But...in the spirit of appropriateness I'll leave you with one of my father's unforgettable comments about modern times: The Democrats'll screw you seven days a week. The Republicans take the weekends off.
@BrianBailey - Touché on the world-wide coverage and my apologies to all my parliamentary peeps out there.
As for your other comment about putting "the record straight...both parties" and so on, I would like to make clear that I did not intend my creative, pointed and sardonic re-write of Lincoln "..at the people, by Obama and for his friends"...to be directed at anyone but Obama and his party. This blatant, rapacious Mobocracy that we are moving toward (The Chicago Way, if you will) is something rather new at the national level and your attempt to equivocate is highly debatable.
This has less to do with the current President and more to do with the ITC. The ITC has been around since 1916, but the Trade Act of 1974 added the so called "Fast Track" authority that all but gives the President carte blanc powers to negotiate trade agreements. The 1974 act had an expiration date, but it has been extended ever since by both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents, the last being the Trade Act of 2002.
The ITC has been granted judicial powers that greatly overstep the intended separation of powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches established by the Constitution. This is why the case has come down to one man interpreting trade law for the nation and removes the courts from the proces altogether. That alone is proof that the ITC oversteps the authority of the office of President. Hopefully Samsung or someone will challenge the acts implementing the ITC so that the Supreme Court can rule whether or not the acts are constituional. Certainly, if there is to be an ITC, its judicial matters should be overseen by the courts, not the President.
@C VanDorne - Sorry that you felt the lesson in civics was unnecessary, but most of the world does not know how the government of the US is put together. This publication reaches a worldwide audience and it is important to ensure that they understand who and why these types of decisions get made. I am glad that you also added another aspect of US government, which to put the record straight - applies to all of the political parties in this country.
"...of the people, by the people and for the people" has been replaced with "..at the people, by Obama and for his friends". And to be included in the latter you need to get on the list. How do you do that? You pay...usually either with effort (culling mass votes) or cash (campaign donations). But in Apples case their tribute will come in the form of ceding control of their Apps services to the Collections...uhhh, I mean, "Justice" Department in the OTHER impending legal matter in which they find themselves on the outs.
This article starts out with an insulting civics lesson. We've all watched The Sapranos, right? It seems that's the only civics lesson one needs these days.
President Obama had a very good chance to pratice prudent diplomatic policy and bring Apple and Samsung closer and more oriented towards more innovation. However, this looks failure may be due to lack of time or lack of efforts. It is not tool late for them to convince their logic to South Korean people.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.