So unless you were planning immolating yourself in front of Buckingham Palace as a protest for your country's policies, the quote is not really appropriate.
That would be an awfully odd place for me to do it, I'd be concerned that my message would be lost by doing it in a foreign country.
As for liberty/tyranny, it's always a balance that has to be constantly fought for. There's plenty of wannabe tyrants in the USA, UK, and pretty much every other country(including actual tyrants).
Having read your entire post, I'll say that I would have boiled down your post to what Free Censorship did. Well, I wouldn't mention North Korea.
"An attack on their dignity" - Mentioning the color blue is an attack on my dignity, you must never do that. Tying a noose is a reference to lynchings, even when you're a young boy from the north without a clue to that bit in history. Mentioning infidelity is an attack on the dignity of a politician.
Your dignity is a bit like the US 'right to seek happiness'. It doesn't mean that you can't be insulted.
I screwed up, working from memory.
Well, as they say, the tree of liberty needs to occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It appears that their tree is in need of some watering.
Besides that, top gear's Stephen Fry:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
And from Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read.
If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
False. Your confusion lies in the fact that you believe this will do good for the Cuban people, as if somehow magically a place with no free market and a government that has historically given it's people dirt will all of a sudden benefit from these relations. This money will go to the Cuban communist regime, not the people that are suffering that need it. That is where there is truly no logic and severely detached from reality.
Even if 1% of that money gets to the people (and, pragmatically speaking, more of it will for sure), then they are going to be better off.
More importantly, if it prompts economic reforms along the lines of what most other communist countries did - the closest example here probably being Vietnam - the people are going to be vastly better off even if the authoritarian political system remains in place.
Either way, while we can only guess what will happen without sanctions, we know full well what happens with the sanctions: absolutely nothing. So what exactly is their purpose then?
Also, even if it was for revenge, would you really blame someone who feels that way?
Blame them for feeling that way, no (well, it depends on who they were before Castro; if it's one of Batista's cronies, or the members of the top ruling elite supporting him, I'd say they can suck it and go cry in a corner; I have no sympathy for people robbing others under gunpoint when they get robbed themselves in a similar fashion). But I will blame them for letting that emotion guide their political decisions, and especially for pushing the same onto others.
Oh, as for my comfy chair. I was born in a communist country. Don't try that "you rich American asshole can't understand" on me.
Just start between recessions, not during.
Technically, those are company purchases, not mergers.
FM is now an analog/digital mix. They broadcast the analog channel with two digital channels piggybacked on the signal. They don't call it digital, they call it "High Def".
And if they're too broke to pay the fees, they must have trouble selling ads. KSHE has no problem, but they're probably the most popular station in St Louis.
I certainly agree that copyright lengths are way too long, and that the extreme lengths hinder creative expression. I ran across it with Random Scribblings; I had to change Dork Side of the Moon, reducing the lyrics of the two songs to "fair use" snippets, since I can find no way to contact Roger Waters for usage permission. That album is four decades old and should not be under copyright.
You are right, copyright is supposed to encourage creators so their work will belong to everyone after the copyright lapses. How is anyone supposed to get Hendrix or Cocker to perform again?
It does add challenges to creativity.
The repeat customer is not the individual person, but the employer.
a strange co-dependent relationship
Yes, they manufacture products and we manufacture debt. A match made in.....well...
Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.
Repeat guests? C'mon, really? You shop for hotels the same way the rest of us do - Either your employer tells you "you will stay here", or you use a price search and pick the lowest place that doesn't mention rats in the toilet.
Short of emergencies, 'free internet' is a requirement I shop for. If it's a working trip, internet would be a *reimbursable* expense for work, thus increasing the effective cost of the hotel, making it effectively more expensive than the one that includes wifi, thus they'll route their people elsewhere.
As for blocking wifi but not cell phones because it pisses customers off, if they put a faraday cage up they could put cellular boosters inside the hotels to transmit those frequencies out.
Of course, the number of personal hotspots that would pop up...