0]
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A11FA3B5C0C728EDDAA0894DA404482
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict#Legal_issues_related_to_occupation

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator



Reply to: