Bullshit. I've seen a lot of people who thought America was losing, saw the amount of damage its presence was causing Iraq, and wanted to pull out and cut losses all round. I haven't seen anyone this side of a straw man who actually wanted Iraq to be a clusterfuck and hundreds of thousands to die just to discredit Bush. This guy, on the other hand, wants a complete economic collapse - which, at the end of the day, would probably have a similar death toll - just to discredit Obama.

On the other hand, pure avian flu wasn't spreading rapidly from human to human. It might be an over-reaction, but I think it's a stretch to call racism the primary motivation. (Of course, I don't live in the US...)

On the other hand, as someone who neither downloads nor buys, I'd say it's more moral to pirate than give those thieving bastards a single cent. So while a total boycott is the ideal solution (if only to deny them their nice shiny piracy statistics as a justification for lost sales), if people are going to give in and get the music then I'd rather they... well, not buy it!

No, max(author's lifetime, 25 years) would be reasonable. Just because since there are a few cases in which extending copyright past the author's death is justifiable doesn't mean it's still justifiable when the author has already profited from their work for seventy years.

Actually, it's none of the above - the queen specifically asked for the iPod (see here). I agree it would be nice to force the RIAA into commenting on legality, though.

Riposte is that every single Republican was happy with this "compromise", while the majority of Democrats were against it. There's a difference between compromise and unconditional surrender.