Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

It's already starting to lead away from that madness. It's not going to be a sudden thing, what has happened is that it's been a more gradual proccess with states developing legal marjuana rules and an entire business industry growing up out of the weeds (pun intended). That industry is now worth something like 8 billion.

I've read an article or two saying that Sessions might have accelerated marjuana becoming federally legal by doing what he did because now that same industry is going to have lobbying power and will fight back.

What's also telling is that some recent Presidents (Obama, not too sure about Clinton and George W. Bush) have admitted to experimenting with weed in their college days and didn't get much flak over it.

Clinton was famous for the "I didn't inhale." quote referring to his college days. Although later recanted to "I never denied trying marijuana." Dubya was allegedly a cocaine user in his younger years before "going sober" around the age of 40.

George W. Bush had a drinking problem, not cocaine. But yeah, the ability to admit to having experimented a bit with weed in Obama's college days without issue (or at least little issue) vs Clintons outright denial is reflective of changing attitudes towards marjuana.

[Reelya]

There seems to be some legs to the cocaine story, not one but two separate biographers of Bush included different cocaine-related stories in their books

http://time.com/4711887/bill-clinton-didnt-inhale-marijuana-anniversary/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/the-bush-cocaine-chronicl_b_37786.html

I speak from first hand experience, an insider’s vantage, on this particular issue. Several weeks before the 2000 election, I submitted to the Los Angeles Times an op-ed piece about the charges swirling around Bush’s alleged cocaine use. The next day the Times Opinion Section editors left lengthy telephone messages on both my home and office message machines: Yes, they wanted this piece very much. Yes, they were going to publish it in the next Monday edition. It was a definite go, not just an acceptance for the “queue.” Come Sunday, however, I received another call: It turns out, er, we won’t be using it now, not at all. No explanation beyond that. Gads, I thought. That was a dramatic 180-degree turnaround. I’ve never received a personal call at my home for a rejection. Someone clearly had put the kibosh on the story, overruling or prevailing upon those who once had been very keen about and committed to the piece.

So, it's not a new story, been around for years. Bush refuses to either say yes or no whenever pressed on the matter, however there are first-hand accounts that someone was trying hard to suppress the stories from the media. There might not be fire, but there's plenty of smoke. Part of it stems from accounts such as this (from the original article the guy above mentioned):

About a year ago, during the presidential primaries, 11 out of 12 candidates in both parties denied ever using cocaine. George W. Bush was the sole candidate who refused to answer the question. He quipped, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” But youthful irresponsibility is not the same as felonious criminality, and most state constitutions observe that distinction quite strictly.

Basically, 11 out of 12 presidential candidates for 2000 had already said "no I never used cocaine" outright, but when Bush was asked, he wheedled out of giving any sort of answer, and the rumors were around even before he ran for governor. Maybe he wasn't guilty, however, he did a hell of a job making himself look guilty.

[smjjames]

I thought that was in reference to the drinking. Anyways, definetly wouldn't have been the first or last politician who did dumb stuff during their college days.

You know the supposed Trump ally, wikileaks? Well, they went and shared the full text of that Fire and Fury book that has been causing so much drama in the past week.

I wonder if they'll also get into trouble with the publisher because wikileaks is effectively enabling pirating of the book.

[Frumple]

Presumably roughly as much trouble as anyone that converts a book into electronic format and distributes it without the author or publisher's consent. Maybe more considering the circumstances, but when the normal amount is "none whatsoever", well. Zero times two is still zero, heh.

[smjjames]

Obviously someone going through the effort of making a digital copy would be inevitable these days, but they don't usually scream out "LOOKIE HERE! I COPIED THIS GUYS BOOK!!! GET IT FOR FREE!!" as blatantly as wikileaks is doing.

[Baffler]

Maybe it could be more for the pile, but I reckon anyone involved with Wikileaks is in for much worse than a DMCA takedown if they should ever find themselves at the "mercy" of the powers that be. If I was them I probably wouldn't care too much about it either.

[Frumple]

Oh aye, end of the day they got hella' bigger problems than casual copyright infringement. Most countries aren't particularly kind to folks that leak information, even when they're not involved with the various messes wikileaks is these days.

[Max™]

Good lord copyright laws are absurd (yes, let's chase after people who are strictly personal use types, and hey fuck it may as well go after parody and referential uses too, take that teamfourstar!) for shit like this, but not nearly as absurd as DRM in concept and practice (if I've got code running on my system and I want to rip it open and see what's going on, fucking ha ha to people who think they can wag their finger and make threats) since the only thing it really does is offer a flimsy justification for the overbroad nonsense allowed under the DMCA bullshit.

Am I stealing a copy of a text when I borrowed it from the library?

What if I read it in the store?

I mean, sure, when I started grabbing ripped epubs and selling them online, I earned that takedown, and I probably shouldn't have laced them with insidious programs... but a usb-bootable ready copy of puppy linux is just insidious because you might start freebasing yourself some gentoo in a back alley and growing a shaggy beard, it's not a virus or whatever!

[wierd]

Linux from scratch, or you are just a lightweight user. ;P

Personally though, in regard to DRM, the game is getting more difficult to win, since the hardware itself is being made to favor the DRM seekers.  Take for instance, AMD's PSP and Intel's ME platforms. These are integrated TPMs, built right into the CPU, that use a provisioning key that once burned cannot be changed-- which has full control over all host processes and memory.  It is the ultimate place for DRM to live; As soon as you try to look at the inside of protected software, it will cockblock you, because it is monitoring all processes.

But let's not get technology mixed up in the ameripol thread.  Bullshit copyright is HARDLY a uniquely american thing. (Looking at **YOU** Germany!)

[Starver]

Linux from scratch, or you are just a lightweight user. ;P

If it's truly from scratch, at some arbitrarily low level, then it's not the Linux Kernel, but your Kernel.  Wierux?

[smjjames]

Word is that Trump is preparing for an interview with Mueller and there are talks underway, nothing has been set up yet however.

NBC link

[McTraveller]

So if you're interviewing a person you know just lies out of habit, probably not even trying to lie (although maybe so - I suppose that's a possible strategy to lie so much people don't know when you're doing it on purpose), and lying in a particular context is a felony, isn't that entrapment?

I mean, not that I'm pleased by our sitting president, but that sounds like people are just "we're trying to get him out of office no matter what, even if it's just on a technicality."  Just feels... not good all around.

[EnigmaticHat]

That's not what entrapment is.  Leaving an expensive convertible on the street with the keys in the ignition waiting to jump on some sucker that gets in, that's not entrapment.  Having an undercover cop walk up to someone nearby and be like, "hey, want to steal that car?  No?  What are you, a bitch?"  That would probably be entrapment.  Tempting people isn't entrapment, coercing them is.

So unless Mueller or an associate directly makes an appeal to Trump to lie, they aren't entrapping him.  Simply giving him the opportunity to lie is temptation not coercion.

Additionally, poor character is not a legal defense.  Else kleptomaniacs and convicted thieves would have some weird arguments at their disposal.  "But officer, they put all those expensive jewels right out where anyone could take them!  It wasn't even reinforced glass!"  If Mueller or someone else in the proceedings were to use as evidence Trump's past lies, that would be an argument *against* Trump not for him.

Its all moot regardless.  US law runs on precedent and that's how they got Bill Clinton.

[smjjames]

So if you're interviewing a person you know just lies out of habit, probably not even trying to lie (although maybe so - I suppose that's a possible strategy to lie so much people don't know when you're doing it on purpose), and lying in a particular context is a felony, isn't that entrapment?

I mean, not that I'm pleased by our sitting president, but that sounds like people are just "we're trying to get him out of office no matter what, even if it's just on a technicality."  Just feels... not good all around.

It's a risk, yeah. However, Trump has done depositions before (remember, he's been involved in ligitative stuff most of his adult life), so, he knows how to handle that stuff. Plus Mueller is a professional and he acutely knows what's on the line.

Mueller doing a Trump interview this soon (could still be many months away) seems a bit surprising since interviewing Trump would actually be near the end of the investigation. So, I'm not sure if it was initiated by Trump or initiated by Mueller.

Also, amid rumors that Oprah Winfrey is thinking of doing a 2020 run, the WH basically said "Bring it on.". Okay, they actually said "We welcome the challenge.", but that's the same message.

That's not what entrapment is.  Leaving an expensive convertible on the street with the keys in the ignition waiting to jump on some sucker that gets in, that's not entrapment.  Having an undercover cop walk up to someone nearby and be like, "hey, want to steal that car?  No?  What are you, a bitch?"  That would probably be entrapment.  Tempting people isn't entrapment, coercing them is.

So unless Mueller or an associate directly makes an appeal to Trump to lie, they aren't entrapping him.  Simply giving him the opportunity to lie is temptation not coercion.

Additionally, poor character is not a legal defense.  Else kleptomaniacs and convicted thieves would have some weird arguments at their disposal.  "But officer, they put all those expensive jewels right out where anyone could take them!  It wasn't even reinforced glass!"  If Mueller or someone else in the proceedings were to use as evidence Trump's past lies, that would be an argument *against* Trump not for him.

Its all moot regardless.  US law runs on precedent and that's how they got Bill Clinton.

The court of public opinion isn't neccesarily going to make that distinction. If conservative outlets sense evn a slight hint of percieved entrapment, then they will make that claim.

Mueller and his team are top rate professionals, they'll be careful in what they do.

[McTraveller]

To be fair, I think it was even more stupid with the Clinton stuff - I mean I'm all about holding our leaders to high character standards, but that whole investigation over infidelity was equally as "let's just see if we can get him out of office" nonsense.  (NOTE: I am not saying by any stretch that our current administration has anything near "high character standards").

I do know that it's not technically entrapment by the way - just kind of wondering how it falls on the spectrum of "we have evidence we're trying to catch him with" which I think should be done in a court, not in an "interview", and "we're trying to get him to say something we can use against him".  That's what I meant about it feeling Not Good.