Slashdot Mirror

markets optimize for the desires of the customers with the money, not for overall social good

There is no difference between the two. If somebody wants to dine in a Whites-only restaurant, it is — should be — up to the owner, whether he wants the business of the racists or that of the Blacks (and those joining them in a boycott).

Merely rolling back the laws would not have affected the intent of the southern states to suppress and oppress blacks.

How do you know?

There were many others which also had to be shut down.

Nope. The official discrimination had to be abolished. Everything else amounts to prosecuting thought crimes — things made illegal by the accused's alleged thoughts. We surrendered substantial personal freedoms — such as the freedom of (not) association and even that of speech — in the hope of racial harmony. 50 years later we still have neither the freedoms nor the harmony. Do we deserve either?

It has already proven pointless and I argue, that it was not merely that, but also harmful. The recent housing crises was due to that and have the grossly unfair admission policies in various universities, which openly discriminate against Whites and Asians. Similar discrimination is encouraged in the work-place — Uber is seeking not just a good CEO, but one who'd make it less likely, the company will be prosecuted for "discrimination" of women.

It is stupid, unfair, and inefficient — just like everything a government does...

Hobbling a horse will also prevent the rider from hitting anything too hard. Too bad, it also prevents most of the travel...

And galloping your horse around may get you where you want faster, but tends to risk trampling others...

Sorry, but figurative language is often not useful language, since it's easily met by other expressions.

Except the crisis was caused by a completely different problem.

So you'd like to believe. You'd REALLY like to believe it.

But then we look, and we see that failure rates for those loans were not any higher than other loans (even commercial loans), we see the rampant fraud in the robosigning divisions, and we see the accounting violations, and we realize that...it's not so at all.

But good that the author of that false narrative wants to present the argument as the "Truthful" one, that shows a certain commitment.

Sorry, but you've fallen for the story that you want to believe, but just like the narrative about the California Power Crisis, or Iran-Contra, or even the American Civil War, it tends to fall apart.

The Glass-Steagall Act prevented major banking meltdowns since it was passed

Hobbling a horse will also prevent the rider from hitting anything too hard. Too bad, it also prevents most of the travel...

The affiliation provisions were struck in 1999, and within a decade there was a major banking crisis.

Except the crisis was caused by a completely different problem.

If you read that, you'll see I oppose a carbon tax.

Only because you prefer "regulation" — which is even worse for its arbitrariness.

So, your claim seems unsupported.

But you would not deny being a Socialist either. Which is curious, because this would've been a perfect opportunity to do so. Instead, you chose to remain coy.

Why wouldn't you simply state for the record, that you do not approve of Socialism?

Your favoring of regulation to smother an activity you dislike certainly indicates that you are one. Modern Socialists have shifted from the Marx' "government must own means of productions" to the seemingly milder "government must regulate means of production". It is more convenient that way — being owners, government officials may be asked inconvenient questions about the failures (as is the case with public schools, for example).

But when you regulate something to death (such as rail-roads, mortgage-lending, air-travel, or healthcare, or Internet-service, or indeed, the power-industry) the blame falls on the "evil KKKapitalists", who nominally own the banks, airlines, hospitals, ISPs, and electric plants. You can then "save" them with subsidies and bailouts, which, naturally, give you a right to attach additional strings and impose more regulation. Voila, government control of the means of production (and service-provision) is further solidified...

Funny, there's no actual link to this "old article" yet you are quoting directly from it. Where is this article actually at?

Sorry, I messed-up the A-href formatting and posted too quickly. Here is the article I was referring to.

And perhaps seeing how the banks practically destroyed the housing market with fraudulent mortgages

No, they didn't — the government did, when it forced the banks to lower their requirements for the borrowers' creditworthiness. The Social Justice Warriors, who understood every rejected mortgage-application of a minority applicant as evidence of racism , caused the crisis. They presumed, those supposedly "greedy" banks were willingly refusing money-making opportunities for racist reasons...

perhaps they do need to be nationalized

Nationalization is not a cure, it is the next stage of the decease. But thank you for admitting, that Sanders' fans like yourself would support nationalization of some industries. Obviously, not only are the two politicians alike, their supporters are similar as well.

Your first link times out, and the second is completely irrelevant — it talks of income inequality, rather than of rewarding the "not caring" for others. Fail

I don't have to demonstrate it. Many peer reviewed papers have already demonstrated it.

There is, I'm sure, a special place in Hell for people claiming there being "many" papers/articles supporting their point without citing any.

In fact, we reward the most sociopathic with the greatest rewards.

You keep calling them "sociopathic" despite my demonstrating already, that the term does no apply... Seems like you are suffering from certain pathologies yourself.

Just look at the fallout from the 2008 financial collapse. The only people that made out were the ones that caused the collapse.

The people that caused the collapse were the Democratic lawmakers, who pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into making it easier for people to take out loans they could not afford . The assholes didn't get any exceptional reward for their efforts and a more charitable person than myself may even claim, that they weren't assholes at all, but acted out of sheer (stupid) compassion towards the poor...

The global recession puts the lie to your notion that not doing business with banks means I'm free of their ill effects.

Nope. You are only affected as much as you were involved with the banks — being there customer or an employee, or dealing with other people, who were. But the recession was not the bank's fault — rather it is that of the politicians, who forced banks (with the threat of "discrimination" lawsuits) to give money to unqualified borrowers.

1. Forging a higher stated income onto loan documents so they could lend more money

Nope. It was not the banks doing the forging — it was the applicants. Bank-employees may have looked the other way, but the actual forgery was done by the customers.

2. Giving loans to people that they knew would not be able to afford it

Refusing to issue such a loan was to expose the firm to a discrimination lawsuit. But, once again, you are ignoring the role of the actual applicants, who lied on their applications — putting the blame solely on those, who were supposed to catch the lies.

3. Offering minorities ARM loans or loans with much higher interest rates than they would offer to white borrowers with the same credit score.

Citation needed.

Issuing repayable loans is the banks' bread-and-butter. That's, what they do. They normally have every incentive to issue as many loans to qualified borrowers as they can, while keeping the unqualified out. The bubble started, when the government messed up those incentives by, on the one hand, suspecting every rejection of being racially-motivated and, on the other, lowering the standards, under which banks could unload (sell) their loans to the government. It was this combination, that created the mortgage bubble — not some inherent evil of the "banksters".

Blaming the borrower ignores the mountains of evidence showing wildly illegal, fraudulent, and outright deceptive behavior by the loan industry

Nope. The borrower signing a fraudulent loan application is the main guilty party. Those failing — willfully or otherwise — to catch his lies may be somewhat responsible too, but the primary responsibility is with the applicant.

If you don't know this stuff, you must be willfully ignoring the facts

Yeah, yeah. And if I don't agree with you, I must be stupid and incompetent.

Keep electing republicans and america will end up with so many starving and jobless people

Both the number of food-stamp recipients (starving) and unemployment (jobless) increased under Obama. Why, when the unemployment was 6% under Bush, he was blamed for "jobless recovery" by some. Worse, as his figure went further down to 5%, he was still blamed by others.

Obama's figure today — six years later — is still above 6% (despite millions leaving the workforce for good and thus not figuring into the count) — but you are blaming Republicans? Wow...

And, no, the mortgage-crisis was not Bush's fault. The do-gooding Democrats are to blame.

The opposite is literally true

Sorry, bloggers and authors peddling their own books? Sorry, not convinced. And how convenient, that the most recent disaster is blamed on Bush, when, in fact, the Democrats of the late 1990ies are to blame...

What deterioration?

The number of people not working is the number one sign. Not "unemployed" (who stubbornly remain a very large number in its own right), but the non-working, which includes those, who stopped actively looking for work and thus aren't counted in the unemployment figures. Yes, I'm talking about the workforce participation. Americans aren't working much — eating through the earlier-accumulated wealth and arguing on how to better "spread it around"...

From 2004:

The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

Nailed it except for the part about marriage having some fundamental meaning, everywhere, until this generation. That is fiction unless it's about procreation, in which case it wasn't necessarily then and isn't now.

And the part about wanting equal rights is an aspect of "the fanatical Left", unless one is so far right that they can't see the centre anymore.

I loved loved loved "Ender's Game" as a youth, but 10 years ago, when I discovered Orson Scott Card's blog and his perpetual stream of scientifically illiterate bigoted ravings, it really tainted everything with his name on it for me. Suddenly, "Ender's Game," "Speaker for the Dead," and "Xenocide" were no longer deep books about ethical conundrums, but shallow stories where ethical conflicts just happen with depth given to them by the reader--because there's no way Card's shallow, binary mind could possibly comprehend the many ethical dimensions of the events he describes in his stories.

That is as may be, but keep in mind that comprehension of the power of their works is not necessary to the works themselves being powerful. Mozart couldn't hear a damn thing, but his works were still extraordinary. Van Gogh was bat-shit crazy and still made some awesome paintings. Just because he couldn't understand the power of his art doesn't mean it doesn't have power. Granted, Card only really had the one good story, and most of the rest are mediocre, but as they say where I work "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while".

I loved loved loved "Ender's Game" as a youth, but 10 years ago, when I discovered Orson Scott Card's blog and his perpetual stream of scientifically illiterate bigoted ravings, it really tainted everything with his name on it for me.

Err... what? What kind of person stops reading books because they dislike the author's political views and it "poisons the experience?" Did you refuse to read any Charles Dickens in school due to his commentary on the class system? What about Mein Kampf? I expect about 99.9999% of people would disagree with his views, yet many people read it anyway - often required reading in colleges. How about movies? Can't watch an action movie anymore because the director's political views are too unlike your own? Does this also apply to television shows? Music? Every aspect of culture in existence?

Welcome to humanity. Here you will find a ton of people that you will never, ever agree with. However, many of them can still spin a good yarn and create fascinating worlds of fiction. You are doing yourself a disservice if you shut out elements of culture when you disagree with those that write it.

I skimmed the essay linked from the summary. I think it reflects a narrow-minded point of view (assuming that society cannot prosper unless all families look like Card's family) but I would hardly call it "hateful." If that is what you think hate speech looks like, you've had a very sheltered life.

The "prejudicial" label fits, because Card is fundamentally asserting that his values are normative and should become universal. But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?

I loved loved loved "Ender's Game" as a youth, but 10 years ago, when I discovered Orson Scott Card's blog and his perpetual stream of scientifically illiterate bigoted ravings, it really tainted everything with his name on it for me. Suddenly, "Ender's Game," "Speaker for the Dead," and "Xenocide" were no longer deep books about ethical conundrums, but shallow stories where ethical conflicts just happen with depth given to them by the reader--because there's no way Card's shallow, binary mind could possibly comprehend the many ethical dimensions of the events he describes in his stories.

As for tolerance. You are correct, I am completely intolerant of Card's intolerance. I am choosing to not give my patronage to the film adaptation of his book because his personal views and political activism have soiled the whole thing for me; however, I fully support his right to voice those views. By contrast, Card believes that those he disagrees with, homosexuals, should be incarcerated and stripped of their rights. So I find the attempts by many online to draw an equivalency between the intolerance of those participating in the boycott and Card's intolerance extremely weak.

From 2004:
 

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.

The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message. Which he most certainly has:

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

Translation: "Your entire life has to be a lie because I'm ignorant." And no, I do not go see Tom Cruise movies because he uses his stardom and money he gets from those movies to push a very dangerous religion! There are some issues where I flat out draw the line. I'm not boycotting Clint Eastwood because he's said some politically stupid stuff but there are some issues like homosexuality where I feel like I'm promoting ignorance if I promote those who think homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. It's an egalitarian issue in my mind and I'm not going to see Ender's Game nor will I read the rest of the Shadow series.

you probably shouldn't be asking people to not get mad a the "facts" which are absent from your statement.

I said:
unemployment was at 4.6% in Jan 2007
That is a fact.

Democrats took control of congress in Jan 2007.
That is a fact.

So it appears that "facts" are not absent in my statement. The rest, correlation for sure. But sometimes, correlation really does equal causation. By decline, I mean general decline of the economy. Did it start in Jan 2007? I don't think so. There were things that happened before then that certainly contributed. THIS is a good example. But bad things happened before Jan 2007 that didn't wreck the economy. The economy tanked after September in 2001. It also took a hit due to things like hurricanes Katrina and Ike. The economy didn't tank is because congress usually acted quickly to minimize the damage. The congress before 2007 did things like pass budgets and create an economic and legislative atmosphere conducive to employment. Yes, that means business friendly. When congress does things like raise taxes on corporations, or the threatens to seize corporate profits (oil companies), corporations do things like slow investment and pass their increased costs onto consumers. These take a hit on the economy.

I thought I'd reply separately to your (non-"He's a Mormon") objections to OSC.

Strong supporter of George W. Bush, including the "War on Terror" and the PATRIOT act.

Actually he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Yes, he supported Bush. Actually let's read his own comments on the subject in 2007:

We keep being warned about the hideous consequences of electing Bush or of enacting the laws he proposes. But I remember all those threats and warnings.

Bush was going to bring back Jim Crow. Well, seven years into his presidency, he still hasn't done it.

The Patriot Act was going to turn America into a fascist nation. Well, it hasn't happened -- despite the weird fantasies of the insane Left who talk as if it had.

We've had, for seven years, a President who has thought carefully and sought a balance between compelling opposites. We had to find a way to effectively find terrorists before they acted, without wrecking the Constitution. So President Bush asked for the tools he needed in the Patriot Act, and used other tools that other Presidents had used, including Democrats, and it worked. So far, anyway.

Yet he has been savaged by the insane Left, who ignore the fact that the President has sought a fair balance every step of the way.

Alright, so he's bashing on the Democrats. But what's his very next sentence?

The insane Right is just as bad.

You know what "insane Right" he's talking about? The ones you accuse him of supporting - the "asshole conservative types", as you so eloquently put it.

Did you know that Card initially supported Obama, but changed his mind when Obama's positions started coming to light? Imagine that. Someone decided their political position based on political issues!

On to your next complaint:

Is skeptical of Darwinistic evolution.

He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)

Believes homosexuality is caused by abuse and molestation during childhood.

Actually he only said that a significant number of homosexuals end up in that way of life due to abuse. Do you deny that?

In other words, he only said that abuse is one cause of homosexuality.

But don't take my word for it - let's read what he said. You'll find he mentions a whole range of causes:

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.

In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that da

I thought I'd reply separately to your (non-"He's a Mormon") objections to OSC.

Strong supporter of George W. Bush, including the "War on Terror" and the PATRIOT act.

Actually he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Yes, he supported Bush. Actually let's read his own comments on the subject in 2007:

We keep being warned about the hideous consequences of electing Bush or of enacting the laws he proposes. But I remember all those threats and warnings.

Bush was going to bring back Jim Crow. Well, seven years into his presidency, he still hasn't done it.

The Patriot Act was going to turn America into a fascist nation. Well, it hasn't happened -- despite the weird fantasies of the insane Left who talk as if it had.

We've had, for seven years, a President who has thought carefully and sought a balance between compelling opposites. We had to find a way to effectively find terrorists before they acted, without wrecking the Constitution. So President Bush asked for the tools he needed in the Patriot Act, and used other tools that other Presidents had used, including Democrats, and it worked. So far, anyway.

Yet he has been savaged by the insane Left, who ignore the fact that the President has sought a fair balance every step of the way.

Alright, so he's bashing on the Democrats. But what's his very next sentence?

The insane Right is just as bad.

You know what "insane Right" he's talking about? The ones you accuse him of supporting - the "asshole conservative types", as you so eloquently put it.

Did you know that Card initially supported Obama, but changed his mind when Obama's positions started coming to light? Imagine that. Someone decided their political position based on political issues!

On to your next complaint:

Is skeptical of Darwinistic evolution.

He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)

Believes homosexuality is caused by abuse and molestation during childhood.

Actually he only said that a significant number of homosexuals end up in that way of life due to abuse. Do you deny that?

In other words, he only said that abuse is one cause of homosexuality.

But don't take my word for it - let's read what he said. You'll find he mentions a whole range of causes:

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.

In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that da

I thought I'd reply separately to your (non-"He's a Mormon") objections to OSC.

Strong supporter of George W. Bush, including the "War on Terror" and the PATRIOT act.

Actually he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Yes, he supported Bush. Actually let's read his own comments on the subject in 2007:

We keep being warned about the hideous consequences of electing Bush or of enacting the laws he proposes. But I remember all those threats and warnings.

Bush was going to bring back Jim Crow. Well, seven years into his presidency, he still hasn't done it.

The Patriot Act was going to turn America into a fascist nation. Well, it hasn't happened -- despite the weird fantasies of the insane Left who talk as if it had.

We've had, for seven years, a President who has thought carefully and sought a balance between compelling opposites. We had to find a way to effectively find terrorists before they acted, without wrecking the Constitution. So President Bush asked for the tools he needed in the Patriot Act, and used other tools that other Presidents had used, including Democrats, and it worked. So far, anyway.

Yet he has been savaged by the insane Left, who ignore the fact that the President has sought a fair balance every step of the way.

Alright, so he's bashing on the Democrats. But what's his very next sentence?

The insane Right is just as bad.

You know what "insane Right" he's talking about? The ones you accuse him of supporting - the "asshole conservative types", as you so eloquently put it.

Did you know that Card initially supported Obama, but changed his mind when Obama's positions started coming to light? Imagine that. Someone decided their political position based on political issues!

On to your next complaint:

Is skeptical of Darwinistic evolution.

He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)

Believes homosexuality is caused by abuse and molestation during childhood.

Actually he only said that a significant number of homosexuals end up in that way of life due to abuse. Do you deny that?

In other words, he only said that abuse is one cause of homosexuality.

But don't take my word for it - let's read what he said. You'll find he mentions a whole range of causes:

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.

In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that da

I don't have a problem with people who thing humans are causing "global warming". I have a problem with their intention to force everyone to do what they want in order to fix it. I was going to elaborate on this a bit, but I decided to just quote Orson Scott Card's commentary on the situation:

The correct solution to the oil problem, according to the ["global warming" religion], is to have fewer humans. Now, I haven't noticed them volunteering to lessen the population starting with themselves; nor have I seen their heroes bicycling everywhere (environmental ayatollah Al Gore's plane being a legendary instance).

But they do systematically resist every solution that doesn't involve wrecking the American economy and destroying the American way of life.

No insecticides! But also no genetically altered crops with enhanced resistance to insects and disease!

No coal-fired power plants! But also no clean nuclear plants! (Even though France has proven that standardized nuclear power is safe and relatively cheap.)

Yes, you can build windmill farms -- but you can't put them anywhere.

Solar collectors? Excellent -- but don't put them anywhere, either, because they interfere with the natural ecology -- even in the barest desert. (God forbid that lizards should have more shade.)

Collect solar power in space and beam it to Earth? Fine -- except that you are forbidden to actually receive the power anywhere because it's too dangerous.

Hydroelectric power? Great idea -- except that you can't build a dam anywhere because it transforms a surface environment to an underwater one, which, naturally, annoys the squirrels. Squirrels, being natural nonsinners, take precedence over evil, sinful humans, the only animal that is forbidden to act according to its nature.

Electric cars and public transportation? Great idea -- but not until after we've converted all power plants to non-carbon-emitting fuels. (Never mind that it can only ever happen the other way, converting to electric cars immediately, so they're already in place when the oil runs out or, as I hope, we stop buying it because we've met the need in other ways.)

The conference in Copenhagen is intended to find a way to "stop and reverse climate change". That's a direct quote from Obama's press secretary. Too bad the people in charge of this stuff won't let us actually do any of the things that could make progress toward their goal.

I agree with you, AlexLibman - the "global warming" believers need to show us some concrete evidence that A) we're changing the earth's climate, B) it's a bad thing, and C) we can undo the damage we've done.

So far all they've shown with any degree of certainty is that the climate is changing - they haven't shown that we're causing it. (I know, I know, science disproves, it doesn't prove, but at least they could explain how they know the temperature change isn't merely the earth's natural cycle - and we do know the earth has a natural temperature change cycle, and that we are in the "temperature slowly rising" portion of that cycle. I guess the "global warming" believers think we're speeding it up?)

So they've shown us half of part A, they've given us unsupported "educated" guesses about B, and they're holding conferences on the assumption that C is true. I don't know whether we're causing "global warming" - but honestly, I don't care. We have bigger, more immediate problems to worry about.

Why don't we focus on smaller, provably achievable goals first, like reducing pollution (which is an excellent goal quite apart from this "global warming" shenanigans) by switching to nuclear power? If we switch, and there's a measurable effect on the planet's temperature, then we'll have some evidence pointing at their larger claims, and then we can decide what to do about it.

(I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy=terrorism story, complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could "burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds":)

Australia's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism. The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release. That evening Channel Seven "Sunday Night" current affairs program claimed how how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians. Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates "could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds."

While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians are easily swayed. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two sides to every story? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.

(I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy=terrorism story, complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could "burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds":)

Australia's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism. The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release. That evening Channel Seven "Sunday Night" current affairs program claimed how how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians. Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates "could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds."

While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians are easily swayed. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two sides to every story? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.

And I think the verdict stinks and here's why...

Standard reading list:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html "MP3s are not the Devil"
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting "Hollywood Accounting"
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17327 "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act"

These guys have been stealing your rights for ages, thanks to cash hungry congressmen and presidential candidates. Make that presidents. Obama has stacked the Justice department with his RIAA donors. And as Orson Scott Card points out, these guys suck.

And I think the verdict stinks and here's why...

Standard reading list:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html "MP3s are not the Devil"
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting "Hollywood Accounting"
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17327 "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act"

These guys have been stealing your rights for ages, thanks to cash hungry congressmen and presidential candidates. Make that presidents. Obama has stacked the Justice department with his RIAA donors. And as Orson Scott Card points out, these guys suck.

The gay part was tangential to the point. Later on Anton marries, not because being gay is bad, but because he was lonely and their is a strong theme of "Community" throughout the books. By marrying, Anton once again joins the community at large.

So in this fictional universe of Card's, you can't be part of the community if you're homosexual, except if you deny it and live as a breeder?

And you don't see the inherent bigotry in that?

I've gotten the impression that he disapproves of homosexuality for moral reasons, but doesn't hate or even disapprove of those who are homosexual at all. A catholic friend of mine put it best "Hate the Sin, NOT the Sinner"

Rubbish. Card makes this same claim that he "condemns the sin but loves the sinner", but it's thin cover for bigotry. Homosexuality is no more a sin than is preferring rum to tequila.

A sin is an error, a mistake, a failure to hit the mark. One's inborn preferences regarding love and sex are not a mistake.

You can't disapprove of something that that is a part of people's fundamental nature without disapproving of the people who are that thing. "It's not that I hate people with red hair, I just hate red hair. So does my god - in his great love and mercy, he condemns redheads to eternal torment. Here's a bottle of hair dye. Come back when you've hidden your gross deformity. Love you!"

Card is a bigot and a loon who wrote one really good book a long time ago. His bigotry seems to have be absorbed from his church; in most cases I'd have some hope for someone in that situation, that they might grow out of it. But Card's support for George W. Bush demonstrates that he's just too clueless. Anyone who calls W "the most moderate, thoughtful, rational and responsible president since Dwight D. Eisenhower" is not merely ignorant, but is trying really really hard to stay delusional.

I disapprove of bigotry, mental laziness, and delusional thinking because unlike homosexuality, they are choices that can be changed. If Card were merely stupid, mentally retarded, brain damaged, he'd have my pity, but not my disapproval. Instead it appears that he has a reasonably sound mind - he just chooses not to use it.

The gay part was tangential to the point. Later on Anton marries, not because being gay is bad, but because he was lonely and their is a strong theme of "Community" throughout the books. By marrying, Anton once again joins the community at large.

So in this fictional universe of Card's, you can't be part of the community if you're homosexual, except if you deny it and live as a breeder?

And you don't see the inherent bigotry in that?

I've gotten the impression that he disapproves of homosexuality for moral reasons, but doesn't hate or even disapprove of those who are homosexual at all. A catholic friend of mine put it best "Hate the Sin, NOT the Sinner"

Rubbish. Card makes this same claim that he "condemns the sin but loves the sinner", but it's thin cover for bigotry. Homosexuality is no more a sin than is preferring rum to tequila.

A sin is an error, a mistake, a failure to hit the mark. One's inborn preferences regarding love and sex are not a mistake.

You can't disapprove of something that that is a part of people's fundamental nature without disapproving of the people who are that thing. "It's not that I hate people with red hair, I just hate red hair. So does my god - in his great love and mercy, he condemns redheads to eternal torment. Here's a bottle of hair dye. Come back when you've hidden your gross deformity. Love you!"

Card is a bigot and a loon who wrote one really good book a long time ago. His bigotry seems to have be absorbed from his church; in most cases I'd have some hope for someone in that situation, that they might grow out of it. But Card's support for George W. Bush demonstrates that he's just too clueless. Anyone who calls W "the most moderate, thoughtful, rational and responsible president since Dwight D. Eisenhower" is not merely ignorant, but is trying really really hard to stay delusional.

I disapprove of bigotry, mental laziness, and delusional thinking because unlike homosexuality, they are choices that can be changed. If Card were merely stupid, mentally retarded, brain damaged, he'd have my pity, but not my disapproval. Instead it appears that he has a reasonably sound mind - he just chooses not to use it.

(See user names for irony) Lord Ender, while I agree that Card's politics are... disagreeable, I'd like to point you (as someone else already has) to this article. The relevant quote, to prevent TLDR: "At that point, what can we do? I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence. ... All we have to do is withdraw our support from the dictatorship. "

Because he has opinions you don't like, his work's meaningless?

When an author states that all gay relationships begin with an act of rape, then I'm going to seriously doubt that anything that author has to say has any value.

Note that the original link I included to the Examiner article itself links to one Scott Card article (mirrored in his website) and quotes another one, published in the Mormon Times. The second one contains the attributed quote in the Examiner. I apologize for that, I originally read the Mormon Times one but I for some reason the link I had bookmarked was to the Examiner article.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the editorial completely fabricated the quotes. Read the original: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

The article you link to links to Card's essay on homosexual marriage. Reading the original Card essay, I didn't find the quoted statement. I find that a bit odd since the quote is quite lengthy. So it appears either the quote was never there and the article's author is fabricating a story or the quote was redacted. I'm curious what the truth is.

Um, that really was Orson Scott Card. The spacing was done for effect and ease of comprehension, from what I know about Journalism-oriented works. I mean, the guy really should have linked here. Alternatively, he may not have spaced it like that. Another alternative is that he spaced it like that to intentional insult the media crowd that he is blasting by effectively stating that they would find it it difficult to read a properly written letter. I wouldn't put the last one past him. He can be subtle about things.

Because Card's opinions are always so rational and worth listening to.

Here we see Hollywood studios regularly rob, cheat and steal from the people that work for them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2001/aug/31/artsfeatures

Here companies like News Limited trick the public into surrendering their copyright, giving them massive royalty-free photo libraries, all for the "chance of winning an iPod".
http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2008/07/read_the_fine_print.html

Orson Scott Card wrote this good piece on the hipocracy of the RIAA:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1.html

And for years, we the public have had our rights progressively eroded. Well-monied rights holders throw money at congress who turn around and keep extending their copyright. This reached an artform in the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act", otherwise known as the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Act". Yet Disney has quite happily argued against this when it suits them.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327,00.html

Well, eat this Disney: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mickey22-2008aug22,0,3228580,full.story

And then there was that DRM debacle... What's worst is countries like Australia spinelessly accepted the DRM laws as their own (and US patents being enforcable in Australia) all for a political photo opportunity with George W. Bush. In this way, these execessive new laws are spreading all over the world. And here we have Universities teaching one side of the Great Copyright Rights Grab. Why aren't they educating their students about both sides, instead of brainfeeding them RIAA propaganda?

Bottom line is: Congress doesn't work for you. It works for these guys. I don't see Congress ever saying no to MPAA slush funds, and treating IP the way the Constitution intended it too. So to hell with Congress and the MPAAFIA: Stupid Laws are made to be broken. I say torrent freely and torrent often. It's our very own digital tea party.

Here we see Hollywood studios regularly rob, cheat and steal from the people that work for them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2001/aug/31/artsfeatures

Here companies like News Limited trick the public into surrendering their copyright, giving them massive royalty-free photo libraries, all for the "chance of winning an iPod".
http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2008/07/read_the_fine_print.html

Orson Scott Card wrote this good piece on the hipocracy of the RIAA:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1.html

And for years, we the public have had our rights progressively eroded. Well-monied rights holders throw money at congress who turn around and keep extending their copyright. This reached an artform in the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act", otherwise known as the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Act". Yet Disney has quite happily argued against this when it suits them.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327,00.html

Well, eat this Disney: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mickey22-2008aug22,0,3228580,full.story

And then there was that DRM debacle... What's worst is countries like Australia spinelessly accepted the DRM laws as their own (and US patents being enforcable in Australia) all for a political photo opportunity with George W. Bush. In this way, these execessive new laws are spreading all over the world. And here we have Universities teaching one side of the Great Copyright Rights Grab. Why aren't they educating their students about both sides, instead of brainfeeding them RIAA propaganda?

Bottom line is: Congress doesn't work for you. It works for these guys. I don't see Congress ever saying no to MPAA slush funds, and treating IP the way the Constitution intended it too. So to hell with Congress and the MPAAFIA: Stupid Laws are made to be broken. I say torrent freely and torrent often. It's our very own digital tea party.

Here's the raw truth:

All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.

Now I know what you're going to say you're going to contest that my sources aren't scientific enough, or they are unfounded. That's the coward's way out; especially when your source was Wikipedia. Try refuting evidence with evidence.

You'll also be apt to say that this is only a handful of evidence against the towering "evidence" of your "scientists." Ok. Prove it.

As for your "supernatural" comment, faith and science are not all that different. You have faith that the sun will rise, because it has before. You have faith in these scientists because of their titles, given to them by humans just as fallible and weak as you and I.

I, on the other hand, have faith that God exists and that prayers are answered because they are and have been before. You can chalk all you want up to coincidence or superstition, but I'd rather stick to that which I know for myself to be true. Personal experience has taught me that science can't explain everything.

Using "libs" as a dirty word is demonstrative of America's incredibly hateful and counter-productive plague of rhetoric.

Stop making it worse.

Someone already linked to it, but I'll do it again: http://www.ornery.org/empire_afterword.html

Seriously. Read this.

Pointless partisan hackery is destructive.

In response to Card criticizing Rowling:
http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html

Card said in this article criticizing Rowling's originality:
"The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote."

Might I remind readers of Card's fundamental flaw in basic logic: the above cannot possibly be true, Card having written the essay with at least some form of castigation in mind for Rowling! This also reveals Card is not near the contentedness as he claims.

Is this not hypocrisy at it's most blatant and clear?

*****a great article on Card's breed of dogma is:"My favorite author, my worst interview" :
http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html

Is being hate-filled a sure sign of low intelligence?
Does Card have a history of being hate-filled person? Here are some indicators. (How can his new jealousy of Rowling be any sort of surprise?):
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/01/03/orson-scott-card-criminalize-homosexual-behavior.htm
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1.html
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

Literary criticism of Card by respected and award-winning author John Kessel:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Demonizing.html
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm

Card as could-be Hitler-apologist in 'Ender's Game':
Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman (20 Years Later) - Elaine Radford's analysis of the Ender and Hitler connection:
http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html

possibility that Card's Ender's Game itself was stolen from the 1984 film the Last Starfighter :
from digg.com, comment by Dysarthria on 06/16/2007:
http://digg.com/gaming_news/Orson_Scott_Card_Reveals_Plans_for_Video_Games_based_on_Ender_s_Game
"A few points:

1) The movie of Ender's Game (published in 1985) has already been done, it's called the Last Starfighter (1984). While not identical, both are about boys who save the planet by playing a video game. When I read this novel about 20 years ago, I felt like it was it was kind of a rip-off. Great story, just not that original.

2) I think the most boring game in the world would be an adaptation of a novel about a video game. Guys, come on. Enders game was a nice little unoriginal story published 20 years ago."

Also, remember this man criticizes Darwinismin.
The following link to another of Card's essays is from digg.com's insomniacal on 06/16/2007 :
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

In response to Card criticizing Rowling:
http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html

Card said in this article criticizing Rowling's originality:
"The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote."

Might I remind readers of Card's fundamental flaw in basic logic: the above cannot possibly be true, Card having written the essay with at least some form of castigation in mind for Rowling! This also reveals Card is not near the contentedness as he claims.

Is this not hypocrisy at it's most blatant and clear?

*****a great article on Card's breed of dogma is:"My favorite author, my worst interview" :
http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html

Is being hate-filled a sure sign of low intelligence?
Does Card have a history of being hate-filled person? Here are some indicators. (How can his new jealousy of Rowling be any sort of surprise?):
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/01/03/orson-scott-card-criminalize-homosexual-behavior.htm
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1.html
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

Literary criticism of Card by respected and award-winning author John Kessel:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Demonizing.html
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm

Card as could-be Hitler-apologist in 'Ender's Game':
Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman (20 Years Later) - Elaine Radford's analysis of the Ender and Hitler connection:
http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html

possibility that Card's Ender's Game itself was stolen from the 1984 film the Last Starfighter :
from digg.com, comment by Dysarthria on 06/16/2007:
http://digg.com/gaming_news/Orson_Scott_Card_Reveals_Plans_for_Video_Games_based_on_Ender_s_Game
"A few points:

1) The movie of Ender's Game (published in 1985) has already been done, it's called the Last Starfighter (1984). While not identical, both are about boys who save the planet by playing a video game. When I read this novel about 20 years ago, I felt like it was it was kind of a rip-off. Great story, just not that original.

2) I think the most boring game in the world would be an adaptation of a novel about a video game. Guys, come on. Enders game was a nice little unoriginal story published 20 years ago."

Also, remember this man criticizes Darwinismin.
The following link to another of Card's essays is from digg.com's insomniacal on 06/16/2007 :
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

Tell me what you think of this article. It seems that the debate started politicized.

And yes, I have looked at a lot of the literature and understand quite a bit of it. The thing is, that even the people who wrote the literature don't seem to think it says what some political entities like the IPCC want to claim it says. There are some 400 scientists that says the IPCC misrepresented their works.

The later had been submitted to slashdot but I don't remember it being on any of the lists or the front page of slashdot. It is as if it was ignored. And while it should be noted that they don't dispute AGW, they are disputing how the IPCC claimed their works represented stuff that it didn't and removed comments or rewrote them for added effects. In any case, it does bring some things into question which should make you ask again on a few understood beliefs.

Take a look at this.

I'm not making any claims to it but it seems to cover and summarize some of the reasons why we should be skeptical. It makes me wonder a few things. I have known this information for a while but I have never seen it presented like this.

I actually found it while doing a search to find out who all the scientist pushing global warming is and why they are supposed to be more right then wrong. As it turns out, this over whelming consensus is still the 1000 or so papers searched for anything specifically saying Man wasn't the cause. Of course they could have said the sun was the cause of man was only part of the cause or anything but because they didn't say man wasn't the cause, it means that everyone agrees that man is behind global warming. Well, if you want to believe what they believe that is.

Anyways, I think your spot on and if they get so upset over being cautious, I would think it is all the more reason to be cautious. There is too much at risk to simply jump in because of peer pressure and ridicule. I don't want to influence your opinion, it seems like you got a level head more then me. So take it for what you think it is worth, I just figured you might enjoy it a little.

Orson Scott Card recently wrote a great article on the whole "world without cars" thing. I really like his ideas about when you do and don't need a car.

Having worked in the business (and competition) of automating vehicles for some time now, here's a list of our biggest challenges:
1. You can coordinate 100 vehicles with a serious piece of hardware. Coordinating 10000 would be unthinkable with current algorithms and hardware.
2. You can make a car stay on the road, but you can't make a road engineer get the map data right, current, repaired, expanded, with sidewalk curbs, or (especially) published.
3. You can detect small children in the road but you can't detect pot holes the size of a small child.
4. The clothoid math is killer for people and computers.

Does a library "making available" books constitute copy violation too?

The RIAA and MPAA regularly steal from the IP creators anyway: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html

They really don't have a leg to stand on.

> I have written both my senators and my congressman about this issue. Looking at that link you posted it
> turns out that my congressman and one senator take money from the RIAA. I was going to call them as save
> internet radio suggests, makes wonder if I should even bother. But it does give me one more things to say.

It's not a Democracy unless you speak up. If more people did this, real people, not just lobbyists and corporations, the world would be a better place. Now at least his office will know somewhere out there is a contrary opinion. I doubt the RIAA bothers to tell the other side, which Orson Scott Card summarized so nicely here: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1 .html

> I have written both my senators and my congressman about this issue. Looking at that link you posted it
> turns out that my congressman and one senator take money from the RIAA. I was going to call them as save
> internet radio suggests, makes wonder if I should even bother. But it does give me one more things to say.

It's not a Democracy unless you speak up. If more people did this, real people, not just lobbyists and corporations, the world would be a better place. Now at least his office will know somewhere out there is a contrary opinion. I doubt the RIAA bothers to tell the other side, which Orson Scott Card summarized so nicely here: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-14-1 .html

Don't people have to get to work somehow?

Telepresence. See the Wikipedia telepresence article.

"We must imagine a future without cars."
Designing a city without any cars.
Orson Scott Card on 'walking neighborhoods' (I first thought he was talking of some scifi idea, such as moving neighborhoods, haha.)
Carfree (?)
Monorail Opportunity in Seattle, Washington (1998)

From #19302663:

People got along for thousands of years without cars, so maybe you should consider getting rid of yours.

Also, from #10313790:

This is what I think... There won't be cars in the future. There will only be personalised vehicles to transport each individual. Roads, the larger they are, will not allow single vehicles. There has to be two or more (depending on the road) vehicles required to travel together. Probably the smallest road will allow individual vehicles to travel by themselves. As more vehicles travel together the overall fuel consumption will decrease and fuel efficiency will increase. Individual vehicles will be able to break off from this combined unit as they reach their destinations.

Creating car free cities dupe with >1k comments.

Post #5975896 gets it right:

Even with "emission free" cars, you still expend the energy to move the car to being with. Getting rid of pollution is an important goal, but the ultimate goal should be to conserve the environmental resources required to produce and operate cars. By creating a city in which cars are less necessary, you reduce the energy consumption of the average citizen, even after you factor in the energy required to operate the 24-hour mass transit systems.

Just an interesting tidbit here: "It's things like cars that take people out of public spaces and make a community less safe."
Arcosanti, an interesting experimental town supposedly as an alternative to urban sprawl.
Argument that car-free is too expensive.
An interesting problem in #5975908:

1) People like cars. Tell them they can't use thier cars anymore, and you're liable to be voted out of office.
2) If you get rid of cars, you have to have an alternative system of transportation in place. Unfortunately, the only place to PUT that system will many times be where the roads are now. Result: you can't build the system until the cars are gone, and you can't get rid of the cars until the system is ready!

Apparently Venice is not the solution, either.
Small steps needed to make the change.
Pipes from Futurama? Or maybe, dare it be said, ...

yes, reforms of the system are the way forward. there are two issues then. the strategy -- what are the reforms that are needed, and the tactics -- how to get these reforms executed.

the legal and political system is defined by the body of law in general, and by the laws that governs copyrights in this particular case. so you can't talk reform without talking about the problems with copyrights (and related rights) as well. to me, the strategic issue is the peddling of "intellectual property", the extension of the copyright/patent/trademark monopoly, and the risks such lobbying brings to society (including authors of creative works, see for example this insightful article by an author i like on the issue. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html). corporations (and gubbermints they have on pay) having excessive power over ideas is bad for everyone except the said corporations. so, IMHO the strategic goal is to keep a perspective on why the legal monopoly on ideas exist -- to foster innovation -- and make sure the legal frameworks upheld this goal.

then, there is the tactical issue. the public is facing a determined, smart and well-funded lobby, which goal is to extend their monopoly. they are not creative people, they are in the business of making profits from art. if they have a sure-fire money maker, they won't invest in new art. that's why they need monopoly -- it saves them from hard work.

they are going about promoting their interests in a large, concerted, international campaign that includes bribery (aka lobbying), smear, intimidation, outright racket, frivolous legal procescution, and even armed raids. when dealing with such a force, the issues have to be clearly defined so that the general public can understand them, understand the risks, and made up their mind. it is an uphill battle, and one in which information is the key -- and it is what the "enemy" wants to control ;)

the state of monopoly over culture is definitely bad. the state of no copyrights is arguably not ideal (although standard economic theory would suggest otherwise if one ignores transaction costs). there is balance to be struck somewhere, but it is not where we are now, and definitely not where we're going to.

I notice that you keep referring to piracy and file sharing as the same thing. they are not. piracy, which is illegal, involves the reproduction of Intellectual Property with the intent to cut in on the profits of legitimate copies. it violates copyright, which give the holder a monopoly on the profits for the life of the author plus 70 years. File Sharing, however, IS NOT illegal. rather it is the legality of certain files that are disputed. this is why the FBI does not go after file sharers, but rather the RIAA and MPAA. both organizations are attempting to get laws passed that make even duplication without profit illegal, but at this point there is not law specifically forbidding it.

read this article by award winning Scifi author Orson Scott Card
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html

he sites various sources, and make many good points about the state of the RIAA war against file sharers. also, you should not the he is personal against file sharing, but still sympathizes with those who do.