Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

IP theft is one reason that can be imagined. Anytime we built a new plant or changed a process or  a product that we might want to implement in China, we had to consider what we wanted to give to the party. This was because everything went through government/party controlled "design institutes" for implementation. These details were now available to any Chinese company in PRC that had similar aspirations. The CCP party line is that all citizens and companies work for the benefit of PRC.

Chinese mass tourism is another example.  Countries, like Thailand for example, imagine a large tourism revenue "boom" when they promote and allow the masses in. How it works on the ground is another story. Chinese "front" tourism companies with a nominal Thai "owner",  restaurants (similar setup), hotels and transport (same same) provide all services and material goods to the tourists. Money flows primarily back to the Chinese owners in PRC. Local businesses get very little and cannot compete on price withering the industry and providing little benefit to the country.

Sri Lanka and Cambodia are extreme examples of what can happen to "beneficiary" countries of PRC largess.

I believe it. There's a reason colonies end up throwing out colonists, sometimes violently. They tend to overstay their welcome and don't give enough back.

[degrub]

Recent reporting
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/trump-targets-mexico-and-canada-with-tariffs-plus-an-extra-10-for-china/

[JoeKitchen]

There may be trouble brewing in the Trump guitar world https://consequence.net/2024/11/gibson-trump-guitars-cease-and-desist/.

I wonder how increased import tariffs will affect things.

I would be really curious to know where this goes. 

Under US copyright law, anything utilitarian (such as fonts or clothing) can not be copyrighted.  I would suspect guitars would be considered an utility, not a piece of art.  Sure, a lot of creative work goes into designing them, but, much like the Mardi Gras Indian costumes, probably not a design that can be protected. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Recent reporting
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/trump-targets-mexico-and-canada-with-tariffs-plus-an-extra-10-for-china/

Thanks. I read it but I don't feel illuminated.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Recent reporting
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/trump-targets-mexico-and-canada-with-tariffs-plus-an-extra-10-for-china/

This is not an appropriate post, in this or any other forum here. I remind you of the rule I set out a few years ago: links to external sites must be described appropriately, not merely posted. See here. The same applies to Robert's post earlier, and to several others.

Jeremy

[PeterAit]

I would be really curious to know where this goes. 

Under US copyright law, anything utilitarian (such as fonts or clothing) can not be copyrighted.  I would suspect guitars would be considered an utility, not a piece of art.  Sure, a lot of creative work goes into designing them, but, much like the Mardi Gras Indian costumes, probably not a design that can be protected.

A font cannot be copyrighted but it can be protected with a design patent.

[JoeKitchen]

A font cannot be copyrighted but it can be protected with a design patent.

Thanks, I was unaware of that. 

Anyway, today I learned it is best to never drunk post a video of yourself after ending a 2 week bender. 

Phew, admission fee or not, there certainly is a new member of the Hillary Day Drinking Club. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Biden pardoned Hunter. Wow, just wow.

[marvpelkey]

Have "discussed" (okay, argued) with a buddy over the last few years about the core difference between the Dems and Reps (not policies etc, more character-wise). I have argued that, given the opportunity, the Dems are just as capable as the other to "look the other way" when convenient to them and their cause. He is way more optimistic about the Dems than I.

I have not watched the news, especially American, since Trump won the election, so have not kept up with recent developments. However, if ALL the Dems do not vociferously and publicly pillory (?) Biden over this pardon, then they can never assert the high ground on any topic.

[Ray]

Biden's excuse is that the charges against his son were politically motivated, which is similar to Trumps claims that all the investigations and charges against himself were also politically motivated.

The 'United States of America' should be renamed, 'The Confused States of America'. 

[degrub]

Biden's excuse is that the charges against his son were politically motivated, which is similar to Trumps claims that all the investigations and charges against himself were also politically motivated.

The 'United States of America' should be renamed, 'The Confused States of America'. 

"same as it ever was" quoting some song lyrics.

[JoeKitchen]

Biden pardoned Hunter. Wow, just wow.

It's not all bad news. 

Santa Confirms Hunter Biden Still On The Naughty List Despite Presidential Pardon

 

[Robert Roaldi]

It's not all bad news. 

Santa Confirms Hunter Biden Still On The Naughty List Despite Presidential Pardon

 

hah!

[marvpelkey]

I don't think it is so much about a president pardoning his son, or friend or....., but more about a president pardoning someone, the opposing forces scream foul, but are then silent when their own president does a similar thing.

Personal opinion, I don't think any president should have pardon powers for two reasons - if a person has been found guilty by a court, it should be the courts who decide pardons, and - giving a president pardon powers just turns into a pardon parade for "the old boys club", with a few genuine pardons thrown in to keep the masses happy.

[digitaldog]

Personal opinion, I don't think any president should have pardon powers for two reasons - if a person has been found guilty by a court, it should be the courts who decide pardons, and - giving a president pardon powers just turns into a pardon parade for "the old boys club", with a few genuine pardons thrown in to keep the masses happy.

Totally agree. Nor should a president have total immunity!

[Rob C]

Totally agree. Nor should a president have total immunity!

+ 100%. It’s an affront to any civilised state. While we continue to permit such things, we can’t consider ourselves one step beyond any third-world despotic society.

Everybody should continue to be subject, equally, to the same laws of their land, however much they may progress up the ladder.

[Chris Kern]

[The presidential pardon power is] . . . an affront to any civilised state. While we continue to permit such things, we can’t consider ourselves one step beyond any third-world despotic society.

Everybody should continue to be subject, equally, to the same laws of their land, however much they may progress up the ladder.

There are several generally-accepted rationales for giving some governmental authority the ability to grant certain forms of clemency, including situations where the strict application of the law may lead to excessive penalties, encouraging the restoration of normal conditions after periods of civil disorder, and recognizing instances of genuine rehabilitation by someone convicted of a crime.

The ability of the president to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" is one of the authorities of the president explicitly created by the U.S. Constitution.  It's been many years since I read James Madison's notes on the federal constitutional convention of 1787—the most comprehensive account of what took place in those then-secret sessions—so I consulted ChatGPT for a summary of the debates on the pardon power:

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates deliberated extensively on the scope and limitations of the presidential pardon power. While there was no significant push to eliminate the pardon power entirely, several proposals aimed to restrict its application. For instance, Edmund Randolph suggested excluding cases of treason from pardonable offenses. James Madison supported this idea, proposing that pardons for treason should require Senate approval. However, this motion was defeated by an 8-2 vote.

Another proposal sought to permit pardons only after a conviction had been secured. James Wilson countered this by highlighting the necessity of pre-conviction pardons to encourage accomplice testimony. Consequently, the motion was withdrawn.

Ultimately, the framers granted the president the authority to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment,” as specified in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This decision was influenced by the British crown’s clemency powers, a model familiar to the framers.

In summary, while the delegates considered various limitations on the presidential pardon power, the idea of omitting it entirely was not a focal point of their discussions.

It is of course arguable whether it was appropriate for Biden to grant a pardon to his son, or whether the scope of the pardon was appropriate, but the ability of the president to issue clemency to individuals convicted of federal crimes is essentially unrestricted and is generally considered unreviewable by the courts.

[digitaldog]

It is of course arguable whether it was appropriate for Biden to grant a pardon to his son, ...

Or Trump, who pardoned the following for more severe crimes:
Charles Kushner (convicted of preparing false tax returns, retaliating against a cooperating witness, and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission in 2005.)
Steve Bannon (defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in a “We Build the Wall” GoFundMe crowdfunding campaign)
Paul Manafort (financial, witness tampering and lobbying crimes)
Roger Stone (found guilty on seven felony counts in 2019 for obstruction of a congressional investigation, making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness)
Michael Flynn (lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian ambassador.)

[JoeKitchen]

Phew, major retraction from Esquire in Charles P. Pierce's recent puff piece. 

Esquire deletes false George Bush pardon story after liberal columnist makes major error

Turns out HW Bush did not pardon his son, Neil, as was claimed and referenced here.  Esquire completely deleted the article fyi. 

Just want to make sure we are up to date. 

[digitaldog]

Phew, major retraction from Esquire in Charles P. Pierce's recent puff piece. 
Esquire deletes false George Bush pardon story after liberal columnist makes major error

“When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?” John Maynard Keynes
And hence, the fake news post is now deleted.
The Trump pardons, not so much.