Slashdot Mirror

this was posted by Anonymous Coward at another site today but i thought it would fit nicely here. "As to predictions... Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841, against the extension of copyright http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_(Macaulay) Only quoting the ending, but the speech as a whole is a very good read "I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. If I saw, Sir, any probability that this bill could be so amended in the Committee that my objections might be removed, I would not divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my honorable and learned friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time this day six months." S!

Uh, whatever. A) I don't pirate stuff, but I still think the Pirate Bay decision is stupid (if I provide a searchable link to something that is copyrighted, am I on the hook if some other user decides to copy the material and violate copyright? If that makes sense, then libraries are in a lot of trouble), and B) the great majority of the argument has *never* been about stiffing artists who deserve to be paid for their creative works, it has been about "how much is enough?" before artists need to pay back the support we provide them via monopoly rights enshrined in law. In other words, when do those rights expire and the work pass into the public domain? What limits are there on creator rights? What "fair use" rights does anyone have, regardless of the copyright holder's wishes. Copyright has *always* been a bargain, and has always had limits. It is supposed to be enough temporary monopoly that it is worthwhile. No more.

Therefore, if you're downloading the latest movie, I have zero sympathy for you. You should be getting it via legitimate commercial channels. Don't like the terms? Petition the creators of the work for better terms.

If, however, you're the great grandchild of some artist who put in hard work more than 50 years ago but who is still collecting money from their dead family member, or if you are a company that bought or still holds those rights, enough! I have no sympathy. Walt Disney was dead a long time ago. Elvis died a long time ago (as far as we know). It's time to let that cultural history go as a commercial exploit. Get off your lazy ass and make something new that is worthy of compensation yourself. I also have no sympathy for artists who think "fair use" doesn't exist, or who effectively eliminate the ability to exercise it because of technical security measures (DMCA-style). Copyright does NOT provide unlimited power to control creative works. It never has.

If you think that the only people who are against the current implementation of copyright are "goofy hippies", you're as deluded as the "goofy hippies" themselves who think all works should immediately be free. The much more extensive frustration in the general population as a whole is an expression of the fact -- well explained in the article -- that copyright has gone too far in favor of artist/creator's control. Much too far. And yet they still want more, and they think they can get it from legislators by stealing from the public domain with ever longer copyright terms and more draconian DMCA-style measures.

You need to get a clue. This is not a one-sided problem, and opinions are diverse. It has many facets, and the history of development of copyright is very instructive. The "everything the artists ever want, now and forever" approach is just as offensive and deluded as the other extreme. Selfish leeches aren't any better than the greedy gluttons they are latching onto who think they can stake their claim on ideas forever and in all conceivable forms.

For some historical perspective to the contrary, I recommend this speech, which you can read in full courtesy of the fact that its copyright has expired (although being the House of Commons, it might have been public domain from the start).

• Kansas (Class B misdemeanor, this is the clearest defined one.)
• Missouri (Class A misdemeanor, uses "deviate sexual intercourse", doesn't specify sodomy, but also doesn't list straight deviant relations. I hate euphemisms.)
• Oklahoma (Felony, if it fits under 886. Crime against nature which doesn't specify sodomy. Ergo open to interpretation by courts.)
• Texas (Class C misdemeanor, 21.06 Homosexual conduct "Found unconstitutional by state Court of Appeals England v. Dallas. (See Morales v. State 1994)". According to this "City of Dallas v. England" used "Morales v. State" to decide that same-sex relations can't be punished and (in regards to a police dept. not hiring a lesbian because of her being a lesbian).)
• Michigan's hard to tell, your source doesn't clear it up much. All the various "Gross indecency between $x and $y persons" have the same punishment for any combination of $x and $y so I think this one applies to all sexes.

~4(depending on interpretation)/50 states having special anti-gay laws that don't apply to hetero couples isn't that bad when you consider that laws stay on the books until legislators get around to removing them (read:"never" because of constituents' voting practices, and individuals don't matter, only how the law is applied (see Texas).).

I'm still all for the abolishment of marriage and gov't activity in such areas period.

Well, first of all, the statutory language of the fair use provisions in 17 USC Sec. 107 is clear that the four points are not exhaustive. It says:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

And then goes on to list the four factors. The "shall include" is the important bit there.

Also, there was a House Report (HR 94-1476, p. 66) on this legislation (the fair use bit was codified in the 1976 Act) that also supports the idea that the list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

The language of later decisions respects the illustrative nature of the list; e.g., in Harper & Row v. Nation (471 U.S. 539), which was decided in 1985, O'Connor describes the four factors as those "identified by Congress as especially relevant in determining whether the use was fair", thereby implying that if there was some other compelling thing to consider, a court would be free to do that.

One last thing - re: the fourth factor, people seem to think that empirical evidence about the effect of file-sharing on sales will help. They're probably wrong, though. The fourth factor is probably the most dominant one in most analyses, and it's been extended so much - even in the Harper opinion, you'll see the bit about "to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use 'should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.'" I find it really unlikely that a court will buy the argument that people swapping songs may increase sales in the long run, even if it's true. More likely they will simply say, "Each file shared is an instance where a work could have been sold, so the effect of sharing on the potential market is negative, case closed."

[invading]

Oh, but they do; they just annex the territory first, and then claim that the nationals are "theirs", and the whole mess is their "internal affairs".

Good point.

The degree of human rights violations is not simply defined by number of people killed. For one thing, this doesn't account for lawful killings of enemy combatants.

Tricky, the whole world knows the Iraq war was prosecuted on a pretext; and lots of people think it was illegal. So it is quite easy for someone to make the case that all the dead in Iraq were unlawfully killed. This may not hold for the letter of the law, but I'm talking about the 'moral high ground', not legal loop-holes.

For another, it doesn't account for intent (shelling a position of your enemy, missing, and hitting a civilian structure is one thing; deliberately targeting civilians is another; and torturing POWs and civilians is yet another).

However, how does one prove the intent? Would *you* believe if Russia or China accidentally bombed a US embassy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade)

And also, it seems ok for the Israelis to target civilians and not get any sanctions...

We already know that the US tortures people.

Also, human rights transcend national boundaries. It's not somehow okay to mass murder your own population by any means, including deliberate actions that lead to famines and starvation (speaking of NK...).

I quite agree.

You can open the text of UDHR, and go one by one, marking them as they apply to Cuba (or any other country).

Thanks for the link; I'll take a look. I don't know enough about Cuba to be able to make any informed decisions on whether they are breaking lots of human rights. But I'll do some research.

It's not the Chinese who are stomping all over the world killing other nationals.

Oh, but they do; they just annex the territory first, and then claim that the nationals are "theirs", and the whole mess is their "internal affairs".

How many Iraqis have been killed by direct action of the US/UK forces? If you're going to add up numbers of individual human rights violations, I'd be interested to know how many people the Chinese and NK are supposed to have killed.

The degree of human rights violations is not simply defined by number of people killed. For one thing, this doesn't account for lawful killings of enemy combatants. For another, it doesn't account for intent (shelling a position of your enemy, missing, and hitting a civilian structure is one thing; deliberately targeting civilians is another; and torturing POWs and civilians is yet another).

Also, human rights transcend national boundaries. It's not somehow okay to mass murder your own population by any means, including deliberate actions that lead to famines and starvation (speaking of NK...).

BTW, what is it that Cuba is supposed to have done against human rights?

You can open the text of UDHR, and go one by one, marking them as they apply to Cuba (or any other country).

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

is the first "plank" of Communism according to The Communist Manifesto (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party/Chapter_II) and while you are not advocating the abolition of privately held land as Karl Marx did, the idea of taking private land and making it beneficial to the community, either by high taxes or by force, is very similar to Communism.

I just wanted to recognize and point out something that has been obvious to any retard ever since Ug the caveman made a cool club and whacked the first guy who tried to take it away from him.

So I take it that, by your definition, every culture that didn't place property right paramount are retards? Does that apply to all the tribal culture that lived communally, the sort that existed peacefully for thousands of years before running into the white men who exterminated them to take their property? [Before you object, not all tribal cultures fit this definition.] What about countries like Sweden, Finland and Norway where capitalism is tempered by a liberal helping of socialism (and taxes to match), yet by most surveys have the happiest citizens in the world?

Or how about the United States, where property rights get but the barest mention in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (really none other than the right to be secure against illegal searches and seizures and the prohibition against quartering soldiers with the populace during times of peace), yet things like freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the prohibition against unjust prosecutions are explicitly mentioned? The Declaration of Independence cites three unalienable rights, none of which include property. It also cites numerous grievances against the King of England justifying our rebellion, only a few of which could even remotely be argued as violations of property rights. Clearly our founding fathers must have been retards for failing to spell out such a "fundamental" right.

The reality is that property rights, while significant, are secondary to civil rights. Without personal freedoms, property rights are useless. All the wealth in the world doesn't benefit you if you're locked in the King's dungeon. And while the tyrant in a libertarian culture may not be a king, the natural conclusion of libertarianism state is totalitarianism just the same. Gradually the wealth will become more and more concentrated until it is in the hands of a very few people, and everyone else will be their de facto slaves. Without progressive taxation (AKA the dreaded "wealth redistribution"), there is no other possible conclusion (and remember, every society has some form of wealth redistribution. It's just that in libertarian societies, the wealth is always redistributed upwards).

The argument that taxes somehow stifle people's desire to create new businesses (not made by you here, but made by many others while justifying similar viewpoints) is just absurd on it's face. Remember, every company in America today was started by people paying those same high taxes that the right likes to rail about. In fact most of the companies that are more than eight years old were founded when income taxes were much higher than they are today (the average top marginal tax rate since the income tax was established is 60 percent). Those high taxes didn't stop their founders from starting their companies, so the argument that we must cut taxes or they won't have incentive to reinvest is just silly.

In fact, contrary to everything you've ever heard from the Republicans, higher income taxes actually create a greater incentive to reinvest, since you only pay income taxes when you take money out of a company. In practice, low taxes encourage people to take money out of their businesses and invest in such "economy-growing" things as luxury yachts and villas in France. They also encourage things like the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which is great for the shareholders of a company, but lousy for everyone else in the country. It's funny how much of this stuff is just obvious if you stop and think about it for a moment, yet people rarely bother to do so.

(Sorry to be a bit rambly, but I'd appreciate if you'd at least skim the whole thing)

I just wanted to recognize and point out something that has been obvious to any retard ever since Ug the caveman made a cool club and whacked the first guy who tried to take it away from him.

So I take it that, by your definition, every culture that didn't place property right paramount are retards? Does that apply to all the tribal culture that lived communally, the sort that existed peacefully for thousands of years before running into the white men who exterminated them to take their property? [Before you object, not all tribal cultures fit this definition.] What about countries like Sweden, Finland and Norway where capitalism is tempered by a liberal helping of socialism (and taxes to match), yet by most surveys have the happiest citizens in the world?

Or how about the United States, where property rights get but the barest mention in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (really none other than the right to be secure against illegal searches and seizures and the prohibition against quartering soldiers with the populace during times of peace), yet things like freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the prohibition against unjust prosecutions are explicitly mentioned? The Declaration of Independence cites three unalienable rights, none of which include property. It also cites numerous grievances against the King of England justifying our rebellion, only a few of which could even remotely be argued as violations of property rights. Clearly our founding fathers must have been retards for failing to spell out such a "fundamental" right.

The reality is that property rights, while significant, are secondary to civil rights. Without personal freedoms, property rights are useless. All the wealth in the world doesn't benefit you if you're locked in the King's dungeon. And while the tyrant in a libertarian culture may not be a king, the natural conclusion of libertarianism state is totalitarianism just the same. Gradually the wealth will become more and more concentrated until it is in the hands of a very few people, and everyone else will be their de facto slaves. Without progressive taxation (AKA the dreaded "wealth redistribution"), there is no other possible conclusion (and remember, every society has some form of wealth redistribution. It's just that in libertarian societies, the wealth is always redistributed upwards).

The argument that taxes somehow stifle people's desire to create new businesses (not made by you here, but made by many others while justifying similar viewpoints) is just absurd on it's face. Remember, every company in America today was started by people paying those same high taxes that the right likes to rail about. In fact most of the companies that are more than eight years old were founded when income taxes were much higher than they are today (the average top marginal tax rate since the income tax was established is 60 percent). Those high taxes didn't stop their founders from starting their companies, so the argument that we must cut taxes or they won't have incentive to reinvest is just silly.

In fact, contrary to everything you've ever heard from the Republicans, higher income taxes actually create a greater incentive to reinvest, since you only pay income taxes when you take money out of a company. In practice, low taxes encourage people to take money out of their businesses and invest in such "economy-growing" things as luxury yachts and villas in France. They also encourage things like the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which is great for the shareholders of a company, but lousy for everyone else in the country. It's funny how much of this stuff is just obvious if you stop and think about it for a moment, yet people rarely bother to do so.

(Sorry to be a bit rambly, but I'd appreciate if you'd at least skim the whole thing)

I just wanted to recognize and point out something that has been obvious to any retard ever since Ug the caveman made a cool club and whacked the first guy who tried to take it away from him.

So I take it that, by your definition, every culture that didn't place property right paramount are retards? Does that apply to all the tribal culture that lived communally, the sort that existed peacefully for thousands of years before running into the white men who exterminated them to take their property? [Before you object, not all tribal cultures fit this definition.] What about countries like Sweden, Finland and Norway where capitalism is tempered by a liberal helping of socialism (and taxes to match), yet by most surveys have the happiest citizens in the world?

Or how about the United States, where property rights get but the barest mention in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (really none other than the right to be secure against illegal searches and seizures and the prohibition against quartering soldiers with the populace during times of peace), yet things like freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the prohibition against unjust prosecutions are explicitly mentioned? The Declaration of Independence cites three unalienable rights, none of which include property. It also cites numerous grievances against the King of England justifying our rebellion, only a few of which could even remotely be argued as violations of property rights. Clearly our founding fathers must have been retards for failing to spell out such a "fundamental" right.

The reality is that property rights, while significant, are secondary to civil rights. Without personal freedoms, property rights are useless. All the wealth in the world doesn't benefit you if you're locked in the King's dungeon. And while the tyrant in a libertarian culture may not be a king, the natural conclusion of libertarianism state is totalitarianism just the same. Gradually the wealth will become more and more concentrated until it is in the hands of a very few people, and everyone else will be their de facto slaves. Without progressive taxation (AKA the dreaded "wealth redistribution"), there is no other possible conclusion (and remember, every society has some form of wealth redistribution. It's just that in libertarian societies, the wealth is always redistributed upwards).

The argument that taxes somehow stifle people's desire to create new businesses (not made by you here, but made by many others while justifying similar viewpoints) is just absurd on it's face. Remember, every company in America today was started by people paying those same high taxes that the right likes to rail about. In fact most of the companies that are more than eight years old were founded when income taxes were much higher than they are today (the average top marginal tax rate since the income tax was established is 60 percent). Those high taxes didn't stop their founders from starting their companies, so the argument that we must cut taxes or they won't have incentive to reinvest is just silly.

In fact, contrary to everything you've ever heard from the Republicans, higher income taxes actually create a greater incentive to reinvest, since you only pay income taxes when you take money out of a company. In practice, low taxes encourage people to take money out of their businesses and invest in such "economy-growing" things as luxury yachts and villas in France. They also encourage things like the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which is great for the shareholders of a company, but lousy for everyone else in the country. It's funny how much of this stuff is just obvious if you stop and think about it for a moment, yet people rarely bother to do so.

(Sorry to be a bit rambly, but I'd appreciate if you'd at least skim the whole thing)

Because anarchy is more dangerous to "us" than any other option.

Not really. It's dangerous to the people of the country, certainly, but it's their choice. For the West? Hardly. If we really care, let's just secure the borders, and bomb the hell out of anything resembling a threat (to us) inside as it appears; but leave the ground troops out of it.

The lawlessness of the Civil War/Taliban era (the Taliban were far more concerned with beard length than most else) is what allowed Al Quaida to operate unopposed and unfettered, and that is what directly led to the attacks on the WTC.

I don't know about that. I've talked about these things with one young Afghani refugee in NZ. What he said to me was, "Taliban were hateful fanatics, but with them you at least had clear laws that were strictly enforced - you knew what you shouldn't do to stay alive, and you knew that you wouldn't be robbed in broad daylight. When the Alliance came, they brought anarchy with them, and often their soldiers would turn into robbers on occupied territories by the end of the day".

.but you also seem to have an odd view of how the current Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan conducts itself. As new and faltering as it is, its heart is certainly in the right place. There is no state-sanctioned religious persecution here. And it certainly is not a theocracy.

You mean that Abdul Rahman was persecuted by some people that were not affiliated with the government? Maybe the judges that handed down the verdict originally and sentenced him to death weren't lawfully appointment, or maybe the laws weren't on the books? Let's see, the new Constitution of Afghanistan begins with:

Article 1 [Islamic Republic] Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article 2 [Religions] (1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of IslamState_Religion. (2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article 3 [Law and Religion] In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

Article 35 [Organizations, Parties] (1) The citizens of Afghanistan have the right to form social organizations for the purpose of securing material or spiritual aims in accordance with the provisions of the law. (2) The citizens of Afghanistan have the right to form political parties in accordance with the provisions of the law, provided that: -- The program and charter of the party are not contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam, and the provisions and values of this Constitution.

Article 45 [Unified Educational Curriculum] The state shall devise and implement a unified educational curriculum based on the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, national culture, and in accordance with academic principles, and develops the curriculum of religious subjects on the basis of the Islamic sects existing in Afghanistan.

Article 54 [Family] (1) Family is a fundamental unit of society and is supported by the state. (2) The state adopts necessary measures to ensure physical and psychological well being of family, especially of child and mother, upbringing of children and the elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of sacred religion of Islam.

Article 118 [Qualifications for the Supreme Court] A member of the Supreme Court shall have the following qualifications: -- The age of the Head of the Supreme Court and its members should not be lower than forty at the time of appointment -- Shall be a citizen of Afghanistan. -- Shall have a

You are quite right in your point that "communism cannot work, since it does not deal with humans", but that is about as far as I'd be willing to agree with you.

To begin with, communism is not the ideal form of society either in practice nor in theory nor anywhere else. It is the product of a man who rejected all forms of rational thinking (you do know that Marx used Hegelian dialectics to derive communism, right?). You assert that in an ideal world, noone would be selfish, but as I have described elsewhere, a society of such beings cannot work to begin with; if noone were indeed selfish, there would be no self-interest to satisfy even by others, and noone would be happy to get work done for them, since they would not benefit from it. Selfishness, on the other hand, is what drives people (and thus, indirectly, society) forward, as I described in the post you replied to. The world of which you speak, where people are completely selfless but even so derive benefit from doing things is not only not the ideal world, it is a contradiction in terms.

Second, you describe capitalism as a system that "deals with real humans", which is a notion that I reject, and which is why capitalism and communism are not "alternatives" or "rival theories" as is often claimed. Communism, and many other theories like it, are indeed designed systems that are supposed to be applied to society. Capitalism, on the other hand, is not such a system; it was "designed" by noone, but grew by itself as a natural consequence of a society of free men. Certainly, it can be treated as a system, and there have indeed been many treaties written on it, but the difference is that capitalistic economics is a science that observes and predicts reality (as best observed in Austrian economics, as far as I've been able to tell), whereas communism is an edict, pushed onto a society.

You may want to read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, which explains quite well why we have government at all, and why government and society are two completely different things.

Strange that the link did not intrigue you enough into landing the following URL (obtainable through the URL you sent) :
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum,_Conclusion

The numbers still say that biology teachers have a harder time in the U.S. teaching evolution because of regulations on textbooks requiring them to have nonsense from the Discovery Institute, et al, as an alternate 'theory'.

Curiouser and curiouser. Please supply those numbers since the famous court case did establish that any such regulations on textbooks would violate the establishment clause. While it is conceivable that certain biology teachers in red states experience some social ostracism for teaching evolution in science class, there are no regulations of the sort you speak of. At least AFAIK.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/1:Introduction#Page_1_of_139

Nice strawman there. What part of what he said is wrong? Read the Federalist Papers where the argument he states is made. That electors were intended to protect the voters from themselves.

Spending for the "general welfare" is not a power of Congress. See James Madison, Federalist #41, in which he explained that only someone paranoid of the new Constitution would claim that it'd ever be twisted into meaning that.

No, but you do need a photo ID or go through extra screening. If you refuse to show ID, you will not be allowed to board and might be arrested.

The UK doesn't have a written constitution

I thought the Magna Carta was the granddaddy of constitution?

Generally however the UK "constitution" is spread throughout statute and common law (judicial precident and equity). I am starting to think there should be a short, principles-based addition however, since lately we have been relying on the House of Lords more than I am comfortable with.

There also is/will be the European Constitution. However they call it a "treaty". When it was called a "constitution" it required voter approval, which wasn't going to happen, so they renamed it:

to complete the [constitution] with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.

Which sounds a lot like fodder for a Pratchett footnote.

Where did he say the ends justifies the means?

You mean, where did he say "look at all this shiny stuff we got", completely detached from and with no comment on how it was gotten? Well, that was his entire post...

I think you're making the assumption that everyone here is against the means used in this situation.

I do not believe so. On the contrary, I believe many here are in favor of such means. That is why posts such as mine are necessary - to contradict "common sense".

Government spending on far reaching projects that otherwise wouldn't be immediately profitable for the business sector is perfectly fine, in my book.

And now you simply have to do the following:

1. Show that in a truly private, laissez-faire system, business would be interested only in "immediate profitability" - note that I am not talking about our mixed economy, in which the snap of the fingers of someone in political power (such as a Fed chairman, or a committee) can sway the whole economy. That people are unwilling to look to long-term prospects when their whole income could disappear overnight is not surprising.

2. Justify the rights violation that come with funding such programs. (Note that "justification" does not involve slinging FUD about what such a 'brave new world' would look like.)

Don't assume that just because you think this is pork, everyone else is going to agree with you.

Whether or not others agree with me does not change the fact that projects such as this are entirely outside the proper role of government.

For more intro on this, check out Thomas Paine's first chapter in Common Sense (ironic title, given how uncommon, this view is today).

Yesterday while going through some old personal effects I found both the "White Book", and the "White Book" in the same box. Timeless Gems indeed.

Modern textbooks are written and rewritten every year to sell textbooks. If academia were as knowledgeable as they would have us believe, they would be able to filter the wheat from the chaff, the wine from the dregs. They would be able to select a book that were in print these last 20 years that would teach their students something of persistent value. And if we teach students something of transient and ephemeral worth that expires more frequently than they buy new shoes, what are we teaching them about the Truth, except that it, too, has value only for the next six weeks? That's teaching them to forget; that their investment in effort is transient. That is "not good." It's also a waste of money. I've long since despaired my local school district will offer something I consider education, so I teach my kids myself - but they still have to go to school because peer interaction is something I can't teach them.

Anyway, maybe that I found those two in the same box says more about me than about the books... Also in the box were "The College Survey of English Literature", 1951; "Operating Systems; A Systematic View" (Davis, 1992), and "Microprocessor Architecture, Programming and Applications (sub With the 8085/8080A)" (Gaonkar, 1984). Also ""An introduction to College Chemistry" (Briscoe, 1937), "David Macaulay's "The Way Things Work", and "77 One-Weekend Woodworking Projects" (Blandford, 1987). There was also "Alice's Adventure's In Wonderland" (Carroll). That last is probably a personal marker. I have like 12 copies, and I plant one in boxes I think are valuable for learning. It might have been there because I consider "Alice in Wonderland" a good programming manual. Anyway, I'm comfortable in the company of these books.

The box is at my feet now, and I'm looking at it. I learned these things long ago. These books have a few secrets left for me, but not many. But no, don't email me with a bid. I have young kids, and this is what I'd like them to know before they "graduate" high school so in addition to what their school teaches them, they'll know these useful things. Your kids? Teach them or not. Whatever.

Anyway, if you're a bizarre geek and you're worked your way through these, the top of the next box has "Trelawny" (Margaret Armstrong, 1940) which is a rollicking good read if you like pirates, adventures, or Byron.

Sweden's per capita spending: less than 1700$
United States per capita spending: 4100$

Please show me how or why "government healthcare is bound to fail", or, alternatively, have a look at actual data.

(Disclaimer: since 2004 a number of european countries are reforming/considering reforms to health care funding, because it's inefficient in some ways. Nevertheless, the fact remains that health care spending here costs less than half of what it costs in the US.)

In my case, I oppose such a plan because it is unconstitutional. There is no legal authority for our Congress or President to order that the radio spectrum be used in a certain way, or to have censorship authority over it. "Interstate commerce?" No, that phrase meant (according to the Founders, anyway) that the federal government could prevent states from taxing each other, not that it could regulate absolutely everything. The same constitutional argument strikes down socialized health care, for those arguing for it above.

As for the Madison quote, the Constitution LIMITS the power of the government, it does not GRANT power to the government. But in any case the issue is state vs. federal rights, not the idea that we have a nationwide ID card.

The constitution is pretty explicit in what powers it grants to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You are probably thinking of the bill of rights and other ammendments, many of which place restrictions on government power.

As for the Madison quote, the Constitution LIMITS the power of the government, it does not GRANT power to the government. But in any case the issue is state vs. federal rights, not the idea that we have a nationwide ID card.

The constitution is pretty explicit in what powers it grants to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You are probably thinking of the bill of rights and other ammendments, many of which place restrictions on government power.

As for the Madison quote, the Constitution LIMITS the power of the government, it does not GRANT power to the government. But in any case the issue is state vs. federal rights, not the idea that we have a nationwide ID card.

The constitution is pretty explicit in what powers it grants to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You are probably thinking of the bill of rights and other ammendments, many of which place restrictions on government power.

See for instance the Federalist Papers, #41, in which the Federalist (pro-Constitution) faction explained why the new Constitution was desirable. Their argument was that they had created a Constitution of sharply limited powers, and that the idea of such phrases as "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" into unlimited powers was a paranoid fantasy. (snipped Madison's arguement)

Unfortunately, Madison was part of one political faction; others viewed it differently. At any rate, it grants powers that today's Supreme Court decides if they are constitutional. Strict constructions will argue but history has shown the Constitution is a living document open to interpretation.

See for instance the Federalist Papers, #41, in which the Federalist (pro-Constitution) faction explained why the new Constitution was desirable. Their argument was that they had created a Constitution of sharply limited powers, and that the idea of such phrases as "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" into unlimited powers was a paranoid fantasy.

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction..." [See the next paragraph too.]

The idea back then was that unlimited government would lead to tyranny, or at least an ever-contracting liberty for the states and individuals. So, treating the Constitution as a blank check to do whatever a majority wills violates the principles of the Founders. To the extent that we let the government act outside of this limited legal authority, it is a threat to our rights.

while i don't doubt that electronic warfare is being actively developed by other nations (i'm sure the U.S. armed forces aren't the only military interested in, or actively developing, electronic warfare tactics), i wouldn't put it past the MIC to exaggerate the risk of electronic attacks in order to manipulate the public. it certainly wouldn't be the first time the public was mislead about our nation's defense in order to funnel tax dollars into unnecessary defense projects. and now with war logistics being an more lucrative than ever through the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) and its cost-plus award-fee contracts, even more more private sector companies have a vested interest in seeing a renewed Cold-War-type international tension and corresponding military spending.

it's just too bad Americans never heeded Eisenhower's farewell address. of course, if more people working in the defense industry were truly patriotic, they'd all be as morally enlightened as you, and the MIC wouldn't exist.

Or you could game the system to try and force the government to pre-emptively quarantine an area. Have a neighbor you don't like? Log on to his wireless network and spam google with symptoms 24 hours a day!

Don't think the government would do such a thing? Read Executive Order 13375,

which changes the Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases made in E.O. 13295.

(c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic

I wonder what it means by "reemergent influenza viruses?"

It couldn't be because the government recreated the 1918 flu virus 3 years ago, could it?

The specific 1918 virus was lost to the world for decades, until it was reconstructed about three years ago using genetic material from victims.

The genetic material was found in 1997.

The only thing this information truly proves is that I need to get laid.

By being part of the government. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13176

There is.

Actually, I would add one more document to that list: the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Compare and contrast to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You might also want to read a bit on the history of the split. Note the description of UDHR by Muslim clerics as a "secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition".

Actually, I would add one more document to that list: the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Compare and contrast to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You might also want to read a bit on the history of the split. Note the description of UDHR by Muslim clerics as a "secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition".

... "Naw, you don't have to give them a civilian trial... just because you're 'at war,' and ignore any court rulings that say you can't. It worked for me!"

I know its really popular nowadays to try and turn Abe into some kind of 2-bit dictator bad guy, but it "worked for him" because the USA *was* in a *real* Civil War, a REBELLION of the Southern States, and the Constitution specifically allows for that exception :

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

The only question at the time was whether the President could do this himself (he couldn't), but that became irrelevent when the US Congress passed the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1863", which suspended Habeas Corpus until the end of the war. In other words, Congress ultimately backed him up on this one, which is why he could ignore the initial attacks on his position, he was not the out-of-control, would-be dictator you're trying to make him out to be: He had Congress's support on this, it just took Congress some time after the split to get reorganized.

As for the rest of what he did, keep in mind this was a dangerous and difficult time for the country (some of those newpaper editors you referred to weren't simply "anti-war", they were openly advocating treason), like nothing we've ever faced since, and for that matter, this was not even the only time Habeas Corpus was suspended, as U.S. Grant and F.D.R. did the same in more limited circumstances (more limited because their situation wasn't as desperate as what Lincoln faced).

Note that since the Constitution only refers to "rebellion" or "invasion", our current dictator-wanna-be President doesn't have nearly as good an excuse as old Abe did.

Full text available here.

I wish the current G.W. would have read this excerpt:

30 As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Evolution has been singled out for special ire by Discovery, as it provides an explanation for the origin of humanity based solely on natural processes.

There's two claims here-- 1. Evolution is singled out. 2. It is singled out because it offers an explanation for the origin of humanity based solely on natural processes.

On the first:

William Paley predated Darwin. And, certainly Creationists have not in the interim ceased 'preaching' the same message which has gone forth since before either of them.

They have certainly modified the message over time. You are familiar with the "God of the gaps" argument, I presume? Whenever science comes up with a decent explanation of something that the creationists claimed "god did it", they change their message. See dover trial and the flagellum argument for one example, or their find/replace of "God did it" with "some intelligent designer did it" when they changed their name from creationism to ID.

Does evolution really offer an explanation for the origin of humanity based solely on natural processes? If you really believe that, then ask yourself two questions. 1 - Where did the original matter making up the primordial soup (or the infinitesimally small mass before the big bang) come from? and 2 - What about these natural laws that seem to govern the universe which make natural processes possible?

That is a moving the goalposts argument.

And, even if evolution did offer this explanation, it is solely a conjecture that rebuffing evolution is ID theorists' sole motive in advancing their theory.

Conjecture, my hindquarters..

"The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter âoeIDâ), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."

It is quite clear that the ID movement was born after the creationists' failed attempts to get creationism into the school curriculum. If rebuffing the theory of evolution isn't their goal then what is?

Why should I continue any further? [..] Why should I waste any more time on this?

I ask myself the same question. (1) "Creationists not changing their message" and (2) "ID is not an attempt to rebuff evolution". I typically stop rebuffing /. comments after the first few errant statements, but in this case, two are enough.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It is generally interpreted to say that government should not prefer one religion to another, and by extension to keep church and state separate. Which is not surprising, considering that many of those that left the old world for the new did so because they were persecuted for their beliefs by the governments in the old world.

Besides, the notion of that "ID" science is somehow the promotion of some religion, is absurd.

Oh really? There is quite a paper trail showing that ID was developed by a group of United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."

It does two things. It reveals the scientific data discovered, which exposes evolution as the hoax that it is.

Sure, whatever. Mind coughing up some supporting evidence or are we just going to throw unsupported absolutist statements at each other?

Evolutionary scientists are the ones whom have, numerous times, morphologically evolved their theory to accommodate the new, damning, empirical data.

"Damning empirical data?" There you go again. Sources please.

Besides, it is actually the nature of science not to take our current theories as unchanging truth but to constantly test them and alter the theories if they are not consistent with observed behaviour. That might seem anathema if you base your world view on a single unchanging book, but to use that as an argument to denounce science is bunkum.

Also, ID science reveals the often times found in nature, extremely improbable, if not impossible. Particularly configured existence of many things, if intelligent design were absent.

Again, sources please. Flagellum and the immune system is not as slam dunk as you seem to think they are.

from the fact that its the reason why Dawkins went on a religion intolerance, hating rampage.

Sources?

Thus, evo would gain indirect, pseudo validation.

Really? If A is shown to be invalid, it does not follow that B is true. Simple logic.

Barack Obama wasn't actually in the Senate when the joint resolution was discussed and eventually passed on 2 October 2002. However, he was busy making an excellent speech at a Chicago anti-war rally. Barack wasn't elected until 2004. Still, had he been in Congress at the time, he would have voted against it and he has repeatedly supported withdrawal from Iraq.

Amazing you can find McCain supporters anywhere, let alone in Slahsdot.

I've asked this question many times: Where are all the McCain supporters? Apparently, 45 percent of the nation is voting for John McCain -- I don't know why they feel that way or who they are. Granted, I am in college and we young people really like this Obama character, but I have yet to talk to a McCain supporter. Sure, some feel that Obama is not to be trusted (should anyone be given the level of trust we give the president?) or that he lacks experience (does anyone have the right experience for the unknown?), but all of these people are still voting for him, because they see McCain as far worse.

When it comes down to it, I can't see myself voting for someone that supports teaching creationism as a science -- I've talked in front of the Kansas School Board against doing so. I can't see myself voting for someone who does not support net neutrality. I can't see myself voting for someone with a vice president who doesn't know what a VP does. I can't see myself voting with a party that has a ridiculous double-standard. Conveniently, all these shortcomings lay with one candidate. </logicalFallacy:paradeOfHorrors>

Yeah, I'd be surprised if Xinhua hadn't written both success and failure stories weeks ago.

Seriously, people — it's a common gaffe, not an evil Communist plot.

No, if you read just 2 spots up the chain, the user Attila Dimedici (1036002) compared Obama and Palin, by calling them equally inexperienced.

I posted the above to show that Palin and Obama are clearly **not**. That's my whole point. So your entire post is starting off on the wrong assumption.

Equally inexperienced is not the opposite of more experienced. Your less experienced then obama but I'm not rating you for the job of president. Palin is running for vice president, not president.

BTW, my entire post does not start off on the wrong assumption. My post starts off on the miracle image you gave Obama that he simply does not deserve.

Since you are responding to my post without even reading or knowing what *I was responding to*, that's a pretty funny statement.

Jesus would say, "Don't worry about the smoke blown up your brother's ass. Worry about the belching smokestack shoved up your own."

Lol.. You hav a hard time when someone turns the lights out don't you. The blowing smoke comment was about your delusions of Obama. Not about your rediculous claims on Palin. In fact, I only wasted a few sentences on Palin in the entire post and now your so scared of her, that your attempting to make my entire reply about her? Get off it dude.

And personally, I don't care what Jesus would say or what you think he would say. He isn't here right now is he?

Interesting qualification. What he **WAS** right about, was while he was still running for election. He stated that the Iraq war was a bad idea. He was right. McCain was wrong. And so was Hillary, for that matter.

You dumbfuck, Obama wasn't a US senator when we went to war. Afterwords, it wasn't never a bad Idea to win it. And no, McCain and Hillary was right, they still are right, and you seem to be either ignoring relevent facts or simply blinded by Obama's rock star persona. Repeat after me, the messiah was never a US senator when we went to war.

No one but the completely clueless think that after the war started, it would be a good idea to adandon Iraq. It would do nothing but cause a larger problem down the road. But as a democrat, I guess your used to that aren't you.

He's supposed to deny money to troops in the field, once we've committed? Riiiiiight. I'm sure all conservatives would have loved and respected him for that.

Lol.. Why not, he did after the first 18 months, or he attempted to by voting no on a funding bill. Fortunately it passed without him.

No.

You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong.

Here's the proof that you are wrong: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Go read the above speech. It was made in 2002. If you are one of those who don't trust anything Wiki, go google it elsewhere. See if I'm right.

Wow, he was in opposition to the war before we went to war. Good point there skippy. Now lets get back to what I said, as a _US senator_, he did nothing in opposition to the war in Iraq until he set his ambitions were set on the white house. In other words, he doesn't give a fuck unless he thinks he can benefit from it. This is hardly the "change" we need. Like a said, look around and pay attention. See things for yourself and stop believing everything they feed you.

If you can do the above, I'll be happy to wander through the weeds to show you what is provably and factually wrong with the rest of what you wrote.

I just want to see if you can admit you were wrong at this point, before I continue.

If you can stay in context with what was actually wrote and not just make shit up on the fly as it's easier for you to refute, we can get down t

No, if you read just 2 spots up the chain, the user Attila Dimedici (1036002) compared Obama and Palin, by calling them equally inexperienced.

I posted the above to show that Palin and Obama are clearly **not**. That's my whole point. So your entire post is starting off on the wrong assumption.

Not only are you wrong here, it seems that you have had so much smoke blown up your ass that your brain is foggy too.

Since you are responding to my post without even reading or knowing what *I was responding to*, that's a pretty funny statement.

Jesus would say, "Don't worry about the smoke blown up your brother's ass. Worry about the belching smokestack shoved up your own."

Obama was never right on the Iraq war while he was a US senator.

Interesting qualification. What he **WAS** right about, was while he was still running for election. He stated that the Iraq war was a bad idea. He was right. McCain was wrong. And so was Hillary, for that matter.

For the first 18 months in office, he didn't stand in opposition or approval of the war, he just silently voted for all funding.

And?

He's supposed to deny money to troops in the field, once we've committed? Riiiiiight. I'm sure all conservatives would have loved and respected him for that.

It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it

No.

You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong.

Here's the proof that you are wrong: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Go read the above speech. It was made in 2002. If you are one of those who don't trust anything Wiki, go google it elsewhere. See if I'm right.

Then, once you have verified this fact, please have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

If you can do the above, I'll be happy to wander through the weeds to show you what is provably and factually wrong with the rest of what you wrote.

I just want to see if you can admit you were wrong at this point, before I continue.

Wikipedia's edits forecast the future? Don't they say the same thing about Nostradamus' Les Propheties ?

What's that? It's easy to see trends from nothing leading to something after the fact..?

Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (emphasis added)

Yes, George is a tyrant. Don't believe it? Here's a partial list.

The History of [George] is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
. . .
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
. . .
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
. . .
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
. . .
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
. . .
[George] is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

no, [the Vatican] don't have billions in capital at their disposal. Their annual budget is less than that of Harvard University.

I call bullshit. The Vatican gets at least 0.5% of Italy's tax revenue through the Otto per mille, a way to publicly finance religion in Italy. Through that channel alone, the Vatican got one billion euros (not dollars) last year. That's one tax, for each year, in one country, and that's even a legitimate channel; illegal channels include tax breaks on commercial activities operated by the church, which are granted by my country's government, headed by a "legitimate businessman", in spite of European rules, and financing of religious private schools, forbidden as explicitly as possible by the Constitution of Italy, article 33, which however politicians use as toilet paper; In case you did not know how schools work in Italy, private schools are basically diploma mills for stupid or lazy sons of rich people who can't handle public school, where your professor can flunk you without fear of making the school lose its money.

Read on about cardinal Marcinkus and the IOR to know more about the greed of the Vatican.

... and, by the way, Harvard university's budget is in the range of billions of dollars [pdf], 2.6 in 2005 to be precise.

By your logic the president is required to declare war because the constitution says has the power to..

I think Bush has messed with your mind a bit

The Congress shall have power ... To declare War;

And also, in response to grolaw!:

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Nothing says Congress has to use their power.

QuantumG has a perfect analogy (except the whole presidential thing), from exactly three lines away, in the same section of the Constitution: Congress has the power to enforce copyright, just like they have the power to declare war. They don't have to use it.

By your logic the president is required to declare war because the constitution says has the power to..

I think Bush has messed with your mind a bit

The Congress shall have power ... To declare War;

And also, in response to grolaw!:

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Nothing says Congress has to use their power.

QuantumG has a perfect analogy (except the whole presidential thing), from exactly three lines away, in the same section of the Constitution: Congress has the power to enforce copyright, just like they have the power to declare war. They don't have to use it.

I'll always admire T.S. Elliot for saying, "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time."

This is the first time that I have seen this quote attributed to T. S. Elliot. Usually I see it attributed to Mark Twain, who did in fact use it. However, it comes from before him. It has been attributed to Samuel Johnson as well, but it is not his either. Instead, it comes from Blaise Pascal's "Lettres Provinciales", Letter XVI in 1657:

Mes Reverends Peres, mes lettres n'avaient pas accoutume de se suivre de si pres, ni d'etre si etendues. Le peu de temps que j'ai eu a ete cause de l'un et de l'autre. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Provinciales_-_Seizi%C3%A8me_lettre_aux_r%C3%A9v%C3%A9rends_p%C3%A8res_j%C3%A9suites

My Reverend Fathers, my letters are not accustomed to follow so closely, nor to be so extensive. The limited time that I had was because of one thing and another. I made it longer because I have not had the opportunity to make it shorter.

Please forgive my poor translation.

http://www.samueljohnson.com/apocryph.html

http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/454-why-most-copywriting-on-the-web-sucks

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TimeToMakeItShort

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v05/0444.html

Hey, both HRC and Obama voted "yes" on the Dodd Amendment -- the critical piece which would have bagged retroactive immunity entirely.

Except of course that the Dodd amendment was used as a sham by Harry Reid, who did his usual bullshit of requiring 60 votes for anything the Republicans don't like but legislation that Republicans want only requires 50 votes. So the Dodd amendment required 60 votes, and was merely a tool for tools like Obama to make a show of opposing immunity but then voting for the FISA bill with immunity in it. Sort of like the Democrats who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination and then voted against his confirmation.

And yes, Obama voted for cloture on the issue of immunity. And then he voted to send the bill to Bush with immunity in it. Hillary voted against cloture and against immunity, but that's because she's out of the race for the nomination. Her entire national security record has been to vote with the right wing (see: Kyl-Lieberman), and there isn't a doubt in my mind that she would have sold out were she the nominee.

Yes the new FISA is an abomination, but he could have done nothing to prevent its passage and, had he tried, would have been promptly sandbagged by the fear-mongers on the right.

They'll do that anyway, only now they can also call him a flip flopper at the same time. Democrats like Tom Dashle bent over backwards to accommodate every right wing demand "to take the issue off the table", yet were driven from office anyway. Obama seems to have slept through the 2006 elections, where Democrats regained Congress by finally opposing the Iraq war, and has gone back to the losing playbook from 2002.

No way, I'd argue. Look, 2/3 of America thinks he's still "exotic", a stranger, "not one of us". He just has to increase peoples' comfort level with him first, and since most of the population still think that FISA is essential to thwarting terrorists, fighting this (losing) FISA battle right now just works against the perception problem

You're rationalizing. There isn't a single voter constituency that's been pushing for immunity. Not one. There is, however, a great deal of disgust directed at Congress for not standing up to the Bush administration. Obama could have easily made the argument he should have made, that 'those that trade liberty for security lose both.' He could have also pointed out the work he's done to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R. But nope, he decided to do some pointless triangulating that his only going to backfire on him, by costing him support and opening himself up to (true) charges of flip flopping.

Keep November in mind, please!

Keep the Constitution in mind, please. We've had great violations before, like Lincoln's suspending of habeas corpus; we were in a time of rebellion but suspending the writ is up to Congress, not the Executive. Or Executive Order 9066, in which Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. But other than Jim Crow, I can't think of a single example of a gross violation of basic Constitutional rights going on for so long or to be so accepted.

What's important is that BO -- not McCain -- be elected in the fall.

We've lasted over 200 years because we decided to be a nation ruled by law rather than a nation ruled by men. Now that iron clad parts of the Constitution have become optional guidelines, my faith in our ability to endure another 200 years has diminished significantly. Before the 2006 elections, the right wing was speaking openly of imprisoning journalists that published evidence of government lawbreaking, like the original NY Times story breaking the news of the warrantless wiretapping. If government officials are free to spy without warrants and torture people without any consequences, what will happen if we are attacked again?

And McCain winning wouldn't be such a bad thing, so long as Obama l

It's quite simple. Section 2520 of Title 18 part d give the telecoms a complete defense if they were given an authorization from the government that was statutory or legislatively applicable. I believe this happened independent of the government's illegal activity which is specifically what the immunity bill addresses.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_18/Part_I/Chapter_119/Section_2520"

It seems pretty clear that the wording of the U.S. code was in reference to individual wiretaps rather than an entire program for spying on (possibly) anyone and everyone. What's more, section D is has a "good faith" requirement, which seems rather relevant given the obvious unconstitutionality of the nature of the request.

And, even still, the Telecom companies were not off the hook, because even if what you said is true, that they aren't liable for damages resulting from their actions, they would have still had to answer for the breach of contract and terms of service.

IINAL, but do I really have to be? All of this boils down to a simple logical statement: If the Telecom companies were so clearly innocent, why did they so badly need retroactive legal immunity? Because it might cost some money to defend their "legal" actions? Those are rather weak excuses and could be arguments for retroactive legal immunity for anyone accused of criminal or civil wrongdoing.

In fact, why even have courts? Congress just effectively ruled the Telecom companies innocent when they know little more about the "Terrorist Surveillence Program" than we do (on account of "National" Security). Where exactly do they draw the line between this civil litigation they know little about and any other? I rather think they should have just passed a law that gave retro-active legal immunity to any individual or company who has donated more than $X amount in total to both major parties. At least it would have been more consistent and honest....

-Grym