The Infest ... er, Occupy Movement -- an idea whose time should never have come is now going

Recent news updates from Occupy protests read like a crime blotter: A man shot near the encampment in Oakland. A homeless person dead in Salt Lake City. A suicide in Vermont. Two drug overdoses and a molotov cocktail in downtown Portland, Ore. A sexual assault in Philadelphia. Hypothermia in Denver ... and a 53-year-old man unnoticed in his tent in New Orleans, dead for at least two days.

Even more prevalent are city concerns about sanitation. Thousands of protesters have lived outdoors with few toilets and no showers for the better part of two months.

Protesters in Chicago violated a noise ordinance; a protester in New York defecated on a police car. In Oakland, when police officers forcibly cleared protesters from Frank Ogawa Plaza this week, in part to deal with a rat infestation, cleaning crews hauled away more than 100 tents, dozens of molded mattresses and 27.8 tons of trash.

And now, as The Washington Post reports, cities are finally clearing out these cesspools in public parks. A group of some hundreds of New Yorkers protested the protesters earlier in the week, telling them to clear out. And the movement, which is calling for more fiscal responsibility, is costing the cities it's occupying millions of dollars.

With the clearing of New York's Zuccotti Park, the movement's birthplace, cities are finally taking back their citizens' public spaces. The true 99 percent is finally speaking up.

It is the 1% who do the

It is the 1% who do the confiscating. What do you think they do for their income? Work? Quite funny that you believe government spending was anything else than income. But then probably you belong to the 16% in the US who believe they were the 1%.

No surprises.  Our president

No surprises.  Our president can't run on his record of success.  And since he can't blame Bush one more time without provoking hysterical laughter, he has no choice but to invoke class warfare.  Yep, blame the Rich instead of inspiring others to become rich themselves.  That's a great strategy until there are no rich left to blame.

Oh yeah, it’s only class

Oh yeah, it’s only class warfare when workers start to fight back, not before, I know.

You don’t get it, as usual. Your president doesn’t need success. Any candidate who isn’t completely nuts could win the next elections against Obama, that goes without saying. With that performance! And no government is re-elected during this crisis anyway. Except Obama.

The repugs don’t have a single candidate who is NOT completely nuts. More precisely, all they have is the stupidest of looneys. And there are some pathetic old men who fantasise that one of these looneys could win, and that this would be a good thing. Haha, these pathetic losers!

Occupy Obama has a few words

Occupy Obama has a few words for you...

In a speech meant to echo a historic address given by former President Theodore Roosevelt in the same Kansas town more than 100 years ago, Obama railed against "gaping" economic inequality and pressed the case for policies he insisted would help ordinary Americans get through hard times.

He seized the opportunity to step up pressure on congressional Republicans to extend payroll tax cuts that independent economists say are vital to economic recovery, and also vowed new legislation to punish Wall Street fraud.

But Obama's broader message was a sweeping call for the working class to get a "fair shot" and a "fair share" as he pushed for wealthier Americans to pay higher taxes and demanded that big corporate interests play by the rules.

"This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make or break moment for the middle class," Obama told a cheering crowd in a high school gymnasium in Osawatomie, Kansas.

"At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement," he said.

With the election just 11 months away, Obama's speech was part of a strategy to cast the Republicans as the party beholden to the rich and blame them for obstructing his efforts to boost the fragile economy and slash high unemployment, considered crucial to his re-election chances.

"Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. Well, I'm here to say they are wrong," he said

Allow me to continue the

Allow me to continue the article (it's from Reuters, by the way):

But Republicans said it was another attempt to distract from what they see as Obama's failed economic record. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell accused the president and his fellow Democrats of resorting to "cheap political theater."

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, in an interview on CNBC, said Obama's policies made him the "finest food stamp president in American history" because more people will end up getting government aid than new jobs.

This time, Obama sought to channel Roosevelt, a Republican who provoked deep anger within his party with his landmark "New Nationalism" speech in 1910 that hailed the government's role in promoting social justice and warned against the abuses of rich business interests. Roosevelt lost the 1912 presidential election running as a third-party candidate.He was also seeking to revitalize his liberal base amid fears that an "enthusiasm gap" could cut into Democratic turnout and cost him a second term.

Obama sounded themes of economic inequality and corporate greed that have driven the Occupy Wall Street protest movement that was spawned in New York in recent months and has spread to other major cities and even other countries.

"President Obama is attempting to energize Democrats for the campaign, define himself as something more than a passive president and take populism back from the Tea Party," Princeton University political historian Julian Zelizer said.

The risk for Obama is that tougher rhetoric against Big Business could turn off some of the centrist voters he needs to win re-election. After his Democrats suffered major losses in the November 2010 congressional elections, he launched an outreach to the business community to try to mend fences.

Obama used his speech to accuse Republicans of suffering from "collective amnesia" about the recent financial crisis, and he strongly defended his Wall Street regulatory overhaul that many Republicans opposed and want to roll back.

He said he would call for legislation to toughen penalties against Wall Street companies that break anti-fraud rules.

"Too often, we've seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender. No more," Obama said.

He again prodded Republican lawmakers to extend the expiring payroll tax cut beyond this year.

Many Republican lawmakers are skeptical that it will spur job creation, but party leaders, fearing a possible backlash from voters in 2012, have expressed a willingness to find a way to prevent the tax cut from lapsing.

They remain at odds with Democrats on how to fund it.

The entire context is probably important, Bren, don't you think? I did like your subtle tool of bolding the parts you found important, so I did the same.  Nice effect, I think.

And don't you find the writer's choice of wording evocative? Obama isn't a champion of the middle class; "he portrayed himself" as one. His speech didn't echo Roosevelt's; it was "meant to echo" it. And why should  Obama's speech have to be "part of a strategy to cast the Republicans as the party beholden to the rich and blame them for obstructing his efforts to boost the fragile economy and slash high unemployment"? If it was a matter of truth for all to see, why the artifice?

Everywhere in this piece, Obama is "attempting to" do this, "casting himself" as that, and "seeking to" do the other. In other words, Obama is trying to do what any actor does -- fool the audience. Unfortunately for us, in this particular case, he's trying to play president. The writer of this piece might not have intended it to be, but it's basically a movie review. Obama's performance? Looks like 2 stars out of 4. Not exactly a blockbuster, now is it?

Regardless, Hen, you will

Regardless, Hen, you will have Obama for another 4 years. Looks like he will enjoy the latitude to change your backward nation into a first world country.

Occupy my ass remix -

Occupy my ass remix - hilarious. Nice one.

Awww. How sweet, thanks pal.

Awww. How sweet, thanks pal. Don't think I don't appreciate it. In fact, here's something for you ... something we all know you, in particular, will enjoy!

Thanks Alan, same goes both

Thanks Alan, same goes both ways.

And ... anyone else here think Brendan's a little too ass-fixated? This something your wife/husband or girlfriend/boyfriend aware of, big guy? Not judging ... but I think you might want to be more careful about broadcasting your kinks to the rest of the world. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not just elephant ass you're into: THAT I would be a little judgmental about.

What an assanine assumption.

What an assanine assumption. I suppose, if you believe I have such a fixation, then you have very little (or less than most by your own account) to worry about on that front.

I give you "A Republican Theme Park" as a parting gift.

Jason,Due to the lack of

Jason,

Due to the lack of actual argumentation here, and the inordinate use of straw men, smear and projection on this thread I am claiming victory. Yup, you read me correctly, there is no counter argument against the core objectives of occupy except, apparently, "smelly, wanna be hippies" and that does not cut it.

I'll limit my contributions here to whack-a-mole tactics against the failed propagandists. See you on the Libya thread soon.

Ass kicking... ya, on that note, lets award Henry one of these for the hole in his *** (keep the enemy in front Henry)

 

Brendan,I'm glad you reminded

Brendan,

I'm glad you reminded me.  I appreciate it...

Thank you for your service to our country, Henry.

Because, my dear, in many

Because, my dear, in many cases, they provide a much better quality of education than government run institutions

Really? Well, I am taking your word for it. Why is that so? Better funds? Then the funding of “government run” institutions should be improved too.

The problem is letting government decide what should be funded, and what should not. 

You think a corporation (preferably a profit-oriented one I assume) should decide that, but not a democratically legitimated entity. How very strange. WHY?

You and I have a very basic difference of opinion.  You seem to think the government is wonderful at everything they do (except military and foreign policy, where you think they can't do anything right), and should provide everything to everyone.

Ts ts. I think that democratic decisions are better than undemocratic ones. I think that the economy’s task is to provide goods and services for the people. Profitability, if desired, can only be a secondary aim.

There is no way you will convince me that government should be momma to us all, …

I always find this use of the word “government” amusing. As if you are about to call an exorcist.

 

and there is no way I will convince you that unrestrained opportunities for indivdual entrepeneurs are the last, best hope for mankind

You have not even tried! Tell me, why are unrestrained opportunities for indivdual entrepeneurs the last, best hope for mankind? Please, I want to know why.

Really? Well, I am taking

Really? Well, I am taking your word for it. Why is that so? Better funds? Then the funding of “government run” institutions should be improved too.

Typical socialist answer--if public schools suck, they must be under funded.  The reality is throwing more money at them makes them more expensive, not better at educating kids.  D.C. schools prove that dramatically.  As the president of the teacher's union stated, "I'll start caring about kids when they start paying union dues."

Why?  Private schools do not have union teachers so they can fire the non-performers.  They can compete for the best teachers and compete for the best students by competing with other schools to offer the best education for the buck.

The quote probably is one of

The quote probably is one of your usual examples of, er, embellished reality, or have you got evidence?

There is no reason why private schools should differ in any way from state-run ones in regard to union membership. Probably you want to tell me that you have some Nazi laws restricting trade union membership, right? And of course you approve.

Performance of students depends to a large degree on their parents’ income, by the way. That should give you a hint why schools that take fees perform better than schools in poor neighbourhoods. If you want to say that they are better independent of the socioeconomic background of the students: prove it.

The ONE demand. (Best TV rant

The ONE demand. (Best TV rant ever)

Brendan, I don't necessarily

Brendan,

I don't necessarily disagree with all of his points.  Some I may even agree with.  And I think there are two things that can be done which might, in a small way, help take the influence of money out of political decision making.  1.  Term limits for the legislature.  2. A line-item veto for the President. 

Term limits minimize the ability of a lobbyist/company to get their "hooks" into a legislator who must then rely on that money for a lifetime career.

A line-item veto allows a President to run the red pen through the stupid stuff that's tacked on to an appropriations bill for political favors.

But, I don't think a lot of your OWS protesters are looking for reasonable solutions.  A heck of a lot of them want to live in communes, with free range chickens, smoking rope all day.  But, that's just my own observation. 

 

Term limits minimize the

Term limits minimize the ability of a lobbyist/company to get their "hooks" into a legislator who must then rely on that money for a lifetime career.

Why? Dumb idea. Cut out the corporate dollars and let career politicians be, career politicians. The best and brightest would hardly be called by a two term shitty paying job.

Best and the brightest? 

Best and the brightest?  You're joking.  Right?

Alan, anything further

Alan, anything further governor? I'm done with the "simplified" reading of my explanations. Feel free to take another approach.

Well, we've about beat this

Well, we've about beat this thing to death anyway.  And it probably is time for me to get some work done.  So, I'll leave any continued pummeling to the rest of y'all.

Enjoy the Christmas season.

So you couldn’t think of any

So you couldn’t think of any argument to try and convince me “that unrestrained opportunities for indivdual entrepeneurs the last, best hope for mankind”. Thought as much. :-)

Enjoy your holidays too, Alan.

“A heck of a lot of them want

A heck of a lot of them want to live in communes, with free range chickens, smoking rope all day.

That, my dear, is called projection. And you are too old for it anyway, so stop being envious.

At last you've said something

At last you've said something I can agree with.  I am too old.  An old college buddy told me the other day, "I feel bad enough most mornings when I wake up.  Why would I intentionally drink to much and volunteer to wake up feeling like shit."  (By the way, Henry...  How's that hangover doin'?)

Besides, I spent waaay too much of my youth drinking, smoking, and puking.  I grew out of it.  I assume most of these OWSers will too.

I'll admit I was young and stupid once.  I used to say it would take three silver bullets to kill me.  I think I used up two of 'em.  I know I used up one when I was dead for a few minutes. 

My Father came to visit me one time, and I introduced him to my boss.  The boss said, "I'll bet you had a heck of a time with Alan when he was young."  My Dad said, "If it had not been against the law, I'd have put him in a sack and drowned him."

I remember another time when I came home and told my Dad, "There's probably gonna be some police over here in a little bit.  Let me handle it."  The only thing he said to me was, "Brush your teeth.  You smell like beer."

Solutions for

Solutions for Alan:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, any official position of the City of Los Angeles with respect to legislation, rules, regulations or policies proposed to or pending before a local, state or federal governmental body or agency must have first been adopted in the form of a Resolution by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission rolled back legal restrictions on corporate spending in the electoral process, allowing unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions, thereby threatening the voices of “We the People” and the very foundation of our democracy; and

WHEREAS, corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution, and The People have never granted constitutional rights to corporations, nor have We decreed that Corporations have authority that exceeds the authority of “We The People”

WHEREAS, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in a 1938 opinion stated, “I do not believe the word ‘person’ in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations”; and

WHEREAS, money affects the quality and quantity of speech and is NOT, in itself, speech; and allowing corporations with great wealth to use it as speech effectively drowns out the protected free speech of the People in our diverse society;

WHEREAS, the Citizens decision supersedes state and local efforts to regulate corporate activity in their elections;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the adoption of this Motion, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 20 I 1-20 12 Federal and State Legislative Programs SUPPORT for a Constitutional Amendment and other legislative actions ensuring that only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights and that money is not speech, and therefore the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.”

Item posted from this source.

Brendan, That's wonderful. 

Brendan,

That's wonderful.  As I said before, Constitutional Amendments are extraordinarily difficult to ratify.  But, feel free to get back to me in a hundred years and let me know how it went.

Don't be pessimistic. Change

Don't be pessimistic. Change is a constant.

I want the world to live in

I want the world to live in peace, love, and harmony.  That's a Miss America answer.  I don't hold out much hope.  I see it as a realistic attitude.  If you see it as a pessimistic attitude, you have that right. 

Constitutional amendments can

Constitutional amendments can and do occur. Court rulings can be and are challenged. Do you live in "the land of the free" or "the land of the perpetually constrained by the stupidity of others". Grow some, would ya?

Get a dose of reality,

Get a dose of reality, Dreamer.

I don’t know what you want

I don’t know what you want private schools or universities for anyway. It is a society as a whole that profits by having as many people as possible with a good education, and it’s society as a whole that’s got to pay for it.

I suggest proffit is the only reasonable way to attract investors

Bullshit, Alan. Firstly, it is not true that profit is an exclusive incentive. It is especially untrue for medical innovations—think of Jonas Salk. Secondly, I don’t say the work mustn’t be paid, so where is the problem?

You should have taken a few days off to enjoy the snow, perhaps. Why don’t you?

I don’t know what you want

I don’t know what you want private schools or universities for anyway.

Because, my dear, in many cases, they provide a much better quality of education than government run institutions.

I don’t say the work mustn’t be paid, so where is the problem?

The problem is letting government decide what should be funded, and what should not.  Had my father had to beg funding from the government, he would not have had 250 patentable inventions.  He had a lot more stuff that did not pan out, than stuff that did.  That required people (companies) to take risks by funding his work.  The government is really crappy at risking taxpayer dollars. 

You and I have a very basic difference of opinion.  You seem to think the government is wonderful at everything they do (except military and foreign policy, where you think they can't do anything right), and should provide everything to everyone.  I think there are some things government is best able to do, but much of it is restricted to those things that cross state lines, or involve other nations (can't have Tennessee making its own treaties with France).  Other than those things which cannot be done by other means, government involvement should be minimal or absent.

There is no way you will convince me that government should be momma to us all, and there is no way I will convince you that unrestrained opportunities for indivdual entrepeneurs are the last, best hope for mankind.

Okay, Momo.  Public schools,

Okay, Momo.  Public schools, or private schools?  Or both?  I mean, if I am capable of achieving a medical degree at Vanderbilt, one of the most prestigeous private schools in the nation, does Vanderbilt have to accept me, and does the taxpayer have to fund my education at a private school?

Medicine:  You advocate killing a hell of a lot more people than I do.  Removing any incentive for developing new drugs can only lead to one outcome.  No more new development.  I suggest proffit is the only reasonable way to attract investors.

The weather:  Actually, I came back a day too early.  I wanted to get some pictures of snow.  It snowed the day after we got back.

By the way, Alan: if you want

By the way, Alan: if you want to lighten the tone, don’t demand again that I find it funny whenever the shitty arseholes here call me a genocidal mass-murderer, will you?

Okay Alan, tuition fees. An

Okay Alan, tuition fees. An abomination. All education must be free of cost onto the level someone can achieve (that is, depending on one’s brain, not on anything else). All schools.

I don’t see why anyone could have a problem with that. If you have say why (without using the words “hippie” or “lunatic”—they don’t leave the impression that you want to debate).

Medicine: you advocate to kill humans by denying them the right to medicine here, because you find this is the best possibility to pay the work of developing medical innovations. I suggest to find other ways to pay this work.

Nice pictures. You seem to have had luck with the weather, too.

Brendan, Okay.  I guess maybe

Brendan,

Okay.  I guess maybe I was going a bit too fast for you.  Let me try to slow it down a bit.  The reason I mentioned my approach to problem solving in the workforce was because, it seems to me, I believe it is a logical, simple way to tackle problems.  There are two simple steps.  1.  Identify the specific problem.  2.  Propose a reasonable, workable solution.

My original questioning of the OWS "movemnent" involved step 1.  I could find nothing in the statements of protestors which came across as anything but one notch above lunatic rants.  You provided a long list of statements which you say represents the concerns of at least one group of OWS supporters.  I already touched on the farm animal/farm size concern.  Here are a couple of other listed concerns:

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

Okay.  They identified what they believe to be a  problem.  However, they did not identify the specific problem.  Is the problem that students had to borrow money because tuition is too high?  Or is it that, as they say, education is a "human right" and should be paid entirely by the taxpayers?  If it is a "human right", to what level?  AS, BS, MS, PhD?  State schools, or all schools?  I mean, I'm sure there are a few people who would love to go to the Harvard Law School, or get a Medical degree from Vanderbilt, if someone else picked up the tab.  Heck, when I retire in a few years, I might want to go back and get a PhD in Wildlife so I could teach a few college classes, just to stay busy.  The University of Hawaii might rank high on the list of free universities.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

Okay.  So drug companies patent a drug, giving them exclusive rights to sell the drug for 14 years, (or 17 years, I forget) instead of giving the patent rights away, allowing every company on the planet to produce a cheap generic.  I know a little bit about this, since my father has over 250 patents, a lot of them for surgical tools.  And, he's told me how horrendously expensive it is to do the testing for approval.  I'll give you a specific example:  I went to visit my father a few years back, and in his garage, he had a big plastic bag/tube, attached to a base at both ends, with an air compressor attached to the bag.  I asked what the heck it was for, and he said, "This is pretty cool.  Look, one doctor stands in this side of the bag, one stands in the other side, then wheel a patient up to the bag and glue the bag to him and turn on the compressor.  That way, they doctors are in high pressure air, and when they cut into the patient, through the bag, to do surgery, the high pressure air prevents bleeding."  He told me one of the worst parts of surgery, especially liver surgery, is the massive amounts of bleeding.  He said, during one of the trials, they did liver surgery on a pig.  They cut into the pig's liver with the comperssor off, and blood started pouring out of the liver.  But when they turned the compressor on, the blood ran back into the pig.  A couple years later, I asked him whether they ever did anything with his invention.  He said they had done several experimental surgeries, and other testing, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to test it in hospital settings, but they still had not recieved the approval.  And the decision had been made to abandon the project.  I give you all this to point out a couple things.  1.  Getting approval is expensive.  2.  A lot of stuff is tested, at a high cost, without ever getting approved.  3.  Some person/company has to think it is worthwhile to invest a lot of money to attempt getting approval.  4.  They invest because they expect a new product to pay back the investment and generate a profit.  5.  If there is no expectation of profit, why would anyone do the research, or invest in the testing in the first place?  (They wouldn't.  Ding, ding, ding!!!  Right answer.)  So, a patent gives a company a couple of years to recoup their investments, before any company can take their ideas and profit from it.  (My father never could understand why a copyright lasts forever, but a patents only lasts 17 years.  Why do Shakespeare's words belong to him forever, but my father's original ideas only belong to him for just over a dozen years? )

Okay.  I got off track a bit.  So, originally, I asked what OWS stood for, because I could make not sense of the scattered, random ramblings of the protestors.  And I asked you for some specifics.  And I also explained how I handle situations in the workplace when problems come up.  You provided me with a list of concerns.

1.  The list of concerns still seems scattered, non-specific, and lunatic fringe.

2.  There is not a single proposal for a solution to any of the problems listed.

Therefore, this is noting but bitching and moaning.  Without a solution, you're just complaining.

You want a good document as a blueprint?  Take the Declaration of Independence.  It starts off with a long list of complaints against the King.  But then it proposes a solution (we no longer accept the King, and we're gonna kick his ass out.)

Until OWS gets a reasonable message, with reasonable, specific complaints, and proposes reasonable, specific solutions, they're still just a bunch of nouveau hippies, shitting in the park.

Now...  To lighten the discussion slightly....  A couple photos from the recently passed mini-vacation:

 

Why do Shakespeare's words

Why do Shakespeare's words belong to him forever, but my father's original ideas only belong to him for just over a dozen years?

 

I’ve overlooked this little gem. Shakespeare’s words “belong” to him forever, but he has NEVER cashed royalties or enjoyed protection of copyright laws.

 

By your logic, Alan, he has never written a single word, because he had no incentive to do so.

Only because there were no

Only because there were no copyright laws in those days.  If Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet today, his heirs would be collecting checks for decades.  Or they could sell the rights to someone else.  Heck, maybe Michael Jackson would have bought the copyright, like he did with all the Beatles tunes.

Hell, look at what a conniption fit the recording artists were having a few years back when free, file-sharing was cutting them out of royalties on their music.  After 14 years, why shouldn't anyone be able to copy "Hey, Jude", and sell the CD?

Alan, you said without

Alan, you said without “intellectual property” law no incentive. Shakespeare didn’t write a word then.

The concept of copyright and patents creates more problems than it solves. You obviously find that your father is treated unfairly under the present rules, but you want to go on to treat inventions as property instead of finding other ways to pay for creative work.

Actually, not so.  I point

Actually, not so.  I point this out a merely a matter of principle.  I am perfectly willing to accept Hemingway's right to claim his words for eternity.  I cannot justify taking his written words, scratching his name off the first page, inserting mine, and claiming I wrote the book.  It's not right.

As for my father.  No one will ever remove his name from his patents.  As long as there is a U.S. Patent Office, his name will be registered 250 times.  And, he's made a pretty decent living with the 14 years, per patent, he's been allowed to sell the inventions.  (Actually, most of the patent rights were owned by whatever company he worked for at the time.  They paid him a salary, and he invented stuff.  He did have a deal with one company where they allowed him to sell stuff they were not interested in manufacturing, but that's a whole different story.)  And, there was a pretty good motive for him to spend a lifetime as an inventor.  He fed his family and put five kids through college.

It’s becoming even worse.

It’s becoming even worse.

Now you are conflating two

Now you are conflating two things: attribution and pay for work done. They are not necessarily connected.

Copyright law and Patent law

Copyright law and Patent law is more complex than it needs to be, that much is true. A Drug company should enjoy a Patent on its product so that it can recoup its investment (which is often very, very heavy) and profit from what it discovered and created. The same is true of artist, writers and designers who should be able to profit from their work. I do not agree that this Copyright should extend to 70 years from death simply because it becomes almost impossible to find the heirs unless it is an active estate.  

Why do Shakespeare's words

Why do Shakespeare's words belong to him forever, but my father's original ideas only belong to him for just over a dozen years?

I'm going to assume you are joking and that you know a little more than you are letting on with the above statement. I'm not going to enter into a long discussion on drug patents, except to say that some countries (Brazil, Mexico for example) have already determined US Law protecting drug patents is morally wrong and so they ignore them. Good for them.Unfair? Hardly. As you mentioned about government regulation, maybe reducing the time and cost for approvals would be better than creating drug monopolies in the USA.

Have you ever watched a documentary called The Corporation? You should really rent that or it's book form. It argues against the corporations current legal status and reviews how they are defined legally as persons, and what kind of person's they are as a result. Skipping to the punch line, they clearly make a case that the corporation is a psychopath who should be kept far from the public it passively seeks to exploit. I'm not arguing that we need to get rid of corporations, only that they should be reformed so that they don't do further harm.

 

Brendan, Shakespeare was an

Brendan,

Shakespeare was an exaggeration.  But, it was based in fact.  Why should Hemingway's family get paid for every copy of The Sun Also Rises that's ever sold?   Why shouldn't everyone have the right to print and sell the book after 14 years, just like with an invention?  All you have to do is renew the copyright every once in a while.  Why does a copyright last forever?  I mean, after all, if my father invented a tool to get snow off of roofs, so the roof doesn't collapse, killing a family of five, (which he did) he's only protected from others stealing his idea for 14 years.  Why doesn't he get eternal protection as well?  Why can't he just renew his patent? 

If the development of new drugs don't deserve patent protection, why should microchips, or airbags, or gun trigger locks?  What about my father's surgical tools?  They saved lives, just like drugs.  Why allow patents for anything? 

As an aside...  I had back surgery a few years ago.  My father told me to ask the surgeon if he used some certain tool.  (I can't remember the name of it.)  The surgeon said, "No.  I use such-and-such."  My Dad said, "That's the other company's tool.  The patent ran out and they made a cheaper copy of it."  How's that fair?

Republicans... it's a hard

Republicans... it's a hard life I guess. Being swallowed by the elephantine assitude can't be easy.

Oh well, they enjoy the shit,

Oh well, they enjoy the shit, I guess. One of their lunatics has told them it’s the best smell in the world, and they won’t doubt that.

With the clearing of New

With the clearing of New York's Zuccotti Park, the movement's birthplace, cities are finally taking back their citizens' public spaces. The true 99 percent is finally speaking up

Henry, you premature ejaculator, don't you think a recant of that driveling statement is now due? When can we definitively say you were "off the mark" on the death throws of OWS? What do you need? Two years? Three?

I'll avoid mocking your rant, as I've had my moments as well, but I will hold you to account on the "nothing to see here" baloney. You started it after all, for what reason, who can say, GRAMPS.

As an aside though... if your daughters are living with you, would that not make them lazy and coddled? Just checking.

Repugnicans won't get near

Repugnicans won't get near the white house for A LONG TIME. Because being corrupt, hypocritical and unelectable 1%ers is not where it's at.

Mitt Romney, the only "reasonable choice" has recanted everything reasonable he has ever said to satisfy the ignorant Tea Party true believers.

“I am personally of the belief that money plays a much more important role in what is done in Washington than we believe,” Romney says in the clip. “I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they are now spending [...] I think that’s wrong.”

“To get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up to all of the special interest groups, who can go out and raise money for you from their members,” he continues. “And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re going to vote. These kind of associations between money and politics in my view are wrong.”

Mitt

His views at the time were similar to the present-day “Occupy Wall Street” movement — a movement he has described as “dangerous.”

Henry & Mike, think positive.

Henry & Mike, think positive.