WTO Wants USA to Gamble Online

revtom writes "The WTO has ruled that the U.S. must allow online gambling or face trade barriers. My favorite quote from the article (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va), 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"

Comments

Nothing New Here

[andyrut]

The United States is notorious for ignoring the actions of global organizations, even ones they fought to create. If they were to receive a third grade report card they'd receive low marks in the "plays well with others" category.

Let's see, there's the invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the U.N.) and withdrawl from the Kyoto Protocol to name a couple.

Re:Nothing New Here

[aengblom]

The U.S. did not withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol... it never agreed to abide by it.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, hold on sport. There's a HUGE difference between political/environmental issues and agreements in a free world economy. Sure, everything can be pinned against money and earnings (politicswealth). Howver, when we're specifically talking about free/fair trade, any country has a right to protest a policy demand by another country.

Just remember that the US, despite the obvious political turmoil, imports more than it exports. That's been the mainstay for years and the US hasn't imposed massive sanctions or held up a gun to stop this. In other words: the US isn't a bad guy for wanting to give a little less considering its past record.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for some Muslim country to be affected by this same ruling. Then the same hypocritical nitwits that bend over backwards to criticize the US will be besides themselves defending the 'poor third world countries losing their sovereign rights'.

Re:Nothing New Here

[USAPatriot]

The UN is a corrupt organization where the inmates run the asylum.

The US doesn't need to ask for permission to defend itself or take actions where it is in its own best interests. The Kyoto Protocol was a joke and was never ratified here anyways. You can't withdraw something you don't formally enter in.

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

Re:Nothing New Here

[spellraiser]

Hear, hear

This particular quote from the story is quite interesting in this context:

"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue."

OK, so when the U.S. imposes its values on other countries, they shouldn't complain, but when others try to do it to them, it's A Bad Thing? Talk about double standards...

The U.S. politicians (I hate it when they are equated with the U.S. itself - there is a big difference) need to learn that in order for maintain good relations with other nations, everyone must follow the same set of rules.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gcaseye6677]

Nobody really agreed to abide by it, once they actually understood the thing. It sounded great at first but then nations realized it would bankrupt their manufacturing economy. And before anyone says it was a Bush thing, the senate voted, before Bush took office, 98-0 in favor of scrapping it. Clinton signed it in his final days to make himself look good, knowing he wouldn't be around for the fallout.

Re:Nothing New Here

[The Queen]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet? Everyone will fear us and do what we say? Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world? Personally I'd rather have people "play nice" with us out of respect and admiration, rather than fear.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

Time to burn some karma.

Global organizations, especially those dominated by third-countries (or soon to be third-world countries like France), are notorious for using the fascade of internationalism as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.

This particular case has nothing more to do with free trade than Germany banning internet sales of Nazi memorabilia. This is a law enforcement issue. Or would you claim that any nation's drug policy prohibiting the import of cocaine is an unfair trade practice targeted at Columbia?

And do a little homework before you start blathering about the US withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. The US Senate never ratified it, since liberal poster-boy Bill Clinton never submitted it. Can't withdraw from a treaty you were never agreed to.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Frymaster]

The U.S. did not withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol... it never agreed to abide by it.

okay, how about the withdrawal from the anti ballistic missile treaty. the u.s. withdrew from that. yes, i have a source

and then of course there's the whole softwood lumber dispute. even with the wto ruling in canada's favour, the eventual resolution included quotas set by the us... and even that lame settlement didn't last more than a year. the ustr pressured the wto on the issue until wto caved and reversed the ruling! yes, i have a source for this too.

so. bottom line: the us likes to act unilaterally and wto doesn't have the gumption or strength to stop them. if the wto will cave to the ustr against canada, what chance does antigua have?

oh yeah. i work in the online lottery industry. we're an american company... but our site runs in europe.

Re:Nothing New Here

[jhunsake]

They won't be, because the Muslims are smart enough to not join the WTO in the first place.

Re:Nothing New Here

[EpsCylonB]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

I wonder if in 50 years when China is the dominant superpower you will take the view that it is alright for them to bitchslap the US because "they have the power and the might, they don't need to play well with us".

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

250M US citizens

vs

1B Moslems
1B "commies" in China

Good luck.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

It is better to be feared than loved, more prudent to be cruel than compassionate.
-Niccolo Machievelli

Those only are despicable who fear to be despised.
-La Rochefoucauld

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

That's quite true. The real point is that, when the US went public with the fact that it had no intention of ratifying Kyoto, it did so in such a way that it sounded like the US was basically valuing the American way of life over the future of humanity.

I have no problem with the US not implementing Kyoto. Kyoto wouldn't solve any problems even if everyone implemented it. But I do have a problem with the arrogant attitude of the US government that thinks it doesn't matter how it looks to foreigners as long as it makes US citizens happy.

Because that's the sort of attitude that leads to things like 9/11, and while I'm no friend of America, I wouldn't wish an atrocity like that on my worst enemy.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Jim Starx]

Muslims don't claim free trade.

Re:Nothing New Here

[ianfs]

If that's your sig, then why even give a shit enough about any story posted here to comment on it? Give me a break.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't do it for the same reason we won't bitchslap them right now: nuclear weapons.

Re:Nothing New Here

[jrockway]

US: $499+ Billion in nuclear weapons

They might have a lot of people, but they will be gone if they cause problems.

Re:Nothing New Here

[DR SoB]

"and everyone else is 3rd world?"

Haha, you wouldn't believe how many Americans have said to me "Your a third world country". I'm Canadian..

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Then stop expecting others to sympathize^Wgive a flying fuck with you when a bunch of fundies slam airliners into your cities!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for some Muslim country to be affected by this same ruling. Then the same hypocritical nitwits that bend over backwards to criticize the US will be besides themselves defending the 'poor third world countries losing their sovereign rights'.

Are you sure?

Re:Nothing New Here

[WiKKeSH]

the us withdrew from the abm treaty legally...
there was a provision that allowed themto get out of it.

meme

Re:Nothing New Here

[Damek]

Machiavelli was not writing for a world filled with Democracies. If we want the world to be predominately democratic, we need to alter our behaviors. Granted, what he wrote is still relevant, taken to interpersonal power dynamics, but in context of the discussion, is it really necessary or desirable that our entire nation is despised by the rest of the world? That when American citizens travel abroad they are hated by people who haven't even met them?

As for the Rochefoucauld quote, fear of being despised is one thing. Actively encouraging others to despise you is quite another.

Re:Nothing New Here

[jwthompson2]

The Randy Newman song "Political Science" comes to my mind...

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

50 years? You're overly optimistic (if you're American), or overly pessimistic (if you're Chinese)...

Re:Nothing New Here

[the_rev_matt]

I think the point, however, is that participation in things like NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc subject ALL of the laws of the US to claims of "barrier to free trade". Any country that doesn't like one of our environmental laws can have it overridden (which has already happened with local laws passed by a popular majority in places like Oregon).

The US has never protested these actions (usually because the third world countries originating these claims are doing so at the behest of US based multi-nationals that can't come out against these laws publicly in this country for fear of public backlash). Suddenly some of the third world countries realized they could do more than be cut-outs in the war against the environment and could actually use the process to promote their own best interests. That is a clear violation of US policies.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

Do you have any idea how much you sound like a 3rd century Roman? Or 18th century Englishman, 19th century Frenchman or 20th century German? etc. etc.

I think what I'm trying to say is that you sound an awful lot like a proud citizen of a blindly arrogant and soon-to-collapse-from-the-inside empire.

Re:Nothing New Here

[vandan]

Indeed.

They certainly have the idea that it's one set of rules for them and their war buddies, and one set for everyone else.

When's the last time UN weapons inspectors had a good look around the US or Israel? Their respect for other countries can be gauged from their almost daily use of their power of veto in the UN. The latest of these was the veto on the resolution to condemn the assassination of the Hamas leader. I bet if someone assassinated Wolfowitz and then vetoed a UN resolution condemning the action there'd be hell to pay ... literally. The US would go in there, chemical weapons and depleted-uranium ammunition pouring out liberally over the side of all US craft, and the country would be 'liberated' ... much in the same fashion Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq have been 'liberated'.

You'd think after all the talk of terrorism, someone in the US would get the hint that maybe they're causing it all, and maybe it's time to start playing by the same rules as you impose on everyone else.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

Strange as it may seem to people living in socialist states (cough*EU*cough), the US government has to keep the US populace happy, or they tend to get pitched out on their asses (sooner or later, usually later).

And no, when it comes to our vital interests, we don't really give a flying fsck what others think. JUST LIKE ALL OTHER COUNTRIES. We just don't put on airs pretending to care what others think.

And no, our attitude was not the cause of 9/11. Like it or not (and we don't really like it) the US has been the torch carrier for liberty since WWII. We did not seek this role as policeman to the world, but somebody has to keep the barbarians in check (and islamists are the modern barbarians, they REALLY, REALLY want the clock turned back to about 1100A.D.).

Personally, I think we should let the rest of the world go fsck themselves, unless they mess with us. Then hit them so hard their great grandkids are cross-eyed (or glow).

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Withdrawal/not ratifying it, who gives a shit? The dude's point is that the U.S. doesn't adhere to globally accepted standards.

Re:Nothing New Here

[k_head]

But he US was instrumental in creating the WTO. It has also used WTO when it suits their needs.

In all honesty though none of this really matters. We have bombs and are willing to use them against people we don't like. What's WTO going to do? Jack shit that's what.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Read a history book.

Start with one about South Africa, and the apartheid regime.

They said the same thing.

The US will be a minor nuisance in ~50 years from now - since you're hated all over the world. Watch your economy break down first.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Short Circuit]

It's probably not his only account. That one's probably there to collect fans and freaks, without affecting most of what he has to say. You can learn a lot that way.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet?

In charge!

Everyone will fear us and do what we say?

And the problem with that is ...?

Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world?

We sure do! (you must be new here, this is a long standing US tradition)

Personally I'd rather have people "play nice" with us out of respect and admiration, rather than fear.

Well, that'd be great, if it worked. But I guess 9/11 proved it doesn't, so there is a new plan now. You aren't expected to like it, or even understand it, but that's the way it is. Even the Democrats are now saying we didn't act militarily soon enough. You can bet it will be a while before any administration makes that mistake again.

Re:Nothing New Here

[alext]

If by "nobody" you mean countries other than the US, Australia and Russia, then yes, "nobody" is agreeing to abide by it. Meanwhile the EU and Japan continue to have economies and not to feel too threatened by Kyoto.

The protocol has a trigger clause in it for it to come into force - countries accounting for at least 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions must be signed up. Right now there are 44%, Russia being seen as the critical guy to enlist as it would be sufficient to reach the target.

Re:Nothing New Here

[anachattak]

See...this is exactly why we have to prevent nuclear proliferation. We'll always need some countries out there without nukes so we still have people we can push around without fear of reprissal.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whittrash]

I have never thought that hard core gambling was a good thing for society. The lottery isn't too bad, but Vegas style games have a powerful dark side. I used to live in St. Louis when they brought in Riverboat gambling. Soon after they made it legal, many of its loudest supporters changed their minds because the results weren't what they expected. The entire cultural scene was starved for cash because it all went to gambling. The jobs created were pathetic, and addicted gamblers replaced productive citizens. Gambling should stay in Vegas where it belongs. I don't think the WTO has a right to enforce selling gambling to the US, it is like selling alchohol to a Muslim country, it is a cultural practice and shouldn't be forced on us. For the record, I am not a Bush supporter, I am a Democrat. This WTO needs to be smarter, this isn't a winning issue for them.

Re:Nothing New Here

[cayenne8]

"But I do have a problem with the arrogant attitude of the US government that thinks it doesn't matter how it looks to foreigners as long as it makes US citizens happy."

I know I'm feeding a troll here...but, can't help it. By definition, isn't a government supposed to do just that for its people? Protect them, and make them happy? Isn't this what every government around the world does, or is supposed to do for its people?

I really don't know of any countries who are so altruistic that they put the interest of another country above their own....

Re:Nothing New Here

[SillyNickName4me]

> Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

Not that I support terrorism in any way, but let me show you how stupid that reasoning is.

What is the USA going to do when all other countries in the world decide to ignore the USA and support anti-american terrorism? You are really sure you don't need to play nice with them to ensure they also play nice with you?

Remember that no army is going to stop people from hiding in the crowd and blowing things up. The few things that can help are ensuring such peopel will nto find support anywhere, and preventing the conditions that cause such ideas to get a foodhold to begin with.

Thinking that 5% of the world population can ignore the other 95% is a big part of what makes peopel see the USA as an enemy.

Re:Nothing New Here

[mingot]

We don't really need your sympathy. Just sitting down and shutting the fuck up when we go drop bombs and who we think did it would be more than enough.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Abm0raz]

Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet?

Still #1.

Everyone will fear us and do what we say? Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world?

That's the way of nature. The strongest survive. We're the alpha male of the world tribe. Eventually, we'll grow old and a new alpha male will arise. Until then, we get to choose whatever female of the species (metaphor for smaller countries) that we want. When other males (metaphor for other larger countries, but not as big as us) do something we don't like, we express our dominance and smack them down. It's a giant fight for territory.

When you are #1, you don't have to bend to the will of others. When you are at the top, you have more people looking to take advantage of you than when you are part of the masses. Do you think Bill Gates really cares what I think about him? Donald Trump? Rupert Murdoch? Howard Stern? Even when they get smacked, they still flip everyone off with the proverbial middle finger. Such is life at the top.

I'm not saying it's right or that that's the way it should be, but that it's the way it is. If they weren't that way, they wouldn't be at the top. They'd be down here with the rest of us. Same deal with the U.S.

-Ab

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

US populace happy, or they tend to get pitched out on their asses (sooner or later, usually later).

Come on. You don't really believe in that.

If things would get so bad that a popular uprising should occur, the incompetent government who led us in the mess would certainly have no qualms in calling in the police, national guard and, in the end, our military to squash the uprising like a bug.

Re:Nothing New Here

[amigabill]

>Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power
>and the might. We don't need to play well with
>others, others need to play well with us.

He who has the might is always right? Imagine a world where Mr. Bin Laden had all the nukes, and USA was a middle-class country rather than on top. Would you be happy in a world with him in charge, and his beliefs were the only right ones, solely because he had the might and power? Come on...

I do see the USA as somewhat hippocritish. We say other countries must allow US access to foreign markets, yet for some products/services at the same time try to forbit those same countries access to USA markets.

Being an 800 pound gorilla doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want. We should all still play fair, regardless of how much power or might or cash each country has. Each country should hold itself to the same standards that it expects other countries to abide by. If we don't, then there is no good reason to expect another country to abide by some rule that we declare ourselves exempt from.

If it's a bad rule, no one should be held accountable to it, not just certain countries but not the rest. If the US thinks it's a bad rule for the US, then the US thinks it's a bad rule for everyone. If the US thinks it's a good rule for foreign countries, then the US should also consider it a good rule for the US to follow as well. Golden rule and all that...

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

You forgot:

55,000 thermonuclear warheads.

and

The most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Re:Nothing New Here

[dAzED1]

I didn't have mod points to give you, so I placed a bet that you might have something smart to say in the future and just put you in my list.

All sorts of drugs are legal in all sorts of countries. That doesn't mean that the WTO can make the US legalize drugs imported from those countries.

Now...if the US allowed gambling across the board...that would be a different matter. But we don't. There are select areas (NV, indian reservations) that can do it. Other than that, gambling is an illegal activity. We're not keeping free trade from occuring in the gambling industry, we're keeping gambling from happening *at all*. There's a huge difference.

For all who are making the pot/kettle claim - don't be absurd. France and Russia wanted Iraq the way it was because they had shady ties. Anything the US did or didn't do in the 60's is irrelevant today, 40 years later. I wasn't alive, and none of the policy makers of today had power then. And Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils back then anyway. Its easy to fault people when you have 20/20 hindsight - its harder to predict the future.

Re:Nothing New Here

[u-235-sentinel]

What's interesting is major backers such as Russia have withdrew from Kyoto. They have even stated that it wasn't the best solution (if I recall properly).

Re:Nothing New Here

[TomHandy]

Hrmm....... somehow I really doubt you've actually READ the full text that the Machiavelli quote comes from (more likely you found the quote and figured it met your purposes).

But as far as Machiavelli goes, that particular quote is one of the most commonly taken out of context. If you do ever bother to read the rest of the text, you'll find that Machiavelli goes on to say that, on balance, it is still good to try and be loved, and to not go out of your way to do things that make you feared, as it is much easier to rule and get what you want if people at least generally like you. There's a lot more complexity to a lot of what Machiavelli wrote, including that one, than can be gleened from a simple one line quote.

-Tom

Re:Nothing New Here

[alext]

No, the US is not like other countries.

As an outsider it's rather touching to see claims like this being made. What might simply be seen as devil-may-care arrogance is arguably not that at all - it looks more like a genuine delusion concerning the extent to which US values are shared by others.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

I'm talking about voting.

BUT, we have a much better shot at removing an evil government than most. We have guns, most civilians in the world don't.

I don't think another civil war will ever be needed. Pols tend to be pussy lawyer types, they would cave first.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Kiryat Malachi]

There's a huge fucking difference between breaking an agreement you've signed, and never entering into that agreement in the first place.

And no one currently enforces to Kyoto, since the trigger condition (55% of CO2 emitters must ratify) has not been reached.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah .... and then maybe all of my gambling patents will be worth something. :-)

evil, you bet. it's what the big boys do.

Re:Nothing New Here

[cayenne8]

"Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet? Everyone will fear us and do what we say? Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world? Personally I'd rather have people "play nice" with us out of respect and admiration, rather than fear."

Actually...I think most of us over here are live and let live. I think we prefer the 'the sleeping giant' categorization. We really don't care that much what the rest of the world does...as long as it doesn't affect us, our lifestyles, or out liberty. We have enough problems struggling with ourselves over this everyday.

Live and let live..but, if you f**k with us...blow things up on our soil, mess with our people abroad...yes. We want to come down, and come down hard on those 'who tresspass against us'. 'Get medieval on their asses'....go Dirty Harry on them.

But, other than things like that...we really just like to be left alone. Heck, if you think about it...we shoot each other here every day for fun....all 9/11 did was give us a new target for awhile. As long was we don't feel threatened...we basically don't care what you do in your part of the world.

Re:Nothing New Here

[BiggsTheCat]

Global organizations, especially those dominated by third-countries (or soon to be third-world countries like France), are notorious for using the fascade of internationalism as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.

Well, yeah, and so is the U.S. The U.S. has done lots of stuff in their own self-interest under the guise of globalization through the WTO. For instance, Canada tried to ban a fuel additive that scientists believed to be a carcinogen. This ban meant that they could no longer buy gasoline from the U.S., where that chemical was added to all gas. Result: the U.S. dragged Canada into the WTO Trade Court, and won claiming that the ban was illegally favouring Canadian fuel suppliers. Canada had to pay massive fines, and would have to continue to pay fines if it banned the chemical.

Then, a few years later, the U.S. bans Canadian beef saying that it's all "mad cow". Wake up! Canada actually has better industry controls than the U.S., and has already banned using animal-remnants (offal?) in feed. At least we actually FOUND our cases of mad cow. The U.S. is in for a little surprise if it thinks it's lilly-white on the mad cow epidemic. The evidence used to back the Canadian cattle blockade is just as good as that used to block the fuel additive.

And that is why we have a kettle/black situation. All countries are out for their own gain, including and especially the U.S. Greed is not an acceptible defense for these actions.

Re:Nothing New Here

[maximilln]

-----
By definition, isn't a government supposed to do just that for its people? Protect them, and make them happy? Isn't this what every government around the world does, or is supposed to do for its people?
-----
That's what communism and socialism are for. A Republic, as a government, isn't supposed to do either of those things. A Republic is supposed to stay out of the way while the people live their lives and drive society. A Republic isn't meant to do much more than host lots of debate and keep the paperwork running through the courts which should be running on a very small and concise set of laws to prevent any one citizen from flagrantly abusing another citizen.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Thud457]

There was a report on "Marketplace" on NPR (well, PRI, really) about Manchester (?) and other cities in England having a rash of manhole thefts. Apparently China's voracious appetite for steel has driven up the scrap metal market to insane heights.

The report also intimated that China's Broadabigbanian growth spurt was also somewhat, in part, driving up oil prices.

Just imagine the strain on the environment when every person in China wants a US-standard-of-living. I pray to God that some smart Chinese engineer comes up with a cheap new energy source. Someone should have educated the Chinese about pragmatic environmentalism twenty years ago.

Re:Nothing New Here

[amateur bore]

Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet? Everyone will fear us and do what we say? Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world? Personally I'd rather have people "play nice" with us out of respect and admiration, rather than fear.
It's not so hard, but America has got to shed its insecurity. Why does it qualify every single decision it makes as driven by some fundamental principle of democracy and human rights? Why does it think that anybody's business is its business? Why can't it admit that it takes practical, selfish foreign-policy decisions just like every other country? America just needs to chill out and take a look around at the rest of the world. This blustering about freedom and democracy sounds so like some petulant adolescent in its naive and formative years unwilling to accept that they're the same as everyone else. America has to realise that we're all the same but that there's a multiplicity of ways to live your life.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gammoth]

<flamebait> The argument of any participant who uses the term 'the bottom line' is automatically suspect. </flamebait>

More seriously, you've made no argument what so ever. Here's a simple test. Replace references to your side with the other side, and/or vice versa, and if the result isn't implausible, then chances are you're just spouting propaganda and not truly engaging in debate.

Lastly, you can argue over semantics all you like. But the point remains. The US was engaged in the development of Kyoto, but then walked out. It's immaterial to the original post's argument if this was technically a 'withdrawal'. The US often gets its panties in bunch and pretends to take the moral high ground; then, much like the rich neighborhood kid who takes his ball home when he thinks he's been hard done by, disengages from the dialog.

Re:Nothing New Here

[mingot]

The US would go in there, chemical weapons and depleted-uranium ammunition pouring out liberally over the side of all US craft, and the country would be 'liberated' ... much in the same fashion Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq have been 'liberated'.

When did we liberate Palestine? Hell, the Jews have not even done it. And do keep in mind the only reason they have not turned every muslim in the region into a black grease spot in the sand is because we won't let them. God knows they want to.

So we let them have a little fun and kill a cripple now and then. Big deal. Seems like a fair trade to me since if I was in charge over there the next course of action after killing that gimp would have been to carpet bomb his funeral procession and any following processions held for THOSE victims, ad infintum, until the whole problem ended up neatly solved through attrition.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

No one is adhering to Kyoto who wasn't already below those levels to begin with. Europe hasn't done jack, Russia hasn't done jack, China hasn't done jack. At least the US said up front that this treaty was a load of crap and didn't pay lip service to it while continuing to ignore it. The point of Kyoto wasn't to reduce greenhouse gasses, although that's how it wasw sold to the treehugger crowd. The point of Kyoto was to cripple industrialized economies so that lesser developed nations could compete more effectively.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Larry David]

(or soon to be third-world countries like France)

Sir, I bow in your presence. You managed to get a totally stinking troll past the moderators and get modded up to +5! Perhaps trolling could get a revival on /. after all..

Re:Nothing New Here

[cayenne8]

"We say other countries must allow US access to foreign markets, yet for some products/services at the same time try to forbit those same countries access to USA markets."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't the US import more than we export ??

We're just trying to balance things out a bit if we can....at least that's my take on it. We can barely get into markets in China and many others in the Far East.

Re:Nothing New Here

[lordmage]

Since so many take a view that you can tie one poliocy with another.. your points make sense.

If you take the view that each policy its the end all be all of its existance then your argument does not even need to be said.

So in the end.. What am I saying? I am saying that It is a Law Enforcement issue and has nothing to do with other laws.

(just like Abortion being legal and murder being illegal has nothing to do with each other).

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I do have a problem with the arrogant attitude of the US government that thinks it doesn't matter how it looks to foreigners as long as it makes US citizens happy.

Ummm...isn't that why the nation-state is all about? Doing what the electorate wants? Last I checked, Kofi Annan was not President of the United States. He's just a guy who would get lynched in Alabama for being uppity. Besides, I really don't care what the third world thinks about the US. Fuck 'em. They don't vote, they don't count. Everyone in the third world has their own country, and we have ours and we should each stay out of the others' place and not interfere.

Because that's the sort of attitude that leads to things like 9/11, and while I'm no friend of America, I wouldn't wish an atrocity like that on my worst enemy.

Thanks for caring. FWIW, I don't live anywhere near a terrorist target, and I'm not particularly worried about terrorism.

I just wish that the gub'ment would quit wasting my money killing islamic people that would probably leave us alone if we just stopped sending so much freaking money and all those guns to Israel. It's not so much the evil that bothers me, it's just the wasteful spending. At the rate that Palestinian suicide bombers are going (about $10,000 per bomber, I think), we could spend $80,000,000,000.00 (which is the amount of the supplemental spending bill for Afghanistan and Iraq for just this year), and have 8,000,000 volunteers for suicide in the arab world. That would clean out a significant part of Iraq (22,000,000 people right now) Spend another $160,000,000,000.00 to get the rest to volunteer to kill themselves, and we own the country, because everyone would have blown themselves up. Hell, Bill Gates or the Walton family could practically pay for it out of pocket.

What a bargain! We could exploit the oil reserves, project military power to the region to ensure stability without having to be in Saudi Arabia, and we could (possibly) provide a homeland for the Palestinians. Either that or we could pay the Palestinians to blow themselves up, too, and bill Israel for it.

Anyway, I'm all for letting third world countries control their own destinies and having the US get out of their affairs. I guess that we're in agreement.

Re:Nothing New Here

[DigiShaman]

You can thank the Clinton administration for giving N. Korea nuclear technology. And, some other republican administration for helping out Bin Laden in order to fight against the USSR in the 80s. And now, we are giving weapons to Israel...only to find out later they may backstab us.

Damnit, when our elected officials going to learn to stay out of other countries business when it comes to defense. Shit like this scares me!!!

Re:Nothing New Here

[divisionbyzero]

Cocaine is a bad example. Importing Columbian cocaine would also violate the law in Columbia and several UN resolutions. Gambling obviously is not in violation of Columbian law, American law, or UN accords, but it is ostensibly a law enforcement issue. The issue at hand is placing bets across state or national border via the telecom infrastructure. That was the legal excuse for what is obviously, according to this representative, a moral objection.

The law was originally put in place in order to give the federal government the ability to prosecute gangsters involved in gambling. It was also a way for the federal government to impose its will on the States without appearing to do so.

Orgnaized crime may be an issue for off shore gambling, but most of these places have been vetted by one of the big accounting firms.

The only reason for the objection seems to be a kind of reactionary moralism. It always surprises me that the party that is supposed to advocate freedom always wants to know and censure what other people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Unless of course it is killing someone with the handgun they keep in their closet. That's perfectly fine.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

And you wonder why people fly planes in to your buildings?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly, when someone thinks it's time for armed uprising it won't matter whether guns are legal or not; they'll make their way into the rebels' hands regardless. If you're going to subvert the political order of your own country you're going against the constitution; gun control laws are considerably lighter than that.

Re:Nothing New Here

[kwandar]

"We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us."

Bzzzt - wrong answer! I'd suggest you take a look at the Prisoner's Dilemma and Tit for Tat strategies which show that cooperative players outperform.

The rest of the world would like to play nice, because in a cooperative venture all do better, but to suggest that the US doesn't need to play well with others, and that others need to play well with the US would be an invitation to disaster, if actually carried out.

The US relies on others in large degree for its oil, minerals, and manufacturing. Don't think for a second that the US is self-reliant. While the US can win a conventional war hands down, the more likely scenario of a guerilla war, irrespective of US power and might, would be a losing cause if it had the popular suppport of the civilian base. Even Bush agrees that the US needs to play well with others. His administration went hat in hand to beg for support from Britain, Spain, Poland and Australia for the war in Iraq.

The US you propose would be isolationist, which would mean being in the same league as ohhh .... North Korea?!

Re:Nothing New Here

[The Queen]

No, I'm not new. Nor am I a young, idealistic hippie, though sometimes I sound like one.

But I guess 9/11 proved it doesn't, so there is a new plan now.

Um, no, 9/11 was the end result of a looooong tradition of bullying. Most USians don't like to hear this, but our government actually does BAD things once in a while, and 9/11 was one group's way of saying "enough's enough and we've had too damn much!" Not siding with them, mind you, just trying to get you to see that fighting violence with more violence begets...more violence. Here's a nice quote for you: "You can't hold a man down without staying down with him." - Booker T. Washington

Re:Nothing New Here

[lordmage]

The US has had 1 case of Mad Cow Disease and that cow came from a Canadian herd. We have the Avian Flu that is killing bird and is pretty bad.

What has law enforcement to do with Trade anyways? WTO should not stop any country from enforcing Laws. Thats what the UN itself is for.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

Blaaah blah blah bla blah.

One set of rules. It's that just they get twisted by the ignorant.

The only reason UN inspectors were in Iraq/Iran etc. is because those countries signed treaties of non-proliferation that gives the UN the right to inspect those countries if there is reason to suspect they have prohibited arms. This same treaty exempts the US, Russia, Brittan, France and China - the 5 permanent security seat holders - with regard to WMD. We and a select few get them - the rest don't Not every country signed the treaty and they are not subject to it. There is even an escape clause to get out of treaty which N. Korea just exercised.

Nobody liberated Palestine and Afghanistan has been handed back to the Afghanis and Iraq will soon be given back to Iraqis. I doubt other countries would be so willing to give up conquered land so readily. The plan If you've been keeping current on the news, has always been to give them back once the bad guys have evicted.

The cause of terrorism is terrorist. They hate us for being us no matter what we do. They can not be bargained with. But they can be 'sprayed' for.

The treaties that make up the WTO have exclusion clauses for things like laws governing morality. It is the US position that gambling is bad and needs to be closely regulated. It is this exemption that the US is claiming gives the US the right to regulate the behavior of it's citizens through it's own laws regarding gambling.

Let's not forget that the US has backed down the steel tariffs. These were purely local politics getting the way of international trade. When the WTO said you can't do that, the US obliged by taking them down.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

We're not the first nation to think that way. A century or so ago, one particularly keen observer of empire wrote:

"Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!"

It happened to Britain, and to Spain, and Rome; it will happen to us too. Nothing lasts forever. With luck, we'll go out the way the British did, gracefully and with a certain amount of good will in the world. But if people like you have their way, it will be more like the way the Romans ended things: ever weaker, arrogant and paranoid and half-mad, harried by people who hate us, until we're a shattered wreck of remembered glory.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

Just a minor point, but I think gambling in one form or another (casinos, bingo, lottery) is legal in about 42 out of 50 states.

Tennessee just got the lottery this year.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

the U.S. imposes its values on other countries

Can you back that up with an example or two? Despite what you might think, the US is quite pluralistic when it comes to culture and values. I don't think they force their values on other countries more than anyone else. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but why not back that sentiment up with some facts?

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

Good for them. Best choice they ever made.

Re:Nothing New Here

[de la mettrie]

For those interested in the actual case law, the report of the panel (read: the court's verdict) ought to appear on this page in a few hours. You should probably take a look at this basic primer in WTO law first to make any sense of it, though.

The case is actually pretty straightforward, I guess - in the course of GATS negotiations, the U.S. has voluntarily opened its entertainment services sector to foreign competition (check the U.S. schedule of commitments, page 71) and forgot to schedule an exemption for gambling services.

This is somewhat understandable, I guess - after all, the 1994 Uruguay Round negotiations have not been called "the most complex negotiations in all history" for nothing. But now the U.S. will have to stand by its word.

A hint to the incensed U.S. Congressman: The WTO Agreements have caused significant changes in public policy all over the world, often in furtherance of U.S. interests (for example, the EU can't prohibit, according to a Panel ruling, the import of U.S. meat treated with growth hormones). Don't cry foul when you're forced to open up your economy under the same rules you promoted and signed.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gammoth]

Global organizations, especially those dominated by first-world countries (or soon to be first-world countries like China), are notorious for using the facade of free trade as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.

This particular case has nothing more to do with internationalism that the US trying to encourage sales of DDT to South American countries. This is a free trade issue. Or would you claim that any nation's trade policy promoting powdered baby formula over mother's milk is an unfair trade practice targeted at America.

Come on, really, raise the bar.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

For all who are making the pot/kettle claim - don't be absurd. France and Russia wanted Iraq the way it was because they had shady ties. Anything the US did or didn't do in the 60's is irrelevant today, 40 years later. I wasn't alive, and none of the policy makers of today had power then. And Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils back then anyway. Its easy to fault people when you have 20/20 hindsight - its harder to predict the future.

See, I wanted to stay out of this thread, I really did. Then you said that and here I am.

Taking your points in order here: Yup, France and Russia had financial interests in Iraq. So did the US. You might have heard of a little company called Halliburton? Some fella named Dick Cheney was in charge while Halliburton made money out of Iraq. In the '60s? Hardly, this was around 1998 or so.. Hmmm, isn't he the Vice President these days? Wanna tell me about the horrible shady deals of France and Russia again?

Contrary to your odd belief that US support for Hussain ended 40 years ago, I would recommend that you look at recent history. During the Regan and Bush I governments the US gave quite a bit of foreign aid to Saddam's vile regime. The policy makers who did this are, in fact, the same crowd who are in power right now.

As for historic hindsight and future prediction, I'll make a prediction: Supporting dictatorships leads to problems. We've seen this time and again. The US supports dictatorship X and then a few decades later we have to fight dictatorship X. Today the Bush government is busy proping up the evil government in Uzbekistan, they're about as bad as Saddam was. Who will we be fighting in 15 years or so? Hint: Its the evil torturing bastards that the Bush government is showering with money today!

Am I glad that Saddam isn't the dictator of Iraq? Of course. Would I be gladder if the US government showed any signs of the simple intelligence required to notice that supporting dictatorships isn't a good policy? Yup. Wouldn't it be better if the US maybe supported democracies instead of dictatorships? You wanna explain to me why you are defending the Bush government when you know that in 15 years or so we're going to have to fight the war in Uzbekistan they're busy starting for us?

Re:Nothing New Here

[lordmage]

Gambling is against US Law. ITs why Indian Casino's flourish.. because they are NOT in the US. (They have seperate "reservations" with thier own tribal laws). Yea,, we have like 50 vaticans in our italy.

There are 2 types of Law: State and Federal. Federal Law trumps state law in certain situations defined by the constitution. There are pockets of Legalized Gambling but mostly gambling is illegal.

I go to Canada and get my winnings Tax Free and then bring it back the US and have it worth a third of the value.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Your forgetting nuclear weapons, no country is a superpower if I can turn it into a crater. So bring the fucking Chinese on!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

History.... Don't Learn.... Doomed....(rinse)Repeat....

Imperialism = 911 = grey.money.politics

Re:Nothing New Here

[jasonisgodzilla]

Bring em on. 2B versus a couple of 400 Megaton ICBMS, railguns, laser weapons, space based weaponry, best trained troops in the world, most armed population in the world, and lets not forget the fact that the US has a crap load of level 4 labs loaded with nasties. All the man power in the world isn't going to beat a relatively small number of nukes,bioweapons and a shitload of spec ops troups. What are the Muslims going to do? Throw rocks, suicide bomb. Let there be a couple more large scale terrorist attacks in the US and see how many of those 1 billion muslims are left standing. Lets see those rocks up against minutemenII. As for the Chinese, we supply them with a large portion of their food. How much fighting are those 1 billion people going to do with nothing to eat?

Re:Nothing New Here

[cayenne8]

Well, I guess that was what I meant largely when I said 'make them happy'. While I pretty much agree with you...I'd also say the government, has the responsibility for defense against, and interraction with other countries.

Re:Nothing New Here

[wtrmute]

Nope, that's a liberal government. A Republic is a system of government whose representatives are elected for a pre-determined period of time, whatever the size of its constitution or legal code.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

As Machavelli noted, it is good to be liked but better to be feared. Plus their is the whole lasting fame thing. In the annuls of history, who do you think is rememebred more: Rome or Switzerland? The bottom line is this: the world is not the nice happy place that some people like to think it is. In the real world, nice guys do finish last. In an ideal world, we would all get along and play nice and we would all have world peace etc.. But this is the real world. In the real world, we are in competition against every single country and nation that has an interest contary to ours. The chinese have no interest in being fair if they can win. The european union will exercise as much control over world politics as it can in order to get what it wants. The countries of the world are not 'nice'. They are out to get what they want at almost any cost. Very few people see themselves as 'citizen's of the planet', rather they see themselves as citizens of thier respective countries and they want their countries to win. We are fools not to do the same. If we threw our guns and ammo away, would we be respected? yes. Would the chinese immediately invade and run down the nice respectable poeple under the threads of their tanks? Yes. The buddist monks are very respectable people and look what happend to Tibet. The world works in much the same way the romans realized it did back 2000 years ago: you can respect and admire an enemy but that cannot stop you from destroying them (or rendering them no longer a threat in the most effecient and long lasting way possible) becuase they are still your enemies, whether they say so or not.

Beyond that their is the whole matter of universal respect and admiration being impossible. You can please all the people some of the time and you can please some of the poeple all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time. Even if world politics was a popularity contest, we still would probably lose. The moment you come out in favor of anything is the moment you come out against soemthing.

As to being right, every great country throughout history has equated right to what is good fro their country. The classsic example is Romes mindset. Take Turnus from the Aenied: he was wrong and hence bad becuase he resisted the future that was Rome. A country at the time was seen as bad becuase they resisted what the romans wanted. Every country is like that. We call it treason - acting against your countries best interests.

The end result is this: the world does not see itself as citizens of the world. It sees the world like a giant football game where we each have a team. It is a game with no rules but those which one side can impose on another. Now you can whine about how we shoud all play nice. or you can play to win. If you don't, you lose. Simple as that. The world whines about how we are not nice orr fair, we'll I got news for it 'losers always whine about winners, winners go home and f*** the prom queen.' Or better yet, remmeber what happened to the citizen's of the world in the Sand Pebbles. If we play by the rules and are nice, we will be crushed by those who don't. People will not play nice with us becuase they respect us, they will take advantage of us. People valu winning over being nice. It's something we need to learn. Christ played nice and look where it got him - a religion shaped more by a man that hijacked the image of Christ for his own agenda (namely Paul).

Re:Nothing New Here

[whats_a_zip]

It's a catch 22. There are already lots of folks that want us dead if for no other reason than we are alive, (can you say al-Quiada?) I don't have a solution, just a question: How much do you lose playing nice before you quit playing nice? Of course I presuppose that you will lose playing nice. I have a somewhat jaded view given the documented corruption in the U.N., and most of the world leaders. If you have the view that once we play nice, everyone will see it, and we'll all hold hands and sing Kumbya then I guess your much different than I am.

Re:Nothing New Here

[dAzED1]

and in some forms (asprin, alcohol) drugs are likewise legal.

The WTO is trying to force the US to allow a form of gambling that is illegal here. Tada - simple. Ever notice that you have to be 18 to buy those lottery tickets? And you have to buy them with cash, not credit? That's a substantial factor in many areas.

No, they're simply trying to force the US to change moral-based laws. Nothing more. What my actual opinion is of the moral-based law is a different matter - but the WTO should have no say in such things. The US is not hampering free trade. We just don't have such activities legal here.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

WTO needs to be smarter, this isn't a winning issue for them.

The WTO doesn't need to be smarter, the WTO needs to be eradicated. If this issue generates animosity against the WTO then I'm going to do all I can to associate the WTO with forcing "our communities" to accept gambling. I'm just sorry that the WTO isn't trying to open borders to kiddie snuff porn or something worse.

Don't misunderstand, I'm hardly and isolationist, and I'm in favor of international trade. But the WTO isn't really about trade. Look at the *results* of what the WTO does instead of what it *claims* it wants. Less worker protection, lower environmental standards, less local control, and worse pay for everyone. That's the WTO's legacy. What really scares me is that the WTO and the IMF between them seem to be becoming a defacto world government with their power to overturn national laws, enforce standards, etc. What worries me the most about this is that the WTO and IMF are quite anti-democratic. Did you vote for your WTO/IMF representative? Are you even allowed to see the minutes of the WTO/IMF meetings? The answer to both of these questions is no, and that scares me. Power without accountability is alwyas bad.

Re:Nothing New Here

[kiwimate]

All of which works as long as you're #1 in perpetuity. Britain used to be #1. The USSR used to have some clout. The EU is now a very strong force to be reckoned with.

Re:Nothing New Here

[SillyNickName4me]

That is very easy when postign blindly patriotic statements regarding the USA ;P

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a nice quote for you: "You can't hold a man down without staying down with him." - Booker T. Washington

Unless you're bright enough to build a device which holds him down *for* you. Or, perhaps, drop a twelve-ton rock on him. That will hold him down quite nicely, leaving you to frolic happily in the fields...

Re:Nothing New Here

[the_consumer]

If a government is at the very least protecting its citizens, then it has no reason to exist. Why the fuck would you invent an institution which had the purpose of staying out of the way? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Re:Nothing New Here

[krzysztof]

The point of Kyoto was to cripple industrialized economies so that lesser developed nations could compete more effectively.

Um, no. I highly doubt Kyoto's intention was to cripple industrial development. Push it in a new direction perhaps.

I'll never understand why so many people equate "the way things are" with "the only way things can be."

Re:Nothing New Here

[dedalus2000]

Machiavelli also wrote "it is far better to earn the confidence of the people than to rely on fortresses." I have no confidence in this administrations ability to govern and thus question the parent posters ability to discern.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

Put simply, the rest of the world, liek the European Union and China each wants what is best for them. They want to ruel the world. But since they can't, they whine about how we do so; how we are not playing nice. If we were in thier shoes, we would do the same. Are they interested in playing fair? No, for if they were in our shoes, you can bet your money that those calls about fairness and nice woudl disappear right out the window. You paly to win or you play to lose. That is international politics.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Fjord]

Does that surprise you? Treaties aren't written such that you can't get out of them and must abide until antiquity.

the point is that by withdrawing from the treaty, the U.S. has decided to up the arms race. Once we have an abm sheild, we can launch our missles without fear of (immediate) retaliation (postnuclear terrorism will surely occur). I really do not like the idea of us losing the threat of nuclear retribution.

Re:Nothing New Here

[u-235-sentinel]

No offense but apparently they haven't been up to Canada. Beautiful place. But then again, I love the Rocky Mountains :-)

Re:Nothing New Here

[Abcd1234]

The US has had 1 case of Mad Cow Disease

It's hard to report numbers on something that could very well be going undetected due to lower beef production standards.

Re:Nothing New Here

[toriver]

That's the way of nature. The strongest survive.

Ah, you're one of those. The guys that failed reading comprehension when studying Darwin.

You see, it's not the strongest that survive, but the most adaptable. That's why the American car industry almost went under because they thought it was sufficient to be a U.S. brand to sell cars, but the buyers suddenly wanted quality and economy instead, and the Japanese manufacturers provided.

Recall a little war of independence back in the 18th century? You know, when a certain British colony dared to oppose the "alpha male of the world tribe"? And got away with it simply because the French said "non" when asked to help the British against the "terrorists"?

If more authority-loving people like you were around back then, the War of Independence would have been called "The damp squib" instead, and your current head of state would have been Queen Elizabeth II. And that probably would have been a good thing.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't defending the Bush administration for Uzbekistan. He was defending the Bush administration's Iraq policy, not the administration itself.

I consider myself moderately conservative, but I did support some of Clinton's policies. Likewise, there are some policies of the Bush administration that I don't agree with.

And the Halliburton reference is a typical knee-jerk reaction of the far left. No one really cares about the connection, and it only serves to discredit oneself in an attempt to appeal to the tinfoil hat crowd.

Re:Nothing New Here

[radish]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.


And people wonder why 9/11 happened. Guess what - it doesn't matter how much "power and might" you have - people will always find a way to hurt you if they are given a good enough reason. The last 2 years with it's utterly futile waste of money, resources and lives have shown that with great clarity.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

Ever made a gun?

It's WAY easier to have a gun available before hand than to try to make/aquire one when the heat is on.

Smart people have an SKS or two with a few thousand rounds buried somewhere.

Re:Nothing New Here

[dAzED1]

3 things.

1 - Did I say that the US hadn't done anything wrong? No, I said that they weren't alone in doing things wrong.

2 - Do you know another company that had the resources to pull off the task Halliburton is doing? In sheer magnitude of the job, the list of posibilities was TINY. I think its a bit more coincidental who used to sit on what board when than your arguement suggests. Not completely coincidental, no, but more than you (and many others) suggest. BTW - I don't really know anyone who likes Cheney. Bush at least has his supporters...why he doesn't ditch Cheney and pick up someone who could win in 2008 I'll never know.

3 - Iraq was under heavy sanctions in the 90's. France and Russia skirted those sanctions and sipped oil out..more France. And as I explained already in a recent post, Iraq did NOT need that nuclear plant france built them in the 70's. In the grand scheme of things, France has a far worse record with that area than us. Hell, the whole middle east is only a mess because of France, England, and Russia anyway. And the middle east mostly hates us because of propaganda from Russia/USSR during the cold war (and the Israel issue...which *should be* more Europe than us anyway, since it wasn't us that made Israel).

Never said the US was perfect, or that we didn't have dirt on us. Just tired of everyone suggesting we're the only dirty place around, and that *france* of all places is a pure little virgin. We might be Britney, but they're Madonna :P

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

9/11 would not be stopped by making the world liek us. There will always be soemoen who hates us. Bin Laden would hate us no matter what we did. What stops 9/11s isn't making people liek you but watching your back and making peopel fear you. A roman citizen could walk anywhere in the empoire and all he needed for protection was the phrase "I am a roman citizen.". Why? Not becuase ppl loved or respected Rome but becuase Rome's vengenance was so absolute and so extreme that no one would dare harm its citizens for fear of Rome's reprisals.

Re:Nothing New Here

[nelsonal]

I highly doubt that the Israeli's will backstab us they are one of the few countries that can reliably be counted on to stick with us in good times and bad. I'd add the British to the list too. They are more of a mentor who can take the angry kid to the side and say you might want to think a bit before you act but if you act we've got your back. The Israelis and the US have been allies since Israel was founded and there are lot's of Jewish people in the US who are very likely to maintain the close ties.
When we dealt with the Afgan rebels we had a pretty good idea that this might well come back and bite us (especially once the stinger lanchers started moving through Pakistan to Iran) but the decsion was that it would be better for Islamists to be strong than the Soviet Union. We'll find out if that bet was right over the next several decades.

Re:Nothing New Here

[kiwimate]

Your forgetting nuclear weapons, no country is a superpower if I can turn it into a crater.

I realize this is flamebait, but...

(i) Remember Mutually Assured Destruction? The USSR used to be a superpower. They had a lot of weapons, and a hell of a lot of land to craterize. China's fairly big, too, I understand. And the EU.

(ii) How valuable and intimidating is a nuclear arsenal that you can't afford to maintain?

Re:Nothing New Here

[chameleon_skin]

How wonderfully defeatist of you. By the same logic, we should still engage in slavery. And why not? The ancient Roman would have said, "there has always been slavery, so I'm just excercising my natural right by being a slaveowner. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is." Still totally relevant, right?

This so-called "realist" attitude, especially applied to international relations, is repugnant. By the same token you can use it to justify sweatshops, deforestation, and famine in a world where we produce far more food than necessary for the number of individuals on the planet.

Instead of conveniently shrugging your shoulders as a member of the priveledged class, why not get angry and speak out against this sort of behavior? Or, god forbid, even do something about it?

And by the way, social Darwinism was tossed out as a valid theory almost a century ago.

Re:Nothing New Here

[bwcbwc]

Wouldn't it be nice if the US could get away without supporting any dictatorships. But our own national interests have to have some weight in our decision of which governments to support and how we support them.

Case in point: Pakistan. If Pakistan were to become a democracy today, we would have an Islamist radical nuclear power on our hands. So what is your transition plan to go from the current military dictatorship to a moderate democratic state that doesn't pose much of a threat to us (or India, for that matter)?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Decameron81]

"That's the way of nature. The strongest survive. We're the alpha male of the world tribe. Eventually, we'll grow old and a new alpha male will arise. Until then, we get to choose whatever female of the species (metaphor for smaller countries) that we want. When other males (metaphor for other larger countries, but not as big as us) do something we don't like, we express our dominance and smack them down. It's a giant fight for territory."

Shame on that statement. The way of nature doesn't mean I must smack down my neighbor just because I have the power to. If all of the US citizens thought like you do, there would be far more than two towers to shed a tear for.

Do you seriously think that if some other country finds itself in a position to nuke the US it should do so to become the strongest? The way of nature means I should care for myself and only for myself? Then why is it a crime to shoot down someone in the street because you can?

It's not like you have to ignore your interests, but there's a big difference between following those interests and purposedly exploiting other people/countries to gain a better position.

You get respect if you deserve respect. Threating others like your personal slaves is not the only way to retain your leadership position.

Diego Rey

PS: this is not against USA, but against that selfish way of reasoning

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

"'Your a third world country'."

You're in North America, learn to write the language.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

The world did not respect the phrase "I am a roman citizen" becuase Rome played nice or becuase Rome was loved. Roem was respected becuase it had no problem using its legions. If your nice, peopel will listen to what you have to say and might do it. If you play to win, peopel will listen to what you have to say and do it becuase they are afraid of what will happen if they don't.

Re:Nothing New Here

[corbettw]

Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet?

Um, we're not citizens of the planet, we're citizens of the United States. And as long as there's no world government, there's no such thing as a citizen of the planet.

Everyone will fear us and do what we say? Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world? Personally I'd rather have people "play nice" with us out of respect and admiration, rather than fear.

Ideally, I think you're right. However, people being as they are, "it is better to be feared than loved."

Re:Nothing New Here

[kalel666]

I agree up to the part where you say the EU is a very strong force to be reckoned with. In theory, yes, but I really don't see the EU as being a very cohesive, unified entity.

To be honest, I expect the smaller members (i.e., anyone not France or Germany), to get pretty tired of their second class roles and start revolting. I mean, look at the EU Constitution. It's hundreds of pages, due to the fact that they try to anticipate and codify everything and anything that may come up. I just can't see a group formed of such diverse cultures and languages staying together. History tends to support me, I think.

Re:Nothing New Here

[autopr0n]

Global organizations, especially those dominated by third-countries (or soon to be third-world countries like France), are notorious for using the fascade of internationalism as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.

Do you even know what 'third-world' means? How is france becomming third-world? Because they don't support Bush?

Re:Nothing New Here

[rossz]

No, the critical country is China. They signed it, but only because they are included in the "developing country loophole". China is responsible for a huge percentage of the carbon monoxide pollution in the world. It seems they have a lot of coal mines that have been burning for years which they have abandoned as they have lots of untapped coal deposits. It's cheaper to start a new mine rather than clean a burning one.

The Kyoto treaty was specifically designed to hamstring the American economy. Its stated purpose, to reduce world pollution, is nothing more than a cover story.

Finally, European countries signed the agreement because they had no intention of abiding by it. The U.S. refused to sign it because we take our treaties serious.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Mr.Ned]

It was economically convenient at the time for the EU, whatever other reasons they may have had for signing it. The EU accomplished their reduction goals by shifting to natural gas in many areas formerly requiring oil. Their case was not one of "let's protect the environment and oh, look, it's better for us" - it was "hey, this natural gas stuff is cheaper than oil." Not to say the EU and its member nations don't have an environmental ethic - theirs is much more sustainable - but the fact is that it was economically prudent for them to do so.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

Personally, I think anybody who gambles online is dumb ass. At least in a casino you can touch the machine that's robbing you.

The problem from the gubmits pov is that they aren't getting their cut.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us

Let me guess ... you work for Microsoft, right ?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. The US passed a law to sue Canadian companies that did business with Cuba. Sounds like imposing your values.

Thats just one example.

Re:Nothing New Here

[maximilln]

No. You're confused. What I've described is a conservative government. A small government. The kind of government that doesn't steal your money to help every rich yuppie brat posing as a homeless hippie with a coin jar. The kind of government that doesn't try to install AgentX on your porch and in your bedroom.

A liberal government is the type of government that wants to become your best friend and get involved with every aspect of your life and help all of the people. It's commonly referred to communism or, in more extensive forms, socialism.

That said though, perhaps you're right about a Republic. A republic may refer to nothing more than the method of turnover of the elected politicians but somehow I think the etymology of "republic" really does lean towards preserving the majority of power and rights with the individual citizens.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Chainsaw Messiah]

You have a problem with the US government acting in the best interest of US citizens?? Do you feel the same way about France acting in the best interest of French citizens? How about Germany acting in the best interest of German citizens? I think you have a problem with the US government not acting in according to your beliefs.
9/11 happened because of the attitude of Religious extremists. Do you blame Spain for 3/11 too?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely true. Do you feel that your "not playing well with others" has made your life more safe or less? I think 3 thousand dead people from the twin towers would disagree.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Abm0raz]

Ah, you're one of those. The guys that failed reading comprehension when studying Darwin.

Ahh ... you're one of those guys. Those that don't read the whole post, but only till they find a point they can contend with. If you read to the end, you'd notice I wrapped up with a line that similar to, "I'm not saying it's right, or that it's the way it should be ... just the way it is." I have no fantasies that the U.S. will be #1 forever. I've long held the belief that if several other contries banded together (or China got her head out of her ass and developed the thriving economy it is capable of) that we'd all be speaking another language and eating lo mein every night. The reason the US rose to the top is because we had resources out the wazoo and were willing to be flexible. We were willing to put 6yr olds to work in dangerous mines. We were willing to get a thriving economy at the expense of the working man. We were willing to take whatever land in a controlled expansion that we wanted. In the late 1950s/early 1960s, our attitude changed from doing whatever it took to get on top to a more protectionary role to remain there (hence, the cold war). When the soviets fell, we got even worse, having noone to protect against. It's getting even so bad that we are fighting ourselves and opponents so small it's not worth the effort (elephant against a swarm of bees. Neither can win. The bees are but a mild annoyance to the elephant and the elephant can't pin the bees down).

Long story short, we've turned the corner from a developing nation to a protectionary nation and this, in history, has nearly always signalled the transfer from a rising society to a falling society.

-Ab

Re:Nothing New Here

[EnderWiggnz]

apparently our aim is a little off - for some reason we're interested in subjugating iraq.

Re:Nothing New Here

[DaytonCIM]

And where are the Romans today? No matter how much "might" or influence or wealth an empire may have, it always fails.

Every Empire in history has grown to fat to sustain itself. Every Empire has thought itself superior to all other races - countries, then found itself outnumbered and surrounded.

Everytime an American takes the stance of

If you play to win, peoplel will listen to what you have to say and do it becuase they are afraid of what will happen if they don't

the barbarians get a little closer to the gates.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Demonspawn]

I will admit that the US government does make mistakes. I think the biggest was the policy in the 70's and 80's that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which set us up for several problems.

However, I must fimly disagree with the bulshit line: Fighting violence with violence begets more violence. Let me make it clear for you:

You are the victim of violence (on a national level). You can:

1) Do nothing, appologize to those who struck violence against you. This will make you weak in the eyes of our own people, but most dangerously, in the eyes of other potential violence tatic users. Pretty soon you are getting pretty regular bombings to influce your governmental decisions. You might as well just give up your soverngity to the terrorists. This is the worst solution.

2) Diplomatic solutions. While this is honestly the perfered method, wipe from your mind the belief that this will work in all occasions. "War will exist as long as someone out there belives in something so strongly that they are willing to die for it" --Me In the case of the 9/11 attacks, we already knew this to be the case. The terrorists commited suicide to inflict damage upon us. Therefore, this can quickly removed as a potential solution.

3) You strike back in an inpercise manner. This leads to your belief that violence begets more violence, as the survivors of the orginization will seek revenge, and likely the relatives/close friends of those who were colateral dammage will seek vengance as well. I perfer this to option 1, however.

4) Effective, controled, accurate violence. This works. This works because your enemies are dead. Unfortunatly, this is difficult to acomplish in an absolute state.

--Demonspawn

Re:Nothing New Here

[Buelldozer]

Now this is certainly curious! Where was the WTO when a French court ruled that Internet based auction companies had to block the sale of Nazi "stuffs" to it's citizens? This is obviously very close to the same issue, international trade conducted over the Internet between two countries with conflicting sets of rules. I'm sure it's just my bad memory, but somehow I don't recall the WTO forcing France to change it's national policies to allow for free trade based on the weaker of the two national laws. In fact I don't remember the WTO doing much of anything at all in that case. I guess it was okay though 'cuz it was France and THEIR laws must be respected. Now our trivial United States ones on the other hand...

Re:Nothing New Here

[Coltman]

mmmmm tasty flame....ohhh yea tastes good

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

LOLOLOL thats a good one... Man there just isn't anything to say to that without feeding the flame. But thanks for the laugh!

Re:Nothing New Here

[kiwimate]

Maybe, maybe not -- it'll definitely be interesting to see what happens over the next two decades. I think the EU today is far stronger than one could have predicted in the 70s and even 80s, when the amount of infighting made it dubious that the EU would even survive. Now the Euro has overtaken the US Dollar and been widely adopted, and history, while supporting you, also indicates that any world superpower cannot maintain its status indefinitely.

Re:Nothing New Here

[mike2R]

I've heard of preparing for the last war, but this is ridiculous.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

We have these things called elections. There is no need for uprising.

I honestly can't believe how stupid some of the people are here.

Re:Nothing New Here

[nametaken]

Perhaps in some ways you're right. But on the other hand, do you think we could have been 'nice' enough to them to prevent an attack? I don't believe so. I assume that our government looks at the situation something like this: "We can try to be more like what people want us to be, and passively hope they don't get angry... or we can be what we want to be, act in our own interests, and try to take a less friendly but more active [read caustic or violent] role in trying to prevent their ability to react".

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear god, how many idiots will have to spout dumbass rhetoric like that? Are you guys trolling, or are you really brainwashed enough to believe that shit?

a couple of 400 Megaton ICBMS...a crap load of level 4 labs loaded with nasties...see how many of those 1 billion muslims are left standing

About as many as other human beings in your own country. Do you seriously think that launching piles of nukes or releasing viruses (anywhere in the world) would leave you unharmed? Look up radiation sickness someday, or anthrax, or even a modified strain of smallpox.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Abm0raz]

Just a point of clarification, I never said I agreed or liked the attitude and actions, just that that's the way it is. There are some things in life that are ugly and you just have to face them. For most people it's death (although, death doesn't bother me. Not saying I want to die, but I've come to terms with it, both my own and my friends and family), for PETA it's animal usage/eating, for social activists it's the disproportionate power/money distribution. I'm not saying don't fight against your cause, but recognize the reasoning those you are fighting against use. You'll get a lot further if you understand your enemies motivation than just blindly following your own.

-Ab

Re:Nothing New Here

[sumdumass]

Thats really naive of you. The US pulled out of the treaty because of several reason including the anti balistic missles program. The world has changed and if you havn't noticed the threat isn't stoping a retaliation, the threate is a rogue nation or organization getting thier hands on a ICBM and launching it at some major metropoliton area as an act of terror.

These systems will be placed in all our stratigic areas along with sharing the information about them with our allies. The bigest threat of mutualy asured destruction is founded on a country having the ability to out last us in a nuke war. Rusia would have been the bigest threat for this and yes they will most likly either get the plans to build thier own or have our prebuilt ones at thier disposal.

we need to get away from the, I'm scared of countries that share common intrest in our survival mentality. with the globalization of the econimy other countries depend more and more on the existance of each other. Former foes are now friendly buisiness partners. it is a fact we have to except.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

Better than playing nice and inviting them.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Dr. Evil]

"We"?

The average citizen, and even the substantially above average citizen is a pawn. For them to say "we" is foolish. The U.S. government has the U.S. military. "They" have the bombs. "They" use them against people "they" don't like. If "they" don't like you, citizen or not, you will be subject to "their" will. All you can hope for is to be able to exert some almost imeasurably small influence on whether or not one of two particular nutjob politicians have power... and whether or not that is true is debatable.

(back on topic... if the WTO is going to try to override the will of the elected government in regard to controlling a regulated and dangerous revenue stream, the WTO is partaking of the moderator's crack.)

Re:Nothing New Here

[kalel666]

I don't know. I hope you're right, and I hope the US and EU can realize how much they need each other. And no, I don't expect the US to remain on top forever, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime, or my great great grandchildrens time, either. Who can say?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Conspir8or]

>The lottery isn't too bad

Heh ... you've never seen lines of folks, who have driven into your state from a bordering municipality, getting into fistfights over their place in line to pick up a ticket for a nine-figure Powerball total? You've never seen run-down citizens teeter into your local Kwik-E-Mart with a plastic sleeve to hold their twenty lottery slips, all filled out for use each week -- or day in some cases? You've never heard some nicotine-ravaged voice hand a fifty to the clerk and rasp out the names of some crap-odds scratch-and-win game?

I maintain the lottery is as bad as the slots, especially for those near the low end of the wealth scale. The old numbers/policy racket is alive and well and run by the state. At least the casinos don't try to tell you it's helping education in the guise of a tax on the ignorant.

Re:Nothing New Here

[mbourgon]

And to think, that post probably would've been modded a 5 if it had its spelling fixed.

Re:Nothing New Here

[nfgaida]

HA. Treaties Seriously?

Must be why we pursued a pie-in-the-sky missle defense sheild, which violates treaties we've signed.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom line, we can do it because we have the power and the might. We don't need to play well with others, others need to play well with us.

Amen, brother! You just hit the nail on the head. Might Makes Right. No one really needs any stupid "Rule of Law": it's the excuse of pussies. What America says, goes, because America has the strength to make it so.

I quote:

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 cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

Hancock et al, The Declaration of Independence

Doesn't it sort of sound odd to you? It should.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

nice argument. I liked it - though I would like to dream/believe, Humans would eventually live in peace,
with themselves and the world. I have to.

Just reminded me of a quote from a german movie "Run Lola! Run!".

It is something like this...
"The ball(football) is round. The game is 90 minutes. Don't ask why and how.. it just is. Just play."

I guess that summaries what we are doing here.

----
Who I am is irrelavent.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Abm0raz]

See my reply to diego in this same thread. It was just an observation. At no point did I suggest or try to disway anyone from taking action. I like to think that I am a liberaterian and try my best not to put my opinions on others. I try just to put information out there in the way that I see it as objectively as I can. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether I agree with it or not.

-Ab

Re:Nothing New Here

[Sexual Ass Gerbil]

The United States (or heck, the entire western world) is powerful because the people are happy. In developing nations like China, people live in poverty. Some barely get enough food to eat, and even then it's probably not much more than rice and water. The people live in non-airconditioned shacks. Their medical care fringes on pseudo-science. Their leaders are several times more corrupt than U.S. leaders. It's liveable, but you will be hard pressed to find a better place to live outside of the West. If China becomes the next super power, something will have to change. Either China's government will have to become less corrupt, or the U.S. will have to become worse.

In short, don't worry about China bitchslapping the U.S. until its people have a better quality of life than the U.S. Remember, it's the middle class that powers the country. If the middle class aren't happy, they lack the willpower to make their nation strong.

Re:Nothing New Here

[bigpat]

"everyone must follow the same set of rules"

Agreed, everyone must follow my rules.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Citizen of Earth]

9/11 would not be stopped by making the world liek us. There will always be soemoen who hates us. Bin Laden would hate us no matter what we did. What stops 9/11s isn't making people liek you but watching your back and making peopel fear you.

I fear your spelling. Is that close enough?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have more information on this? Are these Canadian companies doing business in the US also? If so then they are subject to US laws. If not then what attempts have been made to enforce such a law across borders?

Re:Nothing New Here

[CommieOverlord]

In the annuls of history, who do you think is rememebred more: Rome or Switzerland?

Which one is still around today? Is it still better to be feared?

As long as Rome was powerful could do as it pleased without reprecussions. Once it started to weaken it's enemies were able to tear it down.

Switzerland has been around in an independant form for over 500 years and is still healthy and will continue to be healthy. It's because they play well with others

Re:Nothing New Here

[bluGill]

No, if it wasn't for the success of the American revolution I would be speaking french right now, since I live in territory that was once owned by France. France sold a large part of what is now the US, to the US. France and England (I'm not sure how the UK, england, Great Britton, and Britton differ, so I'm not sure which name is correct) were enemies, we can be pretty sure that France/ Napoleon would not have sold this part of the "new world" to an enemy. OTOH, they might have lost it in some treaty.

In short you can make a lot of speculation about what-ifs, but you need to understand what really happened before you can make blanket statements like that. Not acknowledging that France (not to mention Spain/Mexico) owned a large part of what is now the US in your speculations means you have not thought it through enough to make any predictions.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the most astoundingly stupid things I've seen posted on slashdot in a long time. And that's saying a lot.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Eric Savage]

I don't have a strong objection against gambling per se, but I have always been dissapointed by the fact that it takes money from people that need it the most. I would bet that gambling expenses (mainly from lottery) is inversely proportional to income.

Re:Nothing New Here

[micromoog]

concise set of laws to prevent any one citizen from flagrantly abusing another citizen.

Right, that's what corporations are for.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Do some fucking research.

The missile defense shield does not violate any treaties to which the USA is currently party to.

The ABM treaty did prohibit it. However, the USA withdrew from that treaty in a perfectly legal and legitimate way. There was a clause that allowed either side to back out given a six-month notice. The USA gave its six month notice and pulled out of the treaty.

So stop running your mouth when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Re:Nothing New Here

[divisionbyzero]

There is no federal law against gambling otherwise states wouldn't be allowed to have legalized gambling. Federal law always trumps state law. In order to ban gambling there would need to be a constitutional amendment because Las Vegas would undoubtedly challenge any law the federal government would issue against gambling and would probably win the case in the supreme court.

Re:Nothing New Here

[dedalus2000]

I suspect it's not only Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch and Howard Stern who don't care what you think. Your view of evolution is worse than one-dimensional. What I'm saying is fitness is not a synonym for strength. Survival of the fittest means literally survival of the most appropriate. To say that the US (or our if you prefer) unilateral actions are inappropriate for the modern world is to say the US is unfit to survive in it's current state. That's not to say that US foreign policy can't evolve. Here's hoping for an accurate vote count next time.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

"Supporting dictatorships leads to problems. We've seen this time and again. The US supports dictatorship X and then a few decades later we have to fight dictatorship X."

Is it a problem, or a make-work situation?

It would be a problem if it occurred ONCE, but there's the Viet Kong, Bin Laden, Hussein...

Re:Nothing New Here

[SnowZero]

Some background info for the uninitiated: Note that Islam stipulates that gambling is illegal, rather like Jewish Kosher values stipulate things such as that pork cannot be eaten. So yes, they'd be pretty pissed to be told that they have to allow gambling.

Here's an example:
The position of Islam on gambling is that it is prohibited, harmful and destructive to society. Gambling is addictive by nature, a practice that takes money from the poor with the perceived, yet illusive promise that they may "win" something without having to work for it. Gambling is mentioned in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, alongside drinking alcohol as an abomination, a sin, and a grave harm to mankind.

I think this issue is an example of trade getting dangerously close to values; For example what if the WTO told us we need to lower the age for legal pornagraphy to 17, to bring it in line with some European nations? I hope the WTO forces France to allow religious symbols in school again, since their new law forbidding it will ruin the religeous headscarf, skullcap, and large cross market. No, that would be terrible, because mixing trade and values is silly.

In the US, gambling has always been heavily regulated (my views aside, it seems to be the will of the people), and they want to keep it that way. Online gambling, just like the online pharmacies pimping everything nowadays, are extremely hard to regulate.

So in short, this is not a good example of the US being arrogant, and they really do have a point regarding laws and tradition.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

The UN never said the US couldn't or even shouldn't go into Iraq.

Re:Nothing New Here

[The Goobla]

Bloody brilliant. Toting your pre-packaged nationalism ripped off from The West Wing. Clearly my friend, murderous vengeance is always the best way to go.

And I'm absolutely positive that if we read up on some history, we'd find that this nationalistic vengeance always leads to a more prosperous and safer future.

Face facts, we're better than Rome. And if we continue to hold society up to ancient standards we'll inevitably go backwards.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Atryn]

9/11 would not be stopped by making the world liek us. There will always be soemoen who hates us. Bin Laden would hate us no matter what we did.

I must disagree. Bin Laden did not conduct 9/11 by himself. You are right, someone almost always hates everyone. So why is the US the target of these attacks? Because LOTS of people hate us. Many people hate us enough to devote their lives to our destruction. Even more people hate us just enough to give money to the devotees.

Terrorist networks are not "a few people hate us" movements, they are well-organized, established, well-funded and often supported officially or unofficially by foreign governments. This is not a case of "the guy down the street doesn't like me".

Re:Nothing New Here

[Lord Kano]

Must be why we pursued a pie-in-the-sky missle defense sheild, which violates treaties we've signed.

You mean that treaty between the US and the USSR (That country that doesn't exist any more)?

LK

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, They said you're a third rate country.

I'd have to agree.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

not subjugate. get the terminology right. liberate. say it slowly at first so you dont' hurt yourself. liberate.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point completely-- when everyone plays nice there is no "them".

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

2 - Do you know another company that had the resources to pull off the task Halliburton is doing? In sheer magnitude of the job, the list of posibilities was TINY.

I wasn't talking about Halliburton getting to rip us off for the rebuilding, I was talking about Halliburton's pre-war involvement in Iraq. As I said in my post, in the late 1990's Halliburton was doing quite a bit of business with Iraq. This is what you were calling "shady dealings" when France and Russia did it. The argument about Halliburton getting cost plus no bid contracts from the US government is an entirely different argument (and one that crosses party lines, I should mention that Clinton also gave huge contracts to Halliburton). I can't see why it was necessary to give one company the responsibility for everything. It would be quite simple to divide the rebuilding into smaller chunks (either geographically or by job) and use smaller companies.

I overreacted to your post, sorry. I'm certainly not going to pretend that France is some pure nation of goodness. I just don't like it when people try and make the actions of the Bush government out to be from pure motives. I think its pretty clear that the Iraq mess was easily forseeable (as I mentioned, supporting dictators has a history of being a bad idea), and that the current Bush government is wasting resources that would be better spent hunting down Al Quida on a sideshow for oil. More to the point, you were trying to pretend that the US support for Saddam was a 1960's issue, and you know durn well it isn't.

I'm going to completely avoid getting into a discussion of Israel. Even more than the Iraq war, Israel is a topic where people seem utterly incapiable of discussion without foaming at the mouth (he said, wiping his Iraq war foam from his mouth). Its like gun control, there *is* a middle ground that would probably satisfy arond 90% of the people, but the nutbags on both sides won't let anyone talk about it. Worse, the nutbags have remarkably effective meme plagues working to polarize the non-nutbag population.

Re:Nothing New Here

[frankie]

thank the Clinton administration for giving N. Korea nuclear technology

Huh? Where did that come from? North Korea already had a plutonium program by the time Clinton took office. And if you want to talk smack, let's take a peek in Donald Rumsfeld's portfolio. Our pals Rummy & Cheney are definitely experts on the "Axis of Evil", considering they were previously in contract negotiations with most of them.

Re:Nothing New Here

[JudgeFurious]

I think that he isn't necessarily taking the view that it's alright now. He's just mostly pointing out that right or wrong it is pretty much the way the world works.

In 50 years or so if China is the king of the hill then no it won't be alright for them to bitchslap the US but that won't make any difference. If the US is far enough down the food chain then the US is going to have to take their bitchslapping and STFU about it not unlike other nations do today when they get their Uncle Sam style bitchslap. Just like the US took it when England was giving them out back in the day.

It's just the breaks. Sooner or later everyone gets their day in the barrel.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

I didn't say it was intened to cripple industrial development. It was intended to hamper industrialized (read: western) economies. The Kyoto protocols specifically exempted developing nations, who are some of the worst offenders on a per-capita basis. If the point of Kyoto was environmental protection, then it would have been just as unforgiving of LDCs as it was of western countries.

It left the LDCs alone so that they could have a competitive advantage over those who had to invest a lot of money and effort to comply with Kyoto.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

2 hours of sleep and speeling gitz reelle bad...

Re:Nothing New Here

[Kirill Lokshin]

And where are the Romans today? No matter how much "might" or influence or wealth an empire may have, it always fails.

And what countries have not failed? Yes, Rome was overrun; but so were all the little countries without power. In fact, they typically went under first, simply because they, unlike Rome, didn't have the military power to delay the barbarians.

Re:Nothing New Here

[BgJonson79]

If someone wants to kill you because you have a honest disagreement, do you want to be compared to someone with that mindset?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

"3 - Iraq was under heavy sanctions in the 90's. France and Russia skirted those sanctions and sipped oil out..more France. "

The No. 1 Western recipient of Iraqi oil under
the oil-for-food program was Chevron.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Rimbo]

If they were to receive a third grade report card they'd receive low marks in the "plays well with others" category.

Please remind me why half of Europe is not currently speaking German, why Japan and Germany lost in wars to a certain country and yet are world powers, how the economy fares in Basra today compared to the past decade, and two nations who within the past five years lost totalitarian regimes and are forming democratic institutions. Oh, and who right now is getting all of the money from Iraq's oil? (Hint: It ain't the USA.)

If this isn't your idea of "playing well with others," I welcome it.

Let's see, there's the invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the U.N.)...

Pardon me while I beat a dead horse.

The UN had repeatedly said "Iraq must do this, or else," and then determined that Iraq had not done so. This happened more than half a dozen times over the past decade. By voting against action in Iraq, the UN made its own declarations meaningless. So who cares if they disapproved?

You would rather have Saddam continuing to murder his own people and invade neighboring lands? How long would inspections continue before the international community became bored (or, in the case of France, Russia, and China, complicit) and Iraq was once again able to access the materials needed for WMD?

"Oh, but it's the USA's fault he had WMD in the first place." Yeah. So? Who cares whose fault it was? It was up to the international community to defend the standards they themselves set, and they failed.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Vargasan]

Exactly, because Canada gets hit with terrorist attacks ALL the time.

Everyone is afraid of Canada, right?

Re:Nothing New Here

[hesiod]

> The US passed a law to sue Canadian companies that did business with Cuba.

A bit dishonest be leaving the obvious raesoning out. A US law only affects people & businesses in the U.S., so those "canadian companies" do business in the U.S. and while doing business in the U.S. must follow U.S. laws. Add into that that we have a trade embargo (right word? It's childishly stupid, but that's not the point) on Cuba.

The idea is that since we do not trade with Cuba, Canadians are not allowed to act as middlemen in trading cuban goods to the U.S. The U.S. cannot stop a Canadian company from selling Cuban goods in Canada, and has not tried.

> Sounds like imposing your values.

No, it sounds like enforcing laws.

Re:Nothing New Here

[ewhac]

Thank you, Machiavelli.

Out here in the real world, however, comporting oneself in a civilized, socially-redeeming manner goes a long way. Yes, there will still be insane people and people who hate you. But if your behavior has been as close to exemplary as possible, those people will find it considerably more difficult to build a support network because fewer people will be able to find a factual basis for their hatred; ergo, their ability to wreak havoc will be severely diminished.

Or, with so many voices singing your praises, and so many good deeds to your name, maybe -- just maybe -- they'll get the idea that they're hatred is unfounded and go away.

Schwab

Re:Nothing New Here

[Bendebecker]

But Switzerland has never prospered in the way Rome dide. And Rome lasted a 1000 years so switzerland is only at the half way mark.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

For all who are making the pot/kettle claim - don't be absurd. France and Russia wanted Iraq the way it was because they had shady ties. Anything the US did or didn't do in the 60's is irrelevant today, 40 years later. I wasn't alive, and none of the policy makers of today had power then. And Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils back then anyway. Its easy to fault people when you have 20/20 hindsight - its harder to predict the future.

We're being absurd? What rock have you been living under?

In addition to Iraq, don't forget:

• Saudi Arabia
• Philippines

Re:Nothing New Here

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

I know. I'm kinda disappointed. I'm not usually so direct, but it's Friday and I figured everyone needed to get their blood up a little.

Maybe the /. community is maturing and not so easily provoked anymore? I hope not.

Re:Nothing New Here

[goodhell]

Damn, I must need more sleep, or caffeine. I read the line

- in the course of GATS negotiations...

as

- in the course of GOATSe.cx negotiations

Gaaah!!!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I have a problem with the USA, it is
more a case of large corporations behaving in
unreasonable ways on occasion. Elf in France
is frankly no better, nor Shell, BP, etc (to
keep with the oil company theme for this post).

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, bro.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Uber Banker]

That's why people who have been walked over by the US want to nuke it.

Polute my air and water and refuse to improve your factories, power stations? Then I'll nuke your country/factories/government with a suitcase bomb so your actions may be accounted for.

The US creates over 25% of global air pollution yet is affected by less than 5% of this.

Would you allow your neighbour to shit in their garden but throw most of the wast at you? This is the opinion of the US held by most of the rest of the world.

Re:Nothing New Here

[patches]

No but most of the states have state laws that make gambling illegal except under certain conditions, like the state ran lotteries, or like for example Missouri, where a casino must float on the water of the Mississippi River. Of course there are creative ways around laws, the intention of the law was to limit gambling to boats on the Mississippi River, however one casino dug a hugh pool on the other side of St. Louis and put in water lines that pump Mississippi water directly to the pool and have a return back to the River. Built a casino that looks like a normal building, but is in fact floating in the pool, the pool is just barely larger then the base of the building....

Re:Nothing New Here

[SnowZero]

It always surprises me that the party that is supposed to advocate freedom always wants to know and censure what other people are doing in the privacy of their own home. Unless of course it is killing someone with the handgun they keep in their closet. That's perfectly fine.

It always suprises me that the party that opposes the death penalty and euthanasia supports abortion. (1) The state cannot decide that you die. Sounds good. (2) Your mother can decide if you die, but you cannot. Erm? The other party is just as inconsistent. At least minor parties have to courage to come up with self-consistent platforms rather than amalgamations of checkbox issues to pick up votes.

Anyway last I checked, killing someone with a gun is illegal, unless it was in self defense. Would you like it if the US used the WTO to push our gun ownership laws? I think not, so maybe they should not push their gambling views.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

Just be glad it's the US with the power and not Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. Imagine if you will Islamic militants with ICBM's and nukes to set atop them. As terrible as the attacks have been they would pale in comparison to would otherwise have happened. Instead of thousands dead it would be millions dead and not just in the US. They hate the west. I guess it's because we have the best porn.

The middle east, north Africa, central and south Asia are awash in Islamic militants that want to establish a greater Islamic state that covers all of these areas. They don't care how they do it. Oh, wait they do care, they want to kill as many infidels (anyone who is not as Islamic as they are) as possible and die doing it in order to become martyrs.

People like that can not be reasoned with. So if you want to criticize the US for dealing with the likes of these that is your prerogative. Either way you benefit from their removal.

Oh and when you make invective comments like this don't hide behind the anonymous coward moniker. It makes you look even more cowardly than you are. You stupid fuck.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Rimbo]

I wonder if in 50 years when China is the dominant superpower you will take the view that it is alright for them to bitchslap the US because "they have the power and the might, they don't need to play well with us".

How will that happen?

Demographers such as Ben Wattenberg have proven that the link between a country's growth is inextricably linked to their population growth. As a result of the "one child per family" policy, China is currently experiencing negative population growth.

Perhaps you meant to say India?

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

Case in point: Pakistan. If Pakistan were to become a democracy today, we would have an Islamist radical nuclear power on our hands.

Right. Its so much better to have Pakistan as a dictatorship where atomic physicists try to get nukes to terrorist outfits. Also, I can't help but notice that the "let's support dictators" idea didn't work out very well in Iran, did it? Now they're a "radical Islamist government with nuclear power". It seems that the plan you support doesn't work. The sane thing to do would be to abandon it for a different plan. I would suggest that a plan of supporting democracies (as opposed to trying to squash democracies) would be a possible alternative. You argue that it might cause problems, but we already know that your plan doesn't work. There's a word for trying the same thing and expecting different results.

In any event, you are trying to hide from the issue I mentioned: Uzbekistan. The government there is about where Saddam's regime was back when the Regan and Bush I governments were supporting Saddam. It is a historically demonstrable *fact* that giving money to dictators does not buy them off for long, and that eventually we wind up fighting the dictators the government supported. Uzbekistan is the next Iraq, and its quite apparent that the Bush II government is either a) composed to total morons, or b) has reasons for wanting an enemy or three around. War makes an excellent tail to wag the dog, doesn't it? Worse, history also prooves that regardless of how cozy the Bush government gets with its torturing dictatorial friends, there will always be people like you to try and pretend that its all ok. Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand at a time when we *knew* that he was a mass murderer, and somehow this doesn't seem to bother you?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

" The United States (or heck, the entire western world) is powerful because the people are happy. In developing nations like China, people live in poverty. Some barely get enough food to eat, and even then it's probably not much more than rice and water. The people live in non-airconditioned shacks. Their medical care fringes on pseudo-science. Their leaders are several times more corrupt than U.S. leaders. It's liveable, but you will be hard pressed to find a better place to live outside of the West. If China becomes the next super power, something will have to change. Either China's government will have to become less corrupt, or the U.S. will have to become worse."

While this might have been true 30 years ago,
and is still true in rural areas, it is
increasingly not true of urban China, which is
apparently making leaps in the quality of life.
There appears to be a trend, although how far
this ultimately goes is entirely open to question.

Re:Nothing New Here

[SnowZero]

(just like Abortion being legal and murder being illegal has nothing to do with each other)

Of course not, but that's a trade issue for the WTO to decide.

Re:Nothing New Here

[divisionbyzero]

True, but the US's objection was based on federal law. If it weren't a federal law, states could decide for themselves whether they want to allow internet gambling.

Re:Nothing New Here

[G. W. Bush Junior]

No intention to abide by it? What secret knowledge do you have of the evil european conspiracy that the rest of us (europeans) haven't got access to?

The Kyoto treaty was specifically designed to hamstring the American economy. Its stated purpose, to reduce world pollution, is nothing more than a cover story.
Com'on drop the "the rest of the world hates USA because you love freedom" routine... The American manufacturing industry might suffer if they are not able to adapt, but it's really your own fault that you haven't chosen to focus on alternative energy sources.

The windmill and fuel cell companies in my country don't seem to think that the kyoto agreement is in any way hampering them... but maybe that's just because they don't understand capitalism.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Pinky]

Given that the EU now how a GDP larger than the US, I would say that the EU is now a more influential economic entity than the US. Given the might-makes-right attitude of your post I would expect the US will eventually have to cave into the trade demands of the EU from now on. That would include changing any cultural eccentricities that conflict with EU trade interests. It would greatly expedite things if the US would just stop arguing and become a team player... this is all by your logic, of course.. I, for one, do not hold this view as I find it morally irresponsible, but I could certainly see how it would appeal to citizens of the EU. I don't see why it would appeal to a US citizen, however, unless they were ill-informed about the current state of world economic affairs or possibly masochistic.

(The above comments should be viewed as satirical)

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the middle class aren't happy, they lack the willpower to make their nation strong."

A little worrying if the middle class finds out
that its jobs have been offshored to India,
Vietnam, or China, possibly creating a happy
middle class in those countries...

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at these remarks:

"ignoring the actions of global organizations"

Since most such organizations are dominated by non-democratic nations with few or no respect for human rights, that's a compliment. Thanks!

"invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the UN)"

Only two wars since WWII have had UN sanction. The Kosovo intervention, for instance, was a unilateral action by a part of Europe and the US. France regularly invades and imposes its will on countries without UN sanction and simply to protect French business interests in Africa. Given the brutal, aggressive nature of Saddam's Iraq, invading it was more justified than almost any other post-WWII military action.

"Kyoto Protocol"

Yawn. Kyoto was DOA. None of the nations who signed Kyoto is making more than token efforts to follow it. In this case, chalk one up for the US for ending a hypocrisy and a deception.

Notice the common principle that underlies all this.

1. Unelected bureaucracies with no accountablity to people are to dictate virtually every aspect of our lives. The fact that these bureaucracies are global rather than local changes nothing. You can call it Stalinism, you can call it facism, you can call it globalism, it doesn't matter. It is evil and those who support it are evil.

2. Human rights are of absolutely no significance whatever. Saddam can kill hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, including ethnic/religious genocide. He can torture, rape, and murder with abandon. Yet he is not to be invaded because a UN dominated by tin-pot dictatorships and 'wobbly' Europeans doesn't like it and because France, Germany and Russia would rather trade weapons for oil than show any concern for human rights.

But if the US decides that online gambling would be enormously destructive of the lives of our citizens, wrecking families and leaving kids to go hungry, then oh no, that is SO TERRIBLE! That is yet another indication JUST HOW EVIL THE US IS.

Let's get realistic. What we are talking about are countries such as France, German and Russia, with declining, uncompetitive economies, who want to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. They want the region to be dominated by repressive militarized dictatorships that exchange oil for military hardware from those three countries. Never forget, France, Germany and Russia provided 70% of Saddam's war machine so he could murder his own people and invade Iran and Kuwait. In the 1970s France got a lucrative contract to build Saddam a nuclear reactor so he could develop nuclear weapons. But for unilateral action by Israel in the 1980s, Europe would now be cowardly doing whatever a nuclear-equipped Saddam wanted lest he rain missiles on Paris.

And yet these same nations want all the problems of the Middle East to be blamed on little democratic Israel with its hardworking Jewish population. Think of that! The Russia of the pogroms and Stalin, the Germany of Hitler and the Holocaust, the France of Vichy France, shipping its Jews east to be gassed. THEY, of all people, want to blame the Jews and the U.S. for the problems of terrorism and the Middle East. They, of all people, want the U.S. to follow their foreign policy.

Sorry France, sorry Germany, sorry Russia. I'm not into exchanging genocide for oil. I don't go along with mass murder and political or religious repression. Perhaps the two things about my ancestry that I'm most proud of are that three members of it were murdered for their beliefs by proto-Klan and Klan groups and two others rode with the calvary screen for General Sherman as he invaded the South, forcing it to end slavery in a military tactic remarkably similar to the US invasion of Iraq.

In relative terms, online gambling is no big deal. But standing for democracy against a tyranny of unelected anti-democratic global bureaucracies is very important. I am proud to be part of the county that liberated Iraq and is giving its people a chance to build a democratic nation that respects human rights.

I suspect you know who I'll be voting for in November.

--Mike Perry, Seattle
Editor: Dachau Liberated
Editor: Eugenics and Other Evils
http://www.InklingBooks.com/

Re:Nothing New Here

[EvilBudMan]

--But if people like you have their way, it will be more like the way the Romans ended things: ever weaker, arrogant and paranoid and half-mad, harried by people who hate us, until we're a shattered wreck of remembered glory.--

I think you mean forgotten glory.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whittrash]

When it gets up to $100 million I am one of those people paying 'the stupid tax' AKA, buying lottery tickets.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Mr. Piddle]

The lottery isn't too bad...

Really? Statistically, I will die dozens of times before even having the slimmest of a slightest chance of winning a state lottery. The Lottery is just another tax scam to make up for political shortfalls, not unlike those FCC "fees" on my phone bill.

It should be illegal to call a tax something other than a tax, but there are so many conflicts of interest in doing this that it will never happen.

Re:Nothing New Here

[hesiod]

> It's hard to report numbers on something that could very well be going undetected due to lower beef production standards.

It's usually pretty obvious when a cow is infected by Mad Cow. So unless everyone involved near those cases are covering it up (which is a possibility, I admit, although slim) the stats are pretty accurate.

Re:Nothing New Here

[thefinite]

As an FYI, my understanding is the EU *still* isn't importing hormone-enhanced beef. The WTO just allowed the US and Canada to issue retaliatory tariffs. This article has lots of information about the trade fights that have been going on for the last number of years.

Re:Nothing New Here

[arkanes]

Man, you sound bitter. It's too bad rich yuppie brats don't have to have coin jars to steal your money.

By the way, what you've also described is "no goverment". It's a scale, not an absolute classification. The UN is a good example of your type of government, and look how freely we (the US) dismisses them as "irrelevent". Your usage of the words communism and socialism is totally wrong, so I'm just going to ignore that sentence. Suffice it to say that the two things aren't related to each other and even less related to your previous sentence.

Note that a socialist government (which, like all governments, will take away your money to give to someone else) is not neccesarily invasive or facist. In fact, the most common reason for liberalism in government is to protect personal freedoms. It's also perfectly possible for conservatives to be incredibly invasive, for which proof I give you the American republican party.

As for the etymology of "republic", yes, it's from "publicus", of the people. It's the idea of government held in common, as public land might be.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of interest, which little countries are you referring to?

Re:Nothing New Here

[divisionbyzero]

That's really interesting. I would have turned the argument around, especially since Republicans actually believe that a foetus is a person.

Democrats are not incosistent in this regard because they do not consider a foetus to be a person. You may disagree, but it's not inconsistent. The fact that democrats are also
inconsistent doesn't make the Republics any less consistent. Anyhow, I don't really care as I am independent.

Not in Texas. If you go on to someone's property he or she can shoot you. It's considered a home invasion and a threat to his or her person. Most people would just consider it trespassing...

Re:Nothing New Here

[sumdumass]

it would only stay out of the way until asked to interveine.

actually there is a difference between the state and federal governments. The state government are the ones that are supposed to take the burden of ensuring peace, security and profitability for the people. the federal government is supposed to do nothing unless provoked into doing somthing. they are responsible for setting trade guidlines that span across the states and outside the country, settle disputes between the states, and disputes between the citizens of a state and other states.

the federal government had taken on a role never envisioned by the forefathers and to some degree can be argued these roles are inapropriate. to some degree they are verry welcomed but are still outside the original scope of the government.

Re:Nothing New Here

[wtrmute]

I think you're confused. By 'Liberal' I mean the school of economic thought created by Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and others, which was prevalent from its creation in the latter part of the eighteenth century all the way up until 1929. The kind of economic thought that The Economist advocates.

You use 'liberal' to oppose conservative; and that is the common meaning of the word in the United States today, but it doesn't mean that when you see a Liberal Party in, say, Europe that they're not conservative; they're about as conservative as they come. Elsewhere, what you call 'liberal' others call 'reformist' or 'center-left'.

Re:Nothing New Here

[vandan]

Nobody liberated Palestine

I think you're forgetting the fact that Israel exists only because Palestine was 'liberated' of it's population. Granted, it wasn't liberated by the US directly, but certainly by proxy.

Afghanistan has been handed back to the Afghanis

Bullshit. Afghanistan is being run by pro-US war-lords, as opposed to anti-US war-lords. There's certainly nothing democractic about it, and for individuals there, live is far worse since the carpet bombing by the US, as they don't have houses or half of their family any more.

The cause of terrorism is terrorist. They hate us for being us no matter what we do

It's sad to see that people believe such shallow lies as this. Why would someone from another country hate you 'no matter what you do'? Your arguement is not coherent. Clearly US foreign policy is the main cause of terrorism - both on US soil and in our places such as Israel. You need to pull your head out of the sand and do some thinking for yourself instead of repeating everything you hear in the mass media. Terrorists are simply normal people who have had everything taken away from them, seen their families die in front of their eyes, seen their homes destroyed and their hope taken away, and know that the US is to blame. Don't try to wash your hands of it and claim that they are sub-human or 'can not be bargained'. Take some responsibility for what is being done in your name.

The treaties that make up the WTO have exclusion clauses for things like laws governing morality.

Ha! The day the US government leads the way on morality is the day the appocolypse happens ( which Baby Bush believes is coming, by the way ). How can they talk of morality after their deceipt over Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction? Would you care to take a trip to Iraq and lecture the broken families that have had their mothers / fathers / brothers / sisters killed by your 'Shock and Awe' campaign about morality?

When the government starts talking about morality, you know it's time to run and hide. The government has no business deciding issues of morality when relating to private activities such as gambling, substance consumption, sexual activity, etc. And the US government in particular has voided it's right to talk of morality for a very long time.

Re:Nothing New Here

[BiggsTheCat]

Actually, it's pretty easy to cover up a case of mad cow. The method is "shoot, shovel, and shut up" as Alberta's Premier said. (Boy did he put his foot in his mouth on that one.)

Cattle that look "sick" (called downer cattle) were until recently just slaughtered like all the others... only earlier on so that they didn't die of whatever they had.

Doesn't the BSE prion take years to show up in a cow or human? Don't know if it's infectious until then, though.

Re:Nothing New Here

[BiggsTheCat]

Well, Canada passed a law banning that particular fuel additive, because they felt it was unsafe (caused disease).

The U.S. banned gambling because it can cause addiction (a disease of a different sort).

What's the diff?

Re:Nothing New Here

[cshark]

There was a ruling a few years ago by the WTO that california envirenmental laws are too strict because the state prohibited a particular cacinagenic additive in gasonline from being sold. California was forced to allow it to be sold, and the situation boiled over.

This is one kind of corporate rule. It's sucked the jobs from our economy, driven us into recession, and made foreign multi national corporations rich at the expense of everything else.

I think banning online gambling is stupid.

But it's our country.
Don't you think we should have a say in what our laws should be?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Kohath]

Supporting dictatorships leads to problems.

Everything leads to problems. Problems happen.

Did you have an alternate policy that was guarenteed to be effective and problem-free forever?

Re:Nothing New Here

[cens0r]

No, I'm afraid it isn't. It's easy to tell when a cow is infected in the final stages of the disease. But no one know for how long the cow had previously been infected and contagious.

Re:Nothing New Here

[cdrguru]

So, how would you fix this? Everyone in the west convert to Islam?

How about taking the Israeli population and moving them to Idaho?

Maybe eliminating poverty in Saudi Arabia by giving everyone a million dollars?

I don't think there is a solution that gets everyone to like us - or even a reasonable majority - without doing some pretty extreme things. And, even if the US did them, we'd be chided for doing it just for safety and without any real committment.

About the only thing that would make everyone happy would be if the economy crashed worldwide and everyone was living like a peasant in Bangladesh. We'd all be way too worried about filling our bellies to be concerned about what was going on elsewhere.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think you mean forgotten glory.

Ehhh, not really. We remember the empires that have gone before -- and so do the descendants of the people who built them. The US has been, and still is, far too important to world affairs to go down completely into the dust. But I can well imagine a time, not too far away, when tourists come to look at Mt. Rushmore and the Washington Monument in much the same way as we look at the Pyramids or the Coliseum or Nelson's Column.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whittrash]

The WTO is not a conspiracy. The WTO overall has been a positive influence and has been an effective force for opening up trade. Free trade has raised the incomes of billions of people. From textile workers in Vietnam to bankers on Wall Street, everyone makes a lot more money. Truly open markets allow the poorest people in the world to have more economic oportunities (something we do not have right now, we lock out most of the 3rd World). If we are unable to grow the world economy to meet population demands we are looking at a starvation and deprivation for millions of people on an unimaginable scale. I don't disagree that the farmers in Mexico and other people are being hurt and we need to help these people, but on the whole the world is better off with free trade.

Every country gets their say in the WTO, just like the UN, but its purpose isn't to make laws or be a government, its purpose is to lower trade barriers. I am sorry you feel the way you do about the WTO, I think you are wrong. We are in the middle of an economic revolution similar in some ways to the Industrial Revolution, I don't think it is fair to blame all the globalization problems of the world on the WTO, this is the natural result from radical and unstoppable shifts in the world economy do to technology advances.

Re:Nothing New Here

[k_head]

No single raindrop is responsible for the flood and yet they all share responsibility.

We all share the blame/credit for what our country does. Most people in this country don't give a shit and won't even bother to vote but they are responsible nevertheless.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they had an intention to abide by they are not now. Every European conntry that signed the treaty is far behind the clean-up schedule that the treaty outlined. In another 10 years it won't be anything but a bad memory.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whittrash]

Statistically, I will die dozens of times before even having the slimmest of a slightest chance of winning a state lottery

That is true. But until I got my going at work IRA that was my investment plan. Somebody has to win, it might as well be me!

It should be illegal to call a tax something other than a tax,

You are right, it is a tax, it is the 'Stupid Tax'.

Re:Nothing New Here

[LMariachi]

Don't you think we should have a say in what our laws should be?

We do. And other countries have the right to impose trade barriers if they don't like our laws. Which is all they're threatening.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

If the last century is any indication, US values will be shared again ...

Unless of course you believe that people in EU suddenly acquired a wisdom their forefathers sorely lacked.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the US is not like other countries.

Interesting article you linked. Did you read it?

What might simply be seen as devil-may-care arrogance is arguably not that at all - it looks more like a genuine delusion concerning the extent to which US values are shared by others.

Hmm. Per the bar charts in the article, American values appear to be (1) faith and (2) freedom. Not bad. If it's not true elsewhere, I'd prefer to maintain the delusion that people everywhere seek freedom and some sort of spiritual solace. I hate it when people think of themselves as cows to be milked and fed by mother government, as the Europeans evidently do.

European values appear to be (1) shame (see the chart - "Are you proud to be a [citizen of country X]?") and (2) areligious in belief and (3) a desire to be mothered by nanny states. Hardly a Triple Crown by my book.

In any case, US values and leadership have lead to a larger expansion of democracy and freedom than at any other time in the history of the world. So far, democracy appears to be the least bad form of government and the one that puts the most value on human life.

In any case, the argument the Economist made is that Americans consider themselves to be exceptional. I'd argue that we don't -- we consider everyone to be ordinary. It's the country that we consider to be exceptional. And is is, by absolutely any measure:

• Economic power
• Military power
• Personal freedom
• Restraint on actions by the government vis a vis the people
• Increasing the net amount of freedom and democracy through our collective actions

Are we perfect? No. Do we expect reacharounds when ungrateful sacks of shit from other countries fuck us in the ass when we are doing the heavy lifting on a project that is in the long-term best interest of the world? No. We suck it up and get things done while people are being naysayers all around.

It has been especially during times when people resented and fought against that leadership that the guidance and steady hand of the US has been most-needed. The Pershing Missle riots and anti-Reagan protests in the early eighties were, I think, reasonably indicative of strong anti-us sentiment in Europe. Was the US decision to put missles in western Europe good in the long run for Europe? You bet your ass it was. Was Reagan good for all of Europe? You bet your ass.

Europe hated Reagan, but if Carter had another term, there would still be a Soviet Union today, and the world would be much more dangerous and unpleasant for ordinary people everywhere.

There should be statutes of Reagan erected everywhere in Europe when he dies. FWIW, George W. Bush is a pale imitation of Reagan, more like a John Major than a Margaret Thatcher, for instance.

The anti-Reagan argument then was that he was a stupid American cowboy playing russian roulette with nuclear weapons. W is viewed the same way. The post-Reagan argument is that things would have turned out the same way without him, and that's just horseshit.

Freedom is exploding to the point that it is no longer a question of "can this fragile flame survive?" but "When will Castro finally die so Cuba can join the party?" Things are so different today than they were in 1979 and it is largely due to the exceptionalist views of Reagan and the US. The free world was ready to roll over and die in 1979. Things were bad.

As an outsider

Cough up a nationality, pal. There is a more than reasonable chance that your country's ass was saved from itself or from someone else by the United States within the memory of people still living in your country. I'm betting UK based on your prior posts. The UK still dreams -- you folks aren't too far gone to be important again. If you are from somewhere else, I hope it's the developing world, because the rest of (western) Europe is going to stagnate and rot. Germany, France, and Italy are going to be eaten ali

Re:Nothing New Here

[Gilgaron]

Which is why America has shifted from an empire to a hegemony, which is a bit more stable and easier to maintain.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it hurt to spew all that bullshit?

If terrorism succeeds in getting the US to change its policy, take a guess on what the preferred method of persuasion will be from now on?

Re:Nothing New Here

[slashnull]

...so I placed a bet that you might have something smart to say in the future and just put you in my list.

Does that mean that you support online gambling?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Licinius]

Well, yeah, and so is the U.S. The U.S. has done lots of stuff in their own self-interest under the guise of globalization through the WTO. For instance, Canada tried to ban a fuel additive that scientists believed to be a carcinogen. This ban meant that they could no longer buy gasoline from the U.S., where that chemical was added to all gas. Result: the U.S. dragged Canada into the WTO Trade Court, and won claiming that the ban was illegally favouring Canadian fuel suppliers. Canada had to pay massive fines, and would have to continue to pay fines if it banned the chemical.

You've got it backwards, bud. It is a Canadian company (Methanex) that is suing the US under NAFTA because California banned MTBE.

Re:Nothing New Here

[geekee]

"
A liberal government is the type of government that wants to become your best friend and get involved with every aspect of your life and help all of the people. It's commonly referred to communism or, in more extensive forms, socialism."

Yes, to translate your thought, a liberal govt. want to deny you your freedom, and run your life for you. They think they own all the wealth and get to distribute it the way they see fit, regardless of who generated the wealth. That is why liberal govts. are big govts., while libertarian govts. only focus on protecting your individual rights. Socialism is tyranny because it says the collective good is more important than your basic individual right to own and trade what you produce.

Re:Nothing New Here

[ScuzzMonkey]

Yes, I'm sure we'd buy that argument if they were the ones making it...

"Sorry, comrades, those SALT treaties were signed by some country that doesn't exist anymore!"

Or, in a more realistic example...

"Pardon us, senores, but the government that committed those troops to fight with you in Iraq? It's no longer here... we're bringing them home!"

Of course, no one is suggesting they can't do it... but it's seen as a pretty shoddy excuse (which it is).

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically those treaties were not in force as the government we'd signed them with no longer existed.

Re:Nothing New Here

[mike2R]

Have you actually studied the fall of the western Empire in any detail?

It's been a few years since I have, but my reading of it was that after the third century crisis, the Empire underwent certain fundamental changes. To vastly over simplify, these could be sumed up as 1) a large increse in the tax burden levied by the empire, 2) a change in the position of local elites; from the principle benificery of Roman rule, to suffering an ever increasing burden, and 3) allowing (admitedly under preassure from increased "barbarian" frontier threats) non-Romanised auxilleries to form cohesive units/societies within the Roman sphere of influence.

These (in the opinion of my teachers :)) combined into the transfer of power from the centre to the regions - as local elites found local "barbarians" better able to provide security/maintain their position than the incresingly weak centre. [disclaimer: I did say I oversimplified]

To look on the fall(/surviving as long as it did) of the western Empire as being primarily due to military reasons is to ignore the last 50 years of historical work on the period.

Re:Nothing New Here

[jazman_777]

As an outsider it's rather touching to see claims like this being made. What might simply be seen as devil-may-care arrogance is arguably not that at all - it looks more like a genuine delusion concerning the extent to which US values are shared by others.

As an insider it's maddening to see the relentless chest-thumping about the greatness of America. I mean, I love my home country, warts and all, but the Nationalism is a bit revolting. We're in the state of Hubris. Next comes Nemesis.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Middle Eastern radicals hate the US for a reason. The US supports the right of Israel to exist. Also, al queda radicals are so racist, they didin't even want US troops of Saudi soil, even though it was with the permission of the Saudi govt.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

Uh, no you're wrong. The Afghanis had their Loya Jirga and they voted for Hamid Karzai. EurasiaNews


Terrorist are not normal people. Normal people don't go around killing everyone they see. There are lots of people around the world who have lost everything or never had anything. They don't go around killing indiscriminately. Although I will say that the outside influence of the radical Islamic clergy does play no small role in the matter. I will state it again they hate us for being us. Nothing we do will help. Not appeasement, not bargaining, nothing. We can try containment or extermination. That's it. The only thing being done in my name is killing the bad awful people. The world needs to be rid of them and the sooner the better.
It would seem that the middle east and near Asia is ashamed of its backward ways and blames the west for it's woes. Stop blaming us for your shortcomings and better yourselves.

As for Shock and Awe in Iraq, if the US really did practice carpet bombing like you state then there would be no Baghdad. Have you seen WWII footage of Hamburg or Berlin? That's what carpet bombing looks like. You should lecture the cowardly Iraqi army for hiding in and among civilians: the deadliest force to Iraqis seems to be other Iraqis.

As far as your point about mass media i would rather believe what it has to say than your tightly controlled and non-objective middle east media.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

>Bin Laden did not conduct 9/11 by himself.

No, he needed a dozen or so lunatics to carry out the plan. But I hope nobody truly believes that the 9/11 attacks are an artifact of high technology or engineering!

Hindsight makes it a bit more obvious, but there was nothing, absolutely nothing high-tech about that attack, unless you think synchronizing watches and keeping loose lips out of your operation to be some kind of remarkable acheivement.

The 9/11 attacks are so special because of the amount of damage that was done. There was perhaps a political aspect to the timing, but that's quite arguable.

What scares me is that there are people who believe the 9/11 thing was some sort of huge conspiracy involving some complex organization working with the Iraq and Afghan governments, and that the whole thing represents some new tehchnological achievement in asymmetric warfare. How are they going to cope if someone really *does* leverage high technology in an attack on the US?

Re:Nothing New Here

[vandan]

You're a fucking idiot if you believe what you just wrote.

Re:Nothing New Here

[jazman_777]

Jonah Goldberg, one time editor of National Review Online: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." BTW, don't shoot me, I am not a neocon.

Re:Nothing New Here

[homer_ca]

"the threate is a rogue nation or organization getting thier hands on a ICBM and launching it at some major metropoliton area as an act of terror"

Yes, this is *so* much more likely than terrorists sneaking the nuke in a container ship and sailing it in to one of our ports. Missile defense is the Maginot Line of the 21st century.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Frogbert]

You know slightly off topic here but I've just reciently found out that I could have been buying pornography in Australia since I was 15, fat lot of good that does me now I'm 19 but it goes to show if you dont tell kids these things they will never know.

Re:Nothing New Here

[jazman_777]

9/11 would not be stopped by making the world liek us.

A lesson all /.ers can understand: the US is to the world as Microsoft is to the computing industry. Both hated by the outsiders, loved fanatically by the insiders who wonder witlessly, "why do they hate us?"

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States we believe in equality before the law. How is it equal that China can pollute under the treaty but the US cannot.

I don't expect Europeans to understand equality under the law (yes, even the dumb masses are equal). Hell, my wife had male reports in Germany. They didn't even seem to believe in equality amongst the sexes.

And I'll drop that reason you state for why the world hates us. The world hates us because they are afraid of us. And the rest of the world is afraid of the US because they know what they would do if they had such power.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be a direct quote from the Americans in question. If so, then learn to speak the language.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Pig Hogger]

Please remind me why half of Europe is not currently speaking German, why Japan and Germany lost in wars to a certain country and yet are world powers, how the economy fares in Basra today compared to the past decade, and two nations who within the past five years lost totalitarian regimes and are forming democratic institutions. Oh, and who right now is getting all of the money from Iraq's oil? (Hint: It ain't the USA.)

So what? Do you think that just because you HELPED Europe get rid of $GOODWIN_TRIGGER you deserve to have eternal gratitude from them? If that was the case, perhaps you really should be nicer to France since it helped you so much in your revolution.

Asshole yankees.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Treaties are made to serve a purpose. You do not maintain treaties "just because." The ABM served its purpose - we didn't kill each other. Now, the ABM is in the way of new threats - threats that are still real.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Pig Hogger]

If more authority-loving people like you were around back then, the War of Independence would have been called "The damp squib" instead, and your current head of state would have been Queen Elizabeth II. And that probably would have been a good thing.

Yup. Can you imagine all the crumpets stands on Times Square???

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason is that Canada isn't nearly as attractive a target as some parts of the US.

New York and DC are obvious targets, but Al-Queda is much more interested in attacking Canada then attacking Montana.

Bin Laden has made numerous threats to Canada, it's just that we aren't at the top of his list.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Frostalicious]

Not becuase ppl loved or respected Rome but becuase Rome's vengenance was so absolute and so extreme that no one would dare harm its citizens for fear of Rome's reprisals.

Yes that's why Rome was such a peaceful place to live. Oh except for

The social war
the first civil war
the revolt of spartacus
the sertorius campaign
the catalinarian revolt
the civil war against anthony
the triumviral proscriptions
the sullan proscriptions
the second civil war
the anthony/octavian war
the triumvirs/sextus pompey war
the brutus+cassius war
the war against the pirates
the rebellion in Britain
the rebellion in Parthia
the rebellion in Judaea
the rebellion in Armenia
the civil war of the four emperors
the rebellion in Syria
the rebellion in Germany
the 3 punic wars.

but those were all wars of love so they don't count

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

We just don't put on airs pretending to care what others think.

Better that than to roll in shit and be proud of it. Bad dog Bad

Re:Nothing New Here

[bluelantern]

The American news media never discusses the content of Bin Laden's or Al-Zawahiri's messages. When they say, "Unless you stop your support of Israel we will attack America until the end, praise Allah." The media only reports the half sentence "We will attack America until the end, praise Allah." The motivation of the terrorists is never given and when it is discussed it's always turned into, "They just hate Americans." There is not a word about why. All Al Qaeda's messages have to do with American support of Israel and propping up patsy governments in the region. That foreign policy discussion is one I would love this country to have...but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. For more than the last thirty years Israel has fought terrorists like Al-Qaeda and just recently the terrorists have begun to focus on the source of Israel's power, America. Is the supporting of Israel really worth the instability of America and so many countries around the world? Some may say that having this discussion gives the terrorist attacks validity/currency. I think not having the discussions only makes terrorist attacks more certain to occur.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RLW]

You are an ignorant fool.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not the question. Have you read the article?

Here is a quote:

Antigua and Barbuda argued that U.S. trade policy does not prohibit cross-border gambling operations and that the United States would be hypocritical to do otherwise because it wants to allow American casino operations to operate land-based and Internet-based subsidiaries overseas.

What they probably have claimed is that gambling is legal at least in some states/places of the US (e.g., Las Vegas)(although it is only restricted to some areas/conditions); so, in their probable argument, allowing the gambling on-line with outsiders would entitle "free competition from abroad"...

If gambing was forbidden at all in the US, probably the companies complaining would not have a chance os success... but as there are some places in which it is legal...

But it seems the ruling did not take in consideration legal traditions presented in the US system where states can have a great role in making the laws.

Maybe if the decision was that there should be the so-called "free competition" restricted to the states where it is already legal things would be different...

Not that I'm in favour of that. In fact, I don't belive in any kind of gambling.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

NO Shady deals are deals that were in violation of the sanctions. Shady deals are the bribes that are coming to light and being investigated through the oil for food program. No wonder the US doesn't want to play w/ the UN with all the corruption that's coming to light.

Re:Nothing New Here

[a whoabot]

Yeah, sure, give everyone American values, but if people don't ask for it, they don't want it. And if you give people what they don't want, they're not going to say thanks. So don't expect it. You want a present and a cake for "doing all the heavy lifting"? Too bad. If you want to do all the world "policing", satisfaction of a job well done is all you get. Deal with it. No one gives a shit.

You're like a father who has kids and then feeds these kids and takes care of them, and then expects the kids to say thanks because "you work so hard" for them. Kids are right to being telling their parents to "fuck off", the parents are the ones who wanted them, the kids didn't want to be born, no one wants to be born into this shit, meaningless world. And it's the exact same thing with your American values. No one wants your "freedom" and your "democracy" because they see what it means: wage labour and watching sitcoms which have to include canned laughter to tell people when to laugh because they're so unfunny, and football which has to include overexcited announcers and flashing lights and music because it's so boring.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Kirill Lokshin]

No, I'm not ignoring it, just simplifying the argument even more :)

Certainly, by the third century the active legion system that Rome was built with was gone (although Aetius was still able to raise a regular army to fight Atilla in 451). However, this does not make the auxillary units and the "barbarian" mercenaries any less a form of Roman military force.

With the possible exception of the Visgoths, the auxillaries' motivation for fighting was payment in the form of Roman lands/gold/titles, effectively making them an extension of the Roman military system, rather than merely an ally.

My original point was just that those states which could not muster a major military force (either natively recruited or hired from the "barbarians") were destroyed even more casually than Rome was.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

As a backup I heard a geopolitical strategiest whose statement was MAD assumes that you are dealing with someone who can be counted on to think rationally about death. If when you die you believe you get 70 virgins are you really all that rational about death?

Re:Nothing New Here

[krzysztof]

Long term, this would put the LDCs at an even worse disadvantage. They would still be using less efficient and (by the time supply of fossil fuels runs down) more expensive technology, and the developed nations would still be ahead, but with new technology. I still don't see the disadvantage.

Re:Nothing New Here

[nelsonal]

To avoid confusion in the US we started calling liberalism libertarianism or classical liberalism. Liberal became associated with the 60s leftists and has been a dirty word to small government types on this side of the pond ever since. Anyone who likes the economist can't be all bad, those captions are the funniest thing I read.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize it was your government who trained and armed Bin Laden and many of the other terrorist cells. Your government used them for their own purposes, then just cut all ties once they weren't of use to them anymore.

Did you expect these well armed vigilanties to just settle down and raise a family once you left? Oh wait, they didn't, and some of them feel a bit betrayed and used.

You can't just go around pissing off the rest of the world and sticking your nose into everyone else's conflicts and not expect some backlash eventually. The combination of pissing off the most people worldwide and being the largest seller of weapons in the world is coming back to haunt the US very badly. The fact that some people would dislike the US no matter what is no excuse to not even try to work with the rest of the world.

Unfortunately I fear it is to late to do anything about it. Removing Bush from power, although it may help prevent further damage (although who knows, the next guy could be just as bad), will not get rid of the built up hatred. This is something that the US and anyone choosing to be their allies will have to deal with for the rest of our lives. And it will probably only get worse over time. Sad state the world is in right now...

Re:Nothing New Here

[blakeh]

Provide more what?

Execution (murders) of political prisoners. The distinction of the largest mass of people in the world with one of the lowest and worst standards of living? Sounds great...

Re:Nothing New Here

[goatan]

a roman citizen could walk anywhere in the empire and all he needed for protection was the phrase "I am a roman citizen." Why? Not because ppl loved or respected Rome but because Rome's vengeance was so absolute and so extreme that no one would dare harm its citizens for fear of Rome's reprisals.

Why is the roman empire not here any more then? There where always rebellions in different parts of the empire, tax collectors and other agents where ambushed and killed if not given an escort. The roman's managed to maintain there rule in the short term by Overwhelming military presence and fear like you say.

The Romans were having constant skirmish's and battles with northern barbarians who refused to submit to roman terror, eventually these "barbarians" despite roman reprisal. Certainly the former roman citizen's didn't love the invaders but they had less fear as they (the barbarians) where interested more in making settlements than establishing total rule. Fear does last longer than love, which can turn into disillusionment, but respect and tolerance are fare more solid. Just because something isn't 100% doesn't mean it's not the best way for the long run.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Man are you down or what? For crap sakes step in front on a bus or something will ya!

Re:Nothing New Here

[nelsonal]

I thought bin Ladin was all about getting infidels out of Saudi Arabia. I can certainly see why this is a sticky situation what with the entire western economic system dependant on a ruling house that is tottering about and hated by its people. You are correct that other Islamic terrorists would like to see us end our support of Israel. I think the percieved degeneracy (is that a word?) in the western world is a big factor in their hatred of us, too.

Re:Nothing New Here

[MurphyZero]

You mean the treaty the USSR violated a long time ago with their missile shield protecting Moscow?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

And where are the Romans today?

The ones that did rule a lot of the world are all dead, but boy did they have some fun when they were alive. The trick is to not be around when it all falls apart. Since the US won't fall apart in my lifetime, screw the rest of the world, I want to gamble online. Oh, wait, I actually am on the WTOs side on this one.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian, eh?

Call me back when you Cannucks figure out if you're American or British. :)

Re:Nothing New Here

[MurphyZero]

Com'on drop the "the rest of the world hates USA because you love freedom" routine...

It's not because we love freedom, it's because the US has become dominant. It's the same urge that drives everyone to hate Microsoft. Regardless of whether the US in the right or Microsoft makes good products, just the fact they are on top makes most people want to knock them off their throne.

Should another country, or even the EU, become the dominant force in the world, they are quite likely to be hated in turn by anyone not in their position. Call it envy or whatever, that feeling is there. Then, add on to that, perceived and real abuses, and a vast hatred is easy to develop.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Rimbo]

You didn't read the whole paragraph before you responded, did you?

Re:Nothing New Here

[MurphyZero]

And to go to the extreme, shouldn't purveyors in Nazi memorabilia then be allowed to sell the stuff to people in France and Germany (good luck delivering however) For that matter, shouldn't ordering illegal drugs via the internet in the US also be fair trade? You may have to take delivery in another country and use them there as well, but wouldn't the WTO rule that way if they were consistent?

Re:Nothing New Here

[kerrbear]

At least in a casino you can touch the machine that's robbing you

Yeah, but if you gamble online, you won't get a virus from the machine that's robbing you.

Re:Nothing New Here

[MurphyZero]

You make a point about Rumsfeld, but my counter-point is look at how many people voted for Clinton the SECOND time. No one who votes Democratic or Republican should take offense at this action when they do it every election. If you voted third party then you do have the right to get upset, especially since your vote amounts to nothing in our f&%*ed up system.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Dever]

uhm no, i think perhaps we're all reading this a bit differently. i doubt he means our country should act in a manner to look out for the best interests of other countries. but the reality is that we can't just look out for our own interests without taking other peoples feelings and regard for our actions into account, we live on a planet, that consists of many countries, some working with others for mutual benefit and some not.

that's the thing, we can work with other countries for everyones benefit, or we can act as if we are the only ones who are right (yeah, i'm sure the entire world is wrong but not us) and act unilaterally.

what's important though, is that even if you *do* feel that we're right and everyone else is wrong, the fact remains that we are but one country amongst hundreds. it behooves us to work with the rest of the world usually, not against.

if we do happen to have to go against the popular current, doing so in a manner reminiscent of a spoiled five year old strung out on amphetamines is not going to pay back any positive dividends tomorrow.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

And the rest of the world is afraid of the US because they know what they would do if they had such power.

Such as invade Iraq?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Squareball]

Don't forget that we signed that treaty with the Soviet Union. Last I checked, it didn't exist any more.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that seperates the USA from previous empires, is that the USA has lots of nuclear weapons (and nuclear wessels). When this impending collapse of the great empire of our time happens. It could get really ugly for all the living critters on this planet.

Re:Nothing New Here

[sadomikeyism]

The Economist isn't a US publication, BTW, it is British. It is also quite right. The US IS exceptional, it will remain exceptional, and the more that our enemies, be they islamists, chinese, or francophiles, take steps to attack us for it, the more we will choose to be more exceptional.

The rest of the world needs to realize that we are contrarians: we succeed because we do the opposite of what your tired old world wisdom thinks we will do.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa also had that opinion, but they chose to learn to live with the 95% of the population rather than try and kill them. You will too.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't sleep at all and still can spell. Maybe you're just a loser.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Lobo42]

No, by establishing Bill Maher's 'Piece of Ass' Corps... [taken from www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/] And finally, New Rule: If we really want to stop terrorism, we have to get Muslim men laid. Five British Muslims who were recently sent home from our prison at Guantanamo, charge that their American captors brought in prostitutes to taunt them, because most had never even seen a naked woman before. And it made me wonder how many members of Al Qaeda have even dated a girl? We should hire women to infiltrate Al Qaeda cells and fuck them. Things would change quickly because young Muslim men don't really hate America. They're jealous of America. We have rap videos and the Hilton sisters and magazines with titles like Barely Legal. You know what's "barely legal" in Afghanistan? Everything! Young men need sex, and if they don't get it for month and after month after month, they wind up cursing the day they ever decided to go to Cornell. Personal. Have you ever wondered why the word from the Arab street is always so angry? It's because it's a bunch of guys standing in the street! Which is what guys do when they don't have girlfriends, when they're not allowed to even talk to a girl. Of course they want to commit suicide! Unlike this country where it's the married guys who want to kill themselves. But here we always have hope. You can at least talk to a girl. And one might be crazy enough to go for you. Or you could get rich and buy one, like people do in Beverly Hills. But the connection between no sex and anger is real. It's why prizefighters stay celibate when they're in training, so that on fight night, they're pissed off and ready to kill. It's why football players don't have sex after Wednesday. And conversely, it's why Bill Clinton never started a war. And so, to paraphrase the sign in Mr. Clinton's old war room, "It's the pussy, stupid." We need the Coalition of the Willing to be really willing! We need to mobilize two divisions of skanks - a regiment of ho's, and a brigade of girls who just can't say no. All under the command of Col. Ann Coulter. Who will be dressed in her "Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS" uniform. Forget the Peace Corps. We need a "Piece of Ass Corps"! Girls, there's a cure to terrorism, and you're sitting on it!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Lobo42]

(reposted in plain text mode)

No, by establishing Bill Maher's 'Piece of Ass' Corps...

[taken from www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/]

And finally, New Rule: If we really want to stop terrorism, we have to get Muslim men laid. Five British Muslims who were recently sent home from our prison at Guantanamo, charge that their American captors brought in prostitutes to taunt them, because most had never even seen a naked woman before.

And it made me wonder how many members of Al Qaeda have even dated a girl? We should hire women to infiltrate Al Qaeda cells and fuck them. Things would change quickly because young Muslim men don't really hate America. They're jealous of America. We have rap videos and the Hilton sisters and magazines with titles like Barely Legal. You know what's "barely legal" in Afghanistan? Everything!

Young men need sex, and if they don't get it for month and after month after month, they wind up cursing the day they ever decided to go to Cornell. Personal.

Have you ever wondered why the word from the Arab street is always so angry? It's because it's a bunch of guys standing in the street! Which is what guys do when they don't have girlfriends, when they're not allowed to even talk to a girl. Of course they want to commit suicide! Unlike this country where it's the married guys who want to kill themselves.

But here we always have hope. You can at least talk to a girl. And one might be crazy enough to go for you. Or you could get rich and buy one, like people do in Beverly Hills. But the connection between no sex and anger is real. It's why prizefighters stay celibate when they're in training, so that on fight night, they're pissed off and ready to kill.

It's why football players don't have sex after Wednesday. And conversely, it's why Bill Clinton never started a war.

And so, to paraphrase the sign in Mr. Clinton's old war room, "It's the pussy, stupid."

We need the Coalition of the Willing to be really willing! We need to mobilize two divisions of skanks - a regiment of ho's, and a brigade of girls who just can't say no. All under the command of Col. Ann Coulter. Who will be dressed in her "Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS" uniform.

Forget the Peace Corps. We need a "Piece of Ass Corps"! Girls, there's a cure to terrorism, and you're sitting on it!

Re:Nothing New Here

[fpp]

Wow. For a second there, I thought you were talking about the attitude of the US against Vietnam in the late 60's. We all know how well that turned out.

Re:Nothing New Here

[bluekanoodle]

Would you like some facts with your idiot sandwich? I'd like to see where your getting your "numbers" from.

Pollution knows no borders. Don't try and pass the blame solely on the US. Heres the results of a quick google search

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m14/m14chap4_1.sht ml

http://www.tai.org.au/MediaReleases_Files/MediaRel eases/

MRAustraliaWorstPolluter020698.htm

http://www.miningwatch.ca/publications/Ok_Tedi_Joi nt_Rls.html

And of Course heres a story out of denmark that says Denmark is the worlds 5 worst polluter, coming out ahead of the US.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/56654.html

Re:Nothing New Here

[MurphyZero]

China takes the long view that one day they will be the one doing all the bitchslapping. There's little doubt that if they were the dominant superpower that all countries would have to bow to their will or receive the bitchslap. It's that attitude that allows a country to move to the top of the food chain. In the US it was the attitude of working your poor and their children till they dropped. Then once they were near the top they could change their attitudes and enjoy being powerful. Now we're in the glow of being at the top, and that usually signals the downfall. And when a common phrase is "such and such is a sure sign of the coming apocalypse" and you can name a whole lot of signs, then watch out.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron. Why not just kill yourself if its a shit meaningless world. Though you would stick around and be self-important?

Re:Nothing New Here

[MurphyZero]

Actually, it's scarier that Russia CAN't maintain its nuclear (or should I say nuculer?) arsenal

Re:Nothing New Here

[numark]

Technically, the WTO can't really overturn national laws or enforce standards. All they can really do is approve trade sanctions. If a country's willing to accept these sanctions, then there's no need to overturn the law.

It also appears that, indirectly, we do indeed vote for our WTO representative. The Office of the United States Trade Representative is an executive position. As such, this position is confirmed by the Senate. Another example of why we're a democratic republic, not a simple democracy like many people think we are.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Uber Banker]

Yeah. Good on you using google. Great way to quote a load of crackpots, ahem, vested interest individuals/organisation (note that google sucks for filtering facts from misinformation - people who shout louder have less to base their arguments on etc).

If you are a student of a university then please visit the recommended reading list of the nearest environmental science course, rather than vested interest establishments (nor the the source of infinite ignorance that is Google) and pop down to the local library with it. If your local college does not have any suggestions I suggest Perman: Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, Cropper and Oates: Environmental Economics or Markandya and Richardson: The Erthscan Reader in Environmental Economics.

Read on and lose the chain of google - remember many of those that populate it of links are crazy peope or corporate vested interestes. Take or review an academic course - there is no free lunch, even /.!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the US shouldn't have to have gambling if it feels it's immoral. All it has to do is withdraw from the WTO. Of course then it would lose some of the 'legitimacy' it claims when forcing it's values on other countries.

Re:Nothing New Here

[crackshoe]

But if this rogue nation happens to put in the right sort of tracking beacon, just like the US did in 'tests', we might manage to knock it down.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Rome did not last 1000 years, reread your history books, OK so there was a mini-empire called the roman empire but it was not run by Romans and did not contain Rome, so any connections are well er romantic at best

Switzerland has the highest GDP in the world, much higher than the USA

Not bad going I would think

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Very much agreed. I'm not sure if the US could be anymore insular than it already is when it comes to world affairs. Basically, it's a case of, "We know what's best for the -world-, even though we don't know anything about it."

If it doesn't meet our Jerry Springer vote of approval, than you're our enemy. We demand others play by our 'rules', but when others request the same, "No way."

Hypocrites. As with many great empires, so, too, will your time come.

At least you have the Superbowl, eh?

Good grief!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Man that's petty.

Re:Nothing New Here

[wrenkin]

I believe they're separate cases.

Corporate greed knows no (international) bounds.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Eristone]

Read a history book.

Start with one about South Africa, and the apartheid regime.

They said the same thing.


Actually, first I'd point you to a book on geography. Unlike South Africa, where all the players were already on the same field, there's a few differences with the U.S. vs. "the muslims" or "the chinese". Approaches to the U.S. are for the most part either via air or water. (minimum of 2500 miles of ocean on the eastern and western border makes for better neighbors than even fences do!) Both approaches are relatively easily spotted/interdicted for large groups attempting entry - one offs are only good for 'terrorist' and 'commando' type actions (or narcotics deliveries).

Approaching by land is going to be either over the North Pole (inhospitable) and through Canada (tripwire/early warning) or through Central America/Mexico (tripwire/less early warning however traveling through Central America opens invading force to the various diseases that like to drop in on them - if they start in South America, crossing the Panama Canal becomes the tripwire/early warning point).

I disagree with you about the U.S. influence in 50 years. 200 years maybe .. but 50 years is too short a time. And be wary about watching the U.S. economy collapsing - everything that is tied to the Dollar will nose-dive with it so there's definitely forces in place working to prevent that from happening. No one wants another 1930s global depression. It isn't good for business.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Colazar]

You know, Switzerland was a very funny country for you to choose. Sure, we think of them as this little safe neutral country, but that's a misconception.

Every (male?) Swiss citizen is required to serve in the Army. Every household is required to have a firearm and ammunition. For most of the Middle Ages, the Swiss were *the preeminent* mercenaries in Europe.

Basically, they remained independent and neutral because no one dared invade them. One should never equate lack of agression with lack of strength.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Cpt_Kirks]

You forget, keyboards have more germs than toilet seats...

Re:Nothing New Here

[sumdumass]

No it isn't really more likely than terrorist sneaking a nuke onto a ship and sailing it into our ports. But it is more devestating and harder to respond to if they decide to use an ICBM.

A nuke in a container ship will have less of an effect than the current ICBMs that are either currently unacounted for after the soviet union dismantled or the ones being developed by wacked out nations like china, north korea or the likes. all it would take is for one terrorist to infiltrate the rusian military and launch one in the name of 72 virgins and $20. 15-20 minutes later, boom.. all gone.

The time it would take for the smugling all the materials and equiptment neccesary to make a nuke and actually have it work would be considerably longer. Not to mention the amount of time it would take to get it on the ship, plane, whatever , and then have it detonate. This give officials and spys plenty of time to find and react to these threats were an ICBM would give us around 20 minutes to do somethign about and even less if we wanted to save lives in the process. I think it is a nessesity that we cannot aford to live without.

Re:Nothing New Here

[poofyhairguy82]

Switzerland has been around in an independant form for over 500 years and is still healthy and will continue to be healthy. It's because they play well with others

Bullshit. Everyone knows that Switzerland has a healthy economy and has worked as a neutral nation is because the banks there hide the dirty money for both sides in a conflict. Hitler at one time along with the world's largest drug dealers today use Switz banks to hide money the rest of the world wouldn't let them have. The healthiness stems more from the "see no evil" school of thought when it comes to doing business. Its not a rosy truth. Just like the fact that the reason Belgium is a healthy country is because King Leopold stole over a billion dollars worth of rubber at the turn of the century from the Congo (at the cost of millions of African lives).

Re:Nothing New Here

[jmccay]

The EU is has no power what so ever! They do nothing! They sit back and let people blow them up! Then they run an hide like a scared little child.
As for the US, the US will do what it takes to protect it's own interests. The United Nations (more properly called the Useless Nations) and the WTO are full of people who are completely anti-American. The WTO allows other countries to do things like subsidies certain industries, but when the United States does the same the other countries that do the same thing run crying to the WTO.
The US should pull out of the WTO completely! Other countries keep high tarifs on American products or just plain don't allow American products to be sold in their coutries. If America does the same they cry, "no fair".
The rest of the world be damned! If they won't look out for the United States interests, then we will--whether you like it or not!
Let's look at the record. Germany and France were major funders of Iraq. France gave Iran nuclear capability. Both opposed the Iraq skirmish. The US went anyway! Now the US got what it wanted and Iraq is on its way to becoming a Democracy! France and Germany capitulated to US demands to forgive Iraq's debt in order to give their companies a chance at Iraq's business opportunities and so the US will forget the blood money France and Germany recently gave to Iraq.
The United States played the game of world citizen, and what did it get us? Countries took advantage of us, they kicked us, the beat us up, and other similar things...so the World be damned! The United States should stop giving money to all the nations we give money...like a lot of countries in the Middle East--except Isreal. The United States provides more charity to the world than any other country...especially fromt he rich nations!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick hint from a previous moderate conservative: Do not be so quick to equate an opinion to a "knee-jerk reaction of the far left." It alienates other moderates that hold the opinion contrary to your beliefs like those that believe the Repubs are corrupt, too.

Re:Nothing New Here

[ShieldW0lf]

So in short, this is not a good example of the US being arrogant, and they really do have a point regarding laws and tradition.

Except that they're the ones shoving free trade down everyone elses throats by any means necessary...

Re:Nothing New Here

[a whoabot]

No, I'm not a moron. I won't just, because killing one's self is much harder than suggesting it. But perhaps you could prove me wrong: at least that would make the world a bit better. And, no, I would not stick as such and be as such, though.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Thundersnatch]

The EU is now a very strong force to be reckoned with.

Bullshit. Economic power is a small part of the equation. Is Japan a "force to be reckoned with"? I say, you need some guns to go with all that butter, Europe.

The U.S. military could wipe the continent clean of socialist/elitist Europeans with moderate effort. Even without the Brits backing us.

A few well-placed Tomahawks, a three-hour firefight, and all of us uncouth Americans could party in France like it's 1941!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Thundersnatch]

That was "boorish American" joke, by the way

Re:Nothing New Here

[Chuck Messenger]

A couple of thoughts:

First, "Rome" didn't really get shattered, as you're saying. The Roman empire divided into 2 halves. The Western half did gradually succumb to barbarian tribes -- in the 400's or so. The Eastern half, with its capital in Constantinople, lasted much longer. I can't remember when the Turks finally took them down -- I think around the 1200's.

So what was your point about Rome? The Western Romans succumbed to barbarians tribes, but not the Eastern Romans. Was it because the Easterners were "nicer"? I hardly think so. There are reasons -- lots of them -- but they're more subtle than the "popular image" of the ever-more-profligate, self-indulgent, even insane (due to lead in glass, etc) Romans finally getting their just desserts!

Re:Nothing New Here

[Dick Faze]

Sure! I really believe you dude! And if Citibank goes out of business tomorrow I'm *SURE* you're going to send your credit card payment to them next month, even though then no longer exist, becuase you'll honor your agreement with a non-entity. Me too.

Re:Nothing New Here

[DigiShaman]

No, your incorrect. Clinton thought he could tame Kim by offering nuclear power technology in hopes of comming to an agreement. But being the psycho nutball that Kim his, he is now using this technology to make bombs. Had Clinton not made that careless decision, Kim would be at least 10+ year behind in advancement in a nuclear bomb program.

However, the deed has been done. And poking at Clinton all day for this moronic decision isn't going to solve anything. What we have to worry about now is how many terrorists have tactical nukes armed in little Honda Civics around the US just waiting for the OK to drive downtown and detonate!!

If such a horrific scenario were to take place, our government would ID the isotopes from the fallout. If they match what comes from N. Korea, then we will nuke the fuck out of it. And don't think we wont. Being the super power that the US is, we must maintain the precedence that no country can cause us harm and get away without swift justice. Also....China needs to be reassured that as well.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Dick Faze]

Uh, the Maginot Line actually worked. Its purpose was not to protect France from the entire world forever, it was to stop the Germans from attacking from the East, which it did. They got their ass kicked from somewhere else instead...[pissing contest remark]...until we saved them, of course.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

we dont need a kyoto treaty to hamstring the US economy. We make our own laws to do that for us.

Re:Nothing New Here

[crmsndude]

Actually, the whole thing goes something like this (using Mansfield, who is probably one of the best--if not the best--translations):

"Nonetheless, he should be slow to believe and to move, nor should he make himself feared, and he should proceed in a temperate mode with prudence and humanity so that too much confidence does not make him incautious and to much diffidence does not render him intolerable.
From this a dispute arises whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The response is that one would want to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to put them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to lack one of the two. For one can say this generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders, and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain. While you do them good, they are yours, offering you their blood, property, lives and children, as I said above, when the need for them is far away; but, when it is close to you, they revolt."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince (Mansfield, 2nd ed.), p.66.

Machiavelli then spent another chapter discussing why in being feared the prince must avoid being hated, because fear is a powerful tool, but hatred is a guarantee of future usurpation.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

If I still owed them money I sure as hell would keep sending what i owed. That's just plain wrong to do otherwise. Damn liberals.

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

He won't respond to this. He exists to troll about the US. Read my sig.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not opposed to free trade. Its a good idea. But free trade doesn't mean that MegaCorp X gets to do whatever it wants to. A nation which displeases the WTO/IMF group suffers great economic harm, and laws that protect worker rights, enforce environmental regulation, allow unions, etc displease the WTO/IMF. Free trade is a boon to all, but a race to the bottom benefits only the aristocracy. The WTO mandates a race to the bottom.

The WTO is hardly the singular entity causing harm, but they are at the forefront. Most worryingly they are a secret organization. Their meetings are closed. Freedom dies behind closed doors, and the doors of the WTO/IMF have never been open. The treaties they push and enforce benefit only the aristocracy. Look at Chapter 11 of NAFTA for an example. The sovrignity of the USA is severly compromised by Chapter 11, which specifies that if any corporation in a NAFTA member state believes its profits to be reduced by a law passed by a NAFTA member state it can request a closed, secret, hearing of two people appointed by NAFTA and one appointed by itself to decide how much money the member nation must pay for the loss of profits, including imagined future profits. This has already had the effect of repealing a Californian law prohibiting a cancer causing fuel additive; it seems that the Canadian corporation manufacturing that additive thought its profits might be harmed by laws designed to improve the health of Californians. Enter Chapter 11, exit health protection. Behind closed doors, and in secret.

We are indeed in the middle of a new economic change. One brought about by technology (as all economic changes were historically). But the WTO/IMF and the aristocracy they serve are the ones opposing the change, not me. Industrial Automation is coming, and with it we will see a change even bigger than the old Industrial Revolution. Along with the technological change we will see a change in the very structure of our economy, as we did during the Industrial Revolution. Modern capitalism did not exist until the Industrial Revolution, and I rather doubt it will exist in its current form after the next big change. That is what the aristocracy fears, they know they're on top now, and they can look back historically and see how poorly the *old* aristocracy faired after modern capitalism came into being. They fear what will replace today's economy, and they fight its coming tooth and nail.

All economic change results in short term harm, its unavoidable. But unlike during the Industrial Revolution, today we have the ability to predict that harm, to try and make the change as painless as possible. The WTO/IMF and their ilk have no interest in either bringing about the change, nor in making the change less painful. They serve the aristocracy, and the aristocracy doesn't give a damn.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

Hardly the terms I'd accept for my representation in a world government: a congressman I may or may not have voted for myself might possibly object to a president I may or may not have voted for's appointment to a world government that doesn't let us see its meetings. You think that is a satisfactory way to represent yourself in a world government you never had any say in the creation of?

More to the point, we haven't had any public debate over the formation of the WTO/IMF as a world government. And finally, let us not forget the most important fact: all WTO meetings are secret. There are no cameras broadcasting live on C-SPAN, the minutes are not even published after the fact. We are not allowed to know what goes on inside an organization that determines our economic future. This doesn't worry you?

Freedom dies behind closed doors, and tyrants love secrecy.

Re:Nothing New Here

[blaksaga]

"Damn mongowians...stop destrowying my shitty wall."

Re:Nothing New Here

[MaxwellX22]

Based on yout logic, America should stop supporting a country because that countries enemies are now America's enemies. Bullshit. Israel is only 50 years old, has been at war all 50 of those years, and ontop of being a Jewish state in what I like to call Arab Territory, it is also a democracy in Dictator Land. Every single American should be so proud for America's support of Israel.

The very fact that thugs such as Bin-Laden and Al-Zawahii exist is enough of a reason for America to defend itself and to support Israel. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Hizzbolah, and Al Qaeda may not all be directly linked, but they all want to oppress Christinas, Jews, Women, and Free Westerners. These people need to pay for convincing Children to kill themselves. And people like Yassin[HaAretz] should be dead.

Americans should know that Bin-Laden hates Israel, but Americans should rally support, because as much as it hurt us to have planes kill people on that fatefull morning, Israelis have to live with the fear of Homicide Bombings on a daily basis.

AL Qadea is a group of terrosits that will say or do anything to gain support. Bin-Laden saying that he hates Israel, however true it is, will incite those who are told to hate Israel to join his cause. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria(Lebanon), Afghanistan, and all the other shitholes of Dictator Land, all teach their children to hate two things, American and Israel. So if they preach it, lets give them a reason.

There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours." - Golda Meir

If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.
Think about it...

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

but my counter-point is look at how many people voted for Clinton the SECOND time.

??? You've lost me here. How does Clinton's second term have anything to do with Rumsfeld's chumming up to Saddam?

If you voted third party then you do have the right to get upset, especially since your vote amounts to nothing in our f&%*ed up system.

Its offtopic, but I'll agree wholeheartedly with you here. The Electoral College is a bad idea, but it would be tolerable if the EC votes of each state were split, the "winner takes all" concept essentially throws my vote right out the window unless I vote with the majority of the people in my state. A split EC vote would solve this problem quite nicely. Let the Republican votes in California and New York count, let the Democrat votes in Texas count, and let the third party votes everywhere count.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't violating the treaty... It allowed for one area to be protected wiht a missle sheild... They picked moscow.. we picked our main missle base in wyoming or something... Then we both realised using the missles sheild... aka a 5megaton upper atmosphere detonation would do more harm then good...

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

Of course not. Do you have any guarantee that trying a different policy is somehow going to make the world end? We know that the current policy isn't working well, I'd suggest that trying an alternate policy for a few years would be a good experiment to let us compare the results.

I'll bet that my proposed "oppose dictatorships, support democracy" policy will result in fewer problems and be more effective than the current "support dictatorships, oppose democracy" policy. How's about we try my idea and get some data to make a valid comparison? Unless you have an ulterior motive for supporting the current, failing, policy and don't want to see a more effective policy in place, that is...

Its like the current non-debate on the subject of sex education. The local Taliban wannabes claim that real sex education is a horrible thing that will result in "declining morals" (whatever that means), and increased teen pregnancy rates. I say that real sex ed works quite well in Holland, reducing teen pregancy significantly and also resulting in teens having sex later than they do in the US. A valid experiment, taking one state and enforcing the wannabe Taliban's "abstiance only" model of sex ed and letting another state try real sex education would allow us to make a valid comparison and see who's right. They seem to have an objection to finding the facts, and I believe its because they know the facts will not back them up. The quesiton is, do you fall into their category?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Arker]

But it's our country. Don't you think we should have a say in what our laws should be?

Absolutely. It is our politicians who are constantly putting this in danger by creating monsters like the WTO. They just don't seem to grasp the notion that if they can use the WTO against other nations, it can be used against us too, however. This hypocrisy is what creates all the 'anti-american' feeling you keep hearing about. Not this case in particular, but this sort of (il)logic.

I'm very happy with this particular incident though, for the moment at least. It looks like a win-win situation for me, either we get rid of some of our idiotic anti-gambling laws, or we get rid of the idiotic WTO membership. Either result would be a win from my point of view.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Ermm Japan has one of the largest militaries in the world after US and China... They are also 4th in spending after I tihnk france... They seem to have this fear of china and want to make damn sure they can hurt anyone in the world if need be... SDF my ass... Only things they don't have are carriers and nukes.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Wildfire Darkstar]

The Byzantine Romans survived until 1453, technically speaking, but, by the end, they had dwindled to almost total insignificance. For almost two hundred years before that they had been reduced to holding, desperately, onto the city of Constantinople a few miles surrounding it, surrounded on all sides by an increasingly hostile Ottoman Empire that had long since wrested control of the breadbaskets of the empire. The only reason they lasted that long was likely because the Turks didn't see a whole lot of point in spilling blood over such an insignificant amount of land. The only thing that kept them from being totally ignored was that a half-remembered religious importance going back to Constantine I that was rapidly fading into distant memory in most of the Catholic world and had little weight at all in the Turkish Muslim regions. The Byzantine Empire's fate was in many ways worse than that of its western counterpart: whereas the West fell rapidly, over around a century or two, the East took almost six hundred years.

And, actually, politics did play a major role in the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. Probably the biggest, all things considered: a good number of the "hostile" barbarian tribes which took their turns marauding up and down the Italian boot in the fifth century were foderati of Rome, and made up the bulk of the Roman army by the end of the fourth century. Alaric, leader of the Visigoths, whose sack of Rome in 410 is seen by most historians as the beginning of the end of the Western empire, took up arms against the empire not because he had some grudge against it, but because of an extremely dangerous political game being played by the two Emperors. Indeed, it was the dreadful mismanagement of the barbarian situation that caused a good many tribes to turn decisively against Rome, and not some hatred of Roman society (which many actively sought to emulate). Exceptions existed, of course (the Huns, in particular, seemed to be in it for conquest's sake alone), but had Rome managed to play its hand a little more thoughtfully, it likely would have survived, in some capacity, through the fifth century.

The Eastern empire, on the other hand, managed to retain a decently cordial relationship with most of the Germanic tribes, or, at the very least, managed to deflect the bulk of their ire. A failure to come to some sort of similar arrangement one thousand years later between Catholic western Europe and the Islamic south and east doomed them just as it had the western empire. In particular, a long-standing religious dispute with the West (resulting in the mutual excommunication of the leaders of both the Orthodox and Catholic churches by the other, which is still, technically, in effect), and the failure to reach some sort of concilliation between the two prevented any western military aid against the Turks in the final few years.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You're gay. And racist. You must be Jewish, then.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

All the while, the US is trying to tell China that they must leave open the internet to whatever information that comes its' way. We use to value freedom (now it is "security"), but we think that everybody is allowed to be free as long as it is our way of thinking.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

(or soon to be third-world countries like France)

I love it when someone interjects something completely absurd like this into a post. It's a good laugh.

Global organizations, ... are notorious for using the fascade of internationalism as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.

Global organizations using the fascade[sic] of internationalism. That's just priceless.

Come on, at least try to make sense, or don't post. You're giving the rest of us conservatives a bad name.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you also wondering why those same people bomb Turkey's buildings, Spain's trains, Bali hotels and Israel's buses? last I checked, those countries were no arrogant superpowers.

Jeez, how the fuck is the parent modded up insightful, and the grandparent modded at 0. The slashbot mindset is fucked up.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's almost the epitomy of a loaded statement. I find it odd most countries that have them means stand idly by allowing inhumane and immoral actions to go on. If and when the USA steps in, it's usually critized by some of its own inhabitants but mostly by ignorant citizens of countries that turned a blind eye or a deaf ear.

The values that you claim are being imposed SHOULD be the values every oxygen breathing creature on this friggin planet should share. Therefore nothing is really being imposed, only defended.

Those who back this loaded statement could quite possibly be the same asses that will watch a man beat a woman and respond only to get up and close the blinds. Crappy analogy, but it's the same damn thing.

Pathetic. Only thing more pathetic is that I waste my time typing this.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Dick Faze]

MOD PARENT UP!!!

This is the funniest thing in the history of words, and ironically, he's probably right.

Re:Nothing New Here

[nyseal]

Do you honestly believe that bin Laden was not around prior to Bush (jr)? These maniacs have been around for a long time and now that the finances are coming to light you blame the current 'regime'. Go fuck yourself. Arms deals and national policies were being set decades before these acts ever took place and now we want to blame the current president. BS. He's just trying to clean up the mess in a post terror attack. Had he stepped in to the whitehouse on the first day and introduced the 'homeland security bill' he would have been impeached. It was a reaction to 3000 people being killed in a terrorist attack from policies and negotiations set in place well before his administration (going back to 1942 mind you). People in the US (and Europe I suppose) want to feel safe....it's just a matter of how far you want to go to feel safe (Ben Frank jumps to mind). Regardless of your opinion, the US does not set the pace for world politics.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Roger W Moore]

The U.S. refused to sign it because we take our treaties serious.

You mean like the Geneva convention which applies to prisoners of war like those in Guantanamo Bay? or does that not count because its a convention?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Roger W Moore]

Actually I would imagine that it won't apply Islamic since they (presumably?) ban all gambling. I thought that the WTO ruling was because the US is quite happy for US companies to export gambling to other countries just not the reverse i.e. you can restrict gambling if you want you just have to restrict it fairly for domestic and foreign companies alike.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 happened because of the attitude of Religious extremists

Like GW Bush ?

Man, you should review your own country history.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

europe has got plenty of "guns", nukes, land, sea and airstrike capability. Try it on and you'd find yourself in armageddon very quickly. There is no way the brits would back you over an eu skuffle. even blair wouldn't be so foolish. you are not as invincible as you think you are.

Re:Nothing New Here

[RyanJBlack]

I'm going to assume that the "country's growth" you refer to is its economy (which, ultimately, defines who is a superpower and who is not).

China's population rate is still growing (0.6% in 2003 and 0.9% in 2000, compared to the United States' 0.95% in 2003)

Your example, India, grows at 1.47%.

I realize that the lag between an increase in population and an increase in the country's population exists (i.e. until the new population become functioning citizens), but even then... the effects of the staggering birth rates in China during the 60's will last for many decades. India's current and continuing population growth will likely continue propel its economy (and, therefore, world clout) in the future, I don't think China's lacking in that respect either.

While a country's growth rate may influence its GDP growth, their link really isn't strong enough to say that on that factor alone, a country will or will not be an economic superpower - letting alone the fact that China has yet to have a negative population rate in recent years. That may change, though.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel *exactly* like you all the time. I'm not kidding or trying to mock you...

Re:Nothing New Here

[Licinius]

Yep, you're correct.

A Canadian company suing the US over the ban on MTBE and a US company suing Canada over the ban on MMT; both under NAFTA. And both are gasoline additives. Heh.

Even in light of this, BiggsTheCat is still partially wrong. It's not the US that's suing Canada, it's a US company.

Re:Nothing New Here

[shani]

There's a word for trying the same thing and expecting different results.

Gambling?

Re:Nothing New Here

[BlueStrat]

"Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand at a time when we *knew* that he was a mass murderer,"

True, but I've often heard diplomacy described as the art of saying, "Nice doggie"..while searching for a stick. I think Rumsfeld may have had a similar thought as he smiled at Saddam.

Re:Nothing New Here

[10Ghz]

The Kyoto treaty was specifically designed to hamstring the American economy. Its stated purpose, to reduce world pollution, is nothing more than a cover story.

Uh-huh. Then how do you explain the fact that EU is required to cut their emissions more than USA is required to? Add to that the fact that EU has already been reducing their emissions, so there's not much left to do, whereas USA is full of polluting SUVs, inefficient and old steel-mills etc. etc. So it should be alot more easier for USA to cut their emissions than it is for EU, since EU has to do more, and since they have already done so much. Yeah, it's clearly a conspiracy against USA!

Explain that one, Einstein.

Re:Nothing New Here

[10Ghz]

I think the "rest of the world hates the USA because we are so big and strong!" is a comment made by/for simpletons. If you really think that the reason why USA is disliked around the world is simply because you happen to be the only superpower around, you are way off.

But I guess it's simpler to use simple explanations like that ("they hate USA because they hate freedom!") instead of thinking about the real issues behind their feelings, eh?

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

1. It's the same urge that drives everyone to hate Microsoft.

While I generally agree with the point about those in dominant positions are often hated *because* of their position, I don't hate MS, I don't even hated BG. However, I do hate it when my government fails to enforce the anti-trust laws and allows a monopoly to *abuse* its *position*.

Re:Nothing New Here

[daytrip00]

Agreed! The Swiss also took an inactive role in the holocaust. They refused to take refugees.

A friend of mine refers to them as Nazis with Chocolate.

Success indeed, I'll take my chances.

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

1. Uh, the Maginot Line actually worked. Its purpose was not to protect France from the entire world forever, it was to stop the Germans from attacking from the East, which it did.

When people refer to France's ML, they are really referring to the false hope of a static defense, which fails utterly if the enemy finds a new route/method/strategy to attack you with/from. While the ML didn't fail technically, it did fail in the larger sense that France believed it was safe from Germany because of the ML, when it obviously wasn't. Worse, the French were so confident in the ML, that they allowed their conventional military to degrade relative to the Germans. Also, although not well known, the Germans did penetrate the ML in a few places to the north. It took time of course, it wasn't like the blitzkrieg through the Low countries, but once they got behind the ML, no matter how, the ML was doomed. The lesson learned from this is that in modern times (post-gunpowder), almost any enemy, given enough time, can defeat any static line defense, i.e., the *best* defense is *always* a good *offense*.

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

1. The US IS exceptional

Yes, this is true, but there is no guaranttee that

1. it will remain exceptional

This is not written in stone, we are not inheriently "superior", what disturbs me most about other Americans using this mantra, is that they fail to realize, or simply refuse to admit, that we got to this point more out of the luck of geography and geopolitics, and just plain happenstance, than anything else. For anyone from a country that is only ~230 years old to say we are inheriently exceptional is just plain arrogant, as well as ignorant of history.

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

1. , and football which has ...

and you were going SO well until you got to this point, what a pity...

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

1. Smart people have an SKS or two with a few thousand rounds buried somewhere

s/Smart/Paranoid/

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Why are you, in your sig, linking to a thread where I proved my point regarding both moslem registration, and the fact that you haven't separated from the church all that much .. ? You look like an idiot there.

Suits me fine though :)

Regarding the parent to your post, he seems to think we're talking about invading forces. He needs to read up on the Quran, and see what has happened to France in that area.

Clueless, as usual.

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

This would have been a wonderful rant except for the fact that Bin Laden, and everyone who is actually trying to *kill* Americans, don't give a *damn* about air pollution.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Chuck Messenger]

Interesting reading - thanks!

Re:Nothing New Here

[True Grit]

1. The American news media never discusses the content of Bin Laden's or Al-Zawahiri's messages

Umm, not true.

1. That foreign policy discussion is one I would love this country to have...but it doesn't look like it's going to happen

We have had, and we continue to have it almost constantly. The problem the Jew-bashers here have is that a majority of Americans continue to fundamentally support Israel (not necessarily any given Israeli *government*, but the country's people). No amount of anti-semitism and Arab propaganda seems to change their minds... how strange.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. Aside from the fact that China holds 1/4 of the world population, your intellectual superiority can not be refuted.

Re:Nothing New Here

[andr0meda]

Global organizations, especially those dominated by third-countries (or soon to be third-world countries like France), are notorious for using the fascade of internationalism as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.


.. which makes it OK for the US to do pursuit it's own selfish interests, regardless if that claim would be true or not.

I'm baffled to see that now the WTO is seen as a EU-dominated international organisation, while it is that same, often "socialist" or "communist" tagged, EU that rallied up largely and violently and on numerous occasions against it's decisions and practices.


And do a little homework before you start blathering about the US withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. The US Senate never ratified it, since liberal poster-boy Bill Clinton never submitted it. Can't withdraw from a treaty you were never agreed to.


Regardless of who did or didn't sign Kyoto, the US is not social when it comes to defending the living standards and climat of this planet. This is particularly bad because a wealthy, beautifull, large but realtively low populated country is fucking up for all other smaller, less powerfull but much more dense populated countries, and not even caring about it! Where are those good christian american tv-drilled values now?

Re:Nothing New Here

[the_womble]

If the US had a regulatory framework and said "OK everyone who wants to run a casino follows these rules" that would be OK with the WTO. The US could also ban gambling altogether and that would be OK too. The point of the ruling is that the US can not favour a US supplier over a non-US supplier. That is the whole point of the WTO.

Re:Nothing New Here

[khallow]

Do you think at your computer, or do you... you know... touch it.

Re:Nothing New Here

[BiggerIsBetter]

It sounds like ancestor poster is someone who has never been to Europe... France is a long long long way from becoming a 3rd world country. It would take a nuclear strike on most of Europe to make that happen, although maybe that's what was being implied. OTOH, it would be funny to watch the US get wiped off the map if they tried that.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

True, but I've often heard diplomacy described as the art of saying, "Nice doggie"..while searching for a stick. I think Rumsfeld may have had a similar thought as he smiled at Saddam.

Nice description. I hadn't heard that one before, and I'm going to have to remember it.

However, in the case of Rumsfeld and Saddam, it doesn't describe what happened. Following the handshake the US government gave Saddam quite a bit of money, instructions for making various biological and chemical weapons (along with samples of the weapons for "defensive research"), etc. Not quite a stick, really...

It isn't pleasant to realize that "our" government has a history of supporting evil, but it is true. Chile, Nicaragua, Colombia, Iraq, Iran, Kuait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sai Pan, the list goes on. All places where there was clearly a wrong, anti-democratic side, and for whatever reason "our" government decided that they should side with the dictators, with the villians, not against them. I'm sure that the various presidents and congresspeople believed there were good reasons for supporting the forces of evil. But the trend is impossible to avoid, when faced with a choice of supporting dictatorship or democracy "our" government almost always sides with dictatorship. I think we can do better than that. If America is to be (as I think it should) a model of freedom, democracy, and justice, than it can't keep supporting the opposite of that.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whoami-ky]

The U.S. politicians (I hate it when they are equated with the U.S. itself - there is a big difference) need to learn that in order for maintain good relations with other nations, everyone must follow the same set of rules.

Actually, everyone doesn't have to follow the same rules, they just have to agree to respect each other rules when differnt groups come in contact, whether that be in person, via the internet, during a business meeting, or whatever.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swiss took more refugees than the US.

Re:Nothing New Here

[daytrip00]

Nice try... but no.

And by the way, those weren't Swiss tanks i saw freeing the victims of the holocaust.

Re:Nothing New Here

[sadomikeyism]

de Toqueville (if you read the articles) said we were exceptional when we were less than 50 years old. We've been exceptional in the interim almost completely (with the possible interregnum of the Roosevelt-Carter period, as was also noted in the article.)

You are right that we MAY not remain exceptional, but that will only occur if the rest of the world stops acting so insistent that we start doing things their way. What has happened since 9/11 is that a good chunk of the American people have rediscovered that they are NOT pseudo-europhiles, they are not pseudo-sophisticates, and they are NOT "citizens of the world". They've also realized that good and evil are not obsolete terms, that moral equivalency is a bankrupt concept.

Re:Nothing New Here

[sumdumass]

well put!

Re:Nothing New Here

[rossz]

Since we have not violated the Geneva convention with regards to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, you simply support my original statement.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Lord Kano]

"Pardon us, senores, but the government that committed those troops to fight with you in Iraq? It's no longer here... we're bringing them home!"

If a government were to fall and the country were split up amongst many different factions, each of those factions would be new countries. Not bound by the agreements of the former government.

LK

Re:Nothing New Here

[frankie]

And poking at Clinton all day for this moronic decision isn't going to solve anything.

I agree, especially since it might not be true. You need to back up your claims.

All of the info I've read says that North Korea already extracted over 20 kilograms of plutonium by the end of 1992.

Re:Nothing New Here

[bluelantern]

I'm neither a jew-basher or anti-semitic. I'm simply expressing an opinion that you'd be surprised how many rational non-racist people in this country share but because of political correctness gone awry don't feel liberty to discuss.

In many ways discussion of foreign policy in the middle east is a politically motivated discussion instead of rationally motivated discussion. Some of that political motivation is the fear of being called those two terms you used against me. When Howard Dean used the term "even-handed" to describe his approach to the Middle East peace process he was flogged by the media instead of being discussed by the media. I have my opinions but as a rational person, they are subject to change given better discussion and more complete perspectives. Those perspectives include the full substance of the messages that Al-Qaeda puts out. That's what I don't think we have.

Re:Nothing New Here

[bluelantern]

I sympathize with many of your ideas, but fundamentally they are not tenable in the long term. Violence begets violence, hate begets hate and the only way to stop the vicious cycle is to turn the other cheek. Violence on either side must be condemned as well as American support of fundamentally flawed governments for the sake of oil. The way the terrorists deliver their message is wrong, but unless we discuss the root of the terroristic cause, it'll not stop. Having the approach to terrorism that Israel has had for the past fifty years will only put America in the same position Israel is in fifty years from now. There is a better way. Without discussion we won't find it.

>> "There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours." - Golda Meir

Do you think killing Yassin gave the Palestinians a reason to love their children more or hate Israeli children more?

>> If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.

We need both sides to put down their weapons. Only a dispassionate, non-violent, democracy/education-oriented approach to all of middle-east foreign policy from all world powers will get us there.

Re:Nothing New Here

[drunkenbatman]

Sometime google jefferson's writings on the electoral college, and the dangers of direct elections... pretty sure you should be able to grep the text for "mob rule".

Re:Nothing New Here

[SnowZero]

I would have turned the argument around, especially since Republicans actually believe that a foetus is a person.

That's why I said "The other party is just as inconsistent".

Democrats are not incosistent in this regard because they do not consider a foetus to be a person.

Actually most states have laws against killing foetuses, including states controlled by Dems. In that case, whether it is alive or not depends on whether the mother wanted it or not. That doesn't seem very consistent to me.

Anyhow, I don't really care as I am independent.

I'm a registered Libertarian.

Not in Texas. If you go on to someone's property he or she can shoot you.

True, but Texas is special in a lot of ways, and that's one of the laws that would make me not want to live there. Take my argument as "everywhere in the US except Texas".

Re:Nothing New Here

[DigiShaman]

You don't "extract" plutonium. In fact, it's totally man-made stuff. Which of course, requires a reactor of some sort. The only way Korea could have got plutonium that early was through the black market, or made it themselves.

As for backing up my claims, you can read part of it here. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/29/n korea.us/

Basically, the clinton administration gave N. Korea advanced nuclear technology to build "harmless" light water reactors. But instead, N Korea is using this technology to make plutonium. I'm not saying clinton is to blame for Kims actions. But, that administration was careless to think you can negotiate with Kim.

Hell, we might as well have handed Hitler information of atomic physics in hoping he wouldn't kill more jews. (Yes, N. Korea does have concentration camps). Because, that's exactly what happend with Kim

Re:Nothing New Here

[Thomas Shaddack]

You aren't being disliked for being dominant. You are being disliked for what you did to become dominant, and what you are doing in order to stay dominant.

The Microsoft parallel is a fitting one.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

but that will only occur if the rest of the world stops acting so insistent that we start doing things their way.

WTF does this mean?

They've also realized that good and evil are not obsolete terms, that moral equivalency is a bankrupt concept.

Moral equivalency is not a common standpoint in Europe. Most people agree that Saddam is a bad person and that terrorists do evil things. The issue is that many Europeans disagree with how the Bush administration is handling these issues. But again, that doesn't mean that Europeans don't know good from evil. Suggesting that we do is quite unfair and xenophobic.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why people who have been walked over by the US want to nuke it.

Polute my air and water and refuse to improve your factories, power stations? Then I'll nuke your country/factories/government with a suitcase bomb so your actions may be accounted for.

The US creates over 25% of global air pollution yet is affected by less than 5% of this.

Would you allow your neighbour to shit in their garden but throw most of the wast at you? This is the opinion of the US held by most of the rest of the world.

Let me tell you something pal. If a suitcase nuke hits a US city, the Arabian peninsula will be turned into a glass-covered skating rink. And it will glow for a million years.

Re:Nothing New Here

[AceM2]

They didn't give a damn before and they still don't. What's your point?

I mean seriously, do you think you're the bigger man because you enjoy seeing women and children being killed by terrorists? If a cop gave you a speeding ticket today and then you saw him getting beat by a gang tomorrow, would you just stop and laugh?

You're a joke. Get your stuff together and realize we live in a hostile world. You think you aren't a target for terrorists just because you're against America? Think again.

Re:Nothing New Here

[AceM2]

History...
Terrorists have been around for thousands of years

Don't Learn...
We have only just now started seeking out the terrorists on their own territory

Doomed...
Idiots claim the war on terror is based on money and politics, and if we succumb to those thoughts we may actually give up on the war and allow ourselves to be annihilated. Exactly what they've been planning for well over 2000 years.

Re:Nothing New Here

[frankie]

You don't "extract" plutonium

Don't get snippy with me about nuclear physics. 15 years ago I could recite all of the fissionable actinide isotopes and how to acquire them. In perl: s/extract/reprocess/

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/29/ nkorea.us/ Basically, the clinton administration gave N. Korea advanced nuclear technology to build "harmless" light water reactors. But instead, N Korea is using this technology to make plutonium.

Umm... I don't think you actually read that article:

Bolton said that unless North Korea began a speedy reform process it would risk losing a key 1994 agreement with a U.S.-led consortium to build two light-water nuclear reactors -- a project that is already well behind schedule.

First, unfinished reactors. Second, LWR is a NON-BREEDER design. Third, those reactors were being built by Donald Rumsfeld's company (before he became SoD), so any illicit technology transfer is more properly on his head. Last, where in that (or any) article does it say Clinton gave nuclear knowledge to NK? In fact, your article says the opposite:

The project was originally agreed with the previous Clinton administration in return for the North agreeing to put a freeze on its own nuclear programs and mothball reactors capable of producing weapons grade material.

They already had operational breeder reactors before Clinton talked to them. So I repeat my challenge: prove it or shut up.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Atryn]

Well for one thing we could practice equal treatment versus just preaching it.

There's a country in the Middle East that is known to possess weapons of mass destruction. It's people can only be citizens and vote if they belong to a single religion. They routinely persecute the minority population and carry out illegal violent crimes against them. Their leader openly advocates the assassination of the leadership of opposing organizations. These actions have and will continue to escalate the violence in the country causing the deaths of many innocent people on both sides. This leader's actions are also causing a de-stabilization of the Middle East region.

Now, if this were an arabic country we would be sanctioning or even invading. But since it is Israel, we are exercising our veto power in the UN Security Council to PREVENT a condemnation of the assassination.

This double standard is only one part of why so many in the arabic world hate us.

Re:Nothing New Here

[sadomikeyism]

What is means is that when the rest of the world pressures Americans to be more like them, Americans, being contrarians, say, "Hell, NO, I won't, I'm goin' the other way." Americans tend to be more xenophilic when we are being the most ignored. The rest of the world works the same way, you just haven't noticed it. We studiously ignore the rest of the world when we can, and that makes y'all want to be more and more like Americans...

Re:Nothing New Here

[ScuzzMonkey]

Someone will inherit the contract, is the point, smartass, just as Russia inherited the agreements of the USSR. You really think no one is going to come after you for what you owe Citi if they go out of business?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Shakrai]

It's people can only be citizens and vote if they belong to a single religion.

That must explain why there are Arab members of the Knesset. It must also explain the "Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal" on the World factbook entry for Israel.

But since it is Israel, we are exercising our veto power in the UN Security Council to PREVENT a condemnation of the assassination.

The assassination of a the leader of a known terrorist organization that is responsible for hundreds of innocent deaths of both Arabs and Isreali's. Breaks my fucking heart that they killed him. Even the spineless EU considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Tell me again why the Israeli's shouldn't have killed this SOB? Would we pass up Bin Ladan if we had a shot at him?

This double standard is only one part of why so many in the arabic world hate us.

Double standard? The Arab fanatics want another Holocost of the Jewish people. It'll be over our dead bodies before that happens. Too bad the Europeans don't seem to remember history very well. They will be doomed to repeat it.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whittrash]

I don't misunderstand you, I disagree with you. What about the people who used to live on $1 or $2 a day who now earn $20 a day. A utopian democratic vision doesn't feed that persons kids. For many people the economy is a matter of life and death...literally. There are hundreds of millions of people in places like India, Vietnam, the Phillipines that have benefitted. They can afford rudimentary health care, basic education and nutritious food now. That is a major accomplishment. This is not an all or nothing situations where the IMF is 'evil incarnate' as opposed to some former glorious past where these things you decry never existed. Labor and environmental problems were far worse before the IMF and WTO were invented and life expectancy was shorter. There are problems for sure, but turning back the clock would be cruel to millions of people.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

You should fear the fact that idiots like that get their political opinions from television shows.

Re:Nothing New Here

[DigiShaman]

Read this http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/ 164846.shtml

Second; a light water reactor still requires enriched uranium. Still, it's more fuel to the fire in the making of a bomb...albit a few more steps away in the process of making plutonium. But then again...your 15 years of knowledge would alread know that huh? Geez, don't be such an arrogant condescending ass! Your starting to sound a lot like John F-ing Kerry (though this is /., I've had worse spoken to me)

Third; RANT ALERT:.. I don't care which party is responsible. The moment any administration tries to negotiate with evil men, is the moment they are marked by me as a traitor of the USA. I will never...EVER bow down and compromise my life and liberty to anyone outside the US. UN be damned, fuck em!

And yes...I'm a proud Libertarian.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

Direct elections of the president are hardly "mob rule". Any more than, say, direct elections for Senators are (which, you may recall was a hotly contested change some time back).

Also, for all the respect I have for our founders, we must remember that at the time they wrote the constitution, and their own other writings, the entire idea of a democratic government was considered dangerous and unworkable. For some time our form of government was called "The Great American Experiment". I'd say it succeeded, actually. The Electoral College is a left over from a time when people simply didn't trust the democratic process, these days are not those days.

Additionally, the principle protection from "mob rule" is the Constitution and its ammendments, which forbids congress and "the mob" from making certain laws. The Constitution can be changed but only with a supermajority. In theory this keeps the majority from oppressing the minority (which is what "mob rule" means). This is why I'm not too worried that the "Homosexuals are Second Class Citizens" ammendment will pass. I just don't think the Taliban wannabes here in America can muster the supermajority necessary to put their hysterics into the Constitution. Thus, you will notice, "mob rule" is neatly avoided. No wise unelected protectors needed, the system itself is designed to prevent certain problems.

So, in summary: the Electoral College is an anti-democratic institution left over from a time when our founders gave in to their aristocratic fears rather than properly trusting the system they designed to work. I respect the founders, but I'm not in worshipful admiration of them, they were human, and some of their ideas weren't good idea. What I *really* want is nationally mandated Instant Runoff Voting, which would allow for third parties to stand a chance of being elected, open more elections to challengers, etc.

Re:Nothing New Here

[gaijin99]

I will argue that the positive changes happened dispite the WTO/IMF, not because of them. Given that the WTO/IMF routinely pressure governments to mandate lower wages and fewer benefits, I can't see how they are responsible for higher wages and better benefits unless you believe that they are engaging in some form of reverse psychology...

Additionally, all of your arguments fail to address the central fact that the WTO/IMF are organizations rooted completley in secrecy. If, as you claim, they are noble paragons of virtue working tirelessly to improve the lot of the third world, than why are their meetings completely closed? No live coverage. No transcripts released. No voting records shown. This means that we have a secretive group of individuals deciding the economic lives of people (which, as you correctly observe are frequently matters of life and death) without any accountability, or transparency. So if they ruin the lives of millions of people we have no record that can show us who is to blame. Which members should be replaced. Etc.

Trade is good, and free trade definately raises standards of living, of course. But powerful organizations which pressure governments to remove worker protections, remove people's right to unionize, remove environmental protections, etc, are not necessary to free trade. You seem blinded by their claims and unwilling to delve into their dubious accomplishments.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

What is means is that when the rest of the world pressures Americans to be more like them, Americans, being contrarians, say, "Hell, NO, I won't, I'm goin' the other way."

The rest of the world has got their own opinion and of course, they try to convince others to share that opinion. The US does the same thing, with considerably military and financial force. What I don't understand is how the US is suddenly the victim here who is pressured so badly (bad, bullying Europeans!). It's really sad if you use this fallacy to defend negativism.

Americans tend to be more xenophilic when we are being the most ignored.

You are not being ignored. The entire world sympathized with you after 9/11. A large majority agreed with you when you went after Afghanistan. A great part of the world disagreed with the way you handled Iraq. Of course, we can't disagree with you, because then we are 'pressuring' you. We may only give applause.

Perhaps you should wonder why you defend a standpoint which doesn't allow others to criticize you. It reeks very much of dictatorial tendencies, I thought that the US was about freedom?

Re:Nothing New Here

[drunkenbatman]

Direct elections of the president are hardly "mob rule". Any more than, say, direct elections for Senators are (which, you may recall was a hotly contested change some time back).

In other words, you simply read what I wrote instead of actually reading his writings.

"Mob rule" has to do with the fact that if, say, 50% of the people end up living in california, and 30% of the people live in NYC, the president can essentially promise the people of California and the people of NYC that he's going to ship all of their used toilet paper to the midwest.

The electoral college (and other aspects) are one of the checks and balances that help protect the country from only catering to one group of people.

While you're at it, be on the lookout for "by the cities, of the cities and for the cities"... direct elections were most assuredly considered, and while you may find the current terribly unfair and short sided as an undergrad, by the time you've graduated much will be clearer. :)

Re:Nothing New Here

[frankie]

Read this http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/ 164846.shtml

NEWSMAX??? You're joking, right? Maybe I should point you to Al Franken's radio network, or TheMilitant.com? But okay, I'm a fair and balanced guy, so I read your final stab from the bottom of the GOP barrel. And nowhere in the article did I see support for your claim that Clinton was "giving N. Korea nuclear technology". All it says is that he signed a soft treaty.

I see you're having a tough time with your side of this argument, so I'll pitch in. Clinton did indeed sign a bad treaty with North Korea. It didn't have strong inspection requirements, didn't authorize military action, and didn't explicitly ban uranium enrichment. Basically it gave NK a few extra years grace when the world should have been interdicting. But that's all.

light water reactor still requires enriched uranium.

Yep, once the reactor is built. Clinton didn't send them any uranium, nor did he help them build an enrichment plant. However, he also didn't stop them from doing it on their own.

steps away in the process of making plutonium

Nope, Pu239 is made from U238. LWRs aren't good at that.

arrogant condescending ass!

You're right; I apologize. Let's make a deal: you stop spouting false claims, and I'll stop sneering at you.

The moment any administration tries to negotiate with evil men, is the moment they are marked by me as a traitor

Great. I hope your list includes the following names:

1. Ronald Reagan: Iran/Contra, trained Osama BinLaden to terrorize Russians, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq for military & oil negotiations, signed treaty with North Korea in 1985
2. George Bush Sr: remained ally of Iraq until day before Kuwait invasion, left Saddam in power rather than let majority take over, signed treaty with North Korea in 1991
3. Bill Clinton: signed treaty with North Korea in 1994, various other failures you can look up
4. George Bush Jr: signed treaty with Taliban in May 2001, remains ally of dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc

Re:Nothing New Here

[frankie]

We've reached endgame, so I'd like to speed things up. DigiShaman has two possible replies. The first option is conceding that I'm right. Following is my reply to the other choice:

In the near future, DigiShaman might say: helped them get nukes, or didn't stop them from getting nukes, it's the same damn thing (or equivalent)

So ... you believe that allowing a bad thing to happen through inaction is the same as actively helping to do it? If so, I presume you'll admit to ten million counts of attempted murder? As a Libertarian, you are in favor of eliminating Medicaid and other federal programs that help the poor. Although that might be a good idea in the grand scheme of things, doing so would endanger a whole lot of lives in the short term.

Trying to use First Law as a weapon is quite dangerous, because it's actually a three-edged sword. Real easy to cut yourself in the process.

Are we done yet?

Re:Nothing New Here

[DigiShaman]

"George Bush Jr: signed treaty with Taliban in May 2001, remains ally of dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc "

Where? Show me proof of this? As for the previous three you mentioned, I agree with you. But hell, Pakistan sees the Taliban as a threat to their country. I guess you haven't been checking the news lately, because a few weeks ago, they've been on the hunt for Zawahiri. If by chance you're saying that because we are allied with Pakistan, we are also allied with Taliban...then no. I do not accept the premise as that would be totally false!

"In the near future, DigiShaman might say: helped them get nukes, or didn't stop them from getting nukes, it's the same damn thing (or equivalent)"

It's not that simple, nor would I state it as such. A mere hyperbole on your part. Let me put it to you this way. If N. Korea were to attack any country with a nuclear weapon, I would NOT blame the Clinton administration for the actions of Kim. But what that administration did was totally irresponsible in their action to even THINK that N. Korea could be trusted with such nuclear technology.

As for my political viewpoints; simply put, I'm in favor of small government and personal responsibility. And I'm not inhumane. If medical help is needed, then everyone has a right to fair treatment. But if you neglect your own health by poor diet or smoking, then tough shit! Go find a 6ft hole and die there. My tax dollars shouldn't be supporting the stupid life habits of people. If I sound harsh, it's because I am. I'm always preaching the gospel of personal responsibility.

Re:Nothing New Here

[whittrash]

You seem blinded by their claims and unwilling to delve into their dubious accomplishments.

How have you personally been harmed by the WTO. I would wager you don't go hungry, corporations probably aren't forcing you to work 18 hr days, you probably have health care, you probably have a decent education or access to one. Who are you speaking for other than yourself? Are you speaking for the poorest people in the world? Are you speaking for working people of the world? I don't think you do, I don't think you see the big picture. There are severe localized dislocations that result from free trade as our economy strips away jobs that can be better done in other countries, and the same thing happens around the world. That is extremely painful, and those effects can cause severe harm if not properly managed. The benefit we all gain by going through that process is that each community is then able to fully devote its resources to what it does best. In that scheme everyones output goes up dramatically, everyone is wealthier. In extremely poor countries that wealth provides for essential items which are literally a matter of life and death. The WTO has played an integral role in lowering trade barriers, a role no other nation or organization can carry out. Without the WTO we are left to only bilateral agreements, which have spotty and inconsistent results. We had an inconsistent patchwork of rules that favored some while severely penalizing others. The WTO levels that all out, making working across borders much easier, and trade rules much more reliable. It has take over 30 years to negotiate the WTO, it is as good a compromise as we can get. Since China joined the WTO their economy has grown about 10x, that is good for them, and it has been good for us in the big picture. Their dirt farmers making $2 a day now make $20 making shoes, and we get can buy shoes for half the cost. They are also much less likely to go to war with us and have incentives to work peacfully. Fifty years ago in Korea we were killing each other. The WTO is not perfect but it works. It is not a secret organization, they publish what they do, and it is open for anyone to read and the organization is run by member states similarly to the UN. UN delegates aren't elected either, they are appointed by each nation. The WTO does nothing to eforce wages or give advice on social organization it is purely a trade organization, nothing more.

As far as the IMF, you seem to be misinformed about its purpose. It is popular for white, privilidged, upper class, college educated kids to put on masks and get tear gassed and burn cars and smash windows, it is all an adventure to them to protest the IMF. I don't see very many poor people protesting the IMF, only rich white kids. The IMF was formed to take advantage of the power of international banking in order to alleviate poverty by giving loans to modernize infrastructure and to create economic capacity. They fund the building of roads, dams, bridges, power lines, hospitals, schools et cetera, all the things a poor country needs to take care of its people. They also give loans to keep economies from collapsing. An example of a collapsed economy is in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan or the Congo. The IMF has helped countries like the Phillipines, Korea, Malaysia, Brazil, Chile and many other countries and these countries are in better shape today than they were 50 years ago because of that. The IMF records are not secret, they are open.

Your comments sound great as buzz words, but if your ideas were put into practice the world economy would be harmed. If the world economy ceases to grow, people will starve, they will die of disease and there will be wars over resources. That is the bottom line reason we have to grow the world economy, it is a matter of necessity, not choice. There are a lot of harsh facts that most people in the world have to deal with, I don't accept your view that these organizations were designed to hurt people, they were designed with humanitarian purposes in mind.

Re:Nothing New Here

[frankie]

Show me proof of this?

Here you go. Sorry if I confused you; the Taliban thing is separate from the dictator thing. Bush Jr used to like the Taliban, because they were anti-opium, then on 9-11 he suddenly hated them. Well, unless they handed over OBL, in which case they'd be jolly fine chaps. Do I detect a whiff of ... moral relativism? From our Great Moral Leader?

It's not surprising that you'd never heard of this before. Bush's little elves are experts at hushing up embarrassing events from his past. They've had a lot of practice.

Here in 2004, Bush Jr is perfectly happy to work with any ruthless dictator who promises to help the War on Terror (tm). Just like the way many previous presidents had allied with many previous dictators who promised to help with the Cold War.

Don't you love that so many of the previous batch of dictators became our enemies in recent years? But Rumsfeld & friends assure us that Bush Jr won't fall into the same trap, no no.

totally irresponsible in their action to even THINK that N. Korea could be trusted with such nuclear technology

That's a valid point of view. But it applies equally to Carter, Reagan & Bush Sr, not just Clinton.

Re:Nothing New Here

[rossz]

You mean like freeing Europe from nazis? You mean like providing the military muscle to keep out the Soviet Union so you could spend those funds on social programs? You mean like getting rid one of the most brutal dictators in the last 50 years? You mean like getting rid of one of the most repressive theocracies? How about the complete eradication of several deadly diseases? Feeding starving countries?

Yeah, we have a lot to appologize for.

We aren't perfect, but we're pretty fucking sick and tired of Europe picking at every little mistake we make and saying, "See! Look how screwed up those Americans are!", completely ignoring everything good we do. The next time you need your asses rescued, don't bother calling us.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Thundersnatch]

I was kidding, people.

And why post AC if you think you have a legitimate point?

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Please show me where you proved your point about Moslem registration. Here's youre entire post:
Re: your sig

"Racism against anything non-american (and non-Israeli) is rising at an alarming rate in the US at the moment - and it's being fuelled actively by the current regime. Historically this makes sense, the problem is that the population aren't realising that they're being fed propaganda.

World War three will be between the right-wing Christians in the US and the socialist Moslems in Europe/Asia"

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

As far as seperating from the church all that much, can't say I ever joined. Most people in my home state (Wyoming) aren't religious at all. You need to stop making sweeping general statements about a country you've never even been too.
We have right wing Christian idiots. We also have the ACLU. As far as the rising rate of racist incidents, well why don't we do a little Google search?
I know I can't sway you. I can try to point out to you your fanatical hatred for the US. North Korea and China don't bother you at all. Failing to show you that you apparently just have something against the US and all of it s citizens, I will demonstrate to others your delusions.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Please cite the pledge to the flag, or whatever you call it. You reference God _everywhere_ in state business.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Are you unable to read Slashdot threads?

Anyway, this is one of my responses to you, in the thread you link to from your sig.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97690&cid=83 96 073

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Funny how none of the Moslems I'm friends with know anything about having to register....

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Not everywhere. And that proves nothing. A private citizen is also fighting that in the Supreme Court. Which probably doesn't make us an nation of religious fanatics but what would you know? You've never been here. You've never even been to a Moslem country, have you? But, since you've read the Quran, you're a self styled expert on the Middle East, right?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Does it feel good pretending you know lots about me? :)

You pledge your allegiance to the flag in Gods name. God apparently blesses america according to your president each and every time. Shall I look up a few more facts about YOUR country or do you give up?

Your state and church aren't very well separated at all - definitely not compared to .. tadaa .. Sweden - my country - the most modern in the world according to Scientific American ...

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."


http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_flo or /flag/1bfc_pledge.html

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Throw this back at you: "
Does it feel good pretending you know lots about me? :)"

It's just a word, get over it. The only people who take that seriously are the activists on both sides. You don't have much room to talk considering Sweden had a state churhc as late as 1999. I keep telling you, you haven't been here and you don't know what Americans are actually like. According to you, America is nothing but right wing religious fanatics bent on killing each other and everybody else and we're all racist, right? The actual truth about crime in Europe and America might surprise you Would you like a link or two about the rising hate crimes in Europe?

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

11000+ murdered in the US in one year, a few hundred in Europe. Yes, please tell me more about crimes in the US vs Europe.

Oh, and those "hate crimes" don't really exist - but certain religious groups are trying REALLY hard to make it look that way. You know, our media here is a bit more used to that kind of bias.

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I guess this didn't happen

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

Sure it did, as well as arsons towards other people - that had nothing to do with religion. That article is WRITTEN to make it sound as if hate crimes are commonplace here, which they are not. What is well known, however, is that certain religious groups REALLY want everyone to believe that they're targetted so that people will stop putting pressure on that terrorist-state of ... you know what.

If there's any one single group of people who indeed are treated badly, which is a shame, it's the Romas. That I could agree with, although that doesn't mean in any way that there are lots of hate crimes towards them every day ...

Regarding the incident you linked to

Both the biggest Jewish and Moselm population? I'd say judging from the middle east conflict those attacks that's not a big surprise then.

Maybe we should consider the whole Israeli occupation of murdering of Palestinian kids "hate crimes"? Or what about the USA murdering civilians in central america, Afghanistan, Iraq or almost any other country in the world?

Re:Nothing New Here

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Well, I've never been to Europe. I bow to the knowledge of someone who's there. I note from your own admissions that Europeans are no better than anybody else despite your earlier comments. I also chuckle at the fact that you're pointing out the slant of an article that is biased comapred to what you see. Sounds a lot like what I've been telling you about America.

It doesn't bother you that people coming back from Iraq completely disagree w/ your comments about murdering civilins in Iraq? I suppose you'd say they were brainwashed or something. Especially when they say the Iraqi people hated Saddam and now hate the foreign nationals that are killing innocent bystanders and any Caucasians no matter what their nationality.

The real issue here is your pathological hatred of a country you've never been to and have no first hand knowledge of. Your ability to make broad, generalized sweeping statements about a nation of over 250 million people is amazing.

You hate America. You hate Americans. Not matter what America does, it will be wrong in your eyes. You belong in North Korea writing stories about "Dear Leader" or in China censoring Google. I doubt you'd ever have the intestinal fortitude to go join the terrorists in Iraq and face those hated Americans. Your weapon is the keyboard, your battleground Slashdot, your ability to change anything nil, your role is that of a Internet dilettante.

You are inconsequential and never will do anything.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Troed]

*smiles*

Keep believing that.

Re:Nothing New Here

[Hentai]

Heh. As if there was no such thing as an academic vested interest.

Go find out how research grants and tenure actually work, some time.

make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[garcia]

It's really funny to me that we have this "separation" of Church and State yet we have to worry about "values"? Blue Laws, gambling restrictions, anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs whether those in office say they are or not.

If we are talking about banning paying for your gambling via the net w/credit cards that's one thing (protecting people and companies from the fortunes lost via this method of payment) but if we are seriously worried about GROWN PEOPLE becoming corrupt by the evils that await them through alcohol and gambling we seriously need to rethink what the fuck is going on in our country.

As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you. I wasn't aware that I needed people in Washington telling me what is and is not good for me... Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy. These are NOT issues that should be regulated by the State, Federal, or local governments.

So the rest of us are going to pay a price due to WTO trade sanctions because our government would rather play Parents than government. I don't think that this is the way to go.

Pot/Kettle Black

[mishehu]

Absolutely, the US does this all the time to other countries as well as other countries doing it to the US.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Absolutely, the US does this all the time to other countries as well as other countries doing it to the US.

Being the 1000 pound garilla, the US has this right to be flaky. What are you going to do about it? Huh? Huh? Thought so...

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you going to do about it? Huh? Huh?

Uhmm, ruin your economy? Sorry, done.
Take your jobs? Done.
Ridicule you in the rest of the world? Done.

Tell you to fuck off and go home? FUCK OFF AND GO HOME!

Done!

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[kannibal_klown]

I know you're joking and / or being sarcastic.

But the US hasn't been the 1000 gorilla since the 1990's (if not the 1980's).

We're not the economic powerhouse we used to be. Our tech is no longer superior. Nuclear nations are sprouting all over the place. And our image is VERY tainted right now, with more countries and peoples hating us since I can remember.

Meanwhile, we keep acting like we're the big guy on campus, and pissing people off that can easily take us out.

We're not all that. Bush, and the rest, need to start playing nice with everyone.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[DAldredge]

Name one nation on the planet that could take out the USA and survive our counterattack.

Name one.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Anonymous Coward]

Being the 1000 pound garilla, the US has this right to be flaky. What are you going to do about it? Huh? Huh?

Well, how about we take these airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center?

Oh, wait a second, someone already did that, didn't they?

Maybe you should take a lesson from that, America. The bully always gets away with his bullying... right up until the spotty wuss whose pocket money he's been stealing borrows his pa's shotgun.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[erobertstad]

Atack the garilla with garilla warfare... hrmm, how about blowing up a natation icon.... like a big building, using the garilla's own weapons... like an airplane maybe?

Before everyone jumps down my back on this, this comment above is basicly what has brought this on our country. I'm not some anti-american who jumped for joy when this happen, this was a sad day for our country, but there comes a time when we must stop pointing fingers and start to look with in. We *are* the big bully that can't be beat up easy, so peoople are going to make a stand in dirty ways that they can.

Anyone remember when your parents used to say 'treat others as you wish to be treated', I think our goverment needs to take a step back and figure out that we arn't the center of this world. Borders are starting to become less and less clear with things like the Internet and it's time we start to learn how to 'play well with others'.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...Looks to the rest of the world that a shitty little group of "rag heads" has pretty much beaten you. They kicked you in the balls, and your retarded leader attacked the wrong country. Now you are all losing your rights, more so every day, are living like a pack of paranoid fools, and you still can't get OBL. There is the wildcard, you (America) always discount the little guy, thinking that someone will be dumb enough to fight you head on, out in the open. Not the way it is going to happen. The NVA taught the rest of the world how to beat you, just suck you in, and make you bleed. Your dumb enough to follow, and to stupid to know when to leave. You don't have the moral fortitude to take the losses.

OK so back to your question, try Iraq for one. They seem to still be hitting you every day, and they will until you leave. I guess you could also throw Afghanistan in there as well, since the day you leave, Karsai (however you spell it) will be out on his ass too, and the Taliban will be back full time, Osama shortly after that (I don't agree with any of the crap that they spout, but the people whio live there sure do). And I guess for histories sake we could throw North Vietnam in there as well, just for flavour.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Anonymous Coward]

"Atack the garilla with garilla warfare.."

Oh for God's sake, can someone please learn how to spell!

The animal is a "gorilla", and the style of warfare is "guerilla".

Fuck, you people are 'tards.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Sexual Ass Gerbil]

It's not exactly the same.. when the U.S. wants laws enforced in other countries, it's to protect the quality of life of its citizens.. not by forcing another country into submission, but by preventing the laws of that country from undermining the U.S. economy. Take for example intellectual property laws. The U.S.'s movie industry is the best in the world. Hollywood would not exist if there weren't intellectual property laws allowing movie makers to recoup costs. People of developing nations take advantage of their lax intellectual property laws. They copy movies without compensating the creators. Thus the lax laws cause U.S. companies lose money they would have made, and cause the countries in question to have poor a body of fine art. In third world countries, if you turn on a radio station, you hear Western music, not native music! Developing nations do not have the laws to sustain movie and music industries that actually produce decent material that people would want to watch or hear. It may suck to have to pay money to watch a movie, but be glad when the U.S. wins and other countries are forced to play by its rules. You could be worse off by having the developing nation enforce its laws on you and bring the first world one step backwards.

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[strictnein]

But the US hasn't been the 1000 gorilla since the 1990's (if not the 1980's).
No one doubts the US's (and USSR's) dominance in international affairs for all of the 80's and most of the 90's.

Nuclear nations are sprouting all over the place.
What are all these new nuclear nations sprouting everywhere? Pakistan and India? And who else? Maybe Iran and North Korea. I think you need to take a look at this page here.

Our tech is no longer superior.
What of our technology is no longer superior? Military? Amazingly superior. Computers? Still superior. Medical? Still superior. Please, enlighten me.

pissing people off that can easily take us out.
Who could "easily take us out"? Again, I point you to this page.

If you're dreaming about China posing a possible threat to us in the future, keep dreaming. China has no aircraft carriers (the most important piece of military hardware outside of nuclear weapons) and possibly 1 or 2 nuclear subs. The military is hopelessly outdated and they just had to reduce their forces by 200,000 - 300,000 men because they hardly had equipment for them.

I don't quite get this fascination with China that people have. It's like they're excited by the idea that having China as the most powerful nation on the planet would somehow be a good thing. We all love forced abortions and crushing of political dissidents, don't we?

Re:Pot/Kettle Black

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like I've been hit by a stun gun.

Has history been completely dropped from the school curiculum in the US or is it just presented as "stories" printed on American flags?

Aside from your dubious claim regarding the quality of Hollywood movies, just how do you think California became the centre of the movie industry in the US?

Please, please pick up a book.

Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Throtex]

...our indian casinos to India.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[platypussrex]

Don't have to look that far. We already let a lot of native american tribes run casinos. Why not let them have the internet business too? Charge a share of the profits (some states already do), fool the WTO, sounds like a winner to me!

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[J-B0nd]

Yeah, we couldn't have any casinos run by Indians...

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you are a real hit at parties.

Oh wait. You never get invited to any. I wonder if your lack of sense of humor (or at least recognize that someone made a joke) has anything to do with it.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't "let" them. They have the sovereign right to do so.

And would have a whole bunch of other rights, too, but we signed the treaties and then decided it wasn't convenient.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[strictnein]

We don't "let" them. They have the sovereign right to do so.

Sort of. They have the right to do it, but the states also have the right to forbid their citizens from gambling.

So, they can build all the wonderful casinos they want to, but they're going to be empty until the state allows for it.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

BZZZZZZZT wrong. Once a state citizen sets foot in that reservation they can gamble in the casinos all they want *legally*. You're a retard.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Fjord]

There are laws that apply when citizens are abroad (specifically, ones that deal with trading in the child sex market). A state may be able to pass a law that says they cannot gamble even outside of their boarders. It wouldn't be well met, however. People like to go to Vegas, and others like the freedom to.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, that's why states pass laws to allow gambling then?

Read this pro-gambling websites listing all the laws passed and constitutional issues regarding gambling (including Indian casinos).
Strange how laws allowing Indian casinos to operate are passed...

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[bluGill]

A state in the US may not ban gambling outside its borders. Anything that crosses state lines is a federal issue, and the federal government supplies the money and requires it to be accepted. The federal government is required (not allowed) to allow unlimited transportation between the states. A state's laws apply only in the borders of that state.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[Kid Zero]

So, they can build all the wonderful casinos they want to, but they're going to be empty until the state allows for it.

Wrong. Federal Law trumps state law.

So nice to see American Sovrengity has gone to hell.

Re:Great... now we'll be outsourcing

[dynamo]

The federal government is required (not allowed) to allow unlimited transportation between the states.

Will someone PLEASE tell that to the TSA?

Non-issue

[El]

Anybody running Windows & IE is already gambling every time they go online!

Re:Non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the sort of true genius that I visit Slashdot for. And no, I'm not being sarcastic, you twits.

Re:Non-issue

[jayhawk88]

Dear Slashdot Editors:

This comment is the perfect example of why we need a "-1 Predictable" comment moderation.

Sincerely,

Everyone tired of reading the same 5 jokes in every fucking thread.

Re:Non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont you just love the mods how they mod you off topic and the off topic 'joke' Funny only because it is anti-MS propoganda?

Re:Non-issue

[Maestro4k]

• Anybody running Windows & IE is already gambling every time they go online!

You forgot reading their E-mail with Outlook or Outlook Express as well. :)

Re:Non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont you just love the mods how they mod you off topic and the off topic 'joke' Funny only because it is anti-MS propoganda?

Well, go to a pro-microsoft site, and problem solved.

Re:Non-issue

[TotallyUseless]

-1 Redundant works fine for jokes that are so overused that you expect to see them in particular threads.

Re:Non-issue

[Jose]

apparently so does +1 Funny.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a security blanket for the weak-minded and stupid.

I hear that the WTO will let the USA go if

[Anonymous Coward]

they are able to hit the monkey.

Re:I hear that the WTO will let the USA go if

[Rude Turnip]

Hopefully we will...in November!

But they DO

[fuzzy12345]

Online gambling? No problem, just ask for a "brokerage account."

I do wish the government would force the SEC to clamp down on dodgy reporting, accounting and corporate governance.

Re:But they DO

[Matthias Wiesmann]

Actually, I have been wondering about this for some time. We now have quite complex financial tools. Would it be possible to build financial tools that 'simulate' a lottery? Are there explicit financial laws to prevent his?

For instance could you build 'exclusive pool funds' which basically give control / ownership of the whole pool to one of fund owners based on some random condition? If this condition were random, you would get a lottery.

Somehow, if you consider a given stock as a random variable, you can 'code' some logic using basically less than and greater than operations with futures, does somebody know if can code more complex logic? I would think that you would need something that does mutual exclusion (only a few people win) and random (for instance by betting on the least significant 'bits' of a stock value).

Re:But they DO

[DR SoB]

Or fly from anywhere in the US to Nevada in under 4 hours... If you live in NY you can DRIVE an hour north and give us your money if you really need to gamble and don't want to fly..

Re:But they DO

[khallow]

Actually, I have been wondering about this for some time. We now have quite complex financial tools. Would it be possible to build financial tools that 'simulate' a lottery? Are there explicit financial laws to prevent his?

Clearly, you missed the dotcom bubble. Plenty of lottery action there.

Interesting quote -- huh?

[randyest]

It is not clear precisely why the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua and Barbuda, because the specifics remain confidential. The ruling covers only online casinos based on the islands, but other nations could seek similar rulings.

Isn't that odd? Why would the "specifics" remain confidential while the decision isn't? Is this typical of WTO activity, or is there some relevant info to be inferred from this?

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[blackmonday]

Put your tinfoil hat on. The WTO is definitely one organization with power so incredible that America can pushed around just like we have a habit of pushing others around. Read Greg Palast's "The Greatest Democracy Money Can Buy" and make up your own mind. It's not just american corporations pushing the world anymore. its multi-national corporations and organizations like the WTO that contain power than *at times* supercedes the American Government's. Our elected officials signed into these treaties and organizations, we have no else to blame.

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that odd? Why would the "specifics" remain confidential while the decision isn't?

Maybe they are afraid of geting nuked...?

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[madprof]

Absolute power lies with the US, as always.
It signed up to have its hands bound by the WTO.
One assumes it can stick its middle finger up if it wants to.

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think runs the casinos? 1)Natives of Antigua and Barbuda, or 2)sleazy American businessmen who want to evade taxes?

This isn't about Antigua and Barbuda vs. the US. This is about US citizens on the mainland vs. US citizens riding the system for free. Score one for the guys in the polyester suits.

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[de la mettrie]

The specifics do not remain confidential; this is a factual error in the article. All WTO rulings are open to the public, accessible via this link (case number 285). It will take some time - a few hours or up to two days, as this is the weekend on Europe now - for the ruling to appear, however.

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your missing the point the grandparent was making; the question is, where does power reside in the US?

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[Ryan Amos]

Absolute power lies with the US because we've got the fucking bombs, baby. And we're apparently not afraid to use them anymore either.

Re:Interesting quote -- huh?

[madprof]

Hah! Like the US was not afraid to use the bomb in the early 80s?

what ?

[terrymr]

To be fair this ruling is about the US trying to impose our values on the rest of the world, by trying to prevent US banks & other business from dealing with online casinos which are legal in the country they are based in.

Re:what ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery is still legal in some countries. You want your banks to deal with those people, too?

Not all country's laws are created equal.

Re:what ?

[terrymr]

Yes but in this case the probition on online gambling is about protecting our domestic casinos.

Re:what ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think so huh?

Replace 'online casino' with 'cocain'. See the distinction? The laws here do not WANT gambling here. Other nations are free to do as they will. MANY MANY MANY areas have brought up the issue to have gambling. Yet it usually gets voted down. There are some forms that are legal. This is just a move by some companies to impose its trade by working around the laws set forth here. Its sneeky and underhanded. It should have never even come up.

And how is the US imposing its will? Its a web server for crying out loud. Those 'casinos' moved there to get around US law. Now they are trying to do it again. Do not think the casinos are the high and mighty ones on this.

The US wanted ways for these casinos to 'verify' that it was selling its services to someone who can do it. Yet they didnt because it was 'hard'. EVERY SINGLE casino I have ever been in makes me show my drivers licence or I do not get in the door. How is that different?

Re:what ?

[terrymr]

what ?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Quarters]

Yes, please, go become a destitute street living alcoholic gambling addict. I so love it when my taxes go up to fund addtional services and welfare costs so that you can feel free to make a total ass of yourself.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Rura Penthe]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code? Every law legislates morality in some form or another. Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it. Does the belief that gambling is a vice have to be predicated on religion in everyone's mind? It clearly has roots there, but not everyone who opposes its legalization is religious.

What kind of issue should it be made?

[way2trivial]

hmm, criminal?
political?

I suppose you could make something of it, why is it that porn site eula's (which NO one concerns themselves with) all contain language to the effect that, you must be in a region/country/community where this is legal..

Much like the RIAA finally realized they must go after the individual. Legitimate enforcement is to have to be made against the folks doing the gambling, not the gambling sites. that's where the law is being broken.

If I am from a state that bans gambling, and go to vegas, I'm not breaking the law. if I go to montecarlo.com, where am I? in whose jurisdiction?

Re:What kind of issue should it be made?

[Anonymous Coward]

if I go to montecarlo.com, where am I? in whose jurisdiction?

I'm really surprised that some people have trouble answering this question. You're obviously sitting in front of your computer in whatever city/state/country you currently reside. Where _you_ are should decide jurisdiction.

Re:What kind of issue should it be made?

[kabocox]

Really, you should be considered to be both places or being a very temp. tourist in that country.

barbados?

[zrobotics]

so the WTO is writing our laws for us so that 19 whole companies in these teeney little islands can allow us citizens to gamble while at work? right...

Re:barbados?

[nnet]

As opposed to the US writing laws for Australia, and the whole middle/far east?

Re:barbados?

[gorbachev]

The US has been doing this to European Union, Japan and others ever since the process was enacted and agreed upon.

What you just said is exactly what's wrong with the WTO process. It enables other countries, mainly the one that's the biggest and the baddest, i.e. US, to impose their own laws on others in the name of free trade and globalization.

Guess who the biggest proponent of the WTO is? I'll give you a free clue: it's one of the two Northern American nations.

What's eventually going to happen though is that the US is going to ignore the ruling, just as they always do when they don't like the international treaty or ruling in question, and work to undermine the process under which they were ruled to have done something wrong.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill hypocricy

Re:barbados?

[flossie]

so the WTO is writing our laws for us so that 19 whole companies in these teeney little islands can allow us citizens to gamble while at work? right...

Kind of similar to the way that the WTO tells the EU's 300 million citizens that they must allow GM crops to be grown on their land so that one or two US companies can try and sell seeds that nobody wants.

The sooner the WTO is abolished, the better it will be for the whole world.

Re:barbados?

[TwistedGreen]

so the WTO is writing our laws for us...

Yeah, that's kind of the point. We're ARE all on the same planet, after all. Why should the American population be any more significant than another?

Re:barbados?

[wwest4]

gorbachev> I'll give you a free clue: it's one of the two
gorbachev> Northern American nations.

I guess the Soviets only pointed their scary ICBMs at two of us...

Re:barbados?

[Bendebecker]

This is the kind oif thing that will backfire on the WTO. The wto says we need to allow online gambling so the decision becomes: saty a member and allow it or take a stand and leave the WTO. After the demonstrations against it in Seattle, etc, and the increased dislike of the orginzation - the WTO policy may blow up in its face.

Re:barbados?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sorta offtopic, but just so you know, Mexico is also part of North America. So it'd be one of the three ;-)

imposing values

[Anonymous Coward]

as in like democracy and freedom under the guise of capitalism to the middle east ?

USA is trying really hard to piss the world off, if you want to be ruined economically you keep going down the path you are going

Re:imposing values

[Anonymous Coward]

... or the islamic world trying to impose its values on the rest of the world, through any means possible, one suicide bomber at a time.

The EU imposes all sorts of restrictions and qualifications on countries that it imports products from, as does just about every other industrialized country, because it can.

Don't like farming on the west coast of the USA, with all the restrictions regarding salmon-bearing streams, all the good chemicals that can't be used any more, minimum wages for farm workers? Then move your enterprise to Argentina, Venezuela, Chile or Brazil, where you have none of those problems.

Re:imposing values

[Bendebecker]

Not to wise to anger the holders of the world's greatest working supply of nuclear weapons.... Ceaser invaded Gaul to make money (in order to pay off his campaign debts form the consulship), we may have to do the same.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that as if drunk driving, alcholism and problem gambling were not issues...

Besides, you forgot other laws that are based on our values: you're not allowed to kill people, nor steal, nor lie under oath, adultery counts against you in the military and in divorce court, etc.

All of those are even listed in the 10 commandments, whereas the Bible has comparatively less to say about gambling (though it does condemn drunkenness, if not drinking).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[netfool]

Excellent post

"Imposing Views"?

[Hi_2k]

This shouldn't be about wether or not gambling should be legal or not: It should be about wether or not online gambling is trustworthy. In casinos, the cards are laid out for checking after the game. You know that the casino didn't cheat. On the other hand, an online casino could set it so you win 50% of the time for bets under $5, but almost never with $100. Methods of verification/Proving legitimacy for online casinos don't exist, so they shouldn't. You could argue that they will police themselves: nobody will play if they keep losing, but building false confidence is all too easy: Look at Nigerian scams.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Skuld-Chan]

How is this any different than slot machines which easily dominate the vast majority of any floor at any casino? Its basically a computer thats rigged to take your money - not all unlike an online casino.

The only garentee as far as I know is the machines are checked for minimum payout. I have no idea what checks are done on India Casinos

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Online gambling is not just about card/dice games and slot machines (which I agree should be left to the Brick and Mortar and Flashing Lights establishments.)

Online gambling is also about betting on sporting events and other wagers that happen in the real world and are less prone to manipulation than virtual card games.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Perrin7]

True, but that is an issue of trust in anything you do on the 'net. When you buy any product you are trusting the other side to deliver the goods. If those goods are new, used, stolen or counterfeit, you have no idea until you receive them. You are trusting the other party. The same applies to internet gambling - buyer beware. What about allowing gambling only to licenced businesses, and a condition of the licence is allowing random audits? Wouldn't that confrom to the WTO ruling? Then perhaps it would make the "cost" of cheating too great to risk; especially since it is such a lucrative industry anyways.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Naerbnic]

I remember hearing of one online casino which did just that. Basically, it had a free mode, and one for money. In the free mode, you had a comparatively high chance of winning, so it appeared you were raking in the bucks. But of course, when you started paying money, things weren't as favorable.

Reminds me of my reservations for playing Video Poker in Las Vegas, until recently when I learned that the Nevada Gaming Board requires everything which uses playing cards (computer or otherwise) to have the same probabilities of a 52/54 card deck. Then again, I'm not 100% sure of the Gaming Board's loyalties, so I'm still probably not going to bother.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a grammar nazi, but "wether" is a castrated ram. "Whether" is the conjunction you are looking for.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[SlayerofGods]

You know that the casino didn't cheat.
Unless you play any game besides cards.....
Slot machines, roulette, craps; there's no way for an individual player to confirm that any of those games aren't rigged.
If a casino is going to cheat you; its going to cheat you whether online or physical.
The only reason physical ones are 'safer' is because they require a lot more people to run, so if there is cheating going on someone is going to blow the whistle.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Ubergrendle]

Hence the growth industry in online auditing by the big 5 consulting firms. I don't gamble online, but I checked out a few sites to see how sketchy they were. Some were very, very dangerous (e.g. "Give us your credit card and we will then setup your account and provide you with a name and password."). Others allowed you to use paypal or other neutral tenders to hold cash in advance of gambling activity.

What really impressed me was that some of these casinos had the payout rates and statistical advantages audited and endorsed by 3rd parties -- governments of countries, and even Arthur Anderson and Deloitte and Touche. When was the last time you went to a casino and they provided you with a breakdown of their slot payouts?

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[DR SoB]

"You know that the casino didn't cheat. "

Only because they say they don't. The hand is quicker than the eye.

"It should be about wether or not online gambling is trustworthy"

Your right, and as always, buyer beware. The government should not be holding your hand.

"building false confidence is all too easy: Look at Nigerian scams."

Really, did you fall for it??

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[flossie]

an online casino could set it so you win 50% of the time for bets under $5, but almost never with $100.

A friend of mine worked for an on-line gambling company here in the UK (it mainly caters for Americans). Most of the bets were sports bets which are not susceptible to that kind of fraud.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you do not know that the casino did not cheat. It is assumed that the various casino regulatory groups check the machines used in gambling (I refuse to call it "gaming"). But machine operators have been caught replacing ROMs in video slot/poker machines. How publicly open is the code used in gaming machines?

Ever seen a slot machine in Vegas move one of the wheels from a winning combination to a loser after all the wheels have "stopped"? I have. No, there is not someone in Master Control manipulating the machine against me, but I would bet that at least for machines, the casinos have a good idea when and which machine is going to pay out the big pot. They have to, to ensure they're financially ready for it. It is not good to have a machine pay out $1million on the first week it is operating...

The casinos track just about everything you do these days.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[randyest]

In the US at least, slot machines and all gambling devices are regulated and subject to all sorts of rules and inspections. I trust a Vegas slot machine to be fair a heck of a lot more than I do someone's Java or Flash casino app from who-knows-where.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[ivan256]

You don't need to break the rules to make money at video poker (as the casino I mean). Make the odds the same as a 52 card deck, but don't pay out unless you get something with sufficiently low odds. Why cheat when you can make a fortune playing by the rules.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Lehk228]

...looking for the (-1 No fucking clue) button....

the randomizer chips and other control circuitry in a slot machine must be certified by the gambling commission, if tampered with the casino has a very good chance of being shut down on the spot and fined massive amounts of dollars, as well as possibly being liable to being sued for every dollar ever lost to their slot machines

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic law for gambling machines in the US is the laws governing payout must be consistant. IE you can not have a slot machine that will only payout after it has $1000 in it. The chance for each payout must be the same for each play. To put it briefly if you win the Jackpot it does not effect your chances of winning the jackpot again the next play.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Jim Starx]

That is a fact everyone is aware of. The internet has been around for too long for anyone to ligitimately claim ignorance of its risks. If people choose to accept those risks then that is their decision. The government certainly shouldn't be in the buisness of protecting yourself from your own bad judgement.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[higginsm2000]

Surely that is a spelling mistake and not a grammatically one?

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except is incredibly hard for me to make an informed analysis of a computerized gambling system. Some internet company takes my money and doesn't send me the product I purchased, I know not to buy from them again and I can spread the word. A computerized deck of cards which will lower the probability of getting a full house when I'm betting more than $100 dollars would be incredibly difficult for a lone consumer to detect. Sure, I may never get the million dollar jackpot, but even if it's fair I probably never would either. Even something like a Consumer Reports study probably couldn't detect anything but the most blatant manipulation.

The government should regulate where its impossible for an average person to make an informed decision.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[fungai]

Yes, you're right. Credibility is a huge concern for the online gaming industry, especially sine many sites were (are?) fly-by-nights, associated with porn and so on. However, there are a huge number of credible sites run by companies that want to build a long term business, not make a quick buck. These sites are audited by the big 5 auditors, and there's also industry associations springing up that dictates a code of conduct to it members and so on. In turn they will be able to show a "seal" or something on their web site say that they are [member org] accredited. I think the perception issue will become less and less for credible sites in future.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[xsbellx]

You have raised some thought provoking points:

In casinos, the cards are laid out for checking after the game. You know that the casino didn't cheat.

And that proves only that deck conforms to a certain standard. It does not prove that the cards were not marked. It does not prove that cards were dealt from the top. It does not prove that a specific shuffling technique was employed to increase the casino's winnings.

On the other hand, an online casino could set it so you win 50% of the time for bets under $5, but almost never with $100.

Yes, they sure could but that could be said for any electronic game. Could you please tell me how an online casino game is any different than a real slot machine in a real casino? Both are driven by the same engine (software) but have different interfaces.

Methods of verification/Proving legitimacy for online casinos don't exist, so they shouldn't.

And do these methods of verification exist for real casinos? I would argue that simply by being profitable in the long term, real casinos are inherently crooked and therefore should not exist either.

As for the Nigerian Scam comment, "A fool and his money are soon parted".

In short, any gambling in even the most honest casino will, over the long term, result in a net loss for the player (black jack excluded). Anyone who does not know this going in, deserves to be parted from their money. On the other hand, you could look upon gambling in a casino as no different than going to a movie. You go, you pay your money, you get some entertainment out of it. Now the question becomes, do I have to go to a cinema, (the casino) or can I watch the movie using a video-on-demand in the comfort of my home.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[ajs]

the randomizer chips and other control circuitry in a slot machine must be certified by the gambling commission, if tampered with the casino has a very good chance of being shut down

Well, yes and no. There's a great book on this topic, and if I remember to, I'll post it when I get home. Here's the deal though: companies that make slot machines set a "take" (how much the casino keeps) on the machine when they make it (and modern equipment can be re-adjusted by a central system on-site at a casino). The casino orders the machine with a goal in mind for that machine's take.

Now in most places that have a large amount of gambling, the take has a threshold, and you are not allowed to exceed it. How likely that threshold is to be enforced is mostly a political decision. HOWEVER, in Las Vegas, there is NO LIMIT imposed on the casino's take other than advertized settings must be accurate. Thus, when in Las Vegas (if you feel compelled to throw away money, but want a decent chance of not throwing it all away), either play cards/roulette/etc or play slots with an advertised return).

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[dr_canak]

I thought about moderating this post "troll -1" but in the spirit of using mod points on modding things up, I'll respond.

The original poster didn't say that verification would never exist, only that it doesn't exist. And until it does, it would be the wild west of cheating and scamming until the gaming boards of every state could catch up, develop the auditing tools, and verify the legitimacy of online gaming. Sure there are checks on all electonic gaming, but 70% of the world's electronic gaming machines come from 1 company (IGT), which makes regulating the devices *a lot* easier.

And it actually makes no sense to me why the offshore casinos would want the US involved in the first place. They have a virtual (no pun intended) monopoly on online gaming completely outside the jurisdiction of the US. The only possible benefit I see is the companies that own these sites believing that if their product is in the US (a) it will then be legal, and (b) add legitimacy to their gaming product because it will be seen as trustworthy. This could then increase their revenue stream.

But essentially your asking that the entire country, where 50 states are allowed to determine the legality of gambling themselves, to somehow come together and come up with a federal law that would cover all online gambling, provide restrictions to states that continue to outlaw it, and provide access to states and countries where it's legal.

The whole thing sounds incredibly stupid to me and does go beyond the trustworthiness of the gaming itself, which unlike yourself, I totally agree is a very imporant factor to consider here.

just my .02
jeff

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[KazTheOriginal]

As tempting as it is to simply claim "online gambling is RIGGED", you should really investigate what you are saying before you say it. First of all, all major online casinos are registered with the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. Second, the largest use of online poker is Poker (Texas Hold'em) to be exact. In poker, the house does not play, it only takes a rake. Thus they have no interest in "fixing" the games. Third, all the random number generators for the game are tested by third party software developers. Don't just blindly submit to the hysteria of "it's rigged" "it's fixed".

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[L0rdJedi]

And that proves only that deck conforms to a certain standard. It does not prove that the cards were not marked. It does not prove that cards were dealt from the top. It does not prove that a specific shuffling technique was employed to increase the casino's winnings.

Have you been to a casion lately? The last time I was in Vegas, they had machines for shuffling the cards. Then they went into another machine where the dealer pulled the cards from a feeder one at a time. It was not possible for the dealer to shuffle any special way or deal the cards from the bottom of the deck.

I do agree with your sentiment on how gambling should be thought of. It should be thought as strictly entertainment. You should not be doing it to get rich. If you win some money, great. Otherwise, just have a good time while you're playing. This is the main reason I don't gamble. I don't find it very entertaining.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi, in most usage, is capitalized. The error that you tried to correct was most likely a typographical error. It was not a spelling error, nor a grammatical one. "Wether" is a castrated ram only under the condition that a castrated ram's name is Wether. What you possibly meant to suggest: A wether is a castrated ram.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[GigsVT]

And be careful, I've read that some establishments advertise a certain return, like say 99.5%, but only have a couple machines all the way in the corner with that return, the rest being a more common 80% or so shitty return.

I guess the moral of the story is, if there's doubt, ask the manager or someone who knows.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Skuld-Chan]

No clue? I've seen how these things are programmed - they have settings for payout and how much the casino keeps - this is regulated by state law (in places like Nevada). This is true for Mechanical slot machines too. One thing is certian though there's no state law on how fair the slot machine actually has to be - just how much it has to pay out.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[wfberg]

Have you been to a casion lately? The last time I was in Vegas, they had machines for shuffling the cards. Then they went into another machine where the dealer pulled the cards from a feeder one at a time. It was not possible for the dealer to shuffle any special way or deal the cards from the bottom of the deck.

Machines cannot shuffle in a special way?

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Tokerat]

...nobody will play if they keep losing...

Obviously you've never been to Vegas...

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If regulation is the only thing you can see.. that's fine. Realize the only reason the regulation angle is pushed is so the government can get their profit out of it. Online casinos are self policing, and they DO lose customers if the games are percieved to be rigged. Casino games are profitable enough already... and only small, greedy operations tend to try to cheat.
You are right.. an operation could build customer confidence for a long time, say a couple years, establish themselve as a rock solid gambling operation, then screw everyone, and go out of business... the numbers involved woudln't be worth it! There would be more profit to be made just running the business.

On regulation:

I can think of at least one large online gambling operation, and I do mean large, who said to the US government "We agree. We should be paying you taxes, and we should be regulated, so people know it's fair. How would you like to go about it? We're willing to work with you". Of course, nothing happened. I'm not making this up.

The public mantra of "We need to protect the citizens! We need to make sure the games are fair" is really all about money and power.. not about protecting the public.

Offshore gambling is a HUGE business, and will continue to be. Whether or not the US permits these operations to run from within the US, or forces them to operate from some small foreign country does not affect WHO gambles, or how much they gamble.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so much about legality as it is about finances. The money an online gambling operation, especially larger ones, need to spend in order to get deposits from customers for gambling is higher than just about any business on earth.. the US does everything it can to stop any kind of money transfer to gambling operations. This is probably the #1 uncertainty factor in running an online gambling operation.

If by simply doing some audits and paying a reasonable tithe to the US, the financial end could be made smooth again, many gambling operations would cooperate.
If it were legal to operate these businesses out of the US, many would do so... the costs in hosting an online gambling business ouutside the US is large in terms of IT costs. Most of the customers are still Americans... it would make sense to operate out of the US.

It's not a wild west of cheating and scamming... not if you do a little bit of homework. There are quite a few large, established operations with good reputations out there... stay away from the small ones nobody has heard of who are offering incredible deals.

What should worry people more than outright scams is mismanagement.. you know, new casino opens, a few hundred customers send in their initial deposit, and the company actually goes broke on operating costs and a few big wins because they didn't manage their money properly. They didn't intend to cheat anyone.. they just mismanged it. This happens FAR more often than any cheating. Go with alarger operation and this is much less likely.

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they can. But now you've removed the possibility that the dealer is cheating and put it on the casino. And I've apparently removed at least one of your points since you only questioned one of my statements :P

Re:"Imposing Views"?

[Alsee]

trustworthy

I hope you are not reffering to "Trustworthy Computing".

The entire 'security' in Trusted Computing is in the assumption that the owner of a machine does not know the number hidden inside the chip he owns. If the casino rips open their chip and reads out their key with a microscope then the casino could undetectably cheat all they like. They could hijack the Trust system such that your computer would give you a false report that everying is legit and secure.

-

Seems crazy to me...

[FroMan]

What is the actual product in gambling? There is no trade going on here.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[gaj]

It is crazy, but you're coment is -1 Stupid. Of course there's trade going on. The product is entertainment. People enjoy the thrill of risk. I predict that if the Nanny State continues to nerf Real Life, people will more often turn to gambling.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[Anonymous Cow herd]

trade
n 1: the commercial exchange (buying and selling on domestic or
international markets) of goods and services;

I think this definitely counts as a 'service'.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

It is crazy, but you're coment is -1 Stupid.

Hmm. I think you meant "It is crazy, but your comment is "-1, Stupid"."

stupid
adj. stupider, stupidest

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless:

Now, who wrote the "stupid" comment again?

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[mbbac]

What is the actual product in gambling? There is no trade going on here.

They trade money.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[MyHair]

What is the actual product in gambling?

Entertainment.

The games are all based on long-term statistical wins for the house with short term volaitlity where the gambler hopes to get lucky. But look at how many variations of the theme there are, and they are all presented in shiny, flashy, colorful and/or stylish ways. Pure entertainment is the product, hope & addiction is the draw for many.

There is no trade going on here.

There is a lot of money going to the house. If the house is offshore, then U.S. businesses don't profit and the U.S. government doesn't collect taxes on the vig (the house's take) or the resulting actions from the U.S. company respending the money.

I'm not offering an opinion, but it's pretty clear to me that a lot of money is at stake for U.S. casinos and the government.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[tfreport]

When you get a haircut, do you pay money? Are you engaging in free trade with your barber? Well what's the product? There is nothing created.

What about when you visit a psychologist? Any product? Does it count in a nation's GDP? Of course it does.

See there are things called services. You pay for them all the time and they count as trade. In many cases more important than actual physical products.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[de la mettrie]

What is the actual product in gambling? There is no trade going on here.

Correct, there is no trade in goods, but running an online casino is providing a service. There is a WTO Agreement that deals with services - the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). As I explained in an earlier post, by signing GATS the U.S. has entered a legal obligation to allow other WTO Members the cross-border provision of entertainment services on a national treatment and most-favoured-nation basis.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[Imperator]

Entertainment. Ever noticed how gambling advocates like to call it "gaming"?

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The same product that is in movies, entertainment. I don't gamble, not for any moral reasons, I just don't find it fun. If you want to, it doesn't hurt me in any way, so why should I stop it?

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I suppose stock markets aren't about trade either.

Re:Seems crazy to me...

[gaj]

I'll cop to the second definition.

OTOH, I'm also going to plead not guilty by reason of sleep deprivation. Also, mitigating circumstances included typing comment one-handed while holding my 10 day old son (thus the sleep deprivation).

The actual point of my post cum flame stands, however.

On the other hand...

[jav1231]

Who the hell is the WTO to tell a nation they have to do this?

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

The WTO was set up (in a process driven by rich nations like the USA), in order that the big corporates (again, mostly based in the US) could apply pressure to any (generally poorer) nations that didn't like what the big corporates wanted to do in their countries.

It seems the big corporates represented by the WTO have got bored with screwing people and governments in the poorer nations, and want to get on with screwing the USA too, without being limited by people who think corporations should be nasty in other nations first.

One would think it would be rather awkward for the US government to object when this happens to the USA, given that they've supported in happening everywhere else, but apparently not...

Re:On the other hand...

[jav1231]

And that answered my question? Is it me? ...it's him, right?

Re:On the other hand...

[TwistedGreen]

WTO means "World Trade Organization."

Or perhaps you forgot that?

Re:On the other hand...

[jav1231]

Not at all.

Re:On the other hand...

[wtrmute]

And who the hell is the judge to tell a citizen what they have to do? The WTO is an international body whose power stems from an agreement signed by all its member states, the US included.

Now, a treaty is like a contract. If US signs a treaty and subsequently ignores it, it's the international policy equivalent of a breach of contract. So, is it a big deal? Is breach of contract a big deal?

Of course, some people thought that "Treaties are made to be broken". Do you agree?

Re:On the other hand...

[jav1231]

So you're saying that signing on to the WTO means that the US agrees to always abide be everything they hand down? Frankly, it doesn't matter. You don't give up your autonomy because you agree to join the WTO. Much like the UN, you're not going to agree with everything. At the point someone asks you to violate your principles even a signed agreement becomes of no value to you. You are compelled to do what is right first and foremost.

Consultations, please

[ackthpt]

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va), 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.'

Perhaps he could consult with William Bennett regarding virtue and gambling.

Re:Consultations, please

[GPLDAN]

No, rather we should look to our sports heroes, like...say...Pete Rose. Embodies the American spirit of hard word and hustle. Oh.....wait....

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Values and morals are independent of religion. So your mockery of the separation of Church and State makes no sense (of course, the "under God" and prayers in Congress already proved this point for you =)

Also, the reason that you're not allowed to do whatever you won't while not violating others' rights is that there are just way to many sue-happy morons out there that will mindlessly throw their money at contests or gambling and go completely broke until they are picked up by a Dateline special to sue whoever conned them out of their money (even if it happened legally).

Taliban

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny.

I thought the US has embarked on an open-ended war on exactly the kind of artificially imposed "values" you advocate by confronting Taliban.

Oh, but I forgot. The Christians (and Jews) are the good guys.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

premature ending of pregnancy.

You mean murder? Not everybody against murdering fetuses is against it for religious reasons. Not to mention a few other vices you mention in your little rant.

Gambling is legal in some areas. But nobody wants the casinos near their house. Got any ideas why? (hint: crime rates sky-rocket around a casino). This is a big issue in Massachusetts lately. Some people want the casinos as a way to increase state revenue, but they can't find any town willing to allow a casino.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

"and the premature ending of pregnancy. These are NOT issues that should be regulated by the State, Federal, or local governments."

I have to disagree on a point. Although abortion is heralded by those who are religious it isn't a religion only divide. There is a question of whether or not it is murder. If, as some claim, it is murder then it is quite indeed the governments place to stop it. If it is not, then it is in no way the governments place to stop it.

The real question is whether or not an unborn fetus/child/etc. is a human being, at what point, etc.

International Trade Law

[Mateito]

> U.S. policy prohibiting online gambling violates
> its obligations under international trade law.

Sorry, but no matter what the WTO thinks, the US *IS* International Trade Law. The worlds most important economy protected by the worlds biggest guns.

That is not going to change in the short term, as I can't see any politician taking the initiative to truly integrate the US in a Global "Free Trade" economy (and, no, all the Free Trade agreements that the US have signed have been anything but "Free"). There would be an immediate loss of jobs, especially in the Agriculture sector, and an across-the-board downgrading of quality of life.. maybe falling as low as that experienced by Europeans and Australians!

No, IMHO eventually the US economy will collapse and take the rest of the world with it. To all us dotcom bust survivors... well.. you aint seen nothing yet.

Worst thing, chances are is that it will happen in my lifetime.

Re:International Trade Law

[El Cabri]

the US *IS* International Trade Law. The worlds most important economy protected by the worlds biggest guns.

It is debatable wether today the US is bigger an economy than the EU, and it certainly is not bigger enough to fix the rules, as you can see with the steel tariffs, the export tax breaks disputes in the WTO, the GE and Microsoft anti-trust rulings, etc.

In any case, be sure to enjoy your own arrogance, because within two decades the US will be at most the third economy in the world, after China (internal growth) and the EU (external growth).

A country that failed to economically strong-arm Nigeria and Mexico into a supporting war they didn't give a damn about should notbe too delusionnal about its economic influence.

Re:International Trade Law

[Anonymous Coward]

well you play in your sandpit on your own with your broken toys and the rest of us will concentrate on selling to China ,India, Asia and Europe you know the other 5.8 billion people on this planet

if you think the USA collapsing would take the world with it you are sadly mistaken, remember its YOU who are the new kids on the block

Re:International Trade Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not feed the trolls.

Thank you,
Management

Re:International Trade Law

[TwistedGreen]

Wow, your arrogance is amazing.

Ladies and gentlement, this is what happens in America: people can't see two feet beyond their borders, and conclude that there's nothing else out there.

America is not the world. It is, in fact, just a small part of it.

Re:International Trade Law

[maximilln]

It may be arrogant but it's also true. What's the rest of the world going to do if the US tells them to shove off? Unless England really is running a shadow government the US holds all the cards in industry, politics, and military.

Politicians can debate and debate and debate all day long but, when it comes right down to it at the end of the day, if the US wants to do something it's going to get done.

Re:International Trade Law

[TwistedGreen]

What's the rest of the world going to do if the US tells them to shove off?

Probably build their own industries and economies and continue to exist independently of America. This wouldn't be without its bumps and bruises, but people won't just lay down and die.

Of course, that'll never happen: America needs the rest of the world too. Globalization makes sense: it's cheaper, and that's all a business cares about. Sustainability, on the other hand, just isn't there. Though we don't want to directly acknowledge that fact, of course. Heaven forbid if our fat and lazy lifestyles change!

Re:International Trade Law

[Mateito]

Wow.

I dont know why my post riled people as much as it did.

If the US economy crashes, it WILL take the rest of the world with it. There is no other single economy today with that power... and arguably with the exception of the EEC... no combination of enconomies.

The US economy is not working under any sustainable economic model. It is held up by fear. Once the fear goes, so will the economy. The person who posted about Nigeria and Mexico .. tho Chile may be a better example as they had a Free Trade Agreement on the table at the moment that the US declared war on Iraq... shows that the cracks are starting to appear.

I am not a yank.. I am an Aussie... so there is no arrogance involved. Just a bit of knowledge on how the world economy works and how important the US dollar is to keeping it all running smoothly.

Re:International Trade Law

[Doooh_head]

Sorry, but no matter what the WTO thinks, the US *IS* International Trade Law. The worlds most important economy protected by the worlds biggest guns. Wow, it is hard to beleive in this day and age that people still talk like this. When will it end? Perhaps when the US is totally segragated from the rest of the world...hmm I wonder what that would be like?

Re:International Trade Law

[necrognome]

Next time the shit hits the fan, or you run out of water (oh I can't wait for this), maybe the U.S. won't care. Maybe we'll let you shoot each other in the chaos that will erupt in an overpopulated developing world with limited or depleted natural resources (mainly fresh water). I hope you're in Europe, Japan, or some English speaking country, because with attitudes like yours, there is zero chance of us giving a shit about anybody else in a few decades.

We're a change in energy policy away from not needing to concern ourselves with any but the aforementioned nations.

Re:International Trade Law

[Jerf]

Ladies and gentleman, witness now the other side of the coin. By the grandparent's author's own words, he is Australian, not American.

In a country of 300 million people or so, you can always find several million idiots and several million geniuses, not to mention hundreds of millions of people in between. With so many people jumping to conclusions about America based on samples as small as zero Americans, is it any surprise so many nasty things are said?

Why is it OK to judge America based on your small, self-selected sample when it isn't OK to judge anything else that way? I can find a million people in any significant country of your choice that also "can't see two feet beyond their borders, and conclude that there's nothing else out there". What does that prove?

Is believing any negative thing about the US and refusing to believe any positive thing ("But what about the negative things?!?!?!?!?!") rational thinking? Where is this sort of thing going to get us?

Re:International Trade Law

[afidel]

Oh yes, I am so scared of Europe with it's socialist policies that lead to high unemployment and little incentive to seek employment. Yep. American's freak over 7% unemployment yet most of Europe hasn't been that low EVER. I will grant you that by the end of my son's lifetime China may surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy but until they get their general education system in order it won't happen.

Re:International Trade Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the fuck do you think YOUR fresh water comes from idiot, the Hudson? Trust me, you are much more likely to be drinking imported water before most.

Re:International Trade Law

[ShieldWolf]

Unless your son is currently about 30 years old you are off base:

Check out

http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/oct/28india.htm

India is poised to be the number one economy, followed by China THEN the US by 2050.

Re:International Trade Law

[Bendebecker]

We aren't delusional about our economic influence. The US is not going to go down in flames nice and peacefully. We have a fing huge military and a whole lot of reaaly big bombs. If the US becomes unstable, just like any other country that becomes unstable, we will begin to use them. Unless your counting Iguana Bob stands, the world's economy is going to have a real tough time dealing with teh losses.

Re:International Trade Law

[Bendebecker]

Inida is also posed on the verge of a biblical level drought in 30 yrs. Every year it drains it aquifier and every year it gets less and less. It isn't refilling. The chance Inida had to avoid it it lost in the 90's. Now the only question is how bad will the famine be. Millions of starving ppl and millions of corpses don't a good economy make.

Re:International Trade Law

[El Cabri]

Meanwhile, speaking of fresh water, Coca Cola has just given up selling Dasani tap-wapter-in-a-bottle in the whole Europe, hence stopping the only American attempt to dent this market dominated by Swiss-based Nestle and French-based Danone, who sell SPRING water under various brands.

Dasani tap water is good enough for some people, and the brand will still be sold in the US. And Russia.

Re:International Trade Law

[necrognome]

I would prefer water not be privatized anywhere in the world (I think it belongs to the people who live there), commercial concerns often being detrimental to the ecology and water sports. The best way to deal with a bottling plant that's raping your locality is sabotage.

Re:International Trade Law

[Anonymous Coward]

" Once the fear goes, so will the economy."

Heheh .. If US model is not sustainable then what are you going to say about EU ?
Their 10 year soviet style "plan" seems to be in shambles and their dream of catching up with USA seems even further away than it was 10 years ago.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Fammy2000]

I think it is a matter of the common good of the people (and their wants in this crazy thing called a democracy).

I have no problem with you getting piss drunk, gambling away all your money, and killing your unborn child. But some of those actions have effects on others.

I think we know enough of the effects of drunkedness in public (explains most celebrities, anyway). Gambling brings a certain class of people into a town. Many residents don't want that. Ask The Rock. And for abortion, there are plenty of arguments out there already.

I'm all for you having the ability to choose what's best for you. But when it effects my and my family, I have to step in.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[garcia]

Washington *SHOULD* have a group of people of varying backgrounds, religions, belief systems, and values... It should lead to a great deal of positive discussion about what should and should not be acceptable.

Problem is... We have a two party majority and those two parties have chosen their "values". We no longer have this diverse group. We have this party and ITS belief system.

Gambling, alcohol, and abortion are not inherently evil and should not be treated as if they are because of relgious backed beliefs. Especially when we claim that we are seperate from those values rooted in the Church.

I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Fluidic Binary]

'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"

Setting the issue of morality aside this is an issue of hypocrisy incarnate.

The United States is the big brother of the world and that is quite possibly the weakest argument I could possibly imagine. It seems to me that our governing body in the US needs massive replacement if the best persuasive arguments they can make sound like this.

If the United States is really the leader of the free world it should really start leading by example and drop this 'do as I say not as I do' attitude. It is utter crap and my vote at the polls will reflect this.

We use economics threats as a diplomatic tool and if we can dish it out we should be able to take it right back!

Am I off base here?

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[pcx]

Gambling is a Vice and an addictive activity (even has a 12 step program to help recovering addicts whose lives have been shattered just like the 12 steps for drugs and alcohol). There is almost zero difference between the WTO ruling on this case and if they had ruled that Columbia has the right to export cocain.

And taken another way the WTO is weaking the vice laws to the lowest common denominator -- anyone for 12 year old denmark kiddy porn? Given this stupid ruling, it's not a stretch at all for the WTO to rule this is legal as well.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[fishbowl]

"Gambling is a Vice and an addictive activity (even has a 12 step program to help recovering addicts whose lives have been shattered just like the 12 steps for drugs and alcohol)."

So does sex! Where do you stand on an outright ban of sex?

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Fluidic Binary]

I agree that the WTO is off base, but not for the reasons I quoted.

I do believe it is wrong for an organization (or nation) to force its beliefs or desires on another, but the USA does not have the right to cry 'I've been wronged' with its history and vast powers.

A more correct argument would be something similar to 'I think gambling is immoral and do not think it should be endorsed or even tolerated by the state. Therefore I urge our nation to not submit to this decision regardless of threats and bullying'

But the way it looks now is that USA is a bully crying out when the tables are turned.

Just my two cents.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting the issue of morality aside this is an issue of hypocrisy incarnate.

But you're already assuming a moral system in that statement! Namely that hipocrisy is to be condemned.

That being said, one could very well make the argument that 'hypocrisy=bad' may quite likely be the most agreed-upon moral code in the history of man. The most rudimentary possible definition of 'honesty' could very well be 'the accordance of beliefs and actions'. Hypocrisy could be defined as the opposite of that.

Anyway.. that's just my philosophical aside for the day.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[gammoth]

Spot on!

Born and raised in the US, I lived for nearly a decade over seas as an adult. It's incredible the amount of hand-wringing, finger pointing, whining and moaning that emanates from the US whenever it gets some of it's own medicine.

Thanks for making the point.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[The Faywood Assassin]

The difference is (with respect to your post) that cocain and Kiddie Porn are still ILLEGAL throughout the US.

Gambling is still legal, however.

Beny

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[zx75]

You are not off base, except for the fact that your vote at the polls reflecting this attitude, unless of course, you chose to vote for some party that is not either Republican or Democrat. Both of them have a long history of strong-arm trade tactics, and if you believe that voting for the other party, the one that is not in power, will change anything then yes you are off base.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Bendebecker]

So in a fight, after you hit an opponent, do you then let him hit you just to be nice and fair?

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb analogy. A better one is: in a boxing match, you hit the other guy a few times, then he hits you, then you whine to the referee (who happens to be your mom) that he shouldn't do that.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[cmburns69]

Gambling is not legal throughout the entire US. Others have raised the point that this sets a bad precident. This could be used to make anything that is internet-accessible legal anywhere.

Say you live in a state where gambling is illegal, and you login to a gambling site. Whose legal jurisdiction do you belong to? Do you belong to the same jurisdiction as the site you're visiting?

Take the statement: "I should be able to gamble online even if I am in a place where gambling online is illegal."

This statement could easily (in a legal sense) be turned into: "I should be able to _______ online even if I am in a place where _______ is illegal."

Why would things like viewing kiddie porn be any different?

It doesn't matter so much what this ruling allows in the short term, but it sets a very bad precident.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Fluidic Binary]

I said it was hypocritical and that it was a bad (meaning poor or low in quality) argument.

I don't think hypocrisy is necessarily morally wrong, merely inconsistent. I personally prefer my leaders being consistent; otherwise they are by definition hard to predict.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Darth]

Gambling is a Vice and an addictive activity (even has a 12 step program to help recovering addicts whose lives have been shattered just like the 12 steps for drugs and alcohol).

Alcohol consumption is legal in the United States. So is consumption of tobacco products (which are also a vice and addictive activity). Why should it being a vice or addictive activity have any bearing on it's legality considering the other legal addictive vices?

There is almost zero difference between the WTO ruling on this case and if they had ruled that Columbia has the right to export cocain.

There is one huge difference. Cocaine use and distribution is illegal in most of the WTO countries. Distribution of cocaine is also illegal in Columbia.

And taken another way the WTO is weaking the vice laws to the lowest common denominator -- anyone for 12 year old denmark kiddy porn?

Kiddy porn is illegal in denmark. The legal age of consent there is 15 years old. Even then, if you are significantly older or more experienced, you can be charged with inducement to sexual activity if they are under 18.
Most kiddy porn comes from Japan (where it is also not legal).

Given this stupid ruling, it's not a stretch at all for the WTO to rule this is legal as well.

i disagree. i think it's a huge stretch. you are comparing them making a ruling about something that is legal in every member country other than the U.S. to them possibly making rulings demanding we legalize things that are not legal in any other member country.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Morosoph]

If Americans feel that it's wrong to gamble, surely they can choose not to. America has no more right to dictate to it's countrymen about their gambling policy than other countries have to dictate America's policy.

Reverse the logic, and America's government is still in a pickle.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Metaldsa]

"We use economics threats as a diplomatic tool and if we can dish it out we should be able to take it right back!

Am I off base here?"

I have to say you are off base. If you get right down to it, gambling is a tax on the poor (for the most part, obviously there are exceptions to everything). If gambling was allowed everywhere it wouldnt ruin the rich or middle class, it would suck out what little money the poor gets from their small paychecks.

I do not agree the US has to allow anything in another countries' web site just because the server is based outside the US. If that were true all we would need is one lawless country to gamble, view child porn, violate copyright, and do whatever else we want to do. I mean just like submitter said 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"

I guess I should buy a small island and serve the world's child porn needs. I could make billions and claim that the US (and any other big country that dislikes my island) is forcing their morals on me.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[WindowlessView]

-->A more correct argument would be something similar to 'I think gambling is immoral and do not think it should be endorsed or even tolerated by the state...'

A tough stand for a country where something like 40 out of the 50 states run a lottery.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[On Lawn]

America has no more right to dictate to it's countrymen about their gambling policy than other countries have to dictate America's policy.

As I recall its not an "america" issue, its a states rights issue. Like so many other moral judgement calls its up to the states to decide for themselves, publically and legislatively.

That is what is meant and protection of free-association of like-minded people. People think other's gambling will hurt them (and hopefully can show good reason) so why not give the cities and states they can establish that as a rule?

Also as someone I remember posting in my journal can I give you a specific invitation to participate in a survey I'm conducting? Details are in the link in the sig.

Re:I couldn't agree more with this comment

[Morosoph]

Also as someone I remember posting in my journal can I give you a specific invitation to participate in a survey I'm conducting? Details are in the link in the sig.

Hang on, I'll have a look. I felt quite exhausted after that last marathon, so I'll try not to say too much this time!

Although it looked like it, I wasn't trying to get the last word in. I was simply tired, hence the delay.

Re: Gambling?

[seaswahoo]

It's not gonna happen.

Gambling is illegal in most states (except for Nevada, I think). If the federal govt were to all of a sudden say, "Okay, online gambling is legal everywhere!", it might set a precedent upon which state gambling laws would be overturned.

(Note that then the state govts would lose the advantage they have in that the only legit gambling ops are lotteries.)

what's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huge box office returns for The Passion Of The Roulette Mouseclick?

Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but...

[AtlanticCarbon]

GATT:
Article XX: General Exceptions
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:

(a) necessary to protect public morals;

The WTO probably decided the US is discriminating since it allows gambling in a lot of similar situations. Anyways, with lotteries, Nevada, and Indian Casinos its probably hard to argue gambling is against America's public morals.

Re:Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but...

[Bob(TM)]

The US doesn't allow gambling; the US allows the states to make the decision and the states individually allow or prohibit gambling. Allowing unrestricted internet gambling undermines the authority of an individual state by providing a means to circumvent state law.

This issue gets pretty sticky because of the implications on states rights and our means of government.

Re:Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but...

[de la mettrie]

[nitpick]
Actually, in this case the relevant article is Article XIV of GATS (since this is a service issue), which basically says the same thing. And there is no discrimination between countries going on, as the U.S. presumably prohibits all foreign online gambling, irrespective of where the server is.

You are correct, however, in your analysis that the U.S. cannot argue in good faith that gambling is contrary to U.S. public morals, such as they are...

Re:Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but...

[Anonymous Coward]

the U.S. presumably prohibits all foreign online gambling, irrespective of where the server is.

The U.S. prohibits on-line gambling period. It doesn't allow on-line gambling within the U.S. either. This may be one of the approaches of the appeal the U.S. uses. The barrier to foreign based internet gambling operations is no greater than to U.S. based internet gambling operations.

Re:Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but...

[khallow]

But I think there's two areas here that matter. First, if the US complies with the WTO demand, then that's a treaty obligation which appears to me to possibly supercede the rights of the states. Second, the Federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and presumably regulate commerce with other countries as well. Finally, you should also remember that there's the matter of the rights of the citizen. Why shouldn't a citizen be permitted to gamble? It seems a natural extension of freedom of speech (though obviously not a constitutionally protected form).

Re:Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but...

[Bob(TM)]

Absolutely; the Federal gov represents the whole and, as such, can trump state law. The Federal gov routinely regulates commerce and can regulate international commerce - that's spelled out in the Constitution. I'm not saying they can't do it; rather, the point I'm making is that this will force the gov of the whole to disinfranchise a group or state. Though it can do a thing does not make it palletable to actually do it.

As far as gambling is concerned, I believe you would be hard pressed in making the case that gambling is speech. It's commerce; it can and is regulated (just like drugs, prostitution, TV, utilities, ...).

US on path to lowest common denominator...

[FerretFrottage]

In regards to a previous post and "not having the gov tell them what to do", that's almost what many of the mindless drones here in the US have demanded because we've become to lazy to think for ourselves. We have the V-chip, we now have the FCC telling us what we can/can not hear, the list goes on....are people too lazy to turn the channel/station. So now our "values" are threatened, watch out because soon the drones will demand that the gov tell us what our values are and then have them imposed it on us. Thanks but no thanks, the non-drones (darn I say /. readers) want to think for ourselves. "No child left behind == No child gets ahead"... just what the drones want so that we all can agree to have equal values...their values.....bah I say

Gotta Draw Line Somewhere

[N8F8]

I think sooner or later we need to draw lines. This might as well be it. This is a values based dicision based on many years of dealing with the corruption and addiction that pop up in the gambling industry. This goes to the heart of the philosophy that communities should have soem sayso in the culture they want to foster. Can't wait for the illegal drugs and kiddeporn WTO ruling.

Re:Gotta Draw Line Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Draw lines for youself and your children and keep them off of me. As with drug prohibition, the corruption is all *because* you try to prohibit it.

Re:Gotta Draw Line Somewhere

[N8F8]

Wrong. Gambling like drugs (including alcohol) is ADDICTIVE. Addictive things cause people to become severly irrationsl and more likely to commit crimes to get their next fix. Drigs and gamblng weren't randomly legislatively controlled. We learned over time that they neededto be controlled.

Re:Gotta Draw Line Somewhere

[radish]

How is it that other countries, where gambling is fine, don't face these problems? Perhaps because they only come up when you try to ban an activity and criminalise it? I mean - during prohibition you had all those problems with crime gangs supplying alcohol. Do you see any great problems with crime around alcohol supply now? Nope.

Re:Gotta Draw Line Somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm okay, so gambling is acceptable and fine in europe, and where drug addicted people are helped with the medical problems instead of thrown in jail, they and society are better off. your morality has no place in law. oh and if gambling needs to be controlled so badly, then why is it okay when it padds the coffers of the state (lottery, riverboat gambling, etc)?

Indeed ... that is the problem with globalization

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be funny to see how your government will wriggle out of this one. They are between a rock and a hard place ... WTO loving big money versus religious fundies, they cant afford to piss off either.

Not in my back yard

[the_diesel]

A reason why a lot of the blue laws about gambling, or even drugs and prostitution, are not so much because people are against them per se, they just don't want the elements that they bring in their neighborhood. Obviously a good portion of the US enjoys gambling; most communities would hate to have a casino in their neighborhood. Most people really don't care about prostitution; they just don't want hookers, pimps, and such lowering their property value.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a security blanket for the weak-minded and stupid.

Why thank you for your well thought-out and reasoned analysis of the world situation. This comment is clearly worth my time and considera...wait a minute! It's a troll! Yipes! It's got my leg! My only leg left! AAAAAARrghrarhhhggggghh!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, laws about killing people and whatnot are laws to protect what are called "negative rights" (such as the right not to be murdered). These rights are basically rights of not being interfered with.

Morals actually don't come into play for most laws. A good example of this is the business world, where immoral activity is rewarded with more shiny new money.

Laws and morals are completely separate. Sometimes there may be a moral motivation for a law, but it's generally a case of rights.

Careful, man, there's a beverage here

[WormholeFiend]

you know most laws are there cuz most people wont play fair?

living in society is complicated... lotta ins, lotta outs.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Dave114]

It's really funny to me that we have this "separation" of Church and State yet we have to worry about "values"? Blue Laws, gambling restrictions, anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs whether those in office say they are or not.

I've heard many times the argument that a persons' right to due something ends when their fist hits another individual 's nose. Ignoring moralistic motivations, there can be a "hit" on another person's wallet in order to pay for social programs that may be required to deal with gambling addictions, or perhaps to cover the additional healthcare costs associated with smoking (I'm Canadian ... with our "wonderful" socialistic healthcare system which many not apply to you Americans). Hence, there can also be practical reasons keeping many of these laws in place.

Not the first time.

[amigoro]

'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.'

Good point Sir. But hasn't the US imposed its values on other countries?

Iraq will soon be a democracy because you didn't like dictatorships. Chile became a dictatorship because you didn't like a left-wing president.

It's not only that, Sir. You have even violated the Intellectual Property Act. You tried to extradite an Australian under the similar regulations. And let's not forget the Byrd Ammendment

Sir, your government has shown over and over again that it is nothing but nasty playground bully, and shown great contempt and disregard towards the wishes of other sovereign nations.

But fear not, sir. Empires rise. Empires fall. The taller they stand, the harder they fall.

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Re:Not the first time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitter Pinko, party of one, your table is now available.

Re:Not the first time.

[amigoro]

[Mod Suggestion: -1 Trollfeed]

But that's ony an example of imposing US values on another country. I am not discussing the merits or demerits of democracy vs dictatorship.

A lot of Iraqi's prefer a stable Iraq under Saddham to and unstable democracy where Islamic fundamentalism is running riot.

Wait. My argument is wrong. US is imposing democracy in another country. Democracy, being a concept alien to the present administration.

Re:Not the first time.

[JohnnyCannuk]

Enter Augusto Pinochet.

The US must really beleive that, since it removed and murdered the domocratically elected leader of Chile and replaced him with a murderous dictator.

So, was Chile better off with tousands disappearing, suffering torture and murder for 25 yerars?

I guess it's only ok when the US installs the murderous dictator at the helm...

bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

I play a lot of poker online and i'm still not a fan of this ruling. There's no way a body like the WTO should be able to decide internal maters of how and what a country decides to regulate or prosecute. While I think the American policy should be changed, that's an internal matter and not a matter for the WTO to get involved with.

stabn

Re:bogus

[djhertz]

There has been may issues regarding on-line play surrounding the poker community. Many states allow poker, but no casinos, because they consider poker a game of skill (which I believe it is).

From what I have summed up, the local police are the ones that would be responsible for you busting you if you played poker on-line, but it's a wicked grey area.

In my area (New Hamsphire) there are publically advertised poker tourneys, for big money prizes ($5000 and up), with some of the money going to charity. I am not sure how legal this is, but it's been going on for a while. Here is some really good information regarding the legality of playing poker on-line in your area.

Online Guide

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anml4ixoye]

I wasn't aware that I needed people in Washington telling me what is and is not good for me

My wife and I have had discussions about this, especially in relation to Gay marriages and how the gov't wants to ban them. We don't agree with the gov't banning gay marriages (and we are "Christians" ), but I can clearly see why they would want to.

Think about it from this perspective. You are a "good Christian" in a high position of power who sees the country "going to hell in a handbasket" because of all the "immoral things" going on. You feel it is your place to enact laws to stop these "evils" from "infecting" the county.

So you do. And because there are lots of other lawmakers like you, they go along with it. And who would, when it is put in the context that *you* are going to the great lake of fire for going against a law that says it's bad to have gay marriages, etc, etc. In fact, if you are going against it, you must be ready to be destroyed like all of those other immoral sinners from Sodom & Gomorrah.

As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you.

Which is the whole point behind free will. If you are gay, and you get married to your partner, then go for it. If my wife or daughter has to have an abortion to save her life, yes it would hurt us terribly, but that should be our choice to make.

So basically, right on brother. If we are willing to impose our values on the rest of the world, we should be prepared to have their values imposed on us.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[GigsVT]

Gambling brings a certain class of people into a town.

This is an interesting argument, because if gambling were legal everywhere, this argument would be completely moot.

Gambling, shmambaling

[thebra]

I've never gambled and I don't see the appeal of online gambling. If I'm gonnna throw my money away I at least expect some "free" liqour.

You mean!?!?!

[Cytlid]

Offshore gambling sites are sucking american money from the american economy?!?! OMG! Someone call the in the republicans!

Seriously folks... I went on a cruise last year (first ever!) and the casino didn't open till we were like 12 miles off the coast.

How many people were lined up outside, waiting? How many were americans? I think the WTO is in the right in this decision...

It's our job...

[erobertstad]

"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue."

And damn right too, it's our job to force OUR values on other countrys, who ever gave the idea to the world that this was a two way street here?!

*sigh*

Re:It's our job...

[jhunsake]

who ever gave the idea to the world that this was a two way street here?!

Who did? Just because you want it to a two-way street don't make it so. When you were a child, your parents were allowed to spank you, but you weren't allowed to spank them. I may walk up to you on the street and punch you in the face. Doesn't mean you get to (ie are capable of) punching me back.

Re:It's our job...

[erobertstad]

*sigh*, why does it seam latly that the very-pro-americans seam to be more at home with Hitler these days? "We'll take over the world becuase we are bigger and stronger then you". Does anyone else hope we have a civil war soon before the other nations figure out if they get together they could surly kick are asses? I see nothing good coming in the future for us, it can only get worse from here with people like the above in power controlling this country.

Re:It's our job...

[jhunsake]

I wasn't being pro-American in any way in the above post. I was making a very distinct point:

There is nothing in the Universe that guarantees "2-way streets" (equality). Almost every relationship between two entities is unbalanced in that one has more power than the other.

The parent to my post acted like that was a given.

Not Quite

[millahtime]

It's sort of different. Where has the US gone to a country and told them to go against their laws. This isn't trying to influence us, the WTO is telling us our laws are wrong. By the constitution they are not wrong to us and we are not under some world law.

The US may go influence other countries but when do we tell them to go against laws of their country.

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that simple. The WTO has said that US laws violate international trade agreements. According to the Constitution, properly ratified treaties with other countries become the supreme law of the land (along with the Constitution itself, and US Federal laws). So treaties (trade agreements with other countries are probably treaties) hold the same legal status as laws created by Congress. I don't know much about the WTO charter, but it is possible that the US is legally bound to their decision, and thus obliged to change our law or break the treaty (which is more likely).
IANAL.

Re:Not Quite

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The US may go influence other countries but when do we tell them to go against laws of their country.

Well, we did arrest that guy in .nl. You know the guy - he wrote DeCss, remember?

Re:Not Quite

[frankie]

Where has the US gone to a country and told them to go against their laws.

Umm... I hope your favorite history teacher (if any) never hears you say that. Do the words "Gunboat Diplomacy" ring a bell?

Also, I'd say that supporting a rebellion might count as telling countries to "go against their laws": Iran 1953, Chile 1973, Nicaragua/Afghanistan/et al 1980s, and so on.

Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[The I Shing]

Gambling is basically a scam. People participate willingly in the scam, often under the mistaken notion that somehow they'll get ahead of the game and strike it rich, but it's a scam nonetheless, in my book.

Gambling sites are popular with identity thieves, and I applaud credit card companies that refuse to authorize transactions originating with offshore gambling websites.

I'm not some neo-conservative, either. My objections to gambling websites are mathematical and ethical, not moral.

As far as keeping them off of US soil, I guess I'm in favor of keeping the ban in place. It's not like there are hordes of consumers clamoring to blow their money on rigged online gambling. Or are there?

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[FoogyFoo]

My objections to gambling websites are mathematical and ethical, not moral.

I'm just curious as to what your distinction is between ethical and moral

I'm not trolling, just wondering why you find them different.

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[The I Shing]

That's an excellent question.

To me, ethics deals with having an appreciation for how one's actions affects others, and morality has to do with how one's actions affects one's self.

So, for instance, one can believe that it is morally correct to kill someone of another religion or nationality, but I cannot imagine someone making an ethical argument in favor of doing so.

Does that make sense? Am I insane?

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[maximilln]

-----
To me, ethics deals with having an appreciation for how one's actions affects others, and morality has to do with how one's actions affects one's self.
-----
Absolutely fantastic. That is a concise definition that I will spend many hours thinking about with a good glass of beer.

Thank you.

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[radish]

Smoking costs people money and in the end, kills them. Alcohol costs people money, and in many cases, leads to violence, loss of their family and/or job and in extreme cases, kills them. Gambling costs people money. End of story.

I'm no gambling fan, I've been to Vegas but while there I have much better things to do with my cash than give it to casinos. But why should I seek to restrict what others do with the money they worked to earn? It's none of my business. If a society is willing to accept the other 2 examples I have given as acceptable activities, I cannot fathom why the simple act of gambling is so awful.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a country where gambling it completely accepted and normal that I just don't see the issue. I don't see vast numbers of gambling addicts stealing cars to pay for their addiction (though I'm sure there are some), and casinos are largely non-existant. Not because there's any reason they can't exist, but simply because the populace is not interested. Contrast that to vegas, where I have never seen so many dumb people desperate to throw their money away. Seems to me that the old adage holds - if you want to make something popular, ban it.

It's not like there are hordes of consumers clamoring to blow their money on rigged online gambling. Or are there?


Are you kidding? Of course there are. Millions. Why else are there so many casinos in the US? Like I said there are far more there than in the UK (where gambling is legal). Doesn't that tell you something?

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[skinny.net]

You should try to clear your misconceptions about gambling. Look up the mathematical odds of the games out there. We're not talking about a lottery here. There are games of chance, sure, and there are games with a large house advantage. People participate willingly, under the correct notion that they have a chance of winning.

If you learn when to hit, stay, double or split properly, the house only has a 0.5% edge on you in BlackJack. That's a 49.5% chance of being ahead if you play well. If you lose, you still got to have fun! Those odds are better to me than if I'm going to like the movie I go to see.

Online Poker tournaments give you more money than you spend if you come in 1st, 2nd or 3rd at a table of 9 or 10. If you know your game, especially with the lot of new players there are, you will win.

You're bitter about something you don't have to involve yourself in. You don't like it and want to take it away from me?! That's so very wrong.

--
Karma - pocket aces!

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People participate willingly, under the correct notion that they have a chance of winning."

The house's chance of winning is always better.

"If you know your game, especially with the lot of new players there are, you will win"

In this case, you are the one perpetrating the scam!

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[The I Shing]

You know, that's the thing about gambling... I'm at heart a liberal and something of a libertarian.

I don't object to casinos, and even visit the ones nearby with friends once in a while, blow twenty bucks, and then leave.

But these online casinos are bad news, I think. To have a casino piped into someone's home and for these casinos to accept credit cards is just asking for trouble. Compulsive gamblers are drawn to these sites like moths to the proverbial candle flame, and in the privacy of their own homes, with no-one even observing their behavior who might be able to step in to stop a spiralling descent into bankruptsy, these sites can wreak all the more havok.

I really feel like people should have the right to gamble if they want, but I think allowing casino websites is like allowing a toddler to have a loaded firearm. Sure, maybe nothing bad will happen. But it's awfully likely that something will.

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are the one perpetrating the scam!

No. Everyone knows that poker is a game of skill. We've all seen it in the movies.

If you choose to step up to the plate, you are accepting the chance that somebody else plays better than you. If I'm an expert, but haven't played you before, I'm taking the same risk...I have no way of knowing whether you're a rube, or a world-class player. As long as I'm not somehow cheating, I'm not scamming anyone. I'm just taking part in fair competition, which I happen to be good at.

That's pretty much how life works in general.

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...I lived in Germany first two years of college. Everybody was above the legal drinking age. We were always going out for a friendly beer or two. Weekends, we'd drink a bit more, but nothing major.

Then I finished college in the States, where we were all underage. That's where it got out of hand. After a couple cases of borderline alcohol poisoning, I finally came to my senses.

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really feel like people should have the right to gamble if they want, but I think allowing casino websites is like allowing a toddler to have a loaded firearm.

I'd rather assume adults are adults, instead of treating them like toddlers.

Some of them will turn out to be toddlers, of course. And I suppose that is bad news. But I think it's worse news to let the government get the idea that it's the parent and the rest of us are children.

Re:Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam.

[Doc Ruby]

Ethics are rules for a human's behavior. Morals are ethics that derive from an inner, some say inevitable, compulsion, while other ethics can originate from another person, like a cop. For completeness, mores are ethics embodied by a community.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think alcohol can be considered evil on the basis that drunk drivers kill people all over the place. Religion has nothing to do with it for a lot of people.

Not morals

[DreadSpoon]

Those aren't codified in law for moral reasons. They're law to ensure we continue functioning as society, which *is* what government is supposed to do. You can't kill a man because if you could kill at a whim, society would tear itself apart. Likewise, if anything you have could be taken from you, things would fall apart. It's not "killing is evil," it's "we can't allow killing and continue to be a functioning, growing society."

Re:Not morals

[Rura Penthe]

Hmm, that's a good argument. Perhaps we base our morality on our laws rather than the other way around. How do we decide what is and is not going to tear apart society and legislate accordingly though? For example, do you think anti-trust legislation is appropriate? Stifling competition doesn't really destroy society, it just slows it down a bit. (I realize this example is easily rebutted, but you see where the line gets blurred)

Re:Not morals

[Tackhead]

> Those aren't codified in law for moral reasons. They're law to ensure we continue functioning as society, which *is* what government is supposed to do. You can't kill a man because if you could kill at a whim, society would tear itself apart. Likewise, if anything you have could be taken from you, things would fall apart.

If "things would fall apart" in a society in which "anything you have can be taken from you", please explain why everything from asset forfeiture to eminent domain and the IRS haven't resulted in complete social collapse?

Meantime, because we aren't allowed to kill at a whim, I still get 50+ spams a day.

I'm beginning to think these law things are overrated :)

Re:Not morals

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "killing is evil," it's "we can't allow killing and continue to be a functioning, growing society."

Isn't that just a value judgement? Society could allow killing and still function, and might even grow. I wouldn't want to live there, but...

It sounds to me like you're trying to wrap what's basically a moral judgement in a pseudo-humanistic rationalization.

Re:Not morals

[Wellspring]

"You can't kill a man because if you could kill at a whim, society would tear itself apart."

Sure you could. There are lots of societies, including Europe's until the past two centuries, where murder wasn't a crime-- except insomuch as killing someone with property or armed relatives is risky. What about slavery? Or women's rights? Or the separation of church and state itself, now that I think of it. Why bother with welfare? Or public education?

If we killed people with terminal diseases, we would save billions in healthcare.

We have to accept that these are cultural preferences by our society, that are grounded in moral principles. That doesn't make it wrong to advance them; I honestly feel that we as a nation have the best moral outlook in the world. But we might as well recognize it.

While we're at it, let's remember that the separation of church and state is a strong protection for Religion-- EVEN THE MAJORITY. The worldly requirements of running a country, with all the practical compromises and political maneuvers inevitably corrupt religious establishments. Religion is at its best when it is a voice for moral behavior but has no hand whatsoever in the actual political process. Tamper with it, and religious movements gradually degenerate into political factions filled with power-hungry climbers.

That's a moral decision. Iran, for example, has a system much like ours, except that instead of a Supreme Court, they have a panel of islamic clerics. The Catholic Church, in the days of its greatest power, was riddled with corruption.

Our decision as a society to separate church and state is a moral one-- one that has, so far, worked very well. But we need to remember that pure logic leads nowhere without some moral premise to establish how logic should be applied.

Re:Not morals

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing is considered wrong because we all agree that we don't want anyone to be able to legally kill us.

Re:Not morals

[The-Dalai-LLama]

For what it's worth, this is my yardstick for what is or isn't moral in a post-religious (pan-religious?) society:

Does it infringe on the rights of someone else?

Simple, but (at least for me) it works as far as legislation goes. Killing someone is wrong. Why? Because it infringes on his rights. Homosexuality between consenting adults (in so far as the law is concerned) is not wrong. Why? Nobody's rights are being violated.

My own personal code of ethics is based on another principle: be nice to people. Equally simple and useful as a personal code, but not much good at instructing legislation, unfortunately.

The Dalai Llama
a watched sig never gets modded...

Re:Not morals

[donutello]

Think through your point a little further. The exact same arguments can be made for alcohol, drug and anti-abortion laws.

It's not "doing drugs is evil", it's "we can't allow all teenagers to fry their brains on E and continue to be a functioning, growing society".

Re:Not morals

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing is considered wrong because we all agree that we don't want anyone to be able to legally kill us.

We all agree... why?

Assuming it was "ok" to kill people, wouldn't the assumption that you could use lethal force to protect yourself serve as a deterrent?

Once you weed out the people who "enjoy killing" (I assume if you could legally kill people, then you could legally form vigilante groups to eliminate people who kill indiscriminately). Then it seems you have something like the old, wild-west. Someplace I wouldn't want to live, but was a functioning, and even growing society.

DreadSpoon was trying to make a point that you couldn't allow killing because "society would tear itself apart". My point is that most people aren't killers and society wouldn't tear itself apart, it might be unpleasant, but it would reach an equilibrium, survive, and maybe even grow.

In a simplier world, the decision not to kill (or steal or lie) was more based on moral judgement rather than humanistic rationalizations. Now we've inherited that world and we seem to be trying to distance ourselves from religion and morals by creating rationalizations ("Killing is considered wrong because we all agree that we don't want anyone to be able to legally kill us").

I look at it like imaginary numbers in mathematics and engineering. There's no such thing as the square-root of -1, yet there are whole areas of mathematics and engineering that are based on it. Perhaps there's no such thing as God, but the Christian moral code is the basis for the best parts of our government and legal system. Does it matter that God exists or not? Do we have to be embarrassed when somebody mentions the G word or speaks of morality? Do we have to build these rationalizations to try to replace the simple morality of a (perhaps non-existant) supreme being?

Re:Not morals

[acsinc]

They're law to ensure we continue functioning as society, which *is* what government is supposed to do.

No. This is common misconception. In America it is the governments job to protect the rights of the individual. Personally I think that serperation of church and state is really good, but we could also use seperation of government and society.

This protection of individual rights works becuase individual's have a right to not be murdered, raped, stolen from etc. Many laws that Slashdotters find objectionable would not have come into exsitance if there was seperation of government and society.

Re:Not morals

[Anonymous Coward]

See: Cesare Beccaria: On Crimes and Punishments.

Re:Not morals

[ArcticCelt]

Yeah Ok I understand your point but what bother me is that the antigambling position is a little bit absurd and hypocrite. Why don't they simply close the biggest Casino on earth the one for the richs, I am talking about the New York Stock exchange.

Re:Not morals

[Anonymous Coward]

If "things would fall apart" in a society in which "anything you have can be taken from you", please explain why everything from asset forfeiture and eminent domain and the IRS haven't resulted in complete social collapse?

They will. Wait a while.

Re:Not morals

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you're joking or not, but at any rate. With taxes it's codified exactly how much is taken on every transaction (and it's always a fixed, limited percentage), whereas with theft you can potentially lose everything.

Re:Not morals

[pilkul]

Great points. I would just add that I think it depends on the law whether its goal is to enforce morals or to hold together society. For example, corporate and contract law exists mainly to keep the economy functioning, I would say --- a lot of it is not obviously based on any moral principles.

Re:Not morals

[Wellspring]

Sure-- good clarification. Much of our legal codes are actually protocols for interaction rather than specific moral statements.

But I'd argue that holding society together IS a moral judgement. An easy one, to be sure, but anarchists a century ago would have disputed even that. Overall, though, yeah I agree that standardization drives many of our laws.

Not religious value

[MillionthMonkey]

I'm an atheist and this story still troubles me. There are nonreligious reasons you don't want gambling going on. It causes all sorts of problems. Usually these are offset by the additional revenue that gambling brings into an area, so casinos are tolerated. But that isn't the case here since the casinos are based in remote Pacific islands, and presumably those economies will be the only ones to benefit.

The U.S. knew what it was getting into when it signed GATT. We figured the screwing was going to be one-way, as if people in the Third World are too stupid to take advantage of us in return. It hasn't exactly turned out that way.

Re:Not religious value

[cheezit]

Well said. As they say, "NIMBY" ("Not In My Back Yard"). Everyone loves getting stuff for free, and they hate it when someone else gets free stuff on their dime.

Re:Not religious value

[Vellmont]

I'm not sure I really like the whole idea of online gambling either. There's really enough gambling in the country right now for anyone to get their "fix". I really have no idea how you can control it though. You can't put up a giant firewall around the entire country like China is trying to do (or at least let's HOPE that won't happen).

I suppose the only thing you can really control is the marketing and promotion of online gambling within the US. That's probbably even within the limits of free trade, since advertisements aren't really trade, per se.

Re:Not religious value

[radixvir]

I suppose the only thing you can really control is the marketing and promotion of online gambling within the US. That's probbably even within the limits of free trade, since advertisements aren't really trade, per se.

i often think that banning something or stopping altogether makes it look somehow exotic. for instance teenage drinking. do teenagers drink soley because they want to get drunk, or is the fact that only adults are allowed to drink, and the fact that teenagers want to look and act like adults, have something to do with it. I dont like gambling at all, but i worry if its banned then things will be pushed 'underground' where since the law is already being broken, people arent afraid to break other laws. people will gamble whether you let them or not

Re:Not religious value

[Vellmont]

Gambling is already "underground", though mostly that means office pools, bets friends, pool halls, etc. I don't think people gamble online because it's illegal, they gamble online because they're addicts. Seriously, how fun is it to sit an your computer and push buttons all by yourself and lose money? That's the real danger of online gambling. It's so easily accessible to addicts that it becomes that much harder to stop their addictions.

The other problem is that since the gambling is online, and by nature in another country you can't regulate it at all. There's no way to make sure the games are fair, or people aren't being cheated out of winnings, etc. The only thing you could possibly do is legalize online gaming casinos within the country in the hopes that offshore casinos would lose serious business, since there's no guarantee their games are fair. Does that encourage more gambling since you'd have to allow promotion and advertising? I don't know. It's really a hard question to answer since the normal controls simply don't apply.

Re:Not religious value

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick note:

1. Antigua & Barbuda = America's Backyard, formerly known as the Eastern Caribbean. http://www.antigua-barbuda.com/ - Official government page, also has statements related to the case and the country's laws on Internet casinos.

2. Antigua & Barbuda != Third World as imagined by most people. It's the preferred vacation destination of a number of wealthy people for a good reason. http://www.jumbybayresort.com/ - just an example of the top hotels in the island.

Re:Not religious value

[Imperator]

Usually these are offset by the additional revenue that gambling brings into an area, so casinos are tolerated.

I've always wondered about this. Is the extra revenue something that would disappear if gambling were legalized everywhere? Or is it an inherent feature of gambling?

Right now gambling is legal in some parts of the US but not in others. So people go to the places where gambling is legal and spend money. But a lot of that money is spent on incidentals like hotels, restaurants, and so on. In other words, if people could gamble without travelling, would it still bring in as much money?

I have a feeling that the artificial scarcity of gambling is what makes it profitable. In other words, places that allow gambling have an interest in limiting competition.

Re:Not religious value

[kabocox]

What is wrong with foreigners taking advantage of stupid rich US Citizens? Oh, yes they didn't come to US stay here 7 years get citizenship, then take advantage of stupid US Citizens. As long as they are local and taxed it doesn't matter. If them foreigners make money off us, it ain't right!

Re:Not religious value

[Anonymous Coward]

A-men brother. (no religious bigotry intended) I don't want foreigners "stealing" our citizens money. I want american money to stay in america, not go to multi-millionaires in foreign countries who run online casinos.

Re:Not religious value

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a dream where this sys-admin destroyed his life, squandered all his money and lost his job. Ruined due to the scourge of online gambling addiction. And in his stead, I stepped in and was gainfully employed doing interesting work, and was therefore happy again. Oh wait, did someone mention b00bies?

Re:Not religious value

[ameoba]

The problem is that the economies of these "remote pacific islands" aren't going to bennefit beyond the small amount produced by a business registration and a domain registration. We know these companies are run by USians who simply run the servers outside of the US to avoid any government interference, and whats' to stop somebody who's fucking over one gov't from doing so to another?

Let's face it, setting up an internet casino hosted on some remote island isn't fundamentally different than running a back-alley card-house. They know almost all of thier customers are going to be USian, they just get far enough outside the hands of the government to avoid regulation and taxation.

The whole point is that the US can't stop this from going on but that, if there are to allow it to go on, they can be a major force towards regulation fo the industry. With the US behind a globalized regulation of online gambling, it'll prevent a company 'registered' in Elbonia from running a crooked game of tiddly-winks.

Re:Not religious value

[khallow]

I'm an atheist and this story still troubles me. There are nonreligious reasons you don't want gambling going on. It causes all sorts of problems. Usually these are offset by the additional revenue that gambling brings into an area, so casinos are tolerated. But that isn't the case here since the casinos are based in remote Pacific islands, and presumably those economies will be the only ones to benefit.

BTW, what are the problems again and how is the US avoiding them?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I talk about on-shore gambling? No. I was talking about Internet gambling (as was the article). I didn't know that Internet gambling operations increased crime.

Oh wait, they don't.

Grow up

[N8F8]

As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you.

The hidden fact missing is that addicts behaviour only effects themselves. I'd agree with you if we could tell the junkies to pack sand when they want medical treatment or put them to death for destroying other peoples lives or property. But we can't. That is the balance we have to live with.

Re:Grow up

[Anonymous Coward]

... put them to death for destroying other peoples lives or property.

I must be reading too much Slashdot, because for some reason Darl McBrides name popped into my head.

Re:Grow up

[Jim Starx]

Addiction rates and their asociated health care costs dropped signifigantly in the netherlands when certain drugs were legalized.

Re:Grow up

[EllisDees]

>The hidden fact missing is that addicts behaviour only effects themselves. I'd agree with you if we could tell the junkies to pack sand when they want medical treatment or put them to death for destroying other peoples lives or property. But we can't

That's funny. I could swear that being high out of your mind was no excuse for causing mayhem. How about this as a rule: "If you hurt someone else, you will be punished". Being drunk/high/gambling is not necessarily harmful to anyone in itself, but if you do something stupid while in that state, you will rot in jail.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a troll? Thank goodness you pointed it out for everyone else.

Re:Moron.

[Jeremy Erwin]

There's a "morals exception" to some WTO regulations. But it's not a very credible argument, given that most US state governments already have a hand in the till. Moreover, the WTO can and does impose sanctions for popular but unfair trade barriers.

Pot/kettle black? no, this is more like

[Savatte]

the pot calling the kettle black while throwing stones in glass houses

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Mattintosh]

On the other hand, if the government says, "Go ahead and become a drinking, gambling, pot smoking, hippie bum," they can also stipulate something like, "but if you do, we won't save you from yourself. Good luck."

Basically, they need to back off and let people ruin themselves. Once they stop protecting the stupid and all the Darwin awards have been handed out, we'll be left with a better overall society.

In this light, we can see that this is the only logical course of action (since the War on Drugs and the rest of the idiotic moral enforcement laws aren't working), and it's about eventually lowering taxes.

Re:Indeed ... that is the problem with globalizati

[Anonymous Coward]

They just have to hold out until election time. Let the Democrats take the heat after they take office.

Huh.

[Dirtside]

Don't want the WTO to impose laws on us? Guess we probably shouldn't have been a founding member and signed treaties saying we'd abide by their rules, which allow them to do this. Good work, U.S. government!

Re:Huh.

[WildBeast]

As usual :)

Re:Huh.

[nero4wolfe]

Actually, the treaties behind the WTO were never ratified, in the strict constitutional sense. The Clinton administration, seeing that it couldn't get the super-majority required for Senate ratification, used a workaround used by multiple administrations in the past (of both parties). Instead of calling the document a "treaty", they call it an "agreement". Then they can push a bill through Congress with only a simple majority, saying that the US will treat the "agreement" as national law.

The WTO has already overridden multiple other US laws. A protest filed by Mexican fishermen killed the old "dolphin safe tuna" laws; a protest from a South American country killed some restrictions on importing oil with high sulfur content, etc. There's currently a mini-trade war in progress, with EU countries imposing special duties on a number of US imports, because the US hasn't repealed some tax rules that the WTO views as an illegal trade subsidy.

There has been previous statements from some well known constitutional scholars (including Laurence Tribe at Harvard) that the US Congress should be ashamed of itself for allowing the rules in the constitution about treaty ratification to be ignored when inconvenient.

Re:Huh.

[ruiner13]

"...and signed treaties saying we'd abide by their rules, which allow them to do this"

Who's we? Got a turd in your pocket?

Re:Huh.

[beanlover]

Last I checked the U.S. government only had constitutional authority to enter into treaties with other contries...and since the WTO isn't a country in and of itself it would render these treaties (or agreements or whatever they are called this week) invalid. So we (U.S. Citizens) could essentially pull out of these at anytime by citing this.

Right?

Re:Huh.

[Dirtside]

U.S. Constitution, Article II Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

It doesn't say anything about with whom treaties can be made. And I don't know that there's ever been a Supreme Court case that established that a treaty can only be made with a country. So, as far as I know, you're incorrect.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[ceswiedler]

Why do you think these two parties have these particular values? Could it be that these two parties have 'chosen' values which actually do manage to accurately represent the values of a majority of the people in this country?

Do you think that a political party would survive long if it DIDN'T match what people thought?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think alcohol can be considered evil on the basis that drunk drivers kill people all over the place. Religion has nothing to do with it for a lot of people.

shouldn't cars be evil then?
when was the last time you heard of a drunk walking over someone to death?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[maximilln]

I've already addressed the majority of this in my journal.

There's really nothing that we can do about.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Meech]

I have always thought that there were stupid laws. For example, in NYS, you have to wear a seatbelt when in an automobile. This should not be a law, but something that is simply common sense. If someone is too stupid to wear a seatbelt, then who cares if they crash into a tree?

The argument is though, that the government is responsible for scraping people off of trees, and this becomes expensive, which every tax payer knows.

The root of this problem is that there are two types of politicians (for the most part). The first is the democrats. They want more government, yet, they do not want to tell people how to live. The second is the republicans. They want less government, yet they love to impose their strict rules and values on people. This has never made sense to me.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

While blue laws, gambling laws etc may have religious arguments to support them, they are not simply religious issues. They have social side effects as well, and anything that can affect society it is the duty of the government to at least look into if not monitor (hence the term social contract to describe government). I'm not gonna touch on abortion, but drinking and gambling definitely effect more than just the parties that engage in said activities. I wouldn't advocate complete government control and regulation, but laws that place limits on them are definitely withing the jurisdiction of the government. Laws against public intoxication and drunk driving are definitely a good thing, as are laws against people who attack others (especially their spouse and/or children) while under the influence. Don't simply write off vice issues as religious issues. To do so is an affront to atheists everywhere.

bad gamblers

[millahtime]

I guess they figure that we are bad gamblers and want our money. If my friends are any indicator then they are right.

Re:bad gamblers

[TwistedGreen]

I guess they figure that we are bad gamblers...

I didn't know that gambling is a 'skill.' Isn't gambling, by its very definition, relying (almost) completely on luck?

Re:bad gamblers

[millahtime]

Good gambling is quite a skill. It is a talent and an art.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[starm_]

"Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible "

No these laws are there to protect each other. It doesn't have much to do with being morally wrong. Its more of an agreement of the sort" if you don't hurt me I won't hurt you.

I mean sure if you go all the way to basic psychology you could argue that I value my own life because of my morals. But I think everyone values its own life because humans are like that. Its hard wired into us.

has to be said

[genner]

I for one welcome our WTO online gambling overlords.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[garcia]

that's people abusing the substance. That doesn't make it evil. People make alcohol evil. There are plenty of people in the world that are able to drink alcohol and not become intoxicated and kill other people.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think cars can be considered evil on the basis that drunk and sober people kill other people with them.

If the problem exists with the combination of alcohol and cars, then deal with the combination. To say that one is the exclusive problem and not the other is just flawed.

Next: Cali Cartel, Golden Triangle Opium Warlords

[swb]

Next on the WTO docket: The Cali Cartel and the Golden Triangle Opium Warlords criticizing US bans on their products as being anti-free trade. An amicus brief has been filed by the Dutch Hashish Association and the Jamaican Ganja Grower's Collective.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[xsbellx]

Got any ideas why? (hint: crime rates sky-rocket around a casino).

Care to substantiate that with some facts?

Re: Gambling?

[Casca]

I think you would find that most states have legal gambling, most of the time in the form of a lottery. Not to mention all of the native american run casinos.

Also, you don't need a precedent to overturn a gambling law, you just need to pass a bill. Its a vote thing, not a legal issue.

Big deal

[evil-osm]

When they start to threaten your public education and agriculture exports then lets talk.

Not saying that this is limited to Canada. WTO screws everyone equally.(Take this with a grain of salt, as it does come from the Anti-Globalisation Network.)

The WTO is a bad idea gone bad.

Re:Big deal

[TwistedGreen]

The WTO would be a good idea, if they had the right ideals in mind. But they exist to further corporate growth, which has no bearing on any other measure of health... like that of a society or its environment.

If they did have the right goals, they wouldn't have this kind of stigma. But then again, they wouldn't have the kind of support they have either.

People and populations just aren't relevant from a corporate perspective.

Re:Big deal

[toriver]

But they exist to further corporate growth

Why do people believe this fallacy? The WTO's members are countries, not corporations. To the extent they work to further corporate growth it's simply because coroporations are the employers of their voters.

Trade sanctions gooooooood.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be just fine if it turns out the US may not import, say, Infotech work from India?

praise the lord and pass the dice

[Doc Ruby]

How dare you degrade the lifestyle of William Bennett, BushCo's VP of Public Morality Warfare?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cheezit]

I'm not religious and I don't see that more gambling is a good thing. It may be an individual choice to gamble, but if 100% of people chose to gamble heavily we would have massive social disruption. As it is every idiot who blows their nest egg due to a gambling habit is another idiot that you and I get to finance the retirement of via Social Security and Medicare (aka welfare for old folks).

There *is* such a thing as the common good, seperate and distinct from what is good for each individual. Deny this and you can have lots of confident-sounding black and white opinions that would destroy any society you applied them to.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Rura Penthe]

I very much agree with the stagnation of party values and the resulting lack of choices. However, while I am personally pro-choice on abortion, I can see where people can have moral objections to what they view as the murder of babies. If you posit that our opposition to murder is not solely based on religion, then viewing a fetus at conception as a human* would make abortion wrong (to them) on grounds that are not religious.

I just noticed I have deviated largely off our original topic. I guess I just wanted to disagree with the "abortion views are based entirely on religious arguments" part of your post, not the rest of it. :)

* While this is IMO largely a construction of the church, I know people who believe it and have no religious leanings of any kind.

Re:Moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the will of the people with the most money...

People who believe the majority actually controll anything = fool

Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[G4from128k]

If the U.S. government were so terribly concerned by gambling, it would ban the stupidity tax (aka state-run lotteries). While I personally don't understand why people gamble, it seems hypocritical for the government to both give citizens the right to gamble on a large scale (at atrocious pay-off odds) and yet prohibit online gambling.

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[Adam9]

Because the lottery profits [supposedly] don't go to corporations.

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[grey3]

In California, for every dollar gambled away in the state lotto, $0.519 goes to the winner, $0.349 goes to PUBLIC EDUCATION, $0.068 goes to retailers commision and bonuses, $0.039 goes to operating expenses, and $0.028 goes to game costs.

"In FY 02/03, revenues from the Lottery generated $124 per pupil, or $1 billion total and supported over 8.1 million students in California?s public schools. These funds were in addition to the $6,624 per pupil, or $56 billion provided by California's general fund."

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

For every $0.349 lotto brings to PUBLIC EDUCATION, the $0.349 supplied by the general fund is cut from PUBLIC EDUCATION.

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[MyHair]

In California, for every dollar gambled away in the state lotto, $0.519 goes to the winner, $0.349 goes to PUBLIC EDUCATION, $0.068 goes to retailers commision and bonuses, $0.039 goes to operating expenses, and $0.028 goes to game costs.

PUBLIC EDUCATION:

• "Tonight's winning lottery numbers are. . ."
• "Gambling problem? call 1-800-555-1212. Not a results line."
• Play California Lotto, tickets available at your [brand] store!

By the way, mod up the AC who replied to this comment before me.

Here's a big problem with the lotteries: Casino payout odds are better. Okay, the lotto vig goes towards public needs, but aside from the point the AC made the lotteries are mostly played by lower income people and is therefore perceived as an unfair tax or "stupid tax". People with more income seem to notice that the payout odds and return in entertainment is much higher at the casinos and avoid the lottery.

Now if a cocktail waitress in a T-back came by the house to personally inform me of the winnning lotto numbers, then we might be on to something.... Yeah, make it a vocational education option for 18-year old high school girls to work for the state as cocktail waitresses to tend the lottery customers. More public benefit! And provides jobs! </sarcasm>

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! That's the same logic the RIAA uses with their "lost sales".

You think if you don't have a lottery you can actually get everyone to just donate all the money they would have spent on the lottery? Fat chance of that happening.

And I'm sure people would LOVE being taxed more. At least if you are playing the lotto you feel like you have something to gain from it.

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't lotteries state run?

Who gets the loser's money?

States. I.e. Government

The government simply does not want competition. They want the loose cash to go to them, not some unamerican commie Barbadosian bastards.

So be a proud American! Pay extra to your Government.

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[KarmaMB84]

I'd rather give my money to my local government than a foreign corporation.

Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax?

[khallow]

I'd rather give my money to my local government than a foreign corporation.

Tough call there. I'd rather pay for services rendered, than give money away.

Re:Moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Online gambling is federally outlawed. Nationwide.

Re:Moron.

[gorbachev]

Maybe you should read on what the WTO can and can not do.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill anonymous morons

Wait a minute

[WildBeast]

'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"

Heuh? Isn't that what the lobbies and pressure groups in the US do?

And since when did gambling become illegal in the US?

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since when did gambling ever become illegal in the US?"

I don't know, checked any state/county laws lately? The fact that nearly every single state or county in the USA has statues prohibiting or inhibiting gambling establishments should tell you a little something.

Re:Wait a minute

[WildBeast]

I didn't know that, call me naive but I always assumed the best from the US. I mean, how about Las Vegas then?

Re:Wait a Minute

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and I mean HELL. Almost every "caring" act *ever* has resulted in a negative emotional impact upon the victim. Okay, maybe not almost, but really, people fuck with each other in the name of ***their*** morals or ***their*** supposed good will WAY, ******WAY****** too often.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[mrdlinux]

> You mean murder? Not everybody against murdering fetuses is against it for religious reasons.

Yes, there are a few people who genuinely care about the life of the infant, as opposed to caring about their need to spread the religion. My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown. (And if they haven't worked hard, then how are they going to support the child?) Think pragmatically, not at moral extremes.

As for gambling, while there are several examples of crime-ridden gambling areas, there's a few problems with establishing laws based on this observation: (a) statistical correlation and causation: did gambling actually directly cause it? (b) can the crime be eliminated while keeping the casinos? (c) people want the casinos anyway, check out the debate going on between PA, MD, WV, and DE residents about losing gambling dollars to each other. There was a recent article you can probably find it online. More and more areas are allowing casinos and I think you will find that not all of them become crime-ridden like Atlantic City (which has plenty of other reasons to be crime-ridden). And anyway, what does this have to do with online casinos? Online casinos solve the location problem pretty easily, don't you think?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that Internet gambling operations increased crime.

well if gambling is illegal in the area it does. TAKE THAT!!!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

...There is a question of whether or not it is murder...

The concept of abortion being murder is brought on by the religious right. So it is, in fact, still based in religion. But this discussion digresses from the topic of discussion, the US getting its just desserts.

Let the sanctions come, its the US' right to self destruct on its own, even though such destruction WILL bring the world down, its ok, its the US. Only the US is allowed to display the level of hypocrisy never before witnessed in the history of mankind.

Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[cagle_.25]

The question of whether the U.S. is hypocritical is uninteresting because the answer is obviously Yes.

The interesting trend here is for individual laws of nations to be "leveled" or "normalized" to reflect the laws of other nations only because it simplifies the economic situation to do so.

In other words, the W.T.O. turns out to be a tool to not only resolve trade disputes but also to (attempt to) force nations to change their laws. This should make us nervous. It should also make us reflect that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" -- II Timothy.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[Inebrius]

Some of the key votes in the UN against the war came from countries that had contracts set up and economic interests in keeping Saddam in power. Whether they agreed that Saddam was a bad man, or that he posed a threat, France, Germany, and Russia saw that it was in their best interests to oppose the war. If the US had billions of dollars up for bid and France was attacked, I would hope that we would choose the right thing to do and realize that dealing with a vicious dictator was a bad gamble.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[de la mettrie]

the W.T.O. turns out to be a tool to not only resolve trade disputes but also to (attempt to) force nations to change their laws

Yes, the WTO has an agenda: promote global welfare by reducing barriers to trade. "Force" doesn't enter into it, though: our governments have freely entered into this treaty, and our parliaments have approved it.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[radicalsubversiv]

Absolutely. But if it were just about gambling, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it. Actually, the WTO, in its relatively short history, has accumulated quite a record of overturning democratically-enacted laws designed to protect consumers, workers, and the environment, ranging from dolphin-safe tuna to gasoline emissions to genetically modified organisms.

Check out Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch for more info.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[Imperator]

The interesting trend here is for individual laws of nations to be "leveled" or "normalized" to reflect the laws of other nations only because it simplifies the economic situation to do so.

No, actually. That's not the interesting trend at all. That's been going on for thousands of years. Some historians think that the very first forms of government were enacted to harmonize trade laws. Governments have long sought to make economic systems compatible for trade.

There's absolutely nothing interest about this trend. That's like saying "the interesting trend is for governments to make murder illegal". It's happened since the beginning of civilization, and there's nothing new about it whatsoever.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Trade laws of this nature have always gone on. True. I would suggest, however, that they are not done for the benefit of trade. This is a facade that always works as a bait and switch of your sovereignty.

If you feel that your computing is done better with a more efficient and centralized mainframe and that society functions similarly, then I'd say the WTO is definetely the way to go.

Personally, I prefer the more cumbersome and expensive form of trade of an internetworking model. The one where I maintain my sovereignty. More expensive per trade, but cheaper in the end.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[griblik]

The interesting trend here is for individual laws of nations to be "leveled" or "normalized" to reflect the laws of other nations only because it simplifies the economic situation to do so

For this to be a good thing, you have to assume that the normalised sovereign law is beneficial to the populace of the countries that are covered by the treaty. I get your good law, you get mine...

the W.T.O. turns out to be a tool to not only resolve trade disputes but also to (attempt to) force nations to change their laws.

It could just be my opinion, but I don't think a nation (or its representatives) should sign up to international treaties if they aren't going to treat them as law in their own countries. I believe that's what a treaty is supposed to be, a legal agreement between nations to act in a certain way.

Some nations don't appear to respect this basic rule of civilisation.

I may have missed your point...

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[teg]

Whether they agreed that Saddam was a bad man, or that he posed a threat, France, Germany, and Russia saw that it was in their best interests to oppose the war

In retrospect, they were also right. No links to terror have been found, no weapons of mass destruction. The US lied, because Bush had an agenda... being a bad man isn't a valid reason to go to war. I think Bush is a bad man in many ways, but I don't think anyone has the right to attack the US even so.

Do I think Iraq is a better place without Saddam? Certainly. Do I think Cuba would be a better place without Castro? Yes. Do I think the US would be a better place without Bush? Yes. Do I think war is the answer when something happens you don't like? No.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

If Iraq was not a terrorists state then it would not have the continual and coordinated terrorist acts now going on inside of it. If it was pure regime control before, the insurgence now would not be so accute. Direct ties to world-renown organizations? Maybe not. But terrorism ties that function largely as a secret society are not going to suddenly show up now that a regime with ties to it is gone.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[cagle_.25]

Hm...IANALHistorian, so I can't comment on the history of government. However, I am certain that government functions not only to promote a smooth economy, but also and even primarily to restrain evil actions by one person against another. This goes back to the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi. And, the U.S. ban on gambling (whether right or wrong) is an attempt to do just that: to prevent gambling interests from taking the money not only of the gamblers, but of their families as well.

I'm not interested in debating the pros and cons of "save me from myself" legislation. My only point is that the economic interest and function of government has become a very powerful for challenging or even overturning the restraining function of government. Has this been going on for thousands of years? Not on a global scale. So, I'm interested in the trend; it seems new and disturbing to me. Further, to the extent that this trend does have historical precedent, that precedent seems mostly negative.

Regards, Jeff Cagle

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[cagle_.25]

"Force" doesn't enter into it, though: our governments have freely entered into this treaty, and our parliaments have approved it.

Sorry; I used an ambiguous word. By "force", I meant "compel", not "use military action to coerce."

Treaties, like marriages, are not always advisedly entered into. Just because we have freely entered into the W.T.O. doesn't mean that we won't regret having done so. I'm not referring to the specific question of gambling, of course. I'm referring to the overall principle of having to revise laws enacted for the protection of others (such as the anti-gambling statutes) in order to conform to free-trade agreements: a side-effect that we perhaps did not forsee.

Now that I think about it, I'm also concerned about the ability of the W.T.O. to overrule our own separation of powers. As you know, the U.S. government has limited jurisdiction over the states; however, by entering into the W.T.O., the global community can now demand that the U.S. overrule that jurisdiction in order to conform. This is very troubling to me.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[Imperator]

I should point out a couple of things:

• Neither the Ten Commandments nor any other parts of the Bible have much to do with the current government in the US or in any other country, Muslim theocracies excepted (e.g. Iran). Same with the Code of Hammurabi--like the Bible, it's full of eye-for-an-eye stuff, the law of revenge. This is the law of medieval despots, not of enlightened democracies.
• Government has long favored economics over what you call "restraining evil actions". For most of human history, governments have engaged in wars of conquest, sanctioned slavery and prostitution, oppressed their people, and expected the poor masses to pay for it all. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's always happened. To the extent there's a trend, it's been towards greater individual rights and freedoms. This has coincided with the rise of democracy and the corresponding decline in the power of divine-right monarchs and their 20th century successors, the dictators and fascists. So if you take a long view of things, we're actually doing pretty well.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[radja]

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

this goes very much for an occupied country, like iraq is.

Re:Pot/Kettle issue misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a freedom fighter fights for the clear establishment of choice and agency in search of actual freedom for not just them but all. A terrorist fights for the establishment of anarchy in search of self-gain exclusively.

A freedom fighter excepts the consequences of open declaration and a possibility of disagreement of principles. A terrorist cowardly functions under the establishment of secret society for fear its tenets will not be agreed with.

Give whatever groups, whatever names you want. Give these two defined categories whatever titles you want. If you are not fighting for what the founders of the US called a self-evident truth, you are not fighting for freedom.

And to disengiously say that Group A has been oppressed by Group B and therefore should be given authority to opress Group C or even Group B as is being attempted by *terrorist,cowards,muslim-extremists,whatever,I-do n't-care* in Iraq is a fools errand.

Freedom has an extremely high price that terrorists -- and most modern middle eastern societies -- have never been willing to pay.

Shoot, based on its own domestic issues, I question if the US citenzenry is still willing to pay to just keep it.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

You mean murder?

Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.

Murder and abortion are different things as each has a clear cut meaning. You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence". The commonly understood definition of murder, unless you're using it out of context, in which case you're just not very bright, requires a connection to the legality of the killing being done. Abortion is legal. The commonly understood definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful. Therefore, abortion is not murder, so no, that's not what the poster meant. Please try not putting words in other people's mouths just because you don't have a basis for your argument.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you. I wasn't aware that I needed people in Washington telling me what is and is not good for me...

you are totally free to go broke buying state lottery scratch tickets.

and you're free to kill yourself with cigarettes, as long as most of the price you pay for the cigarettes goes to state and federal taxes.

and you can kill yourself driving in a Ferrari, so long as you pay the sales, gasoline, and luxury taxes.

as soon as they figure out how to tax it, jumping off a bridge will be legalized too.

Re: Gambling?

[fishbowl]

except for Nevada, I think

New Jersey, Louisiana, Mississippi, and many aboriginal territories.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm not sure anti-gambling laws have anythign to do with religion. There's some belief around here at least that some people have a "sickness" that relates to the inability to excersize self-control when placed in front of a blackjack dealer.

Similar minded induhviduals would like to make smoking, eating high fat food (or high carb, pick one!), etc. illegal. Seems like it's more of a desire to impose your value system on others, rather than doing something that helps keep the fabric of society together.

gambling and the tech community

[mabu]

When I used to go to Comdex in Vegas every year, I had a bunch of local friends who used to really despise this convention, the largest ever in Vegas, because apparently the "tech people" didn't gamble. Why? Because they were smart and they knew the odds.

Gambling is basically a tax on poor, dumb people that benefits rich entities. It promotes a something-for-nothing, perverse work ethic.

Now you might say, what about all these dot-com millionaires that are now showing up on the World Poker tour? They're not playing against the house; they're playing against the other players - there's definitely more skill and talent there than pulling the arm of a slot machine.

Personally, I don't really care one way or another. Gambling is just another diversion. I would prefer it not in my community, nor online, but if people want to blow their money, it's their choice. I do worry sometimes about the bad message this says to society that they can "strike it rich" without really having to work hard.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[foxfyre]

It's not a tax on the poor; they have a CHOICE to play or not to play. If we ended all state lottos, there'd be a national crisis.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[dekashizl]

When I used to go to Comdex in Vegas every year, I had a bunch of local friends who used to really despise this convention, the largest ever in Vegas, because apparently the "tech people" didn't gamble. Why? Because they were smart and they knew the odds.

Utter nonsense. People from all walks of life gamble, as do people of all type abstain. They don't do it because it's such a great long term money-making scheme, they do it because it's fun and it's available.

I love arguments like yours that are perfect examples of bad statistics (btw 75% of all statistics are wrong). You might as well make the claim that "People with Palm Pilots don't like gambling in public" just because you witnessed that many of the techies carried PDAs with them.

If the techies weren't gambling it's probably because they were in the convention, in the parties, or most likely hanging around in Cumdex (aka AdultDex) droooooling over hot little starlets.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[BgJonson79]

I know people who gamble because it's fun, knowing damn well they're going to lose their money. They're paying the casino (ie, losing) for a few hours and being entertained. And they keep going back, because they love it. Isn't gambling supposed to be about fun? (From someone who's too much of a wuss to gamble.)

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes it worse is that is that casinos ban players who count cards. Counting cards in single deck blackjack is NOT cheating, but the casino is going to lose money when a card counter plays, so they ban them, like the MIT techies who made a killing counting cards, until they were banned too.

Casinos should at least allow card counters. It's pathetic. They make tons of money off of 99% of their patrons, so what's wrong with an intelligent 1% beating the casino at their own game? It's not like the number or percentage of card counters is going to grow, because the common moron doesn't care to do it or gets tired of treating blackjack like a science...

Re:gambling and the tech community

[polymorpheus]

don't be mistaken, playing winning poker, let alone playing at world-class level, is very very hard work. nothing's free.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[glaqua]

1. If the techies weren't gambling it's probably because they were in the convention, in the parties, or most likely hanging around in ...

Or that none of them were there on their own nickel, and most companies frown on expensing your gambling loses. The techies I met at Comdex were basically all cheap, and weren't there to spend their own money. And far too many of them made a point of letting the locals know that they were cheap!

Re:gambling and the tech community

[mojotooth]

Gambling is basically a tax on poor, dumb people that benefits rich entities. It promotes a something-for-nothing, perverse work ethic.

I wasn't aware that I was gambling as some way to subsist, or as a way to express my work ethic. I thought I was gambling for pure entertainment. Thanks for setting me straight though, obviously you see all the angles.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[bripeace]

in vegas blackjack on single deck pays 6-5 (in almost 99% of the tables these days) so counting single deck would be pointless..

also counting cards to truly make a profit takes a big bank roll and alot of time.. neither of which people who just visit vegas has.. so it's almost moot..

not to mention you MUST count perfect (which is extrmely difficult) otherwise you could get better odds doing basic strategy.

for those reasons most casinos don't care.. it's more likely they'll just shuffle the deck and distract you than acutally ban you.. you'd only get ban if you conistantly counted perfectly something an extremely rare few can do

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

>Gambling is basically a tax on poor, dumb people >that benefits rich entities .. There is no addiction more depraved than a gambling addiction. I think that the people gambling hurts the most aren't the 'poor, dumb people.' It hurts the addicts who don't nesecarily fit into this mold. Gambling preys on people with a specific mental handicap. Vegas would not exist in its present glory without these people. I have a friend who ran his own successful business for years before discovering gambling. He has since lost everything, and stolen hundrads of thousands of dollars from his parents to gamble. Smart guy, excellent health otherwise, but victimized because he is one of the unfortunate few with a miswired brain. Its not simply an issue of teaching him statistics either. He has been to college and done well in math. I've taken several college-level stats classes myself, and I can vouch for him. Its confusing as hell to watch someone so math-smart be so gambling sick.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing poker is entertainment, and by playing with someone I am providing him the same service an actor, a hooker, a video game programmer, a bass boat designer etc etc would provide him if he chose to spend his money that way.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorta true...casinos are installing video cams with computers, to see if a player really does have an advantage...if so, he's out, if not, count away.

Counting will always give you an advantage, single or multideck. You still play basic strategy, it's just that you bet bigger when the odds are in your favor. There are some play variations based on the count that you can use if you want, but the varied bet size is the real key.

There's a fairly new counting system that's well-validated statistically and pretty simple to learn...forget what it's called, I've got a book on it at home. Counting's not as hard as people think, you just keep a running count, +/-1 for each card you see, depending on its value. Takes some concentration, but with practice it's nothing major.

Those MIT guys, now, they went far beyond that. They were doing stuff like shuffle tracking, watching the shuffle and estimating where the good cards ended up. They were getting about a 5% advantage over the casino, which is huge...normally you're doing well to hit 1%. Without counting, the rules have to be very favorable just to break even, even with perfect basic-strategy play.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[elemental23]

Agreed. I love Las Vegas, but I go for the bars (Red Square at Mandalay Bay is my personal favorite) and the tacky glitz. I don't gamble myself, but have often been around people who do and they all go into it with their eyes open. Most people I know who gamble will allow a certain amount for gambling losses, the same way you'd allocate money for any other vacation expenses, and quit when they've hit their limit.

I can definitely see the entertainment value in it, even if I don't participate (mostly due to being a tightwad).

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

"I thought I was gambling for pure entertainment"

Losing your money is entertainment? Wow.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

A sad tale. One theory is that the unfavourable odds create a false hope in the victim, which leads to an adrenaline rush while waiting in suspense for the outcome. It is the adrenaline which may be what cements the addiction.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

"Playing poker is entertainment"

So don't play it for money then.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

"they have a CHOICE"

They are deceived by the odds, and by their all-too-human greed and false expectations. It is disgraceful that the house exploits this.

BTW, do the hopeless addicts have a CHOICE? They did at first, you say? But now they're shit out o' luck?

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it's not a tax on the poor. It's a tax on the stupid.

Come to think of it, taxing stupdity may not be entirely a bad idea.

Re:gambling and the tech community

[Anonymous Coward]

"Playing poker is entertainment"

So don't play it for money then.

It's not as much fun that way! :)

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[TwistedGreen]

It happens in SimCity. :)

The kettle's not QUITE black

[Bobman1235]

This is a tough one. I'm trying not to get too offtopic here, but I assume this pot calling the kettle black thing has to do with the war in Iraq, and I think that's a stretch.

First, the war with Iraq STARTED as protecting the safety of Americans, IN THEORY. You may think it was just big bad Republican GWB wanting to bomb the shit out of a bunch of Arabs, but the official reason for going to war STARTED out as "Iraq is a threat, we want to neutralize that threat." Agree or disagree with the logic and pre-emption, you may be right, but at no point was this about imposing VALUES upon another culture.

Now everything has been confused, and protection of the US has taken a back burner to "regime change from a bad man." That sounds a lot more like "we don't like the way this man was doing things, let's step in and do it our way" which even I don't agree with. But while the US can be blamed for their METHODS, keep in mind that even the UN didn't like the way Saddam and the like did things. They never approved military action against Iraq, but there WERE various unenforced ultimatums imposed on Iraq by the UN, both related to the infamous WMD and the treatment of its people. Almost all global organizations were in agreement on this. What the US did wrong was to go behind their backs and tried to take care of it without approval.

I'm sure this will get flamed to death, but keep in mind, you most likely do not agree with the war, or the President, or any actions of this current administration. But that doesn't mean that everything they do or say is hypocritical and related to each other.

Yeah, I know, Score(-1) : Offtopic. I can't help myself.

Re:The kettle's not QUITE black

[ComradeX13]

Nothing to do with the war- has to do with the US's liberal use of trade sanctions vs countries that don't agree with/cave in to us.

Rep. Goodlatte - I hope you really like the taste of feet.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[DAldredge]

Gambling and drinking do not have the direct result of killing someone so they should be legal.

Abortion kills someone so it should not be legal.

A message to Rep. Goodlatte

[mrdlinux]

Why should we allow you to impose your values on the United States of America?

Re:A message to Rep. Goodlatte

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we voted him into office to DO JUST THAT, you stupid ass motherfucker.

Re:A message to Rep. Goodlatte

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's "we"? Wasn't me. Or are you one of those people who think that democracy must, by definition, reflect the will of the people, all of the people? Or maybe by "we" you mean you and your asshole friends?

Re: Gambling?

[Anonymous Coward]

except Nevada? Atlantic City in New Jersey, Tunica in Mississippi, Bicycle Club in California under some state control, Cripple Creek in Colorado, Shreveport (and other cities on the river) in Louisiana, Winstar and other new ones in Oklahoma....and I don't gamble much. -- Karma - crap shoot.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Eccles]

A seatbelt keeps you behind the wheel (and your front seat passenger out of your lap), which may mean that you'll be able to prevent an accident from getting worse. So it can be justified on the grounds that it protects others.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Cpt_Kirks]

Contrary to what the anti-gambling mafia may excrete, the vast, vast majority of people who gamble do not lose everything.

Yes, I know it's hard to grasp, but most people gamble for a little entertainment. Go to a casino, see a show, eat a good meal and play a few games.

There are a few (very few) who will gamble away every dime they have, then sell their house and throw that away too. Addictive types will honor their addictions. Why penalize the vast majority because of a few losers?

It's like soft drugs and prostitution. Most who dabble in either do it for entertainment. Other than a few addictive types, little or no harm is done to them or society. Alcohol and tobacco do more harm, and they're legal.

The harm comes from the law. Being illegal, these activities make huge profits, the criminals get involved, then the cops, judges and lawyers. Since all these types have vested interests in the illegality involved, the laws pretty much never change.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol is evil because it gets drunk down your throat when you least expect it, and causes you to run people over.

UN approved Iraq invasion

[Anonymous Coward]

on 8 November 2002.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[rabbot]

Ok first of all, calling it murder is your opinion. Don't use it as if it were a fact. And second... I live right down the street from a slots casino in Delaware. No more crime in this area now than before they started allowing it.

What idiot gambles online anyway?

[frovingslosh]

The odds are bad enough against you in a casino. But to "gamble" on-line in a simulated casino game is insane. Does anyone here really believe that the deck, dice or wheel will be fair on a big bet in an on-line game?

People who call this gambling are much like the people who confuse the shell game or the three card monty with "games of chance" or "games of skill" (they are really very expensive performances of close up magic).

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

This is why the only gambling you should ever do online is sports betting. It's unlikely that some offshore casino is going to be able to fix a major sporting event.

Most of all, don't play online poker or anything else where you're playing against other gamblers that might cheat. Cheating is bad enough in online games where you're not playing for money; you can imagine how bad the cheating problem must be if $5 or $10 or $100 a hand is at stake.

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[26199]

There's no reason for online casinos to be fixed. Casinos make money because the odds are in their favour, plain and simple. They're big enough to absorb any random variation without really noticing, and just see people giving them money for nothing.

Cheating puts them in the wrong and won't necessarily bring in more money (after all, wins keep people interested).

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not magic, its an illusion. Sorry to destroy your dreams. ;)

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever play video poker in a casino? ...what's the difference, again?

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[frovingslosh]

Ever play video poker in a casino? ...what's the difference, again?

No, I haven't, for the same reason.

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[DeVilla]

Well, I don't know anyone who gambles online personally, but I do know that there must be at least one person. Who ever he was, he stole my brother's credit card number. Judging from the bill, he was very luck at online gambling. Now his luck with online theft on the other hand....

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[_newwave_]

Poker is very popular online. Most of the online card rooms have 3rd parties audit there random # generators. Poker is played against other players, not the house.

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[frovingslosh]

Poker is very popular online. Most of the online card rooms have 3rd parties audit there random # generators. Poker is played against other players, not the house.

And you believe that the person running one of these "online card rooms" never plays one of the hands himself? You are much more trusting than I. And it's worth noting that no audit of the random number generators would catch such cheating - you don't need to give yourself any special cards or "deal from the bottom". Just seeing what cards are about to be given out by the dealer, as well as knowing what everyone has in their hands, would give such an operator a tremendous advantage, and the deals could still be done with perfectly fair randon number generators (in fact, anyone doing this would gladly have their site audited for randomness, as it would convince some players who don't think things through that the game was fair).

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[GooberToo]

Having worked for a large "Gaming Company", I can assue you the ability exists to rip people off, royally, and still keep plenty of interest by the people playing. Besides, statistically, those that want to gamble online or much more likely to have a gambling problem where they can't stop and common sense is thereby, completely ignored.

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only way I know of to cheat in online poker, assuming you're not an insider, is to collaborate wtih another player. The better online poker sites (eg ParadisePoker) have statistical methods in place to detect that.

Collaboration is a problem in live poker as well, by the way. Unscrupulous pros have all kinds of sneaky ways to pass information around, and there's no computer running stats to detect it.

Re:What idiot gambles online anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Players have consistent pseudonyms. Part of the game is figuring out which players are better than you, and vice versa. If a player eats your lunch every time, you just start avoiding him. Doesn't matter whether he's a cheater, or just a much better player than you.

I suppose a site could start impersonating weak players, but I'd think the risk of discovery would be much higher then, particularly since players can chat.

In any case, for the big reputable sites, any significant degree of cheating would be killing the goose with the golden eggs. They're raking money in with every hand played, no matter who wins. Keeping that flow depends on their reputation, and players do keep an eye out for these types of shenanigans and discuss it online in public forums.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[mrbrown1602]

Dude, take a political theory class. ALL laws have a religious basis. Almost all of our basic laws are based on the Ten Commandments, and the 12 Roman Tables (unless, of course, you're in the state of Louisiana).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Frymaster]

I so love it when my taxes go up to fund addtional services and welfare costs so that you can feel free to make a total ass of yourself.

your taxes wouldn't have to go up if we'd just (cough cough) tax the churches...

Mostly Americans run these sites

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling is a joke, Americans relocate to these banana republics to setup shop because they'd be arrested if they did it here. Now they're bribing the "government officials" to protest to the WTO.

Oh I don't know...

[MooseByte]

It's not like our government is trying to prevent the EU from taking action against Microsoft.

Oh wait.

OK. Well it's not like our government would ever force a country to accept narcotics or anything.

Oh wait.

Damn. If we were another country we'd hate our guts too.

Re:Oh I don't know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Diplomacy is for the weak. The US has the military and economic muscle to take what they want.

Re:Oh I don't know...

[autopr0n]

Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable!

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information.

Access to this site will be restored within an hour. Please try again later. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/BoxerR ebellion.htm

Smooth.

Re:Oh I don't know...

[MooseByte]

"Diplomacy is for the weak. The US has the military and economic muscle to take what they want."

Funny, I'll bet the American Colonists were hearing the exact same thing from England about the time they got really pissed off and lauched the Revolution.

Irony and foreshadowing all in one yummy sandwich of Doomed To Repeat It.

Re:Oh I don't know...

[millwood]

You are, you're France, and yes, you hate your guts. :)

Re:Oh I don't know...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like you are a retard.

Oh wait.

I don't have direct evidence that you blow goats (with pics)

Oh wait...

Re:Oh I don't know...

[siddhartha03]

Uhh the Boxer rebellion was over a hundred years ago and countries other than the US were involved...

Answer: no

[Biotech9]

don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code? Every law legislates morality in some form or another. Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it.

These laws are there to protect peoples freedom. If I kill someone, it removes thier right to life, so we protect thier freedom with a law.
Its the same for most laws, they are there to protect peoples right to have be safe and do what they want within reasonable constraints.
A law that prevents gambling doesn't protect anyone, it can only be defended by saying it protects people from what they shouldn't do. But If I want to gamble, I (as an adult) will take the moral risk and do it.

I don't need politicians to dictate which hobbies I can do or can't do in my free time. This is why its so much fun to live in Amsterdam (for example). All moral decisions are left up to the user.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[DAldredge]

It would be pragmatic to kill all those that can not survive on their own, would it not? So should we round up all thost that use artificial means to survive and kill them too?

Re: Gambling?

[notreallynas]

Gambling is illegal in most states (except for Nevada, I think). If the federal govt were to all of a sudden say, "Okay, online gambling is legal everywhere!", it might set a precedent upon which state gambling laws would be overturned.

What do you call the lottery? Last time I checked, most states have them, and I'm pretty sure that's gambling. And don't forget about New Jersey. As Homer said, "I gave you a glittering Vegas, and you turned it into a skanky Atlantic City". And the hundreds of Indian Casinos across the country. And horse and dog tracks. Gambling is a part of American culture across the board. Our government just doesn't want to admit that we might have a problem with it.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Tuxinatorium]

Laws need not have any moral reasons behind them. They can be made on the basis of what code of conduct would best ensure the prosperity of the society. Which is equivalent to saying, follow the golden rule.

"Pot/Kettle black?"

[Bleeblah]

Pot/Kettle black?"

Slashdot is the last place I would expect to see racist language like this. Think before you type.

Re:"Pot/Kettle black?"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most jackass comment of the day. Congrats!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Some_Llama]

Actually, the old testament laws used gambling in different forms to decide outcomes, the high priests would use small talismans to make decisions when they felt God's intervention was needed, a common way to decide who would get to be the one picked for a certian tasks was to use "lots" (basically hold a lottery drawing) although both of these methods were under the assumption that God would put his hand into the outcome thus making the final decision....

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they want a casino in MA because too many people are going to the casinos in neighboring states.

It is sort of the reverse of California because the incumbent governor Pete Wilson was being such a total whore-ass for Las Vegas in trying to restrict tribal casinos in California, and it gave a big boost to Gray Davis for those who saw the transparency of Pete Wilson. Yes, I voted for Gray Davis. Short term win, long term lose. Moved out of state just about when the electrical deregulation was going into effect, but before Enron completely imploded.

We already are ruined economically...

[AmazingRuss]

...it just doesn't show because the rest of the world is foolish enough to keep lending us money to keep up appearances.

Visualize all the peoples of the world,holding hands, as they all circle the bowl together!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Just Some Guy]

Abortion is legal. The commonly understood definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful. Therefore, abortion is not murder

Thank you! I can't wait to whip out that logic the next time someone objects to the death penalty as "state-sponsored murder".

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[theLOUDroom]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code? Every law legislates morality in some form or another.

Not necessarily. There are other ways look at it. One other way to view the situation is one of your rights vs. my rights.

One could decide the murder is wrong because you're interfering with my "right" to life.

You could try and say that our "rights" are really just a moral code, but I don't really believe that. I think moral codes have certainly played a role in deciding what rights a person should have, but so has basic human nature. We seek to protect many of these "rights" naturally the same way an animal might. (Property, life, etc.)

Laws should be justified in terms of whether or not they are good for society, not whether or not they agree with someone's morality.

The difference is one of rational justification WRT actual impact on other vs. possibly being upset about something that really doesn't affect you at all (like gay people having sex).

Re:Moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

one major function of a democracy is to protects the rights of the minority, not force the will of the majority on everyone.

not allowing porn on tv isn't infringing on anyone's rights but banning gambling for adults is.

this is all about the dollar. why doesn't the u.s. just make online gambling legal in the u.s. and regulate it. then they won't have to worry about our money leaving the country

Quote from the article

[roninmagus]

From Ronald Sanders:
"The U.S. says it wants open competition," he said. "But it only wants free trade when it suits the U.S."

Well I ask, what does one expect?

Internationalization is good to a point, as most things are... but watching out for one's own wellbeing is #1 on the priority list.

Re:Quote from the article

[Dumbush]

"Well I ask, what does one expect?"

no one really expects anything

but in that sense, don't ask the rhetorical question "why don't they like us"?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[jhunsake]

Basically, they need to back off and let people ruin themselves.

But people just don't ruin themselves. They usually hurt other people in the process. It's not like they just crawl into a dumpster in a dark alley and die.

What you mean "we"?

[Doc Ruby]

The reason "we" "let" Indians run casinos is because those Indians are soverign nations within the US. Their local laws are determined by the tribal government. It took a long time for non-Indian lawyers to realize in the late 20th Century that casinos and taxfree cigarettes etc would be protected by those laws, and how to corrupt the Indian chiefs into ignoring their tribespeople who are so wary of promoting addictive behavior. But now we're back on track towards parity of cultural exploitation.

Re:What you mean "we"?

[Prong]

Kinda-sorta.

The rule is that a tribe can have any type of gaming allowed under state law. So, if a state allows bingo for charity, then tribes within that state can have bingo for profit. Most tribes actually run their gaming operations under something called a Type II Gaming Compact, which has to be negotiated with the state and delivered to the BIA. The result is some pretty bizarre mutations, like "electronic bingo machines", which are really just slot machines with a different rule set, and pari-mutuel black jack (you play the other players, not the house).

As for the corruption and exploitation of Indian tribal councils by gaming companies, they're late comers to the party. The tribes have a long collective history of crooked chiefs and councils. At least with gaming, they don't have to wait for the Feds to dole out monies owed, as is the case for mineral and timber rights.

-prong

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[jfengel]

Minor point: most of those who wish us to worry about "values" would prefer to diminish the separation of church and state. They argue that we've interpreted the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") rather more broadly than is warranted. It is rather a leap from the actual text to a complete separation of church and state, at all levels (rather than just Congress).

I agree with your point: I much prefer a strong separation of church from state, a point made well by others in this thread. I just wanted to point out that the irony comes from different people believing different things, rather than one person believing inconsistently.

Conservatives have forced liberals to talk about religious values more than they'd like for the simple reason that one would rather not appear immoral to the electorate. Building your moral base on something other than religion, is a difficult thing to explain to voters. It puts liberal politicians in rather a bind, since most of them are themselves religious but would rather not push their religion onto others, risking appearing immoral. Stupid, I know, but nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

US known for not playing fair

[homm2]

The US is famous for not playing fair with trade. Take the story of Vietnamese catfish, for example.

Vietnam, a relatively poor country compared with other WTO members, is hoping to join next year. PovertyThe Catfish Farmers of America decided they weren't getting the profits they used to; Vietnam was supposedly dumping catfish on the market. Since they knew that they had no proof for any of this, they decided to claim that only American catfish could be called "catfish". Tariffs ranging from 37 to 64 percent have been slapped on Vietnamese catfish with nothing more than allegations.

The US really claims the WTO can help poorer countries. Well, the Vietnamese are well on their way to climbing out of poverty, but this catfish story has been a huge blow to the country. The US wants it both ways; I wonder how long it will take before the US starts paying a price for crimes like this.

of course

[The Queen]

This is what comes from allowing violence in the media, blood and death on all 500 channels, and then telling everyone that sex is bad. Hence the name of my band - the cure to the country's ills lies in more love, less hate, baby.

Re:of course

[patches]

Hence the name of my band - the cure to the country's ills lies in more love, less hate, baby.

That is a hell of a long name for a band...

Re:of course

[AceM2]

When will you idiots wake up and realize that where blood and death is allowed, sex is too. There is a line to be drawn at every point. In a world where STDs are killing millions and high schools are filled with pregnant juniors and sophomores, I don't think "sex is bad" is being heard.
What? You think most high school kids are virgins just because you are? Sorry.. wrong..
Someone NEEDS to tell people that sex CAN be a bad thing instead of pushing it on all 500 channels ;P

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[I Be Hatin']

(emphasis mine)
My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown.

Your counter-argument is fighting a strawman. Most pro-lifers will carve out exceptions in their stand for cases where the mother's life is in danger.

The question really is whether the convenience of people who already exist takes priority over the life of the unborn. Since most abortions are voluntary (and not for medical reasons), the pro-abortionists seem to value a woman's convenience over her fetus' life.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

Did I say internet gambling raised crim? No.

My *point* was that not all decisions are made based on religious reasons. If gambling is not legal in a state, but is legal on the internet *from* that state, this represents a huge loop-hole... At some point the states will push back, or there will be pushes to allow it on-shore. Allowing internet gambling will set a precedent...

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[maximilln]

While all laws have religious basis it is fairly easy to keep a legal system from becoming intimately tied with a religion. A good premise to start on is to guarantee mutually exclusive life and liberty. Without getting religous about it this premise prohibits murder and stealing.

It does open up an interesting loophole in the case of murderer who finds someone who wants to be murdered. I'd call it euthanasia and, leaving religion out of it, say it's legal.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard many times the argument that a persons' right to due something ends when their fist hits another individual 's nose.

I seem to recall a quote from deSade that goes something like:

"If you are concerned about hitting someone in the nose then you cannot truly enjoy the freedom to swing your fist."

My point: If someone gambles away their money or their familiy's money then they are free to be poor. If someone smokes cigarettes and eventually contracts cancer of some sort they are free to pay for treatment themselves and are also free to die.

Expecting society to coddle those who become failures due to their own actions will in the long term only produce more failures.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[That's Unpossible!]

Every law legislates morality in some form or another. Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it.

Morals do not enter into it. It is all about FREEDOM. You can't kill a man or steal his possessions because your right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose. It is about ensuring that everyone has this freedom, not on moral grounds, but on basic, common sense. If you are allowed to kill someone, they are allowed to kill you. Same goes for stealing.

The government's role is to secure your person and your property, not to legislate morality.

Hey Michael!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you!

Re:Moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Playboy channel says you're an idiot.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

sadly, you are confused and looking at this backwards. The party dictates what the rest of us do. The majority of the American public (by the glaring statement of how many people refuse to vote) don't give a flying rats ass which of the two idiot parties are running.

We are giving two choices and you pick the lesser of two evils.

Taken to its illogical conclusion

[nick_davison]

1. Move to Columbia
2. Sue the US under the WTO for not allowing its citizens to buy your drugs.
3. Profit

There comes a point when countries should have the right to enforce their own laws. If you don't permit gambling anywhere in your country, you shouldn't be forced to permit it via the web either.

Where the US falls down though is that it does allow gambling. If they wanted to say "OK, no gambling in the US. Nevada has to stop right now." that would be one thing. But they're not - they're permitting it, they're just keeping the lucrative revenue controlled.

Yup!

[Mongoose Disciple]

If others are forced to yield their own freedoms and provide for those requiring the artificial means to survive? Absolutely.

Re:Yup!

[DAldredge]

You just said that every senior citizen who is in a nursing home that is support by tax dollars should be killed...

Re:Yup!

[Mongoose Disciple]

... and?

Re:Yup!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how senior citizens in nursing homes take away from anyone's freedoms.

I think you've got it backwards

[SpaceShaver]

Just because a religion has a position on some issue doesn't make it a religious issue. Do you think that atheists has no opinion about the morality of abortion, drinking or gambling?

Religion is not the source of all morality only one vehicle for it.

canada?

[The Queen]

You guys are at least 2nd world, right? ;-P (Why is it you never hear that term?)

Re:canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's a relic of the Cold War.. The Communist Bloc was the 'Second World'

The logic behind was that since they were developed and industrialized nations, they couldn't be 'Third World' (developing) but they sure as hell couldn't be called 'First World' (Ego!)

Re:canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people do not understand what the terms 1st, 2nd and 3rd world mean.

A 2nd world country is a country which has a centerilised, planed economy E.g. Communism. Which is why you don't hear it much these days; it pretty much only applies to Cuba and North Korea these days, although it is occasionally used to refer to former Soviet Republics.

Re:canada?

[syrinx]

I always heard that the original classification was 1st World = US, Western Europe, and similar countries (yes, including Canada). 2nd World = USSR and its friends. And 3rd World = everyone else that the two major powers didn't care much about.

Since the USSR isn't around anymore, that's why you never hear "second world".

Re:canada?

[Cpt_Kirks]

Uhh, call me a troll, but I think that defintion applies to the EU more and more each day.

If the french get their way, we all know who the "planners" will be...

Re:canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

China?

Re:canada?

[dave1g]

2nd world is post communist countries.

I think...

Re:canada?

[Knos]

No. The term "third world" comes from history. What history you ask? The history of the so despised France. Mind you, just before the revolution, the king Louis XVI convoked representants of the 3 orders of society in an assembly. (Assemblee des Etats generaux)

Those 3 orders were:
- Clergy
- Nobility
and finally, the "Third-state" or Tiers-etat, which represented the poor, the bourgeois and the otherwise unprivileged.

As such, in this assembly were the privileged far more represented than the third-state, even though the third-state counted by far the majority of the population of France at that time.

Parallels are left as an exercise to the reader.

All in all that's why talking about a first, second or forth world doesn't make any sense.

Re:canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually I believe those terms originated from the Old World/New world destinction between Europe (old world) and the Americas (new world). Everyone else was basically lumped into the Third world. Eventually the term third world was applied to underdeveloped countries - even those that are in South America. Canada is a developed country - although they are really only good for syrup, hockey players, and comedians.

Re:canada?

[petabyte]

That's a historical definition. If you're a history major, thats what you go with. As an someone with a degree in International Relations, I've always used the grandparents defintion.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[J. J. Ramsey]

"Does the belief that gambling is a vice have to be predicated on religion in everyone's mind? It clearly has roots there, but not everyone who opposes its legalization is religious."

I'm not so sure the belief that gambling is a vice even has its *roots* in religion. In the U.S. at least, it is a belief propagated by Christian culture but is not a part of Christianity proper; there is certainly no prohibition against it in Scripture itself. Christian culture seems to have picked up the belief from somewhere else.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[rlandrum]

Killing people isn't immoral. We do it all the time. Even the President is responsible for the deaths of people in Texas simply by failing to pardon or commute the death sentance of those on death row.

We also kill people in Iraq. And Afghanistan. And everywhere else.

Don't confuse morality with order. We penalize people for commiting crimes not because it's the right thing to do, but to maintain order in our society.

When we try to do the "right" thing, bad things happen. For example, the LA Riots. It was the right thing to do to let the officers off on this charge, but it was not in the best interest of maintaining order in society. Now compare that example with the situation in Iraq. See a pattern?

Slashdot Odds Board: +5, Patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush seeks asylum in Pakistan 2-1

Cheney found with bin Laden 5-1

Bush marries Dick Cheney 10-1

Gasoline hits a new high in the U.S. in 2004: 2-5

Bush admits snorting Coke in The White House: 50-1

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell tried, sentenced, convicted
of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan 4-1

Bush bans Nov. 2004 presidential elections 6-1

Patriotically yours,
Kilgore Trout
Get Your War On

Fuck the WTO

[Anonymous Coward]

When we want their opinion, we'll give it to them.

Hypocrisy of others is not a defense of oneself

[Dachannien]

It's pointless to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy in this matter, because every nation is hypocritical at one point or another. But because of a flamebait comment in the original submission, there is almost no legitimate discussion here of the merits of this ruling, and instead everyone is trying to make themselves seem morally superior by claiming hypocrisy in the actions of the U.S.

Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

yes bring back sadaam!, I love sadaam. I liked him when he cut out my tongue , I loved the acid chamber and the meat grinder! especially when I insulted sadaam in public.

and then those bullies fron the US ruined it.
those bastards! they are trying to inject ther values on iraq!
oh wait I live in IRAQ, I dont get to inject any values in iraq either!

someday when the US falls I hope you get to enjoy my experiences as well!

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked him when he cut out my tongue , I loved the acid chamber and the meat grinder!

Have you done time in Gauntanamo Bay?

Re:Damn!

[MooseByte]

"I love sadaam. I liked him when he cut out my tongue , I loved the acid chamber and the meat grinder!"

And so did the US government. Or did you miss the part where Rumsfeld was over there shaking his hand in 1983(?), right around the time he was gassing his own population?

Exact same mudering torturing bastard. We supported him. Supplies. Intelligence. Even WMD-capable infrastructure. Our bud. We merely got tired of him not doing our bidding.

WTO

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally don't care whether online gambling is allowed or not (though I would think it's much easier to rip someone off online). I just don't like the idea of the WTO and some small nation trying to rewrite our laws for there own finacial gain. Aren't these nations also popular tax havens and hide outs for con artists. No telling what the money from this islands online gambling is being used for. What next is someone going to tell Britian they have to relax their obsenity laws so people can sell porn?
I think there is a place for the WTO (right along side the U.N and the other useless global organizations), and telling a country what laws it can have isn't one of them.

Boom goes London, and Boom Pari, more room...

[jwthompson2]

... for you and more room for me...

The Randy Newman song "Political Science" comes to my mind...

They all hate us anyhow, so let's drop the big one now...let's drop the big one now...

You don't understand...

[MichiganDan]

...either federalism or WTO rules. One of the WTO's specific clauses regards subterritorial jurisdictions, including provinces, states, regions, cities, etc. Under WTO rules, a subterritorial jurisdiction cannot violate a WTO DRU (dispute resolution unit) ruling; that puts the whole country in violation. Indeed, this matter is well settled in the United States. Several years ago, the US was taken to the WTO for a Massachusetts law aimed at drawing attention to human rights abuses in Myanmar. Massachusetts was forced to drop the law.

These cases are issues of trade, which Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly delineates as being the province of the Congress. So, yes, Congress *can* say, "Okay, online gambling is legit everywhere." But more to the point -- Internet gambling laws are FEDERAL laws anyway, so there are no relevant STATE laws to overturn.

So, in summary, US states can't break WTO regulations, Congress has the power to pass Internet gaming laws, and the states don't have these laws anyway.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[shyster]

Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it.

The humanitarian point of view would be those actions are wrong because they deprive others of rights.

Gambling, or prostitution, or drug use does not violate anybody else's rights. Therefore, you should be free to do as you wish. There are arguments to be made that these vices contribute to other crimes that do violate others' rights, but the fact of the matter is that those other crimes are already crimes and punishable as such.

Of course, some will argue that gov't is not just to protect rights, but to enforce the majority's idea of a "perfect" society. That's a different argument, though, and one that the US Constitution doesn't make.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[LordNimon]

anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs

I'll admit that many anti-abortionist are Christian fundamentalists (more or less), but I don't agree with this statement. Many anti-abortionists just think that abortion should be a crime, at least after some point in the pregnancy. I consider myself pro-choice, but I think partial-birth abortions are horrible and should be banned. If you don't know by the 2nd trimester that you want an abortion, then that's just too bad.

Not exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually laws were originally codified as both a means of ensuring 'moral' behavior and a means to ensure social functions. But morality itself is just another system of law that society uses to ensure stability and continuity which most would consider morally good. Several states still have laws against cohabitation of unmarried men and women. Technically, the coed dorms in Arizona are illegal. Those laws are on the books solely because of moral reasons. At one time, having unmarried men and women living together would have caused a lot of societal friction. People had a lot more time to be busybodies without the distraction of tv, MP3, etc... If you read some of the legislative notes to the actual legislation, morality is often cited as reason for the law. Many judicial precedents cite moral precedent. The entire doctrine of 'unclean hands' is based on morality and fair play. I could go on but morality does play a big part of law.

IAAL but if you take my post as legal advice, than you're really in need of professional care and not from a lawyer.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[guacamolefoo]

If we are talking about banning paying for your gambling via the net w/credit cards that's one thing

There was a piece on this on NPR yesterday during the Marketplace show. One of the people quoted mentioned that no major credit card system (VISA for instance) will let you make a transaction with an off-shore casino. This is private business decision, as there is no uniform law making such transactions per se illegal, although the federal law vs. betting over phone lines has been used occasionally against internet gambling.

FWIW, as early as 1995 when I worked for an official state legislative law-drafting body, there was interest in preventing on-line gambling. The solution I thought that made the most sense was to legislate that prospective contracts requiring payment of funds sent to gambling entities would be invalid. Note that I did not necessarily agree with the need for the law, but I was asked to find an effective, constitutional way to address the problem through legislation -- it was my job (I was just following orders...really).
The angle of attack was obviously to prevent using credit cards to send money to on-line casinos.

According to the person interviewed by Marketplace yesterday, a similar type of bill has been introduced in the last 8 years to the US Congress, but it has never passed. The follow-up comment was the one that stated that businesses (such as VISA) decided on their own to self-regulate these payments and to refuse them, partly because they were probably scared of losing money and partly to pre-emptively act before the imposition of regulatory oversight. My gut reaction was that there are still casinos that (I think) take VISA payments successfully, but I don't gamble on-line, so I can't speak conclusively to the effectiveness of VISA's self-regulation in this respect. Perhaps it's like "Whack-a-Mole" and they slap down processing agreements when they become aware of violations of their policies.

I think that the latter part of your statement is interesting however, given the overall theme of your post here:

If we are talking about banning paying for your gambling via the net w/credit cards that's one thing (protecting people and companies from the fortunes lost via this method of payment)

and later:

As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you. I wasn't aware that I needed people in Washington telling me what is and is not good for me... Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy. These are NOT issues that should be regulated by the State, Federal, or local governments.

Your first statement seems to suggest less reluctance to legislate in order to protect people (businesses and individuals) from losing money. I don't think that credit card companies need to be protected from losing fortunes -- they are big boys and can decide who they want to do business with. In response to individual people losing fortunes, I am still reluctant to see government intervention. Gambling is a "stupid" tax and I see no need to protect people from their own stupidity. The side effects (on families, for instance) can be unfortunate, but not to the extent that I want to, at the point of a gun, tell all people that they can't do something that almost all people can do in moderation with no problems.

The second statement of yours I think is probably a more accurate reflection of your sentiment. I generally agree with it, although I diverge on the "premature ending of pregnancy".

long OT digression on abortion follows

In a nutshell, I think that there is a legitimate right of states to regulate abortion. There simply is no (federal) constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade, IMHO. If there is no prohibition at the federal constitutional level, the states have the right to regulate it (subject to state constitutional provisions). Blackmun (and the Court in the Planned Parenthood case out of Connecticut in the 60

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jeremy Erwin]

The objective standard shouldn't be whether a religion finds these activities immoral. It should be whether such activities can be rationally considered to be detrimental to society. A rational thinker may come to the same conclusion as someone who idolizes a pair of stone tablets, but in the case of a conflict, the religiously derived morality must fall by the wayside.

this is big for Online Poker

[ruebarb]

I'm a big poker player and have played online for the last 3 years. This year, the Poker scene has blown up to unreal proportions, in part because Chris Moneymaker, the 2003 World Series of Poker winner, won his seat to the tourney in an online tourney.

The Online Poker community (which is usually treated differently then the gambling community) has been very curious as to how this works, esp. since there are probably a higher percentage of poker players who are profitable as opposed to games where the house has the advantage -

but then, we only care about the WTO when it is profitable for us to...so I doubt anything will come of this -

RB

Re:this is big for Online Poker

[Anonymous Coward]

... esp. since there are probably a higher percentage of poker players who are profitable as opposed to games where the house has the advantage ...

Well, it's bound from above by 50%. I'd bet the odds of winning real money are similar, but it's slanted because of playing skill rather than rule-making skill. Probably 80% play with at best mediocre, 18% with good skill, and 2% with high skill. Then the percentage coming out ahead is likely around 25-30%...

Re:this is big for Online Poker

[DaveOf9thKey]

Well, poker is a zero-sum game that doesn't really involve betting against "the house." That's one reason why poker is legal in California. Online poker sites, like casinos, make their money through pot rakes (taking a small percentage of the pot, usually no more than 3%) and tournament entry fees, so ultimately, they aren't inclined to care who plays or wins, so long as they can get as many people playing as possible without crashing their servers.

It's not impossible to "cheat" people in online poker, but it's more difficult than with other online games like, say, blackjack and slots -- games I wouldn't play in a REAL casino, let alone online -- and it seems counterproductive for an online poker site to try and cheat.

Not that any of this ever stopped me from losing money playing online poker, but hey, no one's ever mistaken me for Howard Lederer...

Re:this is big for Online Poker

[Anonymous Coward]

My frat house ran a thursday night game for years, where the house took a cut off the top of the pot. Highly illegal, but not the most illegal thing that went on there, by *far*.

As long as they allow online gun sales

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, fair is fair.

Not about online casino

[Anonymous Coward]

This is mostly about "sports" betting. This generally sidesteps the "tustworthy" issues since the "bookies" obviously dont have much control over the outcome of major sporting events.

Re:Not about online casino

[Jeremy Erwin]

There was that World Series game back in 1919...

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Tackhead]

> Think about it from this perspective. You are a "good Christian" in a high position of power who sees the country "going to hell in a handbasket" because of all the "immoral things" going on. You feel it is your place to enact laws to stop these "evils" from "infecting" the country.

I'd understand that point of view a lot more if a legislator - just one - would stand in front of a podium and say "I believe homosexuality is wrong. Just like J. Edgar Hoover, however, I also happen to be a flaming cock-sucker. I believe we need a law to prevent gay marriage because without such a law, I might divorce my wife and get married to my gay lover."

Or Tipper Gore standing in front of a podium saying "I heard some rap music on the radio last weekend, and it made me want to go out, get stoned, fuck around, and kill the pigs! I'm asking Congress for a law against violent/sexual/drug lyrics because I'm afraid of what I might do without a law to protect me from the music I hear on the radio."

Or John Ashcroft standing in front of the statue of blind Justice, saying "I like the b00bies on that statue back there, and I also like Janet's b00bie. B00bies make my dick hard! I believe we need a law that mandates standards of decency because I can't fight the terrorists when I'm walking around with a hardon 24/7 because of all the b00bies."

Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves. It's always someone else they're trying to protect, isn't it?

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always fascinating how the WTO gets its panties in a wad over the United States "infringing" on "mankind's inherent right" to Internet freedoms. But each time China cracks down on Internet usage the WTO acts like a little puppy dog with its tail between its legs. So what is it going to be? Fight the glorious fight for the freedom to gamble or put pressure on China to uncover the voices of its persecuted. Oh wait gambling is entertainment and therefore fun....persecuted people are embarrassing and painful to the eyes....it's all becoming wonderfully clear.....

beware the mark inside

[Doc Ruby]

Going to a nightclub is a scam: you always lose money, with nothing to show for it, except maybe herpes. That's why I work to shut them down: to protect my ignorant neighbors. Besides, none of my neighbors want to go in there anyway, so I redouble my efforts to protect the noone who's going.

Re:beware the mark inside

[The I Shing]

Your post hahz become tiresome.

Now's ze time on Sprockets ven ve dahnce!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[dougman]

C'mon now, things are never so black and white (though I like to think they are too). If you extend your argument, murder is covered in the ten commandments (religious beliefs) though I don't think you'll find much support from US citizens to repeal local, state or federal laws regarding the crime and punishment of murder.

Look - grown people can't just do whatever the heck they want. In a vacuum, sure, let people go wild. But when I'm out with my wife and kids on a federal highway, I'll be darned if I'm going to put up with some crackhead driving 100 mph down the road swerving in and out of traffic. As a society we do collectively decide what is regulated.

I agree with your sentiment and agree that adults should be able to decide to gamble. I'm a very big believer in "Congress shall make no law governing blah blah blah". I just think your argument preaches to the believers and doesn't do a thing to attract the people who have moved away from self-responsibility. These people need to be shown that while some governing is good, too much becomes a bad thing. Oh, and as for your argument that " I wasn't aware that I needed people in Washington telling me what is and is not good for me" - that might very well be true *for you*. Sadly, there are a lot of people out there that can't say the same.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[gnu-generation-one]

"Could it be that these two parties have 'chosen' values which actually do manage to accurately represent the values of a majority of the people in this country?"

290 million people with only two opinions?

Are there no Irishmen there? ;-)

looky here!

[Anonymous Coward]

we got us one of them self-hatin' Americans!

Retard. Move to France, you spineless pussy.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jim Starx]

I don't agree with you that abortion is murder. But I do agree that the argument is not neccisarily based on religion and it's not a black and white issue.

That being said, what other laws against vices that he mentioned can arguably be not of religious descent? Certainly not blue laws...

And keep in mind that when we talk about gambling we are talking about online gambling. Area crime is not an issue.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Rude Turnip]

An interesting corollary to your statement is that this "certain class" is already living in your town, they're just not gambling there.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[homerules]

Since when is having morals anything to do with religion? I would like to think that even athiests have some sort of morality. Most churches have weekly bingo and some have casino nights. Your religous argument is bunk. As for not being able to use credit cards for gambling, have you ever heard of cash advances? The proceeds still can be used for gambling. We all pay for gambling in the end. Those that run up debt that can't be repaid due to the fact that there is no money left after gamling it all away, not pay their debts in the end, but someone does. I work at a small bank and I see what happens when someone stops or can't pay. The debt is absorbed by the bank which in turn is paid for by other customers. It is the risk of doing business, but trying to prevent someone from falling into a downward spiral at the beginning is a lot easier than picking up the pieces in the end. By the way age does not make you an adult I have seen this first hand as i also worked in a factory.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Brandybuck]

While this is IMO largely a construction of the church, I know people who believe it and have no religious leanings of any kind.

Such as the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, for example.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Deitiker]

*laugh* You sound cranky... Has someone's shipment of under-age sex slaves been held up in customs again?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Maestro4k]

• I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code? Every law legislates morality in some form or another. Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it. Does the belief that gambling is a vice have to be predicated on religion in everyone's mind? It clearly has roots there, but not everyone who opposes its legalization is religious.

Personally I've never felt that the laws outline a moral code for much of anyone. There are some we mostly all agree on (murder and rape are bad for instance), then others most of us just ignore when we feel like it (speed limit and most traffic laws). This is fairly universally recognized, I've never seen an employer ask about how many speeding tickets I've gotten (besides jobs where driving is a primary focus of the job), but they all ask if I've been convicted of a felony. I should note that there are those that see no moral problem in killing people as well, although those are thankfully in a minority (and tend to end up in prison because they act on it).

While the law outlaws many things most people find morally reprehensible, it does not DEFINE the moral code, it's just occured in reaction to the moral code of the majority at the time the law was passed. The law changes too, while murder has pretty much always been outlawed, you can't hang someone for it anymore (at least in most of the US). Why? Because the majority decided that hanging was "cruel and unusual punishment" and that alternative methods like lethal injection were to be the method.

As far as people feeling objection to gambling = religious views, it's because that's about the ONLY argument against it you hear. I am aware of others (increased crime for instance), but you never hear about that in the news. Perhaps the news media is more to blame for this perception than any reality, but that's why it exists.

by "monkey",

[Daltorak]

you mean Steve Ballmer, right?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[maximilln]

HOLY HOT TAMALES!

Mod the author +10 for insightful and +20 for funny.

I'm going to laugh my bee-hind off for the rest of the weekend.

Re: Gambling?

[mcSey921]

That's simply incorrect. Here's a list of casino's in the US. I count 18 states with casino's of some type, and I know the list is either outdated or incomplete as there are casino's in Illinois in the Quad Cities, East Peoria, Joliet and just across the river in Clinton, IA.

Re:Moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US can ban gambling for the same reason the government bans porn on TV -- it is, in fact, the will of the majority.

Then I feel sorry for that one guy that's apparently spending billions of dollars driving the U.S. porn industry, and keeping the lights on in Vegas. And Biloxi. And Atlantic City. I'd really hate to pay his credit card bill . . .

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

sure.

Wow... Time to start a sex shop in Amsterdam!

[Chordonblue]

"...Against the wishes of the U.N..."

Hmm, yes. We should ALWAYS do what the U.N. tells us, huh? Please, get a grip. This is the same U.N. that stood by while people were getting massacred in Kosovo and Africa, right? Their track record for mediocrity speaks for itself.

So let's see. The age of consent in the Netherlands is 12. Does this now mean that a Dutch company can set up a online sex business with young teens, where U.S. 'customers' can chat with them about whatever?

It seems to me that it would then be illegal (by WTO standards) to prevent pedos from having a field day since this would be a "prevention of trade." Please stop assuming that just because the majority of the world comes together on something that they are right.

Re:Wow... Time to start a sex shop in Amsterdam!

[SillyNickName4me]

> So let's see. The age of consent in the Netherlands is 12.

If you post an example, at least post one that is correct.

The age of consent in the Netherlands is 18.
Sexual conduct under that age is not in all cases illegal, but it definitely is when done for commercial reasons.

So, Dutch law explicitly forbids your example with people under 18.

Of course, that still can mean a US citizen may do something that is illegal in their state when having a sexually explicit conversation with someone between 18 and 21.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love when people learn the word fallacy in their fist day of critical thinking 101 because you know that it is going to be followed by some pretentious babble, that has not clearly been researched, as a quick trip to dictionary.com would have enlighten you to the fact that the definition of murder does include more that just illegal. The definition for murder contains both of the following: "to kill brutally or inhumanly" or "to put an end to" as for the second one, I believe an abortion would be putting an end to things so technically you could say it has been murdered. I would think though from a more pragmatic point of view, he would be referring to murder as taking ones life brutally such is the case in the first definition. So if he truly feels that it ending life brutally then he is trying to portray his thoughts in the most accurate form. Watch the word fallacy as it can get you in to trouble, as it is clearly not an appeal to emoting as would be if he would have said: "I know it is murder because the little tiny cute babies are dieing a horrible death." You see there I made the babies tiny and cute to place emotional emphasis on my sentence.

Ta Ta.

Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[emil]

I don't like gambling. I never have.

Gambling is driven by greed, which is sometimes useful to society but is generally considered a vice.

I consider excessive greed to be a personality flaw; perhaps genetic or behavioral. I do not approve of an industry designed to prey upon this weakness. Compulsive gambling can destroy an individual and their families. Poverty, suicide, and despair may someday follow gambling into your life or the lives of your loved ones.

Gambling is simply a tax on people who don't understand statistics. In the end, the house always wins.

Someday, we will properly identify gambling as a manifestation of a mental illness. Until then, I have no interest in seeing foreign nations attacking the future of my friends and family.

Now if only my government would take a similar stand for the Clean Air Act.

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[cayenne8]

"Gambling is simply a tax on people who don't understand statistics. In the end, the house always wins."

Precisely why you should only play blackjack (if you know how to count cards), or some games like Texas Hold'em poker...if you learn how to figure 'pot odds' correctly. With these two games and strategies....you CAN have a positive expectation in the long run. Statistically, that is...

:-)

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[jasonisgodzilla]

gambling is entertainment. If your stupid enough to think your going to make it rich by gambling, then we probably dont want you having enough money to survive and reproduce

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[elmegil]

Until then, I have no interest in seeing foreign nations attacking the future of my friends and family.

You don't have to. The local indian reservation, the state next door, and Las Vegas already do it very nicely, thanks.

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like anything in life you need to use your head when putting your money in something that can win or lose in a hurry. You can lose money in more then just gambling. If you don't get greedy you can indeed make a nice living betting. By the way you explain it, it sounds like you have dealt with it first hand on the losing side.

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[bnenning]

Precisely why you should only play blackjack (if you know how to count cards), or some games like Texas Hold'em poker...if you learn how to figure 'pot odds' correctly. With these two games and strategies....you CAN have a positive expectation in the long run. Statistically, that is...

Indeed. I've made a decent profit in the last few months off people who think A6 offsuit is a good hand.

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[Pig Hogger]

Gambling is driven by greed, which is sometimes useful to society but is generally considered a vice.

I consider excessive greed to be a personality flaw; perhaps genetic or behavioral. I do not approve of an industry designed to prey upon this weakness. Compulsive gambling can destroy an individual and their families. Poverty, suicide, and despair may someday follow gambling into your life or the lives of your loved ones.

Gambling is simply a tax on people who don't understand statistics. In the end, the house always wins.

Last time I went to the [state-owned] casino, after plunking $20 in slots and getting back $10 (I took from the right pocket and put the winnings in the left pocket), I stood besides the roulette table.

Within 15 minutes, more than $5000 went from the pockets of foreigners into the table itself. Wow! That's $5000 less in taxes we gonna have to pay!

Re:Foreign countries preying upon our weakness.

[mindstrm]

Two important notes:

Yes, you can win at blackjack in the casino.. but NOT online... online blackjack generally deals from a new shoe every hand, or simply from an infinite one. Counting cards is useless.. the odds do not change after each hand.

Hold'Em: Knowing the odds is a good tool.. but won't let you win. Poker is a people game.... gotta knwo what your opponent is thinking :)

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[rickst13]

Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.

Although you are using simple debate tactics to discredit your opponent, that still doesnt mean it isn't bad. Who cares if its "state-sponsored murder" or "state-sponsored killing". The fact the original poster was trying to make is that it is still killing. Whether you think so or not is up to you. I can understand why people are pro-abortion but i just dont think I ever could be. Whether you believe it is life or not, I don't want to take the chacne that it is. No, I am not trying to push my religion on you. You could easilly debate whether abortion is killing or not without ever even bringing up religion.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cft_128]

Tax the gambling and prostitutes and drug dealers. Use the taxes to create rehab programs for the small percent of the population that is an addictive type and ruins their life with it, rather than not tax it, keep it illegal and have to incarcerate them at our expense.

US once linked trade to human rights in China

[DanTheLewis]

We are not very far removed from the years when we linked China's trade status to progress on human rights in China (things more important, IMHO, than online gambling: the one-child policy, Tibet, civil rights, political prisoners, ad infinitum). Congress debated giving China MFN trade status every year, and every year Democrats (basically) said to give it up and grant them permanent trade status, and every year Republicans (basically) raked China over the coals.

It all ended when CLinton signed a bill in 2000, passed by the House and the Senate, to make trade status permanent, contingent upon their entry to the WTO. The idea was that WTO membership would make China responsible for its abuses and create other enforcement mechanisms, like tariffs and sanctions, so there would be no need to review their trade status every year. China entered the WTO in 2001.

If the US won't abide by the WTO decision on online gambling, it will send a strong message about the WTO to nations like China, who have far more compelling reasons to resist sanctions.

Re:US once linked trade to human rights in China

[mdfst13]

"Congress debated giving China MFN trade status every year, and every year Democrats (basically) said to give it up and grant them permanent trade status, and every year Republicans (basically) raked China over the coals."

I remember this as being the other way around. In particular, this was one of the minor issues of the Clinton campaign in '92...he supported revoking the MFN status while Bush had pushed for retaining it every year. It may have changed during the Clinton presidency (his position certainly did), but it was not as strictly along party lines as you say. At best, the democrats opposed to renewing MFN stayed quiet while Clinton was president.

Re:US once linked trade to human rights in China

[praedor]

And thus, I favor Dennis Kucinich's plan to pull out of the WTO. Though his presidential run didn't succeed, I hope his positions do. They have to and will, actually, as it is seen more and more that such crap as the WTO, NAFTA, and the like, take political and social control away from citizens of a nation and give it, lock, stock, and barrel, to wealthy corporations.

A sovereign nation, peopled with sovereign citizens, has total, ultimate control over what comes in, what goes out, and under what circumstances. The WTO doesn't permit niceties like requiring worker rights or environmental stewardship as a condition of trade. It doesn't care. All it cares about is capital moving into the pockets of the few at the expense of the many. It doesn't care what supreme harm is done to a given country's people by draconian monetary and trade policies. That's just too bad, the WTO wants the money - and damn the health and welfare of the citizenry.

I don't recall ever giving up my country and my control over my government (as a voting member of society) and its policies so a bunch of nasty, heartless, money-grubbing bastards can rack in more money, and damn the torpedos.

This crap, the WTO TELLING us we have to allow online gambling (or anything else that VOTERS don't go for) for the sake of the flow of money into the pockets of a few is unacceptable and, hopefully, is just the very beginning of the end of our participation in that evil organization.

Re:US once linked trade to human rights in China

[Anonymous Coward]

>And thus, I favor Dennis Kucinich's plan...

Yeah, well, that's great. Completely fucking meaningless, but just great.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

its not flamebait, its interesting or insightful.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

My father, a gambling addict, stole money I had saved up for college to gamble. Around my third year in college I started getting calls from collection agencies. It seems that my father had used my name to get several credit cards and ran up $15k in debt. I can easily see how people like my father would resort to crime to pay for that gambling addiction. Gambling is just as bad as crack in that respect.

Quite

[leoxx]

Where has the US gone to a country and told them to go against their laws.

Quick example, US objections to Canada relaxing the (to date) useless and expensive marijuana laws. Here's a quote from US drug czar John Walters:

"We're going to have to clamp down even stronger on our border if you liberalize and contribute to what we consider a drug tourism problem [...] I don't want to get to the point where we're calling for a boycott of Canadian products."

Canada should have the right to make our own drug laws without having to answer to trade actions on the part of the USA, no?

Re:Quite

[millahtime]

this is of course an idle threat.... and i can prove it by asking just one question.... who wants a canadian product????? hell, the canadians i know don't buy canadian products.

It was a test to see how stoned all the canadian readers are. I see you were one of them.

Re:Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Right...we have nothing to offer. Do you happen to use the hottest GFX card on the market (ATI...not american, rather Canadian), how about gas, did you use any today, guess where it probably came from (I think we are your #1 supplier, maybe #2), ever had a beer that didn't taste like someone else got to drink it first, probably one of ours. Ever see a movie from Hollywood, if you did the actors were probably Canadian, especially if it was a comedy....oh, why bother. To much ignorance to conquer in one post.

Came back to bite them in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the US uses the WTO and trade sanctions to impose values on other nations. Now the WTO is coming back and trying to impose certain values on the US. Whoops. I guess nobody in our government considered that the same tactics can be used against us. Way to go, geniouses!

Re:Came back to bite them in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Way to go, geniouses!

That's pretty funny. :)

Re:Reading Slashdot and watching STNG

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't sad yet. When you are still doing the same thing on Friday night, then it will be sad.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[gcaseye6677]

Although there's something to be said for gambling causing societal problems, it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. If someone has poor money management skills, they will find a way to piss away all their cash, whether gambling is legal or not. A fool and his money are soon parted, no matter how many laws are passed.

Popular uprising..

[Jonathan Hamilton]

Did he say anything about rebellion?
We can vote you know. Alot of people are unhappy with George Bush (I myself love him,) and it is very possible that he won't be president after November, without a rebellion.

American is a Democratic Republic. We vote for those who represent us.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jim Starx]

I have no problem with you getting piss drunk, gambling away all your money, and killing your unborn child. But some of those actions have effects on others.

Yes, they do. But should everything with a negative extreem be outlawed? There are plenty of stories about the drunk driver or the guy who lost everything gambling. But for every one of those stories there's 50 about the guy who only gambles what he can afford to lose, or the guy who makes sure he has a ride home (or is already home) before he starts drinking. Knowone can argue with you that those actions, when taken to an extreem, are destructive and have impacts on those other then the person commiting the act. But I don't think that's a valid reason for outlawing them all together.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[adrenaline_junky]

It's really funny to me that we have this "separation" of Church and State yet we have to worry about "values"? Blue Laws, gambling restrictions, anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs whether those in office say they are or not.

This is a vast oversimplification of morality and religion. Fist, most religious based morality did, at one time, make practical sense. Go back a thousand years or so and maybe you'll find it wise not to eat pork, for instance, because people who did had a way of getting worms. At this point, however, pork is perfectly safe to eat, so there is now a fundamental disconnect between some religious morality and reality.

This does not take away from the fact that, at one time, it actually made sense. You can have morality without religion, simply because certain behaviors tend to lead people to live longer and/or be more successful. If these behaviors are formulated into some sort of code, voila, you have "morality".

To take one example from your list, I do not think you need religion to consider gambling "immoral", because it is pretty clear that people with gambling problems are at a serious competitive disadvantage, and those that refrain are at a competitive advantage. No religion is required to formulate a moral code that says excessive gambling is a bad thing.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your view that govt has no business protecting adults from corruption and vice, but abortion hardly falls in this category. Govt and law are created for one legitimate reason: protection of liberty, property, and life of each individual. It is proper function of government to protect the life of babies, born or still in the womb, just as it is people of all ages. I can't kill my neighbor or my mom just because I don't want them around, the same applies for a mother of a child still in the womb. Her "freedom of choice" was the choice to partake in intimacy or not.

Re: Gambling?

[skinny.net]

I've gambled in NV, NJ, OK, LA, NM, MS, MT and CO, and we're not talking lottery tickets. A google for state legal casino gambling will help.

The federal gov't will not specifically disallow online gambling, as gambling is already legal in certain states and areas. Why would the US try to prohibit how a wager is made in Nevada? It's up to that area's gaming board or council.

If the US makes online gambling legal throughout, it will be the states' laws that govern its citizens. What state laws would be overturned? None. If it is illegal to gamble in Alaska, Alaska can enact a 'no online gambling' law at their discretion. Making something legal federally doesn't make it a local mandate.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[tunabomber]

You're mixing up ethics with morals. Ethics are values that benefit us as a society, whereas morals are values that benefit us as an individual. Granted, there is some overlap (ie if you like killing people, it is probably bad for you as an individual as well as bad for the society you live in), but laws are primarily there to enforce ethics.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[OldSchoolNapster]

I'll admit that many anti-abortionist are Christian fundamentalists

It's funny that most (not all) "pro-life" Christians would argue that providing childcare to single mothers encourages immoral behavior and should be opposed. These people just don't seem to understand that if you want to build a culture that is open to life, it must first in fact be open to life. That means free childcare for everyone that needs it and it means not giving single mothers dirty looks on your way to church.

China

[starcraftsicko]

It would be interesting to see the New York Times, or any other online media company for that matter, try to use this ruling to force China etc. to allow uncensored access to their content (else face trade barriers).

The US is notorious for ignoring rulings of this type, but it would be fun to use unbalanced rulings like this to turn the tables a bit...

Spraking of China... Do China and other WTO members also have to allow online gambling?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[snkline]

You know, the churches really should be taxed too. Not as a matter of principle, but because about 99.99% of the churches I've been too are breaking the IRS rules that let them be tax exempt.

Since my father is a minister, I've been to alot of churches, and its sorta become a habit of mine to really go out in force during election season just to hear what the churches are saying

During the Clinton/Dole election, the ministers would rip apart Clinton and extol the virtues of Dole, from the pulpit! The same thing happened with Bush Jr./Gore, only moreso because Bush Jr. was BORN AGAIN, so they went on twice as long about how great he was. The thing is I KNOW these ministers are aware of the ban on politics in houses of worship. They just assume that their congregation wouldn't turn them in, and since nothing is recorded in print or audio/video its just a he said/church said debate if these things are brought before the IRS.

Ironic

[Hassman]

'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.'

How ironic. This is exactly what the US does to other nations *all* the time.

We can't have our cake and eat it too...let's be consistent here please.

Re:Ironic

[Fooknut]

U.S. hypocritical, I agree. Show me one nation who's not. The argument made by some here that since the U.S. is hypocritical, we should just shut up and roll over, is insane.

The WTO shouldn't be able to force another country to change it's law against the will of it's citizens. That would remove the rule of the people. The only way to be "perfectly" fair is if all nations have exactly the same laws. Which would mean all nations would meet on the lowest level. Frankly, I'd rather not be able to gamble than to live in a country like China where they regularly kill and imprison anyone with any hint of religion... I'd rather live in the U.S. than in most of the lousy dictator run countries in the world.

How about if we get some perspective here and stop trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not all restriction is bad.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also ironic that Asian (Japan and china) countries are allowed to manipulate their currency so they can dump there cheap products (cars, steel and textiles) on our shore destroying the market and making it hard for our own brands to compete, which is illegal by the way... So if the WTO threatens us we can threaten them by putting a tariff on all goods that come from Asia to make them compete fairly... Watch em cry...

Re:Ironic

[Cid Highwind]

"The WTO shouldn't be able to force another country to change it's law against the will of it's citizens."

What, exactly, would you say the purpose of a treaty organization is, if it isn't to harmonize laws (a.k.a. force the minority to change) between member states?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, good call, block imports so american businesses can then increase prices because they no longer have to compete with a WORLD MARKET, such shortsighted thinking is what propagates the notion that "protectionism" is right.

*sigh*

Re:Ironic

[Hassman]

Your responce implies that I don't like the US.

I love living here. It's great. I just don't like the double standard. I know it exists. It exists everywhere, but that doesn't make it right. I was just stating a thought, don't read into it.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he say block imports? No. Tax them. Make them the same price / slightly higher.

I dunno if that would work though. Most foreign cars are made here in the US anyway because it is cheaper. VW? assembled here in the US, most of the parts come from Mexico. Honda is similar.

India Will Protect US !

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll just rely on good old Indian High-tech know how to save us non-gambling lawyers.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

I'll ignore the abortion bit, just to keep on topic. :-)

And anyway, what does this have to do with online casinos? Online casinos solve the location problem pretty easily, don't you think?

The push to allow gambling in-state will be stronger. Not to mention there will be a precedent set by the Federal government that gambling is legal. I'd bet that states will have a harder time keeping it illegal.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really funny to me that we have this "separation" of Church and State yet we have to worry about "values"? Blue Laws, gambling restrictions, anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs whether those in office say they are or not.

Interesting assumptions. I've always wondered what would happen if people like you were running things.

President garcia: Now, as befits a true democratic republic, anything that has been posited by any religious body will be held to be false by our great secular nation.

Aide: What about murder?

President garcia: Yes, we need more murder. Teach those Judeo-Christian types what happens when they put it their top ten list.

Aide: I heard some religions promote vegetarianism.

President garcia: A cow in every pot, I say! Let them eat meat!

Aide: Um, yeah, and there was one religious group claiming a belief in the President.

President garcia: Oh. I hadn't thought of that.

President garcia promptly disappears in a puff of logic

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really funny to me that we have this "separation" of Church and State yet we have to worry about "values"?

There is no "separation" language anywhere in the Constitution. (go check, we'll wait here for you)

The 1st Amendment merely prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. It was meant to promote the freedom to worship any way we want. Modern judicial activist thinking is that this really means "freedom from religion", hence the ban on school prayer and nativity scenes.

Our freedom of religion is being eroded by the state establishing their own religion (atheism) in direct violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law . . " means they shouldn't make any laws about this, for or against. These decisions rightly belong to lower level, more local governments. Even on-line gambling ought to go to the state or local govt.

I don't expect you to agree with this assessment, but if you are open-minded, you will at least consider that it's a good point.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, traitor. The US is, and always should be, the most powerful nation on earth. "All people are treated equally." Yeah, but some should be treated MORE equally, and that should be us. Any American who would advocate the USA abide by ANY foreign laws or demands that might weaken our country in any way is a traitor. I don't care what treaties or other bullshit we have signed, might makes right, and thats the way it SHOULD be.

Nevermind all that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know who's stupid enough to
play blackjack...online...for real money!
Is US-located stupidity *really* that big of
an opportunity that the WTO is getting into
it? If you ever needed evidence that the
US school system has stopped educating
people in any meaningful way, this has
got to be it.

It's funny that you're trying to lecture
this same populace about what the United
States is notorious for...define irony.

Smart Business?

[galgon]

It occurs to me that Antigua and Barbuda may be shooting themselves in the foot with this decision. If the US, for some reason, decides to make online gambling legal then the US casinos will have websites up in a matter of days. I don't know about you but if I had to choose between gambling online with a reputable US casino or a casino in a small Caribbean island nation I would choose the US casino. At least with the US one there would be agencies making sure that the online casino is the same as a real casino in odds and payouts. Plus, if there is ever a major dispute between you and the casino it is very easy to sue them as they are based in the US. Those Antigua and Barbuda should just shut their mouth and take what illegal profits they get instead of losing all of their current business to US companies.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

while I agree with you that abortion and murder are different things, you're being an asshole about it.

welcome to my foes list. i just wanted to clarify.. you seem like the self-rightous type that would assume that anyone foeing you just disagrees with you.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jim Starx]

That's a valid point. But would keeping the laws in place really control the addiction rates? The law as it stands now prohibits gambling, yet people still gamble. I think it's a very similar situation to drugs. While their currently outlawed in america people still do them every day. When drugs were legalized in the netherlands addiction rates dropped because of the increase in awareness programs and such.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[sugar and acid]

Or if its Detroit, see all those dollars going to casinos in Windsor Canada (Canadian satellite city/suburb across the border from Detroit). Look at your underfunded already crime ridden city and say "what do we have to lose?", and then legalise casinos.

It's Amazing....

[FooGoo]

How the left wing freaks protest the WTO all over the world but they support it when it takes a stand against US interests.

Another biased presentation of a story brought to you by Michael

Re:It's Amazing....

[Anonymous Meoward]

How the left wing freaks protest the WTO all over the world but they support it when it takes a stand against US interests.

sigh I know, this post is a troll, but there's a tiny piece of tangled logic here that is desperately crying for help...

Who said anything about supporting the WTO? Most of us here are only objecting to the convenient moral double-standard of the U.S. (See many previous & succeeding posts on this issue.)

Had the quoted Congresscritter cited something such as, say, the potential for online casinos to defraud players, I might have agreed with him. But he blew it. He chose to resort to the standard hypocritical moral boiler-plate that fuels American political rhetoric (and which most thinking Americans have long since dismissed as bullshit).

Just because the WTO managed to get something (approximately) right for once doesn't mean that the institution itself is now awash in virtue in anyone's opinion.. or that the concept of the WTO is even a good idea.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[smyle]

Ok first of all, calling it murder is your opinion. Don't use it as if it were a fact.

I just decided to look up 'murder' on m-w.com: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought."

So, technically, abortion is not murder, because it is not unlawful. OTOH, if the intentional killing of your neighbor on the basis that they are a jerk was legalized, it would not be murder either.

So, if we take the word "unlawfully" out of the definition, the only question then becomes "what is a person?" In my mind, this is the crux of the abortion debate - when is it "a person". I personally believe you become "a person" at conception, because I think science will bear this out. THAT'S why I'm against abortion.

Yes, if you look through my previous posts, you'll see that most people would consider me "religious"*, but I was one of the last "religious" people I knew to decide on my position on abortion, precisely for the reason I specified above - I don't want to kill a person, but is that fetus a person?

* I really dislike the word religious. I believe in God, but I don't go through any weird ceremonies to show it. In the words of my wife when somebody asks if she's "religious," she says "Yes. I brush my teeth every day. I am a religious teeth-brusher."

Oderint Dum Metuant

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let them hate us. So long as they fear us." - Caligula

Make it a trade issue

[AmicoToni]

"It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue."

Like, say, forcing Europeans to import GM food they do not feel comfortable with? That is also perceived, by many in Europe, as a violation of someone else's values and convictions.
Not that you care, of course.

Re:Make it a trade issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? You Europeans could use some better food anyways. Who the heck thought of the idea of boiling a steak, anyway?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[afidel]

Not sure about crime rates but a recent study showed an astronomical association between proximity to casinos and bankruptcy filings. In fact filings went up nearly 400% for areas within 30 miles of a casino.

Us can be pressured.

[autopr0n]

Look what happened to Bush when the EU was able to get a ruling against us for our steel tariffs. They targeted swing states in order to get bush knocked out of office. It would be funny if I wasn't in one of them, and bush immediately caved.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[mingot]

Turn the bastards in, then.

WARING: CONTAINS BLATENT TROLL!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Women's suffrage => prohibition => growth of organized crime

QED

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

I love it when ACs stubbornly insist on responding to my posts after intentionally misreading them.

Quick! To the thougt-mobile! The term 'murder' includes a large number of defintions like so many other English words do. Unfortunately for you, you are assuming that you can apply the definition that suits you best independant of the context of the two posts above mine. Now, we're talking about what here? Imposing lawful/unlawful restrictions. So, in the spirit of the original poster, which definition of murder would fit the bill here? The one with lawful restrictions, whether it happens to be the first one in your dictionary or not, since I have TWO dead tree dictionaries here, and BOTH list the definition that requires unlawful killing as the first definition. So, considering the version of murder that makes the most sense whether it's the first or not, which can we conclude: a) "murder", in this context, is a legal term that requires unlawful killing to occur or b) "murder" has whatever other arbitrary definition you want to attach to it so you can go stroke your dick for "outsmarting" me?

And, indeed, it is fallacious because the poster intentionally chose an emotionally charged term that DOES NOT apply to what the original poster was talking about whether he said anything about the children or not. However, if you insist on something more: murder requires victims, he's saying the children are murdered, he's making the children out as victims when, in fact, that is NOT a fact. Try thinking through things a little further before you just arbitrarily try to call bullshit on me.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[alienw]

Discussing rights just muddles up the issue and generally leads to circular arguments, such as yours. "Rights" are merely an expression of what the law permits, and they shouldn't be treated as a separate entities. You have rights because the law gives them to you.

Why do we have laws? Because if we didn't, society would fall apart. That part of your reasoning is correct. However, to simply dismiss the gay sex issue or the drug issue is incorrect. They need to be examined based on their merits.

For instance, drug use by an individual does not directly cause harm to someone else. However, unrestricted drug use has been shown by history to cause society fall apart. That's why illegal drugs are made illegal, and that's why the "it doesn't hurt anyone if I use coke/meth/PCP/ecstasy" argument is bogus. It may not hurt any specific person, but it has a detrimental effect on society as a whole. Treating it as a rights issue simply obscures the real issue.

Re: Gambling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about the Stock market. Playing the stock market involves money, risk, and statistics just like Blackjack.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[FroMan]

If we were able to remove the welfare side of government, I would agree with your assertion that we could remove most laws dealing with moral issues or value issues.

However, until I do not have to pay for someone elses smoking habits because of medicare, or do not have to pay for the rehabilitation of drug addicts, do not have to pay welfare for those who abuse gambling and acrue debts and need help.

So, until I get my ideal world where I do not have to cover everyone else's sorry butt when thys screw up their lives, or am not in danger of some shmuck drunk driving and killing me or mine, then you are going to have to deal with me imposing my value system on you because you are imposing your lack of value system on me financially to cover you through government enforcement and taxes.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Short Circuit]

It would be interesting to see an expiremental government where all written laws were required to have a purpose, and would be repealed if they no longer fulfilled that purpose, or did not significantly aid in fulfilling that purpose.)

This would have to be "somewhere else" though...unless enough civil liberties folks get up and push through a constitutional ammendment.

The WTO's secret plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The WTO just want to take advantage of this country's immense population of stupid people to get all of our money sent offshore. Of course! It all makes sense now. Crafty folks, those WTO people.

Those nitwits.

[autopr0n]

The reason those people like this ruling is because they see it as the US getting it's comeuppance. The US pushed for these laws, and now they're getting fux0red by them, as they should.

Personaly, I'm all for this because I think it would be fun to setup an online casino.

There's no "force" invovled here

[jfruhlinger]

The U.S. is not being "forced" or "imposed on" in any way here. Our democraticly elected government signed a treaty that said that we'd abide by the rules of the WTO (in fact, I think we were one of the founders). We did this because by and large we decided that we'd benefit economicly from WTO membership, and as near as I can tell, by and large we have.

If we decide to refuse to abide by a WTO ruling, black helicopters full of WTO troops do not descend on major U.S. cities and impose curfews. Soldiers do not hold our grandmothers at riflepoint and foce them to gamble online.

By refusing to follow the WTO's rulings, all that happens is that we get kicked out of the WTO. Presumably this will have any number of negative effects on our economy -- but I'm no expert. If you don't want to be bound by the rulings of the WTO, then go vote for someone who will pull us out of it. But don't go on about how other countries are "forcing" us to do things that we don't want to do. Sheesh.

jf

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[kamapuaa]

It's shallow to be so close-minded about Christianity, and blame everything you disagree with on religious fundamentalists.

While some Christians may oppose gambling, Christianity doesn't forbid gambling - as a 5 second Googling would show you. You might note, a lot of Christian churches (from what I hear) run Bingo nights, and a lot of non-Christians are also opposed to gambling. Sure Western moral codes are all derived from Christianity, so by extension you can blame Christianity for almost anything if you're of the mind-set. But it's also Western moral codes that lead you to believe the philosophical (obviously not factual) opinion that the indivisual can act separately from a group, or that people must indivisually come to their own sense of right and wrong.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way it's gonna cost us.

We could pay taxes for extra welfare and rehab prograns, or we could pay taxes for more jails (and the whole law enforcement infastructure) to be built for the enforcement of these laws that prohibit these activities.

So the real question is, do you want MORE freedom or LESS freedom?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[DroopyStonx]

There's a different between use and abuse. This applies to everything from gambling to drug use.

Not everyone who gambles ends up broke, not everyone who drinks ends up an alcoholic. Likewise, not everyone who uses coke/marijuana/etc ends up a dead brainless junkie.

If someone wants to gamble, who cares? What business is it of yours to tell them what they can/cannot do? Let them smoke weed and snort coke and you worry about YOU.

Yes, it is the "good" of society to look out for one another, but to a POINT. By all means, don't tell me what I can/cannot do to my own body, and gambling... who cares? It's a method of entertainment. You spend a little money in hopes that you make more. It's everywhere. Lottery? Scratch offs? How's plugging that $$ into an online slot machine any different (as long as it's not rigged)?

That's like saying alcohol should be outlawed because a few people abuse it by acting irresponsibly and driving while intoxicated. Gambling/drugs are no different. Most people are smart enough to know when to stop, however, there will ALWAYS be those who don't know when to say when. There's nothing you can do about it. If someone wants to do it, they will do it whether it's illegal or not. There's no point in making it a law that deems them a "threat to society" if they follow through with it.

You complain about taxes going toward public help programs, welfare, etc, but you don't realize that more of your tax dollars are (and have been) going to a lot more ridiculous uses that the govt. seems fit. $80 billion to the military, for instance.

The govt could easily start teaching people to be responsible, but they choose not to

Unilateral action

[amightywind]

Let's see, there's the invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the U.N.)

Yes, the U.N. tried to protect its oil for food skim. The war disrupted that.

...and withdrawl from the Kyoto Protocol [vexen.co.uk] to name a couple.

Junk science at its worse. A thinly veiled attempt by the "world community" to hobble the economic growth of the U.S.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get out of your mom's basement and book a 4-day weekend in Vegas or Atlantic City...

At last!

[hsoft]

US is being hurt by their stupid trade agreements. This ruling from WTO is noting compared to what US did to other countries, Canada through NAFTA in particular (See this old but striking story about MMT, a dangerous fuel additive. Canada banned it for environmental reasons, and they were fined by NAFTA for 20m). And what about this silly 20% tax on Canada's wood exportation to US? And this new story is one more proof that these trade agreements are nothing but bull****. US is definately not fair in a LOT of cases and I think it's good for them to learn that these agreements are *2 WAYS* agreements! No wonder why so much people (me included) are in the streets during WTO summits.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then abortion is still killing a human (that is, a member of the species homo sapiens) in a hospital/clinical setting (usually...), because they're young (that is, they have an underdeveloped central nervous system which makes it legal), and unwanted.

Forgive me for not feeling any better about the practice.

By the way, the word 'murder' is used because the practice is being thought of as *immoral* if not illegal. As you should know, morality and legality have no necessary connections... I seem to remember often hearing that you "cannot legislate morality" ...

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[haystor]

Gambling is a state sponsored activity that is so important that they run marketing campaigns to encourage citizens to participate. Clearly most of the USA's states consider it benevolent activity as all the people in these advertisements win big.

So easy to allow yet enforce; stop the US funds.

[openmtl]

The US laws should still allow US citizens to gamble but you just can't pay for it in from a US bank account or with US based credit cards.

Forget blocking web sites, just make it hard to fund. Existing money laundering rules will pick up on any US dollar payments.

If someone wants to gamble in foreign currency on a foreign web site then thats nothing to do with the US goverment.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[BackwardEngineer]

So why not video tape these minsters preaching politics, instead of just talking about it? Start a revolution, in the weakest sense of the term. If ministers are swaying their congregations to vote one way, isnt that just like stuffing the ballot box?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[FroMan]

Yes, there are a few people who genuinely care about the life of the infant, as opposed to caring about their need to spread the religion. My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown. (And if they haven't worked hard, then how are they going to support the child?) Think pragmatically, not at moral extremes.

Good point, old folks have proven they are useless now. It is established that they cannot work as effciently as others, so the pragmatic view is to abort them.

WTO nations interested in extracting utility from

[cantabrigian]

Let's look at the fundamental motivation for the WTO decision here: the WTO consists of parties interested in extracting capital from the US. Gambling is one of the purest ways of accomplishing this: regardless of whether or not markets are efficient, regardless of whether CAPM is the right economic model or not, casino gamblers are pretty much 100% profit.

Now, let's imagine turning on the flow of funds from wealthy but fiscally naive Americans who gamble to wealthy but fiscally shrewd corporations overseas who run casino outfits. Suddenly parties involved in the WTO decision have a nice way of taking money from the Americans and bringing it to the economies of other nations.

This sounds harsh and perhaps cynical, but I appreciate the presence of beggars on the streets of my hometown, since I know that they are bringing in money to our community from tourists. I don't see how this is any different, except that in this case, we're not just concerned with dimes and nickels. There are people in the US with serious gambling addictions, and the people of the US effectively finance their habits in the form of taxes and insurance: the attitude in the US is that someone has to bail out the gamblers in the event that they go broke. And since this is after all a "civilized" nation, I'm inclined to agree. But the point is that the funds are not coming just from a few rich players with money to burn, but from all US citizens -- and sending it to other nations doesn't help resolve the trade deficit or secure America's economic future.

So I worry about this WTO decision. It's not about the US selectively ignoring the interests of other nations; it's about the US protecting itself from those who will take advantage.

Is Gambleing trade?

[LWATCDR]

Trade means you get something for your money. If you gamble long enough you are going to loose.
It is odd that this is considered a trade issue. Are countries where kiddie porn is legal going to claim the US kiddie porn laws are restraint of trade?

Re:Is Gambleing trade?

[de la mettrie]

Is Gambleing trade?

"Trade" in the wide WTO sense encompasses all cross-border economic activity. There is no movements of goods, but there is a service being provided across borders, which is covered by the WTO GATS agreement. (The WTO package of agreements includes GATT, GATS, TRIPs and about a dozen other agreements covering most forms of trade and trade barriers).

Are countries where kiddie porn is legal going to claim the US kiddie porn laws are restraint of trade?

It is a restraint of trade, technically, but the U.S. should have no trouble invoking the public morals exemption of GATT Art. XX (a) or GATS Art. XIV (a), to legitimize the prohibition of child pornography.

To hell with the Kyoto contract!!!!

[DigiShaman]

Neither does China. They have the worst polution problem then we could even DREAM of here in the US. Hell, Shanghai alone makes Houston and LA look like clean air haven. One lung full of the air in Shanghai will burn your pink virgin lungs with PAIN (assuming your not a smoker to begin with).

What's really pisses me off is that the Kyoto contract is nothing more then slowing down the US ecconomy. For some reason, the rest of the world hates out sucess regardless of the fact we work so hard for it. No 1st world country works as hard as the US, NO ONE!!. So as a US citizen, FUCK THE KYOTO CONTRACT...and FUCK YOU (to those in favor of it!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[ninejaguar]

but don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code?

Not all laws have the same roots. The most fundamental ones are based on a single, self-interested (some would say "selfish") code that is the basis of civilization and the benign behavior associated with civilized society.

There are two types of laws, those that are meant to restrict your behavior because you would violate the rights of others follow the Golden Rule. And, those that restrict your behavior because you would violate the beliefs of others follow the Moral Majority Rule. The laws that protect against violating the rights of others are based on the idea that you wouldn't do anything to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Killing, maiming, theiving and so on. This is The Golden Rule.

The laws that force others to follow your belief system are based on the idea that a particular higher power has stated things are to be done in a certain manner. If others have the misfortune of not having association with this particular higher power they must be in the minority and of little consequence. Another way to look at these types of laws is that they protect you from the beliefs of others as long as you remain the majority. This is the Moral Majority Rule.

Being almost synonymous with common sense, the laws based on The Golden Rule are not often contested, unless there's an overlap with laws based on the Moral Majority Rule. Clearly, it is advantages to be part of the majority when passing laws based on the Moral Majority Rule. However, the disadvantage is that the continuation and enforcement of laws based on the Moral Majority Rule are often susceptible to review against documents such the U.S. Constitution. If the comparison leaves the law found wanting, it is often discarded.

= 9J =

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence. Or do you think people who kill others should he held for "first degree abortion"?

How dare you? You can call killing a fetus anything you like, but from where I come it's called murder. Abortion is simply the nice term for it when it's an unborn baby.

According to dictionary.com:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Where does it say 'so long as they are a certain age'?

You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence".

I didn't think I reinvented anything... Just because you're cold-hearted towards infants and fetuses, doesn't mean I am.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[RLW]

Damn! Is there anyway that can be made to happen ?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Bandit0013]

Um... a Pastor can preach on whatever they want in their church. Everyone who attends a church does it voluntarily, therefore separation of church and state does not apply.

Now if a church put up a billboard out front that said Vote for Blah, then they would be pushing a viewpoint on the general public which would be wrong.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[SillyNickName4me]

> but don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code?

Many do or try to at least.

> Every law legislates morality in some form or another. Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it.

THe funny thing with those 2 examples is that they do not really depend on any system of morality but on the recognition that the group as a whole is better off that way.

Note how such rules are seldom upheld when dealing with 'others' (ie, people who are not recognized as part of the group or society)

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[nattt]

These things are not wrong because they're "morally wrong" but because, for instance, I wouldn't like it if they were done to me! I don't steal because of morals, but because I wouldn't want to be stolen from. These things are laws for practical reasons (they work) not because of any misguided sense of morals - where do you think your sense of morals comes from anyway? You were not born with an in-built sense of morals.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, somebody's got to make you heathen paganistic bastards see the light.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Drugs. Lethargic depressents.

WTF...

[realkiwi]

Wasn't the WTO our puppet

jeez the world is going to pieces

What do we control?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly you argued my point for me, you called bullshit on him for use a term that you did not agree with as you placed you chosen definition on the word, so I followed suit. But none the less you did not invalidate his argument as you just attacked the frame and not the substance as that is what happens when you use cut and dry logic handed to you in a college manuscript, to try to discredit another posters comment, by yelling fallacy. Next time, try discrediting an argument by the merits as opposed to attacking the framework as it does not hold up under scrutiny. Do not declare your victory because you may see a hole in the technical issues of the argument as you are not addressing the argument. He believes it is murder that does not invalidate what he has to say as that is his belief and it hold merit, he chose his definition. You focused in on that and lost the argument, as now you are not arguing that it is not murder but have lost the argument to defending yourself for you attack.

Pot.. Kettle...

[Anonymous Coward]

Omarosa?

Not accurate?

[Chordonblue]

Don't know. Got my info from here.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Can anyone from the Netherlands confirm what exactly this means?

Re:Not accurate?

[SillyNickName4me]

I am from the Netherlands if that helps.

Let me try to explain it a bit further because it is not exactly black/white.

Basicly, from age 12, there are situations in which sexual conduct can be legal, provided that there is no possible doubt about full consent of all involved and it is not for comemrcial purposes. The one and only purpose of this is to not make it illegal by definition that 2 people between 12 and 16 have sex with eachother. You are outside that age group? Don't even think about it.

Get involved in this as an adult and you are toast for sure, courts have without exception decided that there is always doubt about full concent in such a case.

Things get a bit less strict at age 16, nothing will happen unles the person under 18 complains to the police or when done for commercial purposes.

So, its not a black/white issue, but for as far as things like prostitution or being a model for pornography is concerned, 18 is the minimum age.
As far as age of consent is concerned, that is 18, but there are provisions for people under 18 to not have peopel end up in trouble over something that is not a problem at all.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[beanyk]

290 million people with only two opinions?

Are there no Irishmen there? ;-)

Well, I'm Irish, and I'm in the U.S., but I don't have a vote. And I couldn't get one in time to vote Bush out of office.

Re:Moron.

[Jeremy Erwin]

And now it won't be.

Clinton, Repubs traded positions

[DanTheLewis]

Here is an old article on the subject: the more-left and more-right Republicans and Democrats were mostly pushing for human rights, and the centrist Democrats and Republicans were mostly pushing for free trade. Kind of strange, huh? Clinton, in fact, flip-flopped on this one; he was in favor of granting MFN here and here, and finally pushed for and got permanent trade status for China. That last article also mentions that it happened on GW's watch when they finally entered the WTO.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really funny to me that we have this "separation" of Church and State yet we have to worry about "values"? Blue Laws, gambling restrictions, anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs whether those in office say they are or not.

You make a mistake in naming gambling, age limits on alcohol, and abortion *religious* issues. They are moral issues. While many people have their morals influenced by their religious beliefs that is not exclusive.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[avi33]

You've obviously sampled the Republican Kool Aid that so much of your taxes are wasted on social services. If you were to add up the federal funds spent on gambling and alcohol treatment, it still wouldn't add up to the price of a single F-18 (not that I'm suggesting F-18s are a waste of tax dollars).

Progressive values, that is, looking after the poor, the sick, the SOL, and yes, the destitute alcoholic gambling addicts, are American ideals, not leftist ones.

Perhaps you should read a history book, where you would find that once upon a time, a number of Republicans like Roosevelt and Truman supported 'additional services and welfare costs' like the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the GI bill, and Federal Jobs Programs...but now, since the conservative hacks have all but driven moderates out of the Repugnant party, it's all just 'entitlements' huh?

Oh wait, look, both the EPA and the National Park System were also created by Republicans, but that's another post...

iranian revolution / values / porn & booze

[gomel]

It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on ...

you might not understand this, but issues like this provoke revolutions.
In Iran in the seventies, the Shah decided that the country should modernize. Therefore he brought in a lot of Western experts. This resulted in two things:

* drunk American soldiers misbehaving in a Muslim country (where alcohol is forbidden)
* porn (american movies or advertising billboards with almost nude women)

To the people that meant a total opposite to their cultural values. In meant anti-persianism. That is where the mullahs decided that the Shah is the national ENEMY, because he is leading the country straight into Hell. He was toppled in 1978/79.

(I got this story from "geopolitics of islam" classes.)

by the way, I've heard American soldiers are buying porn DVDs on Baghdad markets ...

Don't quite understand

[mcc]

Please explain to me, how are "it is wrong with the U.S. nonconsensually imposes its will on foreign nations" and "it is wrong when the WTO nonconsensually imposes its will on foreign nations" contradictory statements?

I cannot say I see where the hypocrisy comes in.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[legoleg]

Laws generally follow morality, but morality isn't bound by laws. If it were, then morality could change on the whim of a few people in a room from time to time, or from place to place. Way back when, slavery was the law, but it was still immoral. Laws can change when enough people decide they don't agree with them anymore, but an act(murder, slavery, telling the truth) will always be moral or immoral, regradless of them.

hahaha McCarthyism is alive and well (was Re: Not)

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can't intelligently argue a point in favor of the US, call 'em Pinkos!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

And keep in mind that when we talk about gambling we are talking about online gambling. Area crime is not an issue.

But look at what just having some states with gambling legal has done? Neighboring states are under pressure to leagalize it as well. If the US states that gambling is legal on-line then the pressure will only increase. Individual states will have a harder time holding it back.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[EllisDees]

So which would you rather spend, billions trying to keep anyone from doing these activities, or billions 'fixing' the ones who can't handle the freedom that most other people can?

Me, I'd rather not spend it on either. If you screw up your life, it's your problem.

What the complaint is actually about

[joshmccormack]

The WTO site is a hard one to navigate. Here's the complaint against the US:

Complaint

You can see the other documents relating to this in the row labeled Antigua and Barbuda on this page.

To summarize, this is not a moralistic thing, or about the US making a national religion or any of that. The complaint (best as I can understand) is that the US does allow gambling, but does not allow foreign companies to compete, and that it's laws are inconsistent in forbidding it and some of them conflict with GTO laws.

Re:What the complaint is actually about

[bluGill]

The US allows gambling in some areas, and not others. So I would call it fair if I could go to Nevada and gamble on line, but cannot do it in a different state where gambling is not allowed.

Of course my home state has both a lottery, and charitable gambling (pull tabs); so gambling is allowed and I have to agree with that on line gambling should be allowed to.

hardly any country adheres to global standards

[Anonymous Coward]

on a consistant basis...

For example, historically SECAM and NTSC-N brazil television standards were created for national purposes. More recently, China's flirting with custom wireless encryption.

Europe's ban on GM agri-products seems to be a similar problem. In fact some african countries faced difficult decisions to accept crops from the US to feed starving people, but having europe ban all agri-exports from the country forever. Quite a choice...

Not far away from this is the pressure that Uganda is currently under to not purchase DDT to kill mosquitos harboring malaria (which kills more than 80,000 people a year in this country alone) under threat of a trade embargo from both Europe and the US for importing "banned" chemicals... Who's to say that not adhering to global standards isn't the right thing to do in this case?

On a lighter note, what about the French and Quebec laws that limit imports of articles that don't have a certain percentage of "french" content? Not to mention the recent french decision to force yahoo to ban certain auctions?

Why is it that the UK isn't using the Euro yet?

Why does japan and norway still hunt endangered whales?

Why do bananas cost so much in europe?

Why is the EU considering origin protection laws on things called parmesan cheese, but not monterey jack cheese?

National interests exist. The US isn't unique in ignoring global standards when they see fit. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly isn't unusual.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jeremy Erwin]

Ah, but they don't tolerate competition. Running a rival numbers game is likely to earn you a visit from a bunch of heavyset guys packing heat.

Admiration rather than Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

TaoDeChing - Lao Tze

17. Rulers
The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects;
The next best are loved and praised;
The next are feared;
The next despised:
They have no faith in their people,
And their people become unfaithful to them.

When the best rulers achieve their purpose
Their subjects claim the achievement as their own.

Parent should be modded Insightful not Funny

[CaptainPinko]

Subject said it all, I think USAPatriot et al should read that and reflect. Not saying it's right but something definitely worth reflecting on. *sigh* and this will get modded as troll.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Bandit0013]

I once saw a woman in a supermarket with her dirty, poorly clothed children buying food with govt food stamps. After the sale she put a case of beer and a couple of cartons of cigarettes on the counter and proceded to pay cash for them. Bet her kids would have liked new shoes instead.

A disturbingly high percentage of minority males are in prison. Another high percentage doesn't live to see age 21.

So yes, let's lift all restrictions off GROWN PEOPLE and let them do whatever they want. Because we've shown that people live so well on their own that we don't need rules.

Laws are designed to aid society. They are supposed to protect the SOCIAL good. This has nothing to do with religion EXCEPT that law and morality are closely tied to religion. Now ask yourself: Would society be better off without alcoholism, smoking, promiscuous sex, drug abuse, etc etc etc? Probably, but you don't have to be a bible thumper to think that way.

Flamebait? MODS PLEASE ADJUST PARENT

[MooseByte]

"Iraq will soon be a democracy because you didn't like dictatorships. Chile became a dictatorship because you didn't like a left-wing president."

How the heck did this get to be flamebait? Maybe you moderators can adjust.

It's a damn sad day when simply knowing well-established history is flamebait.

All bullshit aside...

[Anonymous Coward]

It boils down to the fact that gambling is
a controlled activity in the US. If the WTO
said that we should legalize drugs like
cocaine we will still give them the finger.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cookd]

Perhaps the government should not legislate morality. But it shouldn't legislate immorality, either. It cuts both ways.

In general, laws are all about morality (except the bad ones, which are all about politics and/or greed). Getting rid of morality generally means getting rid of laws, and the result is anarchy.

Whether or not you are religious has nothing to do with it. You still have ideas about what is right and what is wrong. And the way society works is that we try to figure out a set of rules (laws) that we all agree to live by. Not everybody will agree with all of the laws, but living with a few laws you don't agree with is the price you pay for living in a society with laws.

I suspect that what you meant to say was that laws should stay out of personal issues. To a certain extent I agree with that idea, but there are some important factors to consider.

First, what is a personal issue? I think that when you look at it long enough, there is no such thing as a personal issue. "No man is an island, entire of itself." If you screw up your life, society pays.

Society pays in the loss of your potential productivity. If you screw up your life, you hold back society. Instead of paying back the investment everybody else has made in feeding you, schooling you, and paying your bills while you were growing up, you throw it all away. And then the rest of the world has to continue paying for your welfare.

Society pays in cleaning up after you. You know how hard it is to get the bloodstains out of the carpet (metaphorically speaking)? Bankruptcies, jails, unpaid hospital bills -- all of these have to be supported by society at large, and all of these go way up when certain "personal issues" become widespread. "Society" has to pay the bill, so "society" gets to try to defend itself by making rules against these so-called "personal issues."

Finally, society pays because some of these "personal issues" end up turning into public issues. Nice Guy starts out with "casual" drug use, gets addicted, loses his job, turns to theft to pay for his habit, and causes problems to his family, the police, and the people from whom he steals. "Personal issues" never stay personal for very long. They always cause problems for other people.

Second, some things are simply bad for you. Besides the issue of what is bad for you is bad for society (covered earlier), there is also a notion that people are morons and that we should try to help each other not be so dumb. Here is the reasoning:

When you were a kid, there were rules. If you didn't follow the rules, you got punished. Some of the rules might have been stupid, but in general most of them were due to the fact that your parent(s)/guardian(s) had a different perspective than you did, and they understood the consequences of certain actions more completely than you did. While the real reasons for the rules are sometimes impossible to explain to a kid, a simple associated punishment is easy to hammer home. The kid understands the rule and the punishment. That is hopefully good enough to convince the kid to not do stupid life-threatening things, and hopefully allow him to live long enough to understand the reasons behind the rules. Even when the kid understands the real consequences, he often still needs the extra disincentive.

So back when you were a kid, you thought you were pretty smart. But you thought your parents were dorks for not letting you do certain things. Ok, now fast-forward a couple dozen years. You understand some of the reasons why your parents made you do your homework. But you think the legislators are dorks for making stupid laws.

So I have a question: What makes you think you are so smart? Just because you are now an "Adult" are you now magically immune to stupidity and irrational behavior? I know I'm not. So we all develop little systems to help ourselves avoid stupid mistakes. We make our own goals and our own rewards, our own rules and our own punishments.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it ironic the way effective trolls are modded up, and eat many unwary posters, while ineffective trolls are modded down as trolls? It's kind of like rain on your wedding day . . . no really, just think about it.

Rain on your wedding day.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[snkline]

Yeah, if the church wants to pay taxes, they can go right ahead and preach whatever politics they want. However if they want tax exemption from the IRS, they have to follow certain rules. One of those is no partisan politics. Issues they can discuss, but not much else. For example they can say "Abortion is bad" but they cannot say "Abortion is bad, Kerry supports abortion and Bush doesn't" because that is partisan politics. They can even enumerate what a politicians views on certain issues are, as long as nowhere within the same context they enumerate the churches OWN views on these issues.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[mcc]

Could it be that these two parties have 'chosen' values which actually do manage to accurately represent the values of a majority of the people in this country?

I don't see why it would. The majority of the people in the country don't vote.

Bizarre

[ciphertext]

What policy prohibits online gambling? I wasn't aware that the U.S. Government regulated that sort of gambling. I assumed it was handled at the state level. I would imagine that it could continue to be "handled" at the state level. There isn't a need to increase the already "too large" powers of the federal government.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[jasonisgodzilla]

it would if it made it impossible for an alternative party to have any chance whatsoever of winning an election.

All members of WTO agree to this type of thing

[dpuu]

The WTO is a voluntary organization. No one forces a country to be a member. Indeed, China had to fight hard to become a member.

In becoming a member, a country explicitly dilutes aspects of its sovereignty. The US senate, in ratifying membership, accepted this loss of sovereignty in exchange for the right to do the same thing to other countries.

If the US government decides that it loses more than it gains from its membership, then it can always leave.

Re:All members of WTO agree to this type of thing

[bucky0]

That said, it's still our right to argue against issues all day long if we feel like it. Just because we sacrificed a bit of our soveriegnty doesn't mean that anytime someone has an idea we have to go along with it.

That's the way of nature - read Lao Tze

[Anonymous Coward]

TaoDeChing - Lao Tze
30. Violence
Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
For violence has a habit of returning;
Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,
And lean years follow a great war.

A general is well advised
To achieve nothing more than his orders:
Not to take advantage of his victory.
Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
To do what is dictated by necessity,
But not by choice.

For even the strongest force will weaken with time,
And then its violence will return, and kill it.

no

[karb]

If treaties or international organizations don't suit our national interests, we withdraw. All countries do, really. Any country that does not is betraying its citizens.

The WTO is forceful because it legitimizes and enforces trade retaliation. If the US doesn't give in, US businesses will face trade restrictions that would cost americans jobs. And that makes politicians lose elections, so you don't mess (much) with the WTO.

Any other international group the US is a party to could order the same thing and would be laughed at.

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is whether or not an unborn fetus/child/etc. is a human being, at what point, etc.

Thank god! It's Captain Obvious to the rescue once again!

Water is wet!

Fire is hot!

Bush is a dummy!

Re:Thanks!

[SillyNickName4me]

Heh, I agree.

Re:Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not too much different from the way the laws are *enforced* in the USA, but is is very different from how the laws are *written* in the USA.

My education on this is from many years back, I was not in any danger of Mann act or a Statutory rape charge, but "interference with the custody of a minor" is something I'd never even heard about.

Statutory in New Jersey back then had a nifty provision that the actors have to be more than 5 years apart in age, or position of athority for it to be a crime.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[ildon]

So where do you draw the line at what is a "religious value" and what is right and wrong? Is killing only illegal because of the Bible? Or because it's simply detrimental to society? There are a lot more justifications for making gambling illegal than just "it's in the bible" just like killing and stealing. Just because something happens to be in the bible doesn't mean religion is the justification for it. I'm an Atheist and I still think abortion is murder (at least past the first trimester, before that it's debatable).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are totally hilarious!!! That was the best post that I have read in ages, funny, on topic, accurate. Tackhead, you are da man!!

US after security experts that aid online gambling

[Eklypz]

I guess my posting of this wasn't good enough for the editors so I am going to add a related article that shows how the US could go after any security expert who aids offshore gambling sites. Can read all about it here Very interesting theories for the security people here to think about.

Re:WTO nations interested in extracting utility fr

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's not about the US selectively ignoring the interests of other nations; it's about the US protecting itself from those who will take advantage....

You mean only american business is permitted to fleece fellow americans, AND citizens of other countries?

How the hell does an american citizen protect himself from his own country taking advantage of him? This concept presumes the government should in fact legislate every aspect of your life, do you really want that from a nation that alleges itself to be a champion of the free and democratic?

The US was built from exploitation, undue exploitation, and this undue exploitation has been led by american business interests. Nowhere is it said that ONLY the US is permitted to exploit, for profit, its own people, or people of other nations.

While I think its ludicrous for the WTO to make the claims they have regarding this online gambling issue, the larger issue here is that the US cannot take what it metes out UNDER THE SAME GUISE.

Pot/Kettle black?

[taphu]

Pot/Kettle black?

Just because we do it doesn't make it right.

Just plain stupid.

[blair1q]

The moment the US allows online gambling, the island nations currently winning gambling website hosting contracts will lose those contracts to domestic competitors.

The only thing keeping them alive is prohibition.

Re:Just plain stupid.

[blair1q]

Which makes me think, maybe it's not the island nations' intention to win this battle; it's the online gamblers who rent websites there...

(That's the problem with mixing law and politics; you never know who's using whom and why.)

Re:Just plain stupid.

[animaal]

It's probably not so simple; as with any other internet-based activity, development, maninenance, and day-to-day running may be cheaper in other countries, irrespective of US laws.

Also, some countries have very favourable corporate tax laws, and laws relating to the profits from gambling. I'm not sure about the various laws across the US, but in some european countries we've seen gambling companies move their online operations offshore for tax reasons.

Re:Just plain stupid.

[smallfries]

Perhaps not. If their tax structure is sufficently different then they'll still get the business. Most of the UK betting sites are based off-shore for tax reasons.

There are several sides to this issue...

[s13g3]

Being a libertarian, I'm all for letting people do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as they don't injure anyone else in the process... The problem is, gambling almost never helps anyone but the casino. On the other hand, look at how many lives have been ruined by gambling; And I'm not referring to the gambler, but their families. How many children, wives, husbands, brothers, mothers, friends, etc. have seriously financially injured (if not obliterated) by the inability of a friend or family member to realize that just because they THINK they have the inside scoop they just HAVE to win... And shit, never mind the $3k they lost yesterday, really, they're gonna make it all back and then some tonight, really...

I've known whole families that were ruined because of one person's addiction, and when it hurts innocent people is when I have a problem with it. Maybe more express regulations on gambling (e.g. You cannot spend more than 1/4 of the total current sum of your checking account, 1/52nd your annual income, or 1/16th of your net worth or something to that effect, and perhaps other clauses, such as a waiver signed upon entry [physical or electronic] to the casino making only the gambler beholden for their potential debt, leaving friends, family, and business immune to collection) over the internet and in person.

Also, consider that yes, the U.S. is the 1000 lb. gorilla, and as another reader pointed out, really, wtf are ya gonna do? Like we really give a shit about the WTO and what it thinks. The WTO is just a pansy-assed trade version of the UN, neither of whom would exist without the U.S., and neither of whom's opinion we give a damn about. The U.N. at least has a military arm, and you can see how concerned about that we are.

Fsck globalization. I know it has to happen eventually, but of all the shithole places to live on this rock, the U.S. is by far the best off of all of them. even with all the silly problems we may have, our laws are better for us than your are, as is the average Joe's legal and governmental representation. Name, for example,one major country with a real economy that actually has laws against police brutality (damn sure isn't France or Germany... I should know, I'm originally from Germany, and I know what happens firsthand when you talk shit at the Polizei or J'endarmes) Ok, I'm sure there are a few, but not many, and I'd be willing to bet that country won't let you own a gun, either. I'm really not for other countries deciding that they don't like the fact that our national policy prevents them from trying to fleece American's out of their hard earned cash with underhanded electronic versions of the "3 cups" game, etc. How about actually PRODUCING something that people want? This, to me, is reminiscent of the couple of people I've met in Paris and London that admitted over drinks to supplementing their income by stealing from unawares tourists, and then rationalizing these peoples lack of alertness as all the reason they need, not realizing these people are generally just trying to enjoy their vacations in a supposedly friendly country, not survive a criminal war-zone. One Parisian told me, "Well, they weren't exactly using it at the moment," the item in question was a purse at the victim's feet while taking a photo, "and since she wasn't using it, she obviously didn't need it, so I took it." This is essentially the old gypsy line, "Anything that is not nailed down is mine. Anything I can pry up with a claw-hammer is not nailed down."

So yeah, screw what some other pissant nation thinks our national policy should be. Our national policies and laws are decided by OUR (occasionally corrupt) politicians and lawmakers, not YOUR money-grubbing and almost certainly perfidous "representatives". You don't like it? Make your own money, crawl up out of your hole your own damn self, and come invade us, but don't ever ask us for economic or military aid again. Your shitty economy is not our fault, nor our problem, seeing as how THE US HAS

Re:There are several sides to this issue...

[multi io]

Why is there no "-1 lengthy incoherent blather" mod?

Re:There are several sides to this issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the U.S. is by far the best off of all of them"

Wrong.

Now shut the fuck up, you fat retard, since it's clear you have no idea what this discussion is about.

Re:There are several sides to this issue...

[s13g3]

Oooh, my feelings are so hurt. I think it's rather more obvious that you are trying to shift your negative body issues off on me, you ignornant, scurrilous, corner-hiding, pillow-biter.

Apparently you don't live in the U.S. I asked for examples of better places to live; I see none forthcoming. Wherever the fuck it is you are from, I'll 100% guran-fucking-tee that I'm better of than you are. So your life and your country sucks... Wahhhhh... My pussy hurts for you. If you are going to take the sorry state of the shit-hole you live in out on someone, at least come up with a better arguement than just "wrong".

THE WHOLE DISCUSSION is that the U.S. makes it's laws and policies for the happiness, protection and betterment of the U.S.'s citizens, NOT to make some jackass on some piss-poor island rich through theft. Get a job!

By the way, at 6'1", 155 lbs. with an I.Q. that has never officially tested lower than 150, if all that makes me a fat retard (who doesn't hide behind anonymity, and can post more than a dozen words with an actual POINT, not just a flame), then what the hell kind of scum-sucking bottom feeder are you?

For those of you wondering why I'm even bothering, it's because I love pointing out to AC troll's what ignorant cock-smokers they are.

society would tear itself apart

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm ... hate to burst your bubble, but if there were no laws I would bet you there are enough rational people that would sure as hell make sure that if you killed MY neighbor, you would sure as hell wish you didn't ...

People don't need laws, laws need people.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[AxelBoldt]

Would you agree then that torturing your dog to death should be legal?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Bendebecker]

The vast majority of people are idiots. They need governments to tell them how to run their lives. If you don't believe me, watch an episode of Cops.

how did this get modded flame bait?

[genner]

The standard slashdot joke gets me modded as flamebait. Sigh...the world as we know it must be ending.

Onling gambling: how can you trust the house?

[Cid Highwind]

*Join to #online-poker synced in 2.32 seconds
*Topic in #online-poker is "Of course we're not cheating!"
Alright gentlemen, final bets.
Oh what the hell...
**sucker_bet** goes all in
Anyone else?
**thehouse** looks around
Alright then. Whatcha got, sucker_bet?
**sucker_bet** reveals his cards
Full house, aces and kings. Beat that, biatch
**thehouse** turns over his cards
Wow, I have a royal flush
That's like the fifth one I've been dealt today
pwn j00!
OMG! WFT!!1! Cheater! Five royal flushes in 12 hands. You're stacking the virtual deck!
You still lose, asshat
***sucker_bet has been kicked: Only losers cry cheater||come back when you've got more money, punk
Alright gentlement, ante up. Who's in for the next hand?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

Ah yes, and still you come at me like a whipped dog, too stubborn to admit your defeat. That's fine, here I shall present the final nail in your coffin and proceed to drive it in:

I argued NOTHING for you. I'm not attacking the poster's BELIEF because I DON'T CARE what s/he believes. I am attacking the poster's ARGUMENT because it is WRONG because it is not presenting EVIDENCE. S/he can go on screaming bloody murder about whatever the hell they want and as long as s/he is making up "evidence" on the spot, I will continue to attack him/her on that matter. I have absolutely NO interest in arguing for or against abortion.

And, again, you conveniently skip context in order to maintain your false superiority. You know, it's not that you necessarily made a BAD argument, it's just not RIGHT because you're ignoring CONTEXT which frames this squarely in a legal discussion. Fight about it all you want, but the legal definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful and the legal defintion fits best within the framework of the discussion as it evolved. If the poster is using 'murder' with some other meaning, they're either clueless or trying to drive the discussion off track into a (likely pointless) emotional battle instead of a legal one. If you're just going to continue to pretend that's not the case, by all means, do so - but I'll not waste anymore time sticking it right under your nose for you.

Look out France

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it will be OK to sell Nazi gear in France....

Re:Reading Slashdot and watching STNG

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless, he had his glorious moment on teh spoke and can die knowing he achieved the impossible.

The History of World Empires

[micron]

To all the US bashers out there. What other nation in the history of the world managed it's position of power as well as the United States has? ie: Had the power, but didn't have the need to conquer and enslave the remaining world population???

I can't think of one other than the US either.

Re:The History of World Empires

[NanoGator]

No country has enslaved the entire world. Arguably, we did conquer this half of the continent, and enslaved people to do it.

If you really wanted to defend this country, you'd bring up the fact that we haven't expanded our territory in decades.

Not pot calling Kettle Black.

[Performer Guy]

This is not the Pot calling the Kettle Black. This is akin to the British gunboats forcing China to allow trade in Opium. If the US has moral or other objections to online gambling it should be permitted to enforce them. It is ludicrous that this should be permitted in contravention of U.S. domestic law. The U.S. tries to get it's way through existing legal means like extradition or trying to get laws equalized for example in teh case of Copyrights, (for the record I strongly object to the way Copyright restrictions are spiraling out of control limiting our freedoms).

To pretend that a trade treaty forces a nation to accept practices it has even outlawed domestically is utterly ludicrous.

Re:Not pot calling Kettle Black.

[flossie]

If the US has moral or other objections to online gambling it should be permitted to enforce them.

And if Europe has moral or other objections to environmental pollution by GM crops, it should be permitted to enforce them. And if India has moral or other objections to pharmaceuticals companies preventing cheap generic drugs being made available to the poor, it should be permitted to enforce them.

The WTO aims for free trade at all costs (and the costs are high). This position is entirely consistent with the dominant US political and economic view of capitalism and the WTO is one of the means by which the US government exerts its influence over other sovereign nations.

You are quite right that it is ludicrous to allow an organisation such as the WTO to over-ride local democracy, but legalising on-line gambling is an inconsequential issue compared to most of the problems that the WTO causes the world.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[AxelBoldt]

However, the decision of whether a certain entity has a certain right is ultimately a moral decision. Does an author have a right to prevent others from copying their book? Does a fetus have a right to life? Does a dog have a right not to be tortured? Does a doctor have the right to assist a terminally ill patient in dying? Does a kid have a right to a free education?

Re:"Imposing Views"? - Sure the game is rigged

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't let that stop you from playing - if you don't gamble, you can't win

(quote by Heinlein)

I don't see how ``verification'' is an issue. Gambling on line may or may not be crooked. Likely is. Gambling in real life may or may not be crooked. Likely is also. How much can you REALLY check in a real casino before big guys in ill-fitting suits come over to your table?

If people want to lose money it's their privilege. Big White Daddy Boss Gov't already tells us enough about what we should/shouldn't know/do/say/think. Why such a big deal about letting people lose money the way they want to? People already lose plenty of money in ways they don't want - raising taxes to pay for wars, for instance. Both ways is pissing money away. But at least when you gamble, you choose how you lose.

definitions of first, second, and third world

[CaptainPinko]

1st World- Industrializied Countries: Countries whose economies are highly motiviated and rely on manufacturing rather than raw resourcs. 2nd World- Industrializing Countries countries who are beginning or in the midst of industrializing but skill rely on a lot of unskilled labour and don't have a fully developed industrial sector. 3rd World- Unindustrializes Countries Countries without industrialization, most agriculturally based little manufacturing most relying on raw/natural resources. If the amish were a country they'd be third world.

Re:definitions of first, second, and third world

[JudgeFurious]

It was a very long time ago for me but didn't this actually go all the way down to 4th or 5th world?

I seem to recall at the bottom (whether it went to 4 or 5) you had nations that were considered complete basket cases. Hopeless causes so to speak that would never in anyones wildest imagination be able to stand on their own two feet and be dependent on the aid of other nations for as long as they existed.

Re:definitions of first, second, and third world

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't go down to 4th and 5th. The original
inspiration is from the concept of the three
estates just as France went into its revolution.

I say we shoudl gamble

[Bendebecker]

We have all these nuclear weapons lying around with all these codes. Its a natural lottery with a payment plan already set up. I say we start gambling with them. Just think of the payoff for losing/winning...

The Lottery is a Shitty Bet

[Anonymous Coward]

At least a casino will give you decent odds. I haven't seen anything too great come out of the lottery either.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Crash Culligan]

don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code?

That depends on what actions the laws are trying to prohibit, and whose moral code they're trying to support.

Laws are made by people and enforced to control people. And people have agendas. Sometimes these agendas are good and fair (ban murder), sometimes their purpose is entirely self-serving (ban oral sex), and sometimes they're just peculiar (banning taking lions to the movies).

Ask people how the laws should be changed, and you won't get just one or two answers. Many people will want new laws, many will want laws repealed, and most will want a combination.

(Do you know where I see this kind of argument the most? Freenet, where every kind of speech is possible but not all are welcome. Some speech, certain users argue, should not be allowed, but given the environment of free-wheeling and anonymity, it's awfully hard to define some of the "bad" forms, much less define them.)

The biggest problems arise when a coalition gets into government, or a government starts acting on the whims of a coalition. Suddenly laws and policies start serving one and only one group. The rest of the population becomes disenfranchised as the one group gleefully gives up everyone's right to do something that they never would do.

I won't say I'm religious, nor will I say I'm not religious, but this is the basis for my argument supporting the separation of church and state: the state can not afford to act in the interest of only one segment of the population, no matter how religious or righteous (or self-righteous) that one group may be.

Killing a man, stealing what he earned, etc are all wrong because we believe them to be morally reprehensible and thus created laws to punish those who do it.

That is the part that practically everyone will concede to. I believe in moral absolutes. I just believe in fewer moral absolutes than many.

Does the belief that gambling is a vice have to be predicated on religion in everyone's mind? It clearly has roots there, but not everyone who opposes its legalization is religious.

Like the fact that anyone who can figure a mathematical expectation won't touch the average gambling game with a ten-foot pole? Like the fact that online gambling can be too easily rigged in favor of the house or otherwise buggy? (Have you ever seen a perfect random number generator in a computer program? Funny, me neither.)

Frankly, I don't understand this mandate... except of course it's an internationalization of the state-by-state trend of introducing progressively more and more gambling games to the public. Horse racing seems noble enough, but then you get into paramutual betting, then you get lotteries, then slot machines will want to come in... Worst of all, it's all a symptom of a common condition: tax addiction. Most governments have it.

Maybe WTO is right

[falltime]

How can we legitimatley claim that there is a "morality/value" issue when virtually EVERY state has either lotteries, Horse Racing, Dog racing, Casinos, Riverboats, Jai Lai, etc... (and ore likely your State has more than one of the above) - So if we have no "moral/value" issue with these forms of Gambling what is the basis to preventing other countries from competing on the free market? What it comes down to is the States dont want to lose this "protected" form of taxation.

Why people gamble

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

While I personally don't understand why people gamble

It's not that hard - people ascribe more value to a large win than to a lot of little losses. The pain at losing $1/week for your entire life is almost non-existant. The joy at being a winner - even of one of the "smaller" prizes of a few thousand - is incredible. Even if you lost money in the long run, that rush - and the irresponsible spending that follows - makes it worth it.

Nobody ever got a surge excitement from responsibly investing a dollar a week.

I'm not endorsing gambling, or saying that it's a smart investment, but I can certainly understand why people would do it.

Re:Why people gamble

[Mr. Piddle]

Nobody ever got a surge excitement from responsibly investing a dollar a week.

I got pretty worked up after seeing that $8 of interest earned on my bank statement today! Yeah!

Quality Control

[meehawl]

to "gamble" on-line in a simulated casino game is insane. Does anyone here really believe that the deck, dice or wheel will be fair on a big bet in an on-line game?

Exactly why it should be legalized within the US and regulated. Mandatory percentage payouts, with auditing of accounts and code to enforce the regulations. Similar to how Vegas is regulated. If you make it criminal to operate online gambling, then only criminals will operate online gambling.

Re:Quality Control

[Anonymous Coward]

"to "gamble" on-line in a simulated casino game is insane. Does anyone here really believe that the deck, dice or wheel will be fair on a big bet in an on-line game?

Exactly why it should be legalized within the US and regulated. Mandatory percentage payouts, with auditing of accounts and code to enforce the regulations. Similar to how Vegas is regulated. If you make it criminal to operate online gambling, then only criminals will operate online gambling."

While I totally agree with this argument 100%, many people seemingly have a tough time when this argument is extended to drugs, prostitution, and any other "victimless" crime.

If it's insane to do drugs, at least let the US regulate it.

If it's insane to get a hooker, at least the US regulate it.

I totally support these arguments, but the public will not. Since the public will not accept the logical extension of this argument, they won't accept the argument for even online gaming. They will say, "Where does it end? Legal drugs and whores?"

Blame it on our pathetic puritan heritage, the same one that, in stupid fashion, burned women at the stake because of an irrational fear in Salem, Mass.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[nelsonal]

Actually they are laws because it's cheaper to pass a law and have a few specialists enforce it than it is for each individual to protect themselves. Look at the Mafia, if you whack a mob boss will they go to the police and report a crime? No they protect themselves with a code of retribution. It works (how often do mob folks get hit?) but it's a huge burden (you have to arm your guards and spend a ton of effort ensuring that you have the backing to retaliate against anyone who messes with your business. It's much cheaper to say this is alwasy illegal and if you violate the law you will be punished by independant specialists. Both systems have their flaws, but seem to work most of the time. The legal system while slow and costly is a whole lot less costly (fewer layers of middlemen and time spent negotiating).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[bwcbwc]

I would say that the body of laws represents a social contract, more than a moral code. A society can have a social contract (or a moral code) that is not based on religion. It is difficult to imagine, because all societies (even China and N. Korea) today descend from societies where at some point in their history, religion was a state-sponsored institution or was the state itself. So all countries have laws so ancient that they date back to religious doctrine. But why did so many religions come up with a set of common rules? Could it be that groups of people develop a shared sense of justice, and recognize the need to restrict behaviors that can hurt the members of the group, the group as a whole, or even the structures that enable the group to function?

this is when you realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the treaties / organizations are not about benefits for the U.S. or the E.U. or whatever. They are about benefits for corporate interests. In cases where those interests coincide with the public interest, then there are positive consequences, but where the corporate and public interests collide - guess which one prevails? That's why these treaties are all written placing the "corporate rights" *above* the public right to democratic government.

But this is most emphatically not a failure of the treaty process - this is what the whole process is for.

Re:Moron. (As in YOU are)

[s13g3]

>> one major function of a democracy is to protects the rights of the minority, not force the will of the majority on everyone.

The U.S. is not, I repeat NOT a democracy! When are you idiots going to pull your heads out of your collective liberal asses and recognize this???

Democracies are 100% about enforcing the rule of the majority over the minority, as a democracy essentially entails every individual having an equal say in their government, which is essentially mob-rule. A Republic, on the other hand, like the U.S., has officials elected to office to do the ruling, supposedly representing the interests of those that elected them, thus insuring that the wants/wills of the vocal (and often uninformed) majority do not trample the rights of the minority, while also ensuring that the oft-times very vocal and educated minority does not trample the rights of the majority (see Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, for example).

Besides, on-line gambling IS legal in the U.S.... Gambling on sports just happenes to be illegal for any number of reasons, good or ill, and, right or wrong, our current representatives feel it is in the best interests of the American people that sports gambling on-line should be illegal. Don't like it? Vote. When enough people also agree with you to cause a change in your representative leadership, you'll get what you want through the process that was designed by our founding fathers for fairness and equality, not through extortion and threats the way the WTO would have it.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[xsbellx]

Very interesting reading. On the other hand, you may find this interesting.

http://www.unr.edu/gaming/papers/effect.asp

Oops - truth gap.

[Precipitous]

Wow that sounds impressive 98 of 100 senators thought the rejected the Kyoto Protocol?

Unfortunately, this is misleading at best. The vote you are probably referring to is the Byrd-Hagel ammendment of 1999. This stated that we wouldn't ratify the protocol unless China and a few others were included. I don't think that they the treaty, as signed by Clinton, was ever submitted to the Senate. 15 minutes of searching a variety of sources indicates that it was never submitted. A 2003 bill with mandatory emissions caps did fail by 55-43.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

You persist. How amusing. You have still presented no evidence, but you HAVE made an assumption on my position regarding fetuses and, likely, my position on abortion even though I've given NO indication what I think of it, or that I even care one way or another.

In addition, despite the fact you quoted a defintion for murder that clearly states "UNLAWFUL" in it, you continue to ignore the fact that unless you're misusing it to try and skew the discussion, the word has a legitimate legal meaning that DOES NOT allow it to be synonomous with abortion. Abortion is legal (unless you are specifying a specific type, in which case, I suggest you qualify it to avoid confusion). Murder is not. Framed in the context of this discussion so far, the two are not technically, logically, or intellibly interchangeable. Argue all you like, it's a fact. You don't have to deal in facts ALL the time, but if you plan on actually convincing anyone of positions you hold instead of making yourself look like a screeching moron, I suggest you stick to them in those cases at the very least.

Cont'd: China calls US on human rights this week

[DanTheLewis]

This article (on Voice of America) is about the UN Human Rights Convention, where the US once again dogged China on human rights, and China fired back. Winner: China.

Best quote, from a Chinese official:

"If the U.S. is really honest and concerned about human rights, then I will be very happy one day if the United States can table a resolution to name and shame yourself," he said. "We will suggest to the United States to buy a mirror and look at yourself in it. China is a poor developing country. If you do not have a mirror, we can buy one for you."

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep coming up with the superiority comment, and the pretentious attitude do you feel inferior in thought? You still seem to be arguing via pretension and not via merit. I never said anything about my superiority now did I? Are you placing up a straw man? But you continue to attack me as if it is the case. Are you fallaciously attacking the person?

They want you to win

[bluGill]

Casinos WANT you to win the big prize, in fact a new casino that is manipulating the odds in the first week is likely putting them in your favor! Losing a little money now is a great idea if you can get people talking about the big prize they won. A reputation for paying big prizes can survive the lower odds that you eventually settle on.

No casino starts without knowing how they will pay that big prize if it is won the first day. If you have calculated your odds correctly and can't afford the chance that the big once a year prize is won the first day, then there are insurance companies that will be happy to help you out. Part of doing business.

Thanks!

[Chordonblue]

Thank you for the clarification. That certainly seems a lot more reasonable and not too much different than here in the States.

I guess my over-blown point was, morality in some places shouldn't be forced on others elsewhere no matter WHO is doing it to whom. My concern with the WTO is not so much free trade as it is a legitimization of gambling - that which used to be vice.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[meta-monkey]

Same thing with drugs.

"Hi, I'm Bill Clinton! I smoked pot, and it completely ruined my life. Instead of making something out of myself, I just got stoned all the time. Look at me! I'm...oh, I'm the former President of the United States. Well, then, look at fellow pot-smoker Al Gore! He ruined his...oh, wait, Vice President. Well at the least the current president never used drugs!! I mean, they ruin your life! Oh, damn, coke, yeah...hmmm..."

Who the hell are they kidding? "It's okay for me, but not for you?"

This isn't the real issue.

[sugar and acid]

I this is actually bulls__t, though it could be tough to fight as gambling is legal in some areas of the US, and so why should those people have a monopoly over that gambling revenue when an overseas online website isn't allowed to compete for it.

Anyway the real hypocrisy in WTO and all free trade treaties and agreements is agricultural trade and the massive distortions that occur because of the subsidises and trade restrictions the US and Europe give to their farmers (paid for by tax payers of course). These policies are most obvious in the massive distortion of the world sugar market, which even the sugar lobby in the US recognises is totally f--- up, but through some weird logic come to the conclusion that US trade restrictions and subsidises shouldn't be change in anyway so that they stay isolate from the distorted world market that is their own creation until some magically event when every country in the world decides the get rid totally of these policies. Of course real free trade agreements actually work best by incremental changes between individual countries and have never really worked well on a global scale, thus it is a way of diplomatically saying that we don't care how buggered the market is, and we know our policies have largely caused it, but we're not budging an inch.

Sorry but my family are wheat farmers in Australia, and I am frankly sick of them being shafted continually by unfair US and European agricultural trade policies. I use sugar as just the classic example, and one that nearly (and probably should have stopped) a free trade agreement happening between the US and Australia. My family have a high efficiency farm that can turn a profit exposed to the real world market, if your farmers can't do the same then frankly they should look for another career and have some rationalisation of the sector (bigger farms, less workers, and thus smaller country populations, all the stuff that has happened in my home region over the last 20-30 yrs or so). Farming is a business and not a way of life, and should be treated as such.

Re:Oil Markets

[beakburke]

Actually the US or EU will be most likely to move to alternative energy sources first. Simply because or the nature of our economies and the current level of research. Look at yesterdays WSJ.

Gambling? In the US? Never!!

[Anonymous Coward]

10 to 1 it'll never fly!!!

Any takers??

Dream On

[meehawl]

I am so scared of Europe with it's socialist policies that lead to high unemployment and little incentive to seek employment.

The real rate of US unemployment is currently firting with 10% but is generally underreported while I am so scared of Europe with it's socialist policies that lead to high unemployment and little incentive to seek employment.

The real rate of US unemployment is currently firting with 10% but is generally underreported while EU reporting uses less "massaged" unemployment statistics. There are regions within the US that have lower, and regions that have higher. Just as there are regions in the EU that currently have 3% unemployment, and others with 15% unemployment. There are certain areas of the EU that are underdeveloped, centrally planned, and economically slumbering, but there are other hotspots that are booming and the shark-like capitalist hordes there would laugh in your face if you called them "socialist". And by the time they had finished laughing to distract you they would have taken your company with a leveraged buyout, gutted the assets, shipped the excess labour off to China, and perhaps re-employed your son as a janitor.

Re:Dream On

[BgJonson79]

If you're too lazy to look for a job, and keep looking, why should you be included with people actively looking for a job and trying to make a living?

Re:Dream On

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, but the bottom line is that EU nations (even the richest of them) are consistently trailing as far as GDP and other indicators are concerned.

And it is not getting any better ..

State issue!

[bluGill]

I agree that the stupid tax should be eliminated. However that is a state issue, and the Constitution does not allow the federal government to do anything. For that matter, the federal government cannot prevent a state from outlawing gambling.

The federal government has the responsibility to allow someone to cross state borders to gamble if they choose, even though the state they live in doesn't allow it.

Of course the federal government is doing a lot of things they are not allowed it. Thats a different rant though.

Re:Budget spending

[beakburke]

Actually most of our budget is spend on social spending Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are well over half of the budget, and their share continues to grow, as it has been for a long time. Defense spending has been falling for a long time, compared to total tax revenue. Whether you agree with social spending or not, you cannot pretend that it doesn't make up the great majority of our budget.

Gambling is anti-capitilism

[Stray7Xi]

I agree, gambling isn't an issue based solely on religious grounds. My stance on gambling is that it's anti-capitilism. The concept of money is supposed to represent one's contributions to society.. (Granted there are a lot of perversions to that notion) but money is supposed to be earned.

When one gambles, they're ultimately saying that money should be guided by chance.

I'm against all forms of inherentance (Except the OOP kind) for the same reason.

Ummm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?! Interesting maybe, but not very sound thinking.

I'm going to say that there are people who pass laws that see the weakness they address in themselves. However, most public officials (and I daresay most private individuals) are not about to go public about their weaknesses and beg someone else can fix them.

Besides, if they did that, wouldn't they be labeled hypocrites? IE: "You want to keep me from seeing pornography, but you use it? Pfft!"

From a different point of view, here's an extension of your argument:

Tackhead sits in front of his computer, saying "I love to send spam out to every email address I can get a hold of. Spam makes me money with very little investment, but I feel bad for clogging up servers and taking advantage of gullible people out there with my fake drugs that may actually be poisonous. I think something should be done to stop people like me from sending out massive amounts of email to people who didn't ask for them."

Remember, there are people out there who like getting spam.

Anyway, that's someone's two cents.

Legal drugs and whores?

[meehawl]

"Where does it end? Legal drugs and whores?"

Yes please.

Morality and LAw

[beakburke]

While not all moral beliefs should be made into laws, the very idea of "human rights" is a moral belief. It wasn't always believed that individuals had rights, and in some cultures it still isn't. That idea was primarily a product of the enlightenment. And the justification for rights was "religious" and relied on "devine rights". Go read the magna carta.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

Heh. I guess it's more up to how the town implements casinos rather than the casinos themselves. However, the fact that one must be careful about allowing casinos suggests an inherent danger to them...

Let the gamblers play...

[eathan13]

"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue." Gee, Bob, isn't that the real reason the US gets involved in these "World" organizations in the first place - one more channel to try to impose our values on the rest of the world? When we agree to play nice together from a common ground established by working in cooperation with the other member nations, are we crossing our fingers behind our backs? Yes, Bob, I run a site with gaming information and tips. I have my own agenda, I like blackjack and poker. So is the Justice Department coming after me next? After all I do link to a few offshore gaming sites...

Re:Let the gamblers play...

[eathan13]

Sorry, I'm new to Slashdot. Let me try that with some proper formatting...

"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue."

Gee, Bob, isn't that the real reason the US gets involved in these "World" organizations in the first place - one more channel to try to impose our values on the rest of the world?

When we agree to play nice together from a common ground established by working in cooperation with the other member nations, are we crossing our fingers behind our backs?

Yes, Bob, I run a site with gaming information and tips. I have my own agenda, I like blackjack and poker. So is the Justice Department coming after me next? After all I do link to a few offshore gaming sites...

I think that should do it...

Re:Let the gamblers play...

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's their funeral.

You're all heart, pal.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[donutello]

290 million people with only two majority opinions.

There are several parties and several view points - only two of those are viable, however.

Why no 'online' gambling?

[xot]

Wht i fail to understand is that why is online gambling banned when there are so many diff types gambling happening in the USA.Also if anyone wants to start a gambling he can start it up on any other countries servers and americans can still gamble?
Its just like what happenned with alcohol prohibition,the more you ban it the more the people break the law.So when you are allowed to gamble in person in Las Vegas(or another 1000 places) why not online in the convenience of your own home.

Re:Why no 'online' gambling?

[BCW2]

The answer is control. Thet have regulated Nevada to the point that the Mafia (who built Las Vegas) has almost no influence there and the games are honest, which means that the law of averages says the house wins most of the time. Internet gambling has no controls and could be used to finance organized crime or terrorists.

Foooools

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason for the recent "global economic upturn" was US consumers buying o/s imports; so if the WTO wants to put barriers on imports and exports, they'll just be fscking themselves.

Shocking

[Kaboom13]

USA likes things that benefit it. USA doesn't like things that hurt it. News at 11.

WTO has a lot more to gain from the US then the US has to gain from it anyway.

Rules are for the WEAK

[Anonymous Coward]

Might makes right. We like to think of ourselves as buying into a higher idealized government in which power is in the hands of the majority....but that is not the way it works in reality.

It would sure be NICE if the weak had just as much power as the strong, but humans just can't seem to organize themselves that way.

USA has the strongest military in the world, and dominates the world economy. America does what America wants.

--AC

The rest of the world...

[capn_buzzcut]

is just part of our empire. Like it or not, the USA rules this planet, and we will continue to do as we like no matter what you colonists think. You other "countries" out there FRANCE might convince yourselves that you are sovereign, but the truth is that you are all our little puppets. No other country in history has posessed such global power over every aspect of life as the USA now does. Military, political, economic, hell the rest of the world even tries to imitate our fashion and entertainment despite the fact that we just might nuke your ass for looking at us the wrong way, biatch. In fact, it might be best if all of you just start referring to us as GOD, since that's about how much control we actually have over your pitiful lives.

The reason we don't want online gambling is because that's what seperates us from you. You see, to us, the rest of the world is a teeming mass of unwashed heathens, unable to govern themselves properly, differentiate right from wrong, or even bathe regularly. Therefore, if you think online gambling is OK, then it simply MUST be wrong, and we just can't have that. So go ahead and entertain your deviant vulgarisms, just don't expect us to join in on the sin orgy, ya bunch of uppity Eurotrash bastids.

Re:The rest of the world...

[Anonymous Coward]

George....George W Bush....is that you? You sound like him, misguided, less than intelligent, as ignorant as they come. Let me know, it has to be you George, it has to be. There is no way that there could be two people in 250 million who are that stupid, could there?

Re:The rest of the world...

[t_allardyce]

Oh come on, you know us brits were just as ruthless and evil as you guys in our time! i mean we practically started the whole palestine/israel thing and now we sit by without anyone blaiming us, beat that!! You might have tried to take over the world with your slick business control, but we got in there with good old guns and just shot those basterds up! we still have all our old buildings and infrastructure around the world! ok so we accept you guys are the bad-ass gangstas now, hell you prooved yourself 100 times over by nuking those cities (ok so we helped build those nukes but it was your show), but hey you gotta have some modesty!

Re:The rest of the world...

[capn_buzzcut]

Dammit, just when you think ruling the planet is gonna be fun, somebody points out that it's already been done before. You know, now that I think of it, it seems like almost every civilized nation in the northern hemisphere has had it's glory days - a time when its power and influence touched everyone else on earth. Maybe it is simply the nature of things.

Oh well, just be thankful your rulers aren't the Romans again, now that was an empire! Although...just how much of the world does the Vatican still influence? Maybe the Roman empire still rules us today, only in such a way that we don't even realize it? Hmmm.

So you foreigners might not like the good old USA very much right now, but just count your blessings - it could be a lot worse. At least we try to only smite the bad guys.

WTO overstepping it's authority

[curtlewis]

Gambling is illegal in most US states with a few exceptions (Atlantic City, Nevada, Indian reservations). I don't see an issue with the US not wanting to permit online gambling.

Certain types of business are prone to infiltration and control by criminal elements. Gambling is notorioius for this, hence the restrictions we have in the US.

I'm all for free trade, it makes for a stronger world economy all around, but if some organization demands we permit trade of a commodity or service which is illegal in our country, they're out of line.

Responsibility

[follower_of_christ]

As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you.
Where do you draw the line? Should a murderer be able to choose what happens to him if he's an adult? You'd probably argue that a murder is a crime worthy of limiting the rights of the invidividual who commits the crime. Where do you draw the line on crimes worthy of limiting rights? Would you rather leave the enforcement of the law up to the people? The US is comprised of a majority Christians. You'd leave it up to us to determine law and enforce it?

Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy.
"gambling" destroys lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"adult beverages" destroy lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"premature ending of pregnancy" destroys a premature child's life and causes severe mental trauma on the mother (arguably destroying her life/future)- whenever it happens
What's next? Is suicide going to be defined as "premature torment escape", because "life sucks"?

I've heard politicians recently use the same terms and label the GOP "parents" because they want to provide the American public with what it desires which is protections from dangerous activities. These critical politicians assert that the motivation of the GOP is self-interest. It astonishes me that someone would say that the government is playing parent when the majority of the country would vote for the legislation they are introducing.

What kind of democracy would we have if the majority was influenced by a small minority that is bent on self-sacrifice, because they really "feel" like it's the right thing to do.

It seems to me like there are a whole group of people in this nation who are bent on loosening the moral fiber that has driven the nation to success because they don't want to be held responsble for other people's pain caused by their gambling, adult beverages, and abortion. I guess hurting and killing other people should be legal because a small few "feel" like it's the right thing to do.

Re:Responsibility

[elemental23]

"gambling" destroys lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.
"adult beverages" destroy lives - When it's abused and that "Adult" can't control it.

Whose responsibility is it to keep people from abusing these things? The government's or the individual with the problem? You'd argue that alcohol should also be illegal? Do you not remember how that went the first time it was tried?

"premature ending of pregnancy" destroys a premature child's life and causes severe mental trauma on the mother (arguably destroying her life/future)- whenever it happens

Speak for yourself. What authority do you have to make this claim about every woman who has had an abortion? In what way does abortion destroy a woman's life or future? You'd argue that abortion should be illegal? What about the oft-mentioned rape cases? Do you think that being forced to have the child of a rapist would be less traumatic than abortion?

Re:Responsibility

[follower_of_christ]

Whose responsibility is it to keep people from abusing these things? The government's or the individual with the problem? You'd argue that alcohol should also be illegal? Do you not remember how that went the first time it was tried?

Drinking irresponsibly damages lives other than your own. Those people should be, and are being held accountable for their actions while drunk. I applaud the US Government for enforcing these laws. Would I make drinking alchohol illegal? No, I would put tight controls on it's sales and enforce strict laws upon people who abuse it. (Clap) The people have decided pretty well here.

Speak for yourself. What authority do you have to make this claim about every woman who has had an abortion? In what way does abortion destroy a woman's life or future? You'd argue that abortion should be illegal? What about the oft-mentioned rape cases? Do you think that being forced to have the child of a rapist would be less traumatic than abortion?

You would take a human's life in order that a woman that was brutalized by a rapist "might" have a less tramatic life??? The woman that was raped is going to have severe mental trama already, but killing an innocent child should not be added to the list. There are alternate avenues such as adoption that the mother can choose. It doesn't have to be ending someone elses life.

Speak for yourself.

There has to be someone defending the child's right to live. I'm honored that I can use my speech to do it. Someone has to communicate the truth and if noone does another child and mother will be traumatized by a group of society that is telling them that it's OK to murder.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[lawpoop]

All law codes are moral codes. Look at the Old Testament of the bible. Or more accurately, the Torah. It's a legal system, with rules for behavior and specific punishments for violations thereof. When a Jewish boy becomes a man and approaches the Torah, he becomes a legal adult, and enters into legal contract that the Jews have with God. He is saying, "I agree to comply by the terms of this contract". It's basically the same deal for Islam, Hinduism, any of the major world religions. When you look at religion before the era of modern states, they were basically law codes.

Your idea of "freedom" is just another in a long list of morals that people have held dear over the centuries, like loyalty, justice, compassions, etc.

Where's Gen. Turgidson when you need him?

[finelinebob]

Mr. President: we cannot ALLOW ... an online poker gap!!

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent poster wasn't referring to murder in the abortive sense. Rather in the sense of murder is a law in a our books using it as an example. You lose the argument after one sentence in taking a quote out of context, and using fallacy fallaciouslly.

Online Gambling == Money Laundering?

[jrpascucci]

Isn't it possible that Online Gambling could be used for Money Laundering?

Consider - you and I are playing blackjack (you're the dealer, I'm the player, and the house doesn't automatically win if it gets a blackjack), or backgammon, or heads-up poker. I with my 'horrible luck' always draw until I'm bused, or always leave several pips open, or only bet lots when I am dealt an 7-2. I bet 50-100k per hand. I can lose several million dollars to you rather quickly. And legally. And without oversight for tax purposes.

Unrestricted online gambling is ridiculously prone to misuse.

US Losing Ogallala Aquifer

[meehawl]

Every year it drains it aquifier and every year it gets less and less. It isn't refilling. The chance Inida had to avoid it it lost in the 90's.

Have you ever looked at a map of the US aquifer system? More details here. I'd be most worried about the Ogallala Aquifer that serves Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. That's draining quickly. Another generation or two and its Ogallala's remaining water resources will not be economically viable to extract. Bye bye US grain production. Of course, the reduction in Canadian natural gas exports will have shut down the US fertiliser production long before then...

That's a very good idea.

[RLW]

You are right on the money. I generally hate the Anonymous Coward but this time you have it right. Only legalize drugs that have a 'downing' or calming effect. Right On!

It just goes to show our real priorities

[LionMage]

With all the protesting against the WTO in the United States, you'd think lawmakers here would have gotten the clue that many U.S. citizens don't like the WTO and want no part of it. I've seen nothing else that can galvanize unions and environmentalists in a common cause! Unions hate the WTO because of its impact on workers; environmentalists hate the WTO because it undermines the environmental protection laws of member nations.

Socialists hate the WTO because it promotes corporate greed and capitalism at the expense of everything else. Many conservatives hate the WTO because it undermines national sovereignty.

And yet lawmakers in the United States do little or nothing until the WTO tries to force the U.S. to accept Internet gambling; once that happens, you have lawmakers screaming that the U.S. should withdraw from the WTO.

In my humble opinion, this can be summed up thusly: "Right cause. Sickeningly wrong reason."

Re:It just goes to show our real priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

"With all the protesting against the WTO in the United States, you'd think lawmakers here would have gotten the clue that many U.S. citizens don't like the WTO and want no part of it. "

The protests look big and all that, but they represent a minority view!

The lawmakers see a little protest here and there, but weighed against their electoral base and the people who are involved in the business of government, they don't really count.

Most of the feedback the lawmakers get is adamantly in support of the status quo.

Gambling does not equal trade

[Anonymous Coward]

With trade you exchange money, goods, or services for goods or services.

Gambling produces neither goods nor services. Overall, it produces nothing but profit for the people running the casinos.

I will

[mao che minh]

I am an American, and my opinion of world politics closely models the parent's. It's just the way it is, the alpha male dictates the pack's behaviour. If China ever becomes the dominant power, I'll expect them to behave as we are and have been for the past fourty years. Would you really expect any different? If a lax, weak country like France or even Spain had our might and economic size, do you think that they would really want to appease everyone else and seek balance with them? You would be rather naive if you did.

Look at how England acted during its reign as a global empire. Everyone hated them and called them arrogant because they pursued their interests and captured them, devil may care, because they were on top. Rome is another perfect example. It seems like every couple centuries a civilization rises past all others, and collectively have the attitude to dominate the rest of the world. After a while the citizenry changes, becomes docile and more friendly, and another nations captures the glory. Just deal, because history isn't going to stop repeating itself any time soon.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Mr. Piddle]

There are a few (very few) who will gamble away every dime they have, then sell their house and throw that away too. Addictive types will honor their addictions. Why penalize the vast majority because of a few losers?

It's too bad that they weren't able to gamble away their ability to reproduce!

Bricker Ammendment

[David Hume]

This may create more support for the effort to revive the Bricker Amendment (see also here). Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

• Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this
  Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
  
  
• Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law
  in the United States only through legislation which would be valid
  in the absence of treaty.
  
  
• Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive
  and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization.
  All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed
  on treaties by this article.
  
  
• Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article
  by appropriate legislation.
  

Re:Bricker Ammendment

[fishbowl]

[Bricker Amendment]

Section 3 will always fall to presidential veto.

Re:Bricker Ammendment

[jlanthripp]

Constitutional amendments are not subject to executive veto - Article V, U.S. Constitution.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Blimey85]

I'm anti-abortion and it has nothing to do with religion. Murder is murder whether you believe in a God or not.

Don't confuse LOTTERY with GAMBLING

[Xhad]

"While I personally don't understand why people gamble"

Not all gambling is negative expectation if you know what you're doing. Yes, playing slot machines and lotteries expecting to make money is stupidity; even with no understanding of probability, anyone with a brain should realize, "Hey, if I'm expected to win the same amount of the time as everyone else, and the casino's making a profit, that must mean I should expect to lose money!" However, there's a reason some people get kicked out of casinos after a few rounds of blackjack, or help pay for their vegas vacations by hitting the poker tables; the people who know what they're doing make money off of the people who would be just as well off playing slots and don't know it.

Liberation is Ungood Newspeakwise term

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) raised concerns about Iraqi women's rights under the US-backed regime. "I have been visited by women from Iraq who are just absolutely terrified, because even under Saddam, although their life in many ways was hell on wheels and although they are very happy he's not there, they had more freedom than they may have now," she said.

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/e3722cb5c01 ff a4749256d180006988d?OpenDocument
http://www.cwfa. org/articles/5194/BLI/femfacts/
http://www.femini st.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory. asp?id=8280

Re:Liberation is Ungood Newspeakwise term

[mingot]

A *very* legit concern on her and those womens' parts. Sadly we don't have the balls to introduce the hardline clerics in that country to mister summary execution.

In *my* postwar iraq this guy would already be hanging off of a lamp-post on mainstreet. And the people who'd have the balls to show up to his funeral procession/protest would end up with as much napalm on their backs as could be dropped.

Iraqi cleric: 9/11 was a 'miracle from God'

Re:Liberation is Ungood Newspeakwise term

[AceM2]

Yeah, I mean... All Iraqi women are rich and can go see a US senator right? No wait... Most Iraqi women:

1) Can't afford to fly or call Barbara Boxer
2) Don't know who the hell Barbara Boxer is
3) Wouldn't give a damn about who she is anyway
4) Raped/Killed by Saddam & Co.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Blimey85]

How can you say that abortion is not inherently evil? It's murder. Since when is murder not inherently evil?

Selfish Interests are universal

[PetoskeyGuy]

Greed and Necessity rules the world. Of course third world countries would work towards their own self interest. Huge nations like the US will work for their own self interest, and side players like MegaCorps will look out for themselves as well.

It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, something can be proposed that is beneficial to everyone. Kyoto was one of those type of treaties. It was never submitted because at the time the Republicans were planning on voting the party line against it and that would prevent a 2/3rds vote required to ratify. So Clinton delayed hoping the next election cycle would allow the treaty to be approved. Better to delay then officially kill it. Bush did officially withdraw from negotiations of Kyoto in 2001. So Nyah. :)

It is interesting to note that the WTO is not going after Australia for passing the Interactive Gambling Act in 2001. Although I'm not familiar that law or the US laws that are being oppossed, it does seem at first glance to be similar. Perhaps some Aussies could fill us in on the details of that law.

Sounds like you need a history & economy lesso

[Frobnicator]

...the massive distortions that occur because of the subsidises and trade restrictions the US and Europe give to their farmers ...

My family have a high efficiency farm that can turn a profit exposed to the real world market, if your farmers can't do the same then frankly they should look for another career and have some rationalisation of the sector (bigger farms, less workers, and thus smaller country populations, all the stuff that has happened in my home region over the last 20-30 yrs or so). Farming is a business and not a way of life, and should be treated as such.

Sounds like you need a brief history and economy lesson.

Up until a few centuries ago, argriculture and farming were done in just exactly the way you mentioned. That was just fine, because there were no "high efficiency farms" that you spoke of. In 1800, 90% of all Americans worked in agriculture, and the average farmer could produce about 100 bushels of crop from 5 acres of land with about 300 hours of work.

By 1890, only 90 years later, a farmer produce a 100 bushels of crop from a 2-1/2 acres of land with 40 hours of labor. Also in 1890, 43% were employed by agriculture. Steel plows, horse-drawn combines, railroads, and other innovations helped this out.

After the World Wars, gas-powered tractors pushed it up to 100 bushels on 2 acres in Ten to Fourteen hours of labor.

At the same time frame, the world entered into a huge recessions after each new innovation and after the world wars; Production of food was very high, the value of money had plumeted, and farmers *could not* sell their food to anyone. My dad, who lived on a farm from the 1920s through 1950s and worked in a small farming town, told us stories about expressions like: "would you like one egg in your beer, or two?" Because there was so much surplus, they couldn't even give food away.

Now for the economics lesson. Lets say prices on wheat are low. Your family wants more money, so the simple logical choice is to plant and sell more crops. But everybody else has that idea too. Jump forward a few months, and the market is literally flooded. Big corps will drop prices to almost zero in order to sell, meaning that you will have to practically give your food away. The next year comes, and you have no money for seed, and the banks won't lend you money since they saw how big the losses were last year.

This is a well known issue in both economics and world-history.

Yes, there are problems with the subsidy system. For example, lots of big corps abuse the system. But without it, there would be very serious, global agri-business problems.

(And yes, I have several close relatives in agri-business, mostly as potato and alfalfa growers. I've heard both sides of the issues, and think the subsidy is a good thing.)

frob

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Blimey85]

I think we need to focus on not taking care of people if they destroy themselves rather than limiting what everyone can do simply because a small group will be destructive if given those freedoms. I like to gamble on occasion... I never gamble more than forty dollars or so... and I only do it every couple of months. Sometimes I make a little, sometimes I lose it all... but I have a bit of fun while doing it. I'm not addicted to gambling nor do I have an addictive personality. Yet I'm punished because some people have no self-control. I have to take a trip to Vegas in order to vist any "nice" casinos and that just doesn't make any sense to me. Why is it ok for people to gamble there, but not here? I think gambling should be legal across the nation, and prostitution too. Why can't a woman charge for something that she can legally give away? That too makes no sense.

And Gambling Has....

[weston]

.. demonstrable negative effects, both in terms of increasing crime and causing social problems among participants.

That's not a slam dunk argument for its prohibition, of course (alcohol, for example, causes severe problems, but Prohibition simply didn't work), but it means that society can make a case for regulating or perhaps prohibition through government power.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Glendale2x]

How dare you? You can call killing a fetus anything you like, but from where I come it's called murder. Abortion is simply the nice term for it when it's an unborn baby.

Did you know what when a woman has a miscarriage, that's an abortion, too? Spontaneous abortion, actually, but you claim that killing a fetus is murder.

Therefore, by your logic, you should go around calling mothers who miscarried murdurers.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with your dictionary.com definition. Murder is terrible. Very bad.

However, abortion is LEGAL and doesn't fall into the category is things that are not illegal. I realize this may be difficult for you to understand, but it's quite simple logic once you think about it for a millisecond.

Now, you may think that abortion is morally wrong, but please don't think that just because it's morally wrong, that's it's also illegal.

Huh?

[JeanPaulBob]

Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves. It's always someone else they're trying to protect, isn't it?

I really don't get your point. I mean, your argument sounds really good and convincing...But what is it you're actually saying? They're called "representatives" for a reason--it's their job to propose laws entirely for the benefit of other people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against censorship, legislating morality, etc. It's just that your argument seems rather silly. Just try applying it to other issues. Take prison rape, for instance. Does a legislator actually have to be afraid s/he will end up in prison before you'll allow them to change the system to make it less likely? Do you have to be black to be concerned about civil rights? Do you have to be a parent to protect children from child pornographers? Do you have to be victim to do the right thing?

If you disagree with them about the definition of the "right thing", fine, argue on those grounds. But it seems to me that you're criticizing them on a standard you wouldn't apply to anyone else.

Re:Huh?

[TheLoneDanger]

I thought about your argument a bit and came up with this:

If a representative puts themselves in the position of the one being actually effected, then the law will be less likely to be AGAINST a group than some of the stuff that is passed. From your above examples, the representative would put themselves in the place of the child being harmed, the black being persecuted, the prisoner being raped and conclude that they would not want to be subject to these things. Essentially, no one wants to be victimized. What about the offenders, who are also being affected? Well, their actions transgress against other people's rights.

But compare it to the examples the grandparent poster used: They would put themselves in the role of a gay person who wants to be married and conclude that gays don't want to be married (?!?), would put themselves into the role of a rap music listener and conclude that no one wants to listen to rap music (?!?), would put themselves into the role of someone who likes watching pr0n and conclude that it shouldn't be available (?!?). Now apparently, these people aren't the victims. Who is being victimized? Whose rights are being transgressed against? Does a right to marry for gays deny someone else's right to marry? (hint: the answer is no.) Does removing the right to listen to rap music prevent people from being killed? I doubt it, and I'd be interested to see any studies showing murder rates going higher with the introduction of rap music. This is possible, but not even close to probable. Does removing the right to watch pr0n prevent what? Rape? Possibly but not assuredly.

I think the point is this, in the first 3 examples, there IS NO VICTIM. Only the very slight chance of possible victims because of the acts which these things might lead to, which are illegal acts already. This line of reasoning is ridiculous and if you follow it, you would have to be against alcohol (prohibition went real well), guns (oh boy), cars (used in crime all the time) etc.

In your examples, if the act(s) takes place, then there is ASSUREDLY a victim. There are enough actual victims of actual crimes, without pursuing non-existent victims of non-existent crimes. The grandparent examples illustrate how it is the moral objections of people against things they DISLIKE, and are not actually HARMED by that creates some laws.

If a law doesn't actually PROTECT actual people, then the law is simply restricting freedoms. Is that what laws are for?

Turnabout is fair play?

[ogre7299]

Hmmmmm, the US doesn't like outside nations trying to impose thier values on us. Maybe our gov't will get a clue and quit doing that to other countries now, but I think not, americans are far too arrogant.

It's not so much the gambling

[Sycraft-fu]

It's apparently mostly the shitty tipping and not going out. My father works in the automotive industry and they also have their big tradeshow in Vegas. Often, it's a few weeks after Comdex. Cabbies and waiters and the like always comment on how much more they like the auto guys. They tend to be much older, on average, the classical bussiness exec type. Most are quite good tippers and tend to go out to dinner every night. The geeks apparently tip very little, if at all, on average and are quite content to spend the night holed up in their room with their laptops.

I find none of this supprising, and can see why it annoys the service people.

Re:It's not so much the gambling

[mabu]

It's apparently mostly the shitty tipping

The last time I was in Vegas I walked into a Burger King and there was a TIP JAR AT THE REGISTER! That to me, epitomizes Vegas. What am I tipping the guy behind the register in a Burger King for? Giving me correct change?

Does investing in dot-coms

[Anonymous Coward]

count?

The U.S. should just deal with this...

[LordZardoz]

The US seems to often confuse being the most influential nation on this planet with being the acknowledged rulers of this planet.

They may have the strongest bargaining position, but that does not mean that the rest of the world will alter its laws to suit US intrests. The same applies to trade practices.

I am sure that the problem will be solved via the US getting what it wants in exchange for slinging some money around somewhere. They should either bow to the external pressure, or start convincing / bribing the other members of the WTO, not blather on about how they wont bow to external intrests.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:The U.S. should just deal with this...

[fishbowl]

>The US seems to often confuse being the most
>influential nation on this planet with being the
>acknowledged rulers of this planet.

Until and unless the US meets actual opposition to things like invasion, overthrow, and occupation of countries, why exactly *shouldn't* the US presume it has such a role?

By the way, "opposition" to military action pretty much needs to be raised with military hardware, not merely words in the UN hall.

There was NO opposition whatsoever to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, despite claims by certain countries that they "opposed" the action. (Countries that commanded military forces, mind you, who could have stopped it, or at least escalated the matter to the point that diplomacy could not be ignored.)

But at the end of the day, they really didn't care enough to put their lives on the line, or risk being cut off from the US trade relations, did they? So US imperialism is supported by the world one more day. No domestic rebellion, no foreign opposition. To all apperances, the rest of the world WANTS to be ruled by the US.

Poker

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you, there's no way I'd play blackjack online. But I would play poker, because in that case you're taking money from the other players, not the casino. The casino takes a fixed amount per hand, just like the dealer in a physical casino. They have no incentive to fiddle with the deal.

There have been some rumors of casinos fielding bot players, which would open up cheating possibilities, so I'd still keep to the big, reputable sites.

moral relativism is not rational

[Anonymous Coward]

"It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"

Any free country has the right to impose their will on a country ruled by a dictator that oppresses individual rights. Saying the US is hypocritical for imposing it's will on Saddam, but not wanting someone else to impose his will on the US, is saying that all leaders have moral authority to rule their countries, regardless of how they obtained their position, and whether or not their laws are just under an objective standard. The purpose of govt. is to protect individual rights. I agree that the US govt. doesn't have the right to restrict US companies from providing and supporting online gambling, since it is an attack on freedom. However, as the US, by an large, is based on the principle of individual freedom, it is not hypocritical to impose your will on unjust govts. and expect to remain free of harrassment from other countries, but only if you respect individual freedom. Otherwise, you're succumbing to isolationism, which did not work out as well for the world when the US hesitated before becoming invovled in wwI and wwII, because they wanted to stay out of it.

Online casino != Worse odds

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

I have read in multiple places on this thread a few highly moderated but highly uninformed posts concerning this issue,
If anything, online casinos can afford to give BETTER odds to people, and frequently they will.

They do not have overhead on massive structures, they do not have to upkeep thousands of tables and machines. Their staffs are much smaller as well.

I think it's interesting that the issue has focused on the two countries it has- A huge number of these casinos are based in Canada (for US customers) or Gibraltar (for UK).

Their customers are NOT stupid, people will swiftly realise if one casino is giving bum odds (worse than the usual ones anyway...) and give their business to a different one. Reference the old saying about skinning a sheep once but shearing it many times.
Many of these sites as well have random number generators that are certified by various mathematical groups.

Hope that this is able to remove a little ignorance of the situation, and remember: The thing foremost in the people running these sites' minds is "How can i get all the traffic away from other casinos". Eventually, this should lead to a better ENTERTAINMENT product for everyone who chooses that route.

Very Good -- some thoughts on that.

[BarakMich]

Cookie for you. That's the way I learned it in school too. (yes, only last year, you insensitive clods)

The first world is the capatalist countries, the second the communist countries, and the third the developing contries.

One reason for the whole anti-communism "red scare" era? The second world model looked pretty good to the third world -- the last czar, Nicholas, was murdered in 1918, and between then and, say, about 1955 is only 37 short years for a whole movement to go from nothing to a world power.

Compare that to the capitalist model, which took the US just under 200 years to come to superpower status.

I wonder which one the third-world countries thought was better?

This can be argued as a cause for Vietnam and other such atrocities (Sept. 11, 1973 -- Chile -- look it up) but regardless of your political stance and feelings toward the era, this, to me, is a fairly interesting arguement for the way history worked itself out.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[theLOUDroom]

Discussing rights just muddles up the issue and generally leads to circular arguments, such as yours. "Rights" are merely an expression of what the law permits, and they shouldn't be treated as a separate entities. You have rights because the law gives them to you.

Only if you don't believe in the concept of "fundamental human rights". (Or course there's room for plently of debate on what those rights are.)

For instance, drug use by an individual does not directly cause harm to someone else.

But is can and does cause indirect harm, hence it can still be viewed as your exercise of your rights interfering with my own rights.
It's true that it gets muddy, but it is possible to view a great many things in terms of a your rights vs. my rights tradeoff.

I think you are kind of off base

[Sycraft-fu]

For two reasons:

1) When the US uses economics as a direct diplomatic threat, it is for good reasons. We use it against dictatorships that oppress their people, governments that sponsor terrorists, etc. It's partially a moral thing, and partially a common sense thing. You don't want to economically help the regime today that sends a nuclear missle up your ass tomorrow.

2) When it is WTO type regulations, we don't ask contries to violate their own laws. It is against the law in most states to gamble, online or otherwise. It isn't right for another country to tell them that their can't have that law. Since they don't allow gambling (on or off line) it can't be argued they they are being anti-competitive.

I don't have a problem with nations interfering with others in certian curmstances. Human rights would be a good example. Also I don't have a problem with contries demanding equal access to markets. If the US sells something, they need to allow European companies to also sell it in the US.

It's not right, however, for a country to try and dictate laws that don't invlove major issues or fair access. It wouldn't be right for us to demand Europe allow sales of firearms to private citizens on the same level as allowed in the US. I mean, they are severly restricting our firearm manufacturer's access to their markets. However they also restrict their OWN firearm manufacturers in the same way, so there is no problem. It would be unfair for us to demand they change their laws to match our own in this case.

The Fundamental Contradiction

[Anonymous Coward]

They're called "representatives" for a reason--it's their job to propose laws entirely for the benefit of other people.

So, what you're saying is that it's for the benefit of the people who voted for them, who aren't competent to decide whether to marry a man or woman, listen to (c)rap music, smoke/shoot/snort/inject whatever... but somehow these same people are competent to elect rulers with the power to make those decisions for them?

This is the Fundamental Contradiction of the democratic Nanny State [not the Democrat party, but small-d democracy, both major parties are guilty]. If you are so incompetent as to need the government to make your decisions for you, then you aren't competent to elect that government in the first place. Laws that forbid consenting, mentally competent adults (who have never been convicted of violating anyone else's rights so as to deserve having their own curtailed - and losing the franchise!) from engaging in various kinds of behavior 'for their own good' simply do not compute.

--
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO

Re:The Fundamental Contradiction

[JeanPaulBob]

So, what you're saying is that it's for the benefit of the people who voted for them, who aren't competent to decide whether to marry a man or woman, listen to (c)rap music, smoke/shoot/snort/inject whatever...

Of course not. When someone elects a legislator who supports that sort of "Nanny State" legislation, they're doing it because they've already made those decisions for themselves--the catch is, they also want the government to make those decisions for everyone else, too. That's what everyone does, I'm sure yourself included.

You don't believe me? Well, just what are civil rights protections? They're the result of a whole bunch of people deciding it's wrong to do something--job discrimination on the basis of race, for instance--and also deciding they want the government to stop anyone else from doing it. It's the same with murder, rape, tax evasion, and every other act the government defines as criminal.

Laws that forbid consenting, mentally competent adults (who have never been convicted of violating anyone else's rights so as to deserve having their own curtailed - and losing the franchise!) from engaging in various kinds of behavior 'for their own good' simply do not compute.

Oh, so you think it's wrong for me to prohibit consenting, mentally competent adults from engaging in behavior that does not negatively affect anyone else simply because I don't think it's good for them. Guess what? I agree! Maybe that's what the grandparent poster was trying to get at--but that's not what he said.

Quote:
Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves

There's three types of justification for legislation that we're talking about: (1) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts me." (2) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts other people." (3) "I'll stop you from doing this because it hurts yourself."

As I understood it, the grandparent wasn't just arguing against (3)--the way he said it, he was arguing against (2), as well.

Because we take ALL our treaties serious...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all, there are 389 ratified U.S.-Indian treaties, and majority of these have been broken by the U.S.

-- from PBS interview with Donald Fixico, Thomas Bowlus Distinguished Professor of American Indian History and Director of the Center for Indigenous Nations Studies at the University of Kansas

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is all emotion and no substance. You make the charge of fallacy against yourself, now.

Moreover, arguing for something because it is legal is just an extension of ad baculum; none of your statements are relevant, which means that apparently you don't understand the issue with "fallacies of relevance," which ad misercordiam (appeal to emotion, as you put it), as well as ad baculum and ad hominem are.

Lastly, when you say "I have absolutely NO interest in arguing for or against abortion," your tone discredits your statement. Please be more careful in the future.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

Bah, you accuse me of fallacy (which is the only reason I responded to begin with), and you setup straw men. The real argument is whether or not abortion (I'll use your term) is killing (no appeal to emotion here buddy) a living human being. If it *is* killing a living human being, then it should be illegal. If not, then it isn't, nor can it be, murder. Stop splitting hairs with me here please.

We both know that the definition of Murder is (oddly enough) malleable in this regard. In fact, there is currently legal hearings going on in some state (can't remember which) as to whether killing a fetus through abuse of a pregnant woman counts as murder. So don't tell me that the definition of murder is so etched in stone lest you should look like a "screeching moron" (gawd I'm starting to hate slashdotters...).

I believe that a fetus is a living human being, from inception on. Therefore, in my mind, it is rightly called murder if you kill it without a trial and court order (a fetus commited of capital crime?).

You believe, I'm guessing, that it becomes a human being at some arbitrary point in it's development? Thus it is not murder to 'abort' it. Or perhaps you actually have no true opinion, and just blindly follow the letter of the law in this case? You've not said, you've only bitched about my use of the word murder.

That clear things up?

Hypocrisy?

[riceboy50]

The US tends to impose its values on other countries through any means available (including trade). So when it happens back it's an outrage? I cry hypocrisy.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

There is a difference between dying and being killed you know. One is *willingly taking the life of another." I'll leave it to you to decide which is which... This is so fucking off topic now... Killing fetuses is such a hot topic...

three more things

[Anonymous Coward]

3 things

1. thing 1.
2. thing 2.
3. thing 1.

You miss the point

[mlg9000]

Sure the odds suck and everyone with common sense knows that. But....

The lottery exists for the simple reason that people are going to do it anyway. Back in the days before state run lotteries you had the numbers racket, which was one of primary sources of income for the Mob. They were VERY popular and it wasn't uncommon for factories to shut down while the numbers were being sold/read. (That's back when factories were 10,000's of people too.) So you really couldn't enforce the law when it was that big a part of American life and expect to be successful. So that's why the States stepped in. They could offer a bigger jackpot and a certified fair game and the numbers game couldn't. Which meant that all that money going to organized crime anyway could now be put to some other, useful, purpose.

As to Online gambling... Governments should have the right to determine on their own what is and is not legal and what is and is not moral. As long as there is some form of true democratic process behind that decision making. (ie not excluding women from voting etc...) Besides this is the United States we are talking about. Boston tea party... don't tread on me... remember. If you ever want to start a fight mention anything remotely sounding like "World Government" to an American.

No...

[bonch]

No, because jealousy + fanatical religious fundamentalism = planes going into buildings.

If we weren't around, it would have been some other "infidel's" buildings.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[SB5]

Best part is that the two majority opinions are almost exactly the same.

Re:So easy to allow yet enforce; stop the US funds

[edrugtrader]

it is if they are doing it over US based ISP's...

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jim Starx]

Federal laws should never be legeslated with the purpose of protecting states from political peer pressure. If there is such an outcry to legalize this then maybe it should just be legalized. Otherwise it's the states responcibility to stand up to that pressure.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[GigsVT]

Be careful with the argument, it's sorta a tautology.

While it is an emotional appear to call something that is not unlawful murder, the usual point of the person calling something murder is an argument for making it illegal.

Put another way, you are basically arguing that the definition of murder can never be expanded.

If it isn't illegal, it can't be murder. If it isn't murder, it can't be made illegal under murder laws. This is the tautology.

Awww, no more gambling for school funds

[TheUberBob]

Damn, we might have to pay for education funds out of actual taxes instead of lotteries/gambling. We might have to stop relying on the desparate/low-middle class to fund social programs. I for one find this hilarious and deserved--I cant wait to see how the loss of income from this results in either a)raising taxes on the poor/middle class, b) raising taxes on the rich/multinationals, or c) a loss of services.

Random factoid...Did you know that people spend 20k + a year for private high schools in SanFran--and that's for a school that's just opening and has NO track record.

In other news, the whole 100 billion plus on terrorism is rather much. I'd rather take my statistical chances, live in the country, and have universal health care at a price tage of 80 billion a year, tyvm. Might encourage us to be better diplomats and saaaay stop funding a country run by a guy that admittedly let 100s of innocents be slaughtered. ding ding, yep thats israel, and dont take my word for it, ask the BBC.

Re:Awww, no more gambling for school funds

[Quill_28]

Do you really want universal health care?

don't even know your own politics

[GunFodder]

No, you described a libertarian government. "Conservatives" in the US just passed the biggest federal budget ever; that doesn't sound like a small government to me. Libertarians believe in the smallest possible government with the single purpose of protecting individual rights. Conservatives believe in interfering with those rights to promote religious beliefs (pro-life), security (Department of Homeland Security), and the American way of life (invasion of Iraq).

You might have noticed that there aren't any actual libertarian governments. If poor people don't get any support or services from the goverment then they eventually revolt, and this results in either a socialist nation (if they win) or a military dictatorship (if they lose). Maybe if the difference between being rich and poor was purely based on one's skill and effort then libertarianism could work. But the reality is that life is not fair, so people expect their own government to help them out when they are down.

Re:don't even know your own politics

[maximilln]

Miseducation has served you well.

Back in their roots in the 1800s and early 1900s, Republicans WERE Libertarians. They strove to keep government small and out of the way. As the communists started kicking their butts in the polls. however, they had to adapt to appeal to the public opinion of the common half-butt-educated American know-nothing.

Re:don't even know your own politics

[HanzoSpam]

You might have noticed that there aren't any actual libertarian governments. If poor people don't get any support or services from the goverment then they eventually revolt, and this results in either a socialist nation (if they win) or a military dictatorship (if they lose).

Um, no. Revolutions are rarely started by the poor, usually they're started by the middle classes. See the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution as examples.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[GigsVT]

to whether killing a fetus through abuse of a pregnant woman counts as murder

You fail to mention the people pushing these laws are the same ones who want to ban abortion in large part. It's just them "rallying the dominoes" (to borrow from a christian band).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Dave114]

The law as it stands now prohibits gambling, yet people still gamble.

Theft, murder, etc. are all against the law yet, sadly, they still take place on a regular basis. No law is ever 100% effective, although there is the hope that it will dissuade some.

Well, if you look at the issue of gambling, the government generally gets a share of the profits (once again it's the Canadian situation that I'm more familiar with so I'm not sure how it applies down south). AFAIK, the current gambling restrictions in the US actually allows for limited gambling to take place, as long as no borders are crossed, although I'm not sure whether borders are defined as state, or national ones. By gaining a bit of cash from legalized gambling, the government is then able to afford to cover the costs of any necessary social programs, whereas when the gambling takes place in an external environment they would not have this benefit. I do think that if you allow people to gamble by visiting casinos, it does seem a little bit inconsistent to not allow them this option online, although I think that there are some benefits to the government to ensure that this only takes place within their jurisdiction.

As far as the drug situtation is concerned, I do personally feel that the US is going overboard with its anti-drug policies. I view it somewhere in the same neighborhood as smoking and alcohol, although I suppose that it can have more immediate consequences with short-term use (ie. drug overdoses).

I do agree that there should be some sort of equivalent to Alcoholics Anonymous for drug addicts. A person might smoke a joint once, and then be frightened of exposure, any thus may not go into treatment (if ever) until at a later stage of addiction, where it may be more difficult to reverse the trend. Additionally, I would imagine that the present illegal-but-available status of drugs tends to point teenager in this direction as a means of asserting their independence.

I do think that forgiveness/compassion is a necessary component of a justice system that aims to be effective, rathering than a simple concentration on punishment.

BS

[Goonie]

People from all walks of life gamble, as do people of all type abstain.

In Australia, statistics have been collected on this very point, and you're quite wrong. We have "mini-casinos" with one-armed bandits located across the country. Per-capita losses (absolute losses, not proportion of income) to the gambling dens inversely correlate with the socioeconomic status of the location. This Google search lists some papers on the topic.

Re:BS

[dekashizl]

Per-capita losses (absolute losses, not proportion of income) to the gambling dens inversely correlate with the socioeconomic status of the location.

Somewhat loose in your statistics to quote a socioeconomic link in an argument about intelligence, no? You are introducing a new topic which is much more directly related to money (as is gambling) than intelligence and therefore shifting the topic itself.

You've figured it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Gambling is completely non-productive. The sucker is fleeced of his money by the house and has nothing to show for it. A con, pure and simple, and a cruel and disgusting exploitation of peoples greed and hopes.

Ignore these fools who try to tell you this is "entertainment".

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Darth]

The real argument is whether or not abortion (I'll use your term) is killing (no appeal to emotion here buddy) a living human being. If it *is* killing a living human being, then it should be illegal. If not, then it isn't, nor can it be, murder.

I disagree with the assertion that killing a living human being should always be illegal. Self defense, for example, would be a case where i could envision someone killing a living human being legally.

In fact, there is currently legal hearings going on in some state (can't remember which) as to whether killing a fetus through abuse of a pregnant woman counts as murder.

while it may be true that someone is arguing that point in court, and it is true that there is some action to make a federal law that does the same thing, it doesnt change the fact that currently a fetus has no legal personhood (and hasnt for at least 30 years). Therefore abortion is not killing a living human being in the eyes of the law and cannot be murder.

I believe that a fetus is a living human being, from inception on. Therefore, in my mind, it is rightly called murder if you kill it without a trial and court order (a fetus commited of capital crime?)

The law clearly does not agree with your belief that the fetus is a living human being. So calling it murder is incorrect in a legal sense.

by your previous statement, in the first piece of text i quoted, death penalties should still be considered murder. (not really the point, i know. i just wanted to point out the inconsistency so you could refine your point to more accurately reflext what you intended).

You believe, I'm guessing, that it becomes a human being at some arbitrary point in it's development? Thus it is not murder to 'abort' it. Or perhaps you actually have no true opinion, and just blindly follow the letter of the law in this case? You've not said, you've only bitched about my use of the word murder.

I think the guy you are responding to was specifically trying to not make what he believes an issue. His argument was that your use of the term "murder" was incorrect (and i would agree with him). What he believes isnt relevant to that argument.

As far as "blindly following the letter of the law in this case"; murder is a legal term. How the law looks at something is the only relevant way to look at it when determining if something is murder. If you disagree with it, you need to work on getting the law to expand their view of murder.
Until they do, it isnt murder. Maybe it should be murder, but it isnt currently murder.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

You fail to mention the people pushing these laws are the same ones who want to ban abortion in large part. It's just them "rallying the dominoes" (to borrow from a christian band).

I did, but I didn't think it was relevant. My point was that the definition of murder is not concrete. It's actively being debated now.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cens0r]

The difference is our definition of murder. I don't believe that you can kill something that is not capable of living on it's own. Therefore, since the fetus is not capable of living outside the womb, I don't believe you can kill it. That means I don't think it's murder.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cens0r]

Are you sure there's nothing in deuternomey about gambling? It seems to ban everything else that's fun!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

Nit-picky post there. Nicely avoids the subject though.

I refer you to this post.

I also will clarify that I do believe in capital punishment, but that is done for "good reasons" (I don't want to get into a debate on it, just accept that I have well-defined reasons for this). You can't tell me a fetus has done anything wrong to deserve the death penalty. :-) I make the assumption that a fetus is 'innocent' by default, thus not deserving of death, yet still a living human being. No inconsistancies here.


NB Spelling may be off, but it's late...

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Nopal]

Try Catholicism. I know it has its problems (boy, does it ever!), but the one thing I've never heard from any priest is political rethoric. Or are 99.99% of all churches out there headed by protestant ministers?

Re: .sig

[Morosoph]

Who Osama bin Laden would vote for. Link pinched from here.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to play devil's advocate here:

Some disabled people rely on technology (assisted breathing, etc.) to stay alive. They are not capable of living on their own, Christopher Reeve being a good example. Does it mean killing them would not be murder? I think most people would disagree with that.

I am personally pro-choice, but I can easily see how one sees abortion as murder. My pro-choice views are based on a few beliefs:

1) Until a baby is born it is part of a woman's body and people have a right to control what goes on in their bodies.

2) This right trumps someone else's beliefs. In other words, just in case someone else thinks abortion is murder, don't force your values on me.

3) Fetuses are not yet people until a certain stage, probably 3rd trimester. I would support limits on abortions in the 3rd trimester if I could be guaranteed that this limitation would not be used to further erode abortion rights.

4) There are many cases where the state has decided that ending lives are perfectly legal: self-defence, capital punishment, euthenasia (Oregon). So not all ending of life is murder.

5) I know of no group that puts the lack of "family values" as the center of the problems in society more than religious groups that want to outlaw abortion. A mother who wants to abort a baby would most likely not embody the kind of loving stable home that children thrive in.

Let's not kid ourselves. Abortion IS ending a viable human life. It's just that the reasons for allowing it slightly outweigh this hugely important fact.

Small error with the cut & paste...

[Morosoph]

Who Osama bin Laden would vote for.

Re:Small error with the cut & paste...

[geekee]

"The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

Does it make any sense to you that the group who blasted trains in Madrid to protest support for the American invasion in Iraq, would then turn around and support Bush, who actually sent most of the troops into Iraq? I think they're using reverse pychology on you, and I hope you don't actually believe it.

Re:Small error with the cut & paste...

[Morosoph]

Does it make any sense to you that the group who blasted trains in Madrid to protest support for the American invasion in Iraq, would then turn around and support Bush, who actually sent most of the troops into Iraq? I think they're using reverse pychology on you, and I hope you don't actually believe it.

I don't expect these people to make sense, but their reasoning:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

Looks like class A moronic terrorist reasoning to me. Like any good cultist, terrorists want good enemies; how else can they engage in a meaningful Jihad ("struggle")?

Maybe they are trying reverse psychology, or even double-reverse. Who knows? I suggest that people don't allow the issue of who terrorists would vote for to influence their vote one way or the other. It is not the terrorist's business who they vote for.

Pinochet carried out a massive programme of privatisation. Does that mean that privatisation is wrong?

I'm not American BTW, so I couldn't vote for Bush if I wanted to.

This may be...

[griblik]

...why so many people dislike Americans.

I've never met an American I didn't like (ok, that's a lie, I met one guy I thought was a total wanker, and there's always those loud-mouthed why-won't-you-accept-dollars tourists, but hey, British tourists suck too). Individually, in my experience, you're good people. Collectively, as a country...

The US government comes across as the Microsoft of global politics. It seems like there's nothing they won't do to further the US cause. They agree to global standards, and then blow them off when it suits them.

The hatred of MS around here is, as I reckon you all know and play along with, more than they deserve - they're 'evil'. But it doesn't kill anyone.

US foreign policy does.

Re:Reading Slashdot and watching STNG

[Anonymous Coward]

ok... its friday night now... and...

i'm still here.

so...

Do I get a prize?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that obtuse?

Murder is killing a person when it is unlawful to do so.

If you say, "Abortion is killing a person and it should be unlawful" that's one thing.

If you say, "Abortion is murder" you're lying. It is not murder since the definition of murder requires that the killing be unlawful -- since your assertion is that abortion is (see present tense) murder, you're either lying or being manipulative.

Again, you lose.

Now, whether an undeveloped mass of differentiating cells is a person or, better, at what point such an undeveloped mass becomes and attains the characteristics of personhood (or, for that matter, of a human being)... well, that's a lengthy and sometimes insightful discussion, with no clear answers.

Given your inability to comprehend the distinctions between generally acknowledged terminology, I doubt you're up for a debate that's far less black and white than whether or not murder is synonymous with killing, anything, in any circumstance as you obtusely maintain.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[That's Unpossible!]

Should it be a federal crime? No. That is a decision that should be left to each state and not the federal government.

Personally, I wouldn't live in a stat where it was legal to kill any domestic animal, even if you owned them. Obviously it would not be legal to kill someone else's pet in any circumstance since that is akin to stealing their property. However, whether or not it is a civil or criminal matter is up for debate.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[bnenning]

Almost all of our basic laws are based on the Ten Commandments

The 1st Amendment directly contradicts several Commandments.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[NoMaster]

Yes, I know it's hard to grasp, but most people gamble for a little entertainment. Go to a casino, see a show, eat a good meal and play a few games.

And some of us thank you for it. Because we go to a casino, eat a good cheap meal and see a reasonable show - both subsidised by the gamblers - and keep our money in our wallets.

Yes, it's leeching. But who am I leeching off? The dumb bunny punters, or the casino? Well, both...

WTO is more dangerous then most realize

[nurb432]

They are pushing for a one world order. A one world law.

To remove all national sovereignty from all nations and reduce us all to the lowest common denominator. World wide squalor for all.

And while they cant mandate it, they will threaten to enact 'trade sanctions' to blackmail countries into compliance.

Thanks alot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I have to go and change my underwear. Best damn laugh in a long time. Hypocrits!!!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[That's Unpossible!]

Your idea of "freedom" is just another in a long list of morals that people have held dear over the centuries, like loyalty, justice, compassions, etc.

I think you are confused about what the word "morals" means.

Morals are judgements of certain things, whether they be deemed "good" or "bad." Freedom is not a moral issue. Every person is born free and some are imprisoned, to various extents, based on who they were borne to, and where.

Thus laws that stipulate that you can steal a man's life or property are protecting his freedom, and have nothing to do with whether it is "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense, the beliefs of religious folks notwithstanding.

Even had the ten commandments never been written down, or any other religious code similar to them, I can assure you that Thomas Jefferson and his compatriates would still insist that a man is born with inate freedoms.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[geekoid]

Actually, It's very detructive, and taps into the minds desire for instant gratification, and gain.

I've seen it destroy too many lives, probably a larger percentage then you think.

Bringing it online plays to the addiction.
Imagane trying to quit drinking when there is a tap of your favaorite booze in your house.

If you are about to say "Just don't go to the gambling sites" I suggest you study up on the chemical process in the brains that take place with an addict. Your brain tries to get you to do that which your addicted to.

My opinion is that it can not be regulated, so it shouldn't be aloud online. I could set up an online video pokes game in the bahamas that never deal anything better then a full house. How would you know?

I had the pleasure of dealing with the police in Reno. We were watching people come out of casinos, throw there wallet/purse into the river, and then hit there head against a wall, or tree.

They would then claim to have been robbed.
In the section we watched, it happen about once every 15 minutes.

A few years ago I was involved in a study of prohibition. It turns out that domestic violence, and other crimes that are related with alcohol use, Almost completly went away.
The amount of 'mob' violence was not anywhere near what people were lead to believe.(yes, there were some very notible murders). Any violence which the paper could clain was caused by prohibition made front pages.
On what is probably a coindident, those paper major advertisers had been alcohol comanies.

Am I saying we should close casino? no. But to not toss aside litely the addictive effects of gambling, 'soft drugs' and prostitution.

For the recodr, I no longer think that soft drugs should b available 'over the counter', and a controled brothell like prostitution should be legal.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[l-ascorbic]

The is what J.S. Mill called 'the harm principle'. The government should let you do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Such a simple and seemingly obvious rule, but so few governments can resist going further.

the real hypocricy

[GunFodder]

The real hypocricy of the cultural/trade remark is that the US has consistently used trade as a tool to enforce cultural hegemony over the years. We still have trade sanctions imposed over Cuba because their government doesn't work the same way ours does. Every few years there is talk of revoking China's "Most Favored Nation" trade status over human rights abuses. We have been playing favorites in South America for years, discriminating against socialist nations. And we continue to support Israel and not Palestine because of cultural ties.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[itsdave]

offtopic, but i must comment on parent.

the idea of seperation of church and state is false, the constitution says no such thing. this country and the bill of rights is based on religious value and the understanding that we have inalienable rights which we inherit from the creator (God) and that no man nor government has the right to take away those inalienable rights for if the government granted us rights rather than God then the government can take away those rights. it my inalienable right to life which trumps your right to do as you please and kill me, the issue of abortion is not an issue of womens rights but rather an issue of when life starts, does life magically start after the mother gives birth? or does it begin sometime before that? and if life starts before birth does this person not also have the right to life just as much as you and I? just so happens many religous people believe that life begins at conception rather than birth. its rather disgusting that in the case of laci peterson that pro abortion activists oppose scott being charged with the murder of not one person but two because that would recognize life before birth, every american and their family who have suffered such a tragedy recognize that a life was lost yet pro aborts whish to ignore that for the sake of womens rights.

so please show me where in the constitution that is says there must be a seperation of church and state.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[nutshell42]

You believe, I'm guessing, that it becomes a human being at some arbitrary point in it's development?

What about brain activity? We use brain activity to determine the death of a person why not use it also to determine whether he/she's still "dead" or already "alive".

You're full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's fun"

To lose your money??? Hahahahahaha

"perfect examples of bad statistics"

Riddle me this Batman, if gambling is such a great idea, why don't the houses play against each other? "I'll raise you one Trump Tower and one Caesar's Palace!" Hahahahahaha

Re:You're full of shit

[dekashizl]

"it's fun"

To lose your money??? Hahahahahaha

No, it's fun to gamble and take the risk of winning or losing. For you, it appears that misinterpreting posts is fun too, so more power to you.

"perfect examples of bad statistics"

Riddle me this Batman, if gambling is such a great idea, why don't the houses play against each other? "I'll raise you one Trump Tower and one Caesar's Palace!" Hahahahahaha

The context of what I said was "arguments like yours that are perfect examples of bad statistics". It had nothing to do with gambling. Gambling is entertainment with a chance to win in the short term but almost guaranteed net long term loss. It's not a sound business strategy, which is why the houses don't play each other. I'm glad you can so easily amuse yourself by wandering off topic, though. Keep it up.

Pot/Kettle Black comment

[Guppy06]

" 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?""

In what way? Are you referring to the US imposing its values on other countries by making it a "trade issue," or perhaps the way the congresscritter is complaining about international meddling in a domestic issue while at the same time meddling in a state issue? If the "US values" this congressman from Nevada touts are so great, why doesn't he try forcing them on his own state?

We're a federal republic for a reason. If all issues had a one-size-fits-all solution we wouldn't need states (or countries, for that matter). Or is the concept of "the majority is always right" only bad when you're not a part of the majority?

And people wonder why Puerto Rico is skittish about statehood...

Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.tai.org.au/WhatsNew_Files/WhatsNew/Perc apita070802.pdf

Very well said. Thank you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gambling is the paradoxical situation where money is pitted against itself. Money was not intended to be used in this fashion. The unsoundness of the situation is easily demonstrated by asking, if gambling is such a great idea, why don't the casinos gamble against each other?

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

I will address your continuing nonsense one last time, point by point. If you insist on trying to drag me into a fruitless debate on abortion, or continue to simply make assertions without providing evidence on the assumption that something is true because you say it is, then I will simply assume you are an imbecile and I will leave it at that.

Problem 1: the term 'murder' certainly DOES have a most appropriate defintion within the framework of the debate you are attempting to engage in. I have asserted that the legal definition (that is - the definition of the lawfulness - or lawlessness, as it were - of a killing) is the most appropriate one because the debate over abortion is certainly being held within the halls of the legal system. Therefore, murder's legal definition of unlawful killing IS NOT appropriate for describing "abortion" in general because many forms of abortion ARE LEGAL. You can try to fight with me all you want, but murder IS illegal and abortion in general, is not. The best you can do is try to come up with an INTELLIGENT argument as to why I've chosen the wrong definition for murder. If you'd like to do that, by all means, prove me wrong. However, you can't just say 'it is this way because I say it is' and expect me to think you're anything more than a drooling buffoon.

Problem 2: I am not here to debate the meaning of the term 'killing' as 'abortion' certainly IS 'killing'. I fail to see why you brought it up, even, as I never mentioned it and it's totally irrelevant to my confrontation with you.

Problem 3: I don't care WHAT you believe a fetus is, and it's irrelevant what I believe, because I'm NOT here to argue abortion's morality with you and I won't do it. Find another sucker who will waste their time on it, I'm not that sucker.

And, finally, yes, all I've done is bitch about your use of the word murder because you attempted to change what the poster said about abortion into something else entirely simply "because". Well, I just bitch-slapped you back into the real world and now you have a stick up your ass because I pointed out that you're full of shit. Get over it. And, in the future, don't arbitrarily rewrite what people say into "what they meant" unless it's one of those lame "I think you misspelled x as y..." jokes.

You think YOU'RE tired of slashdotters? Imagine what it's like fighting with nimrods like YOU all the time. Boo hoo. You're wrong. Get over it and try to make your point using EVIDENCE for once. Holy shit! Imagine this! You might even .... *GASP* CHANGE SOMEBODY'S MIND ON AN ISSUE!

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[General Wesc]

> Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.

No. Analogy to which you have emotional attachments. It's a perfectly valid way of argument. Consider: Company X's actions are in the same vein as SCO's tactics. If you disapprove of SCO's actions, you should disaprove of company X's tactics.

Perfectly valid. You can argue against the analogy, or accept SCO's tactics, but you can't simply say, 'No, I have a strong emotional bias against SCO so you're not allowed to mention it in an argument'. It doesn't work that way.

Nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

"My favorite quote from the article (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va), 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue'."

Uhhh...yes, mister republican guy, that's right, the WTO is a nation.....umm...very good, you get first choice of toys at playtime (The episode of the simpsons where bart goes back to kindergarten was on last night out here :) )

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[TyrranzzX]

I support the pro-abortion people for a good reason.

They want the goverment the fsck out of our lives.

And now the senate passed a law stating the fetus has certain human rights.

Before long, other interests will get involved, and it'll be illegal not to have your kid chipped. It's for the baby's afterall, they'll never grow into adults.

Yes, I think killing a fetus is killing a human being. Yes, abortion is a damn shame when our society can't control itself sexually. Condoms, birth control, diaphrams, abortion, day after pills, STD's running rampant; all the same part of the same problem. Married couples are a bit different, but for the rest of us unmarried folks abortion holds the key-release to our inner most sexual desires. After abortion is legalised, and many STD's are stomped out, wait for the public organized orgies.

Lust is bad not because it's abusive to the body. The body is something that can be healed with modern technology. Lust is bed because it wears away the ability for people do decide not to be lustful. It's a mental and physical addiction that is all-consuming and will consume those looking for a release from their daily lives.

In any case, gambling is the same thing. Casino's are in buisness because they fleece the hard working man's pocket through probability. When it's used in reverse, people are blacklisted. Not only that, but gambling, much like lust, is addictive and can be all consuming.

social darwinism

[betsywetsy]

If we do this, it would be very ugly.

First, since addiction is heritable, troubles would arise disproportionately in some communities.

Second, if we weren't giving people social services, we'd probably end up having to put them in institutions: either prisons, sanatoriums, or poorhouses. These are costly.

Finally, I don't think we could morally or humanly bear to do such a thing.

Targeted early intervention is not very socially popular either, but it's probably less expensive in the long run.

Iraqi clerics and the religious right

[NortWind]

Strangely enough, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell agree with the Iraqi cleric that 9/11 was an act of God. While you are thinking about those hardline religious folks, keep that in mind.

Re:Iraqi clerics and the religious right

[AceM2]

Will do. Your link however, is a little unconvincing... You could have at least found some actual quotes from Falwell and Robertson.

more facts

[GunFodder]

The Republican party today is certainly not the progressive party it started out as, and it certainly did not start out as a libertarian organization.

Originally the Republican party started with several basic planks in their platform. They wanted to reform the Constitution to end racial inequality; strengthen the Federal government to reign in the individual states; and to carry out an imperialistic plan to annex the territory between California and the eastern states.

Later as Republicans got cozier with big businesses they became an instrument to protect commercial interests. They wanted a small government when it came to regulating monopolies like the the steel industry, or the horrific meat-packing industry. OTOH they certainly weren't opposed to the government cracking a few heads at labor strikes.

You can continue to call yourself a Republican but you will only confuse folks; why don't you accept the fact that you are actually a libertarian? As a side benefit you will generally get more respect from the programmer community.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

Since my friend, the guy I originally started aruging with is abusing your post in a misguided effort to vindicate himself, I'm going to have to respond here.

Put another way, you are basically arguing that the definition of murder can never be expanded.

That's not true unless you abuse my original argument similar to the way this guy was originally abusing the term "murder". To clarify an important point: suggesting that something IS murder just to cause trouble and saying something SHOULD be murder are two completely different things. Replacing a word with the term "murder" where it doesn't fit is just a fallacy to stir up trouble and make people stop thinking with their heads. However, there's certainly nothing wrong with arguing that something SHOULD (or shouldn't, for that matter) be murder as long as you can do so intelligently.

Sure hit us with trade embargoes

[Archfeld]

and watch half the world SLOWLY starve to death as our grain rots away stateside...Our economy would take a HUGE hit, NO DOUBT but our population would survive. Name 5 other countries that produce enough food to survive on their own ? Very few nations of ANY size or economic might are NOT on the receiving end of US grain, while we import electronics and CRAP, that yes we americans LOVE, but can do without, food is another story...

Re:Sure hit us with trade embargoes

[from_downunder]

Are you suggesting that the US should be immune to trade embargoes just because they are the US, and have surplus food? As far as food surpluses go, The European Union (which has a few countries) Australia, New Zealand ... I have no idea what asian contries are net exporters. Why do you think that there are grain/sugar/food subsidies?

Let the IRS handle it...

[tcgroat]

As any good legislator knows, when you can't stop it, tax it! The government is happy to take money from buyers of booze, tobacco, guns 'n ammo, gasoline, tires, etc. So why not tax the gambling proceeds? They already take 50% up-front vigorish from lottery ticket sales, and then stick you with income tax if you win. Just apply the Alternative Minimum Tax to gambling winnings, and watch the cash roll in to the treasury.

Re:Let the IRS handle it...

[EmagGeek]

Because the IRS cannot tax a foreign business that is doing business in a foreign country...

Re:Let the IRS handle it...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need to tax the off-shore business, they merely tax the on-shore pay-outs as income "from whatever source derived". Thus the IRS and AMT come into play. The INS and TSA will tip off the Revenuers when you come back from the Caymans with all that smuggled cash [/Tongue in cheek]

Wrong

[hummassa]

What about "we cannot allow people who want to use any drug (as opposed to some drugs like alcohol an tobacco) to be criminalized, and the other people who gets tru the cracks of our surveillance to get the other people their drugs to be criminalized too, and also to markup the price of their drugs ooover too much, and continue to be a functioning, growing society?" that would be a start...

...What on earth?

[cynical kane]

Most of the online "gambling" is poker, which is primarily a game of skill (if your bankroll isnt tiny). Poker is NOT played against the casino, but other players. The casino has no incentive to cheat. All it does is sit back and rake money off the top of the pot.

Apparently you either forgot about the game of poker or don't know anything about it; in either case, you're incorrect. If you want to know "what idiot" gambles online, i know several people who make a living doing it, and several more that use it as an important supplement to their income.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you understand what I'm arguing about. Read the grandparent post to mine and then read what that other guy said:

Original Post: premature ending of pregnancy.

Atzanteol: You mean murder?

No, s/he didn't mean murder, and murder and "premature ending of pregnancy" are not interchangeable. That's it, that's the point. The rest is evidence that I'm presenting for consideration. Atzanteol didn't draw an analogy, he put words in the other poster's mouth and that's why I yelled bullshit. It has nothing to do with analogies at all. It's entirely about Atzanteol misusing the term "murder" to put words into the original poster's mouth just to stir up emotions when "murder" cannot be rightly used in that context.

Wait a Minute

[argoff]

Look for the most part if you don't want to have 'American values' under American rule, then you're free not to more than in any other place.

If you don't want to execrise your freedom of religion, then fine don't. If you don't want to exercise your right to bear arms, then fine dont either. If you don't want to exercise you're freedom of the press, fine then don't do that either. Hell you don't even half to vote. What those who oppose it want - isn't to escape American 'imposed' values, but to impose their values on others - well sorry, noones trying to get a thank you out of those people anyhow.

If you 'owe' that much to your father, then you owe twice as much to you maker who gives you a free will, a mind, and a conscience of your own. Just because people don't understand why things can get so shitty at times does not imply that they are meaningless - the more real the problem, the more real the meaning. It is the very nature of people to take concern about other peoples best interests, that's what people are designed to do, get pissed at them if you want, but they are just being themselves by taking concern about other peoples freedoms. If it's in both parties best interests, why wouldn't we want to do that.

Re:Reading Slashdot and watching STNG

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel sorry for ya, little one.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

I'm still very confused as to what evidence you ever wanted presented. You're the one who's resorted to name calling and 'bitch-slapping'. Get over the 'murder' thing. Seriously. You could almost have a decent conversation if you didn't nit-pick the *HELL* out of everything.

I said several times. *I* consider abortion murder. I don't give a fuck what you say the law says in this regard. It's a fucking opinion. Deal with it. We're not in a court of law. Abortion *should* be murder.

The *only* reason I replied to you on the abortion thing (I wasn't going to because it's a friggin hot-potato) is because you claimed my argument was a fallacy. It was not. Emotional arguments can be true too you know. If I killed you, your loved ones may call me a murderer. They'd be no less correct no matter how emotional they are. There is no appeal to emotion made in my original argument.

I will agree that according to the stated law, abortion is legal, and thus not murder in the eyes of the law. I'm not the law, however, and I consider it to be murder. Deal.

Re:Reading Slashdot and watching STNG

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway... what the fuck is wrong with your friends? If you were my pal I'd have set you up with a nice chick long ago..

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[moby]

Why can't people mind their own d*** business
when it comes to telling other people what they
can and cannot do with their body and it's abilities...

A woman could steer clear of the doctor, not tell
anyone or any government organization that keeps
records she was pregnant and successfully keep
the "law" from knowing...

She could then decide to have an abortion and get
it done discreetly and the self-righteous
know-what's-best-for-everything would never even
know to have something to complain and whine
about in the first place...

Omg, what would they whine about then?

Is it then going to be illegal to get pregnant
and not tell anyone , wtf is going on?

Do I have to let the government know everytime
my body chemical levels have changed because
I just took a f***ing shit too !!!

What if women everywhere got real pissed off and
stopped having babies for about 2-3 months...

Is the government then going to forcefully
impregnate woman "to keep the world from ending
as we know it" or realize they're just a bunch of
freaking wack-offs?

No, the US did not know what it was getting into

[JoeBuck]

Because of the extreme pro-GATT press bias, there was little public awareness at the time of passage of the consequences. GATT basically establishes an unaccountable world government that hands down edicts, ordering nations to overturn their laws or face billions of dollars a year in sanctions. If they could only do this when a country tried to impose a discriminatory tariff, it would be one thing. But anything that inconveniences the flow of money or goods across borders can be overridden, except for specific exceptions written into the GATT (these mainly allow for continued agricultural tariffs and intellectual property protection).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[ashayh]

I dont know if you're trolling, but anyway consider this:
If a child has to grow up to be a decent human being, what she/he needs is love, care, money for food, clothes, shelter, education.. almost always provided by parents(or gaurdians). I'm sure you agree with this ?
However, the mere fact that an unborn is even CONSIDERED for abortion, means that the child will quite probably not have some its needs fulfilled. In the case of working parents, it can even be an emotional need as the parents may not be around to care. As you can tell from the news, even some ultra rich parents are not able to do their job properly.
I this light, I think its better that a life is aborted rather than adding yet another burden on earth.
You might say this is a decision for the baby whose life is to be taken. But if you look around you there are countless mentally/physically beaten individuals who will say "Of course now that I'm living for 20 years I want to live.. but I wish you had killed me when you had the chance"
Do you want to feel morally good about yourself by not aborting a baby and sending another life to a lifetime of punishment ?
What disgusts me is how people are spending millions on anti-abortion(or pro choice) ads, lobbying and campaigns, protests, marches etc and how they try to pass laws they like and elect "leaders" they want, but do so little to eliminate poverty and hunger in the United States(the richest and most powerfull nation in the world.)
I'm not sayin people accepting abortions will solve these problems, but people accepting that abortion(and others) is a non-issue and stop forcing others to their point of view will help.
That means stopping calling pro choice people murderers.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

I'm not trolling, but we're all off-topic...

this light, I think its better that a life is aborted rather than adding yet another burden on earth.

This is one of the most common, and worst, arguments I've seen *for* abortion. Using this line of reasoning, you can kill just about anybody who is miserable. Why not wait until the child is born, then kill him? What is the difference? You're saying that a person doesn't deserve life because they might be a bit miserable? They may be happy! They may live a long and full life! Why would you gamble a life on such a vague rason?

No, this argument is just a facade for "I'm too selfish to put myself out for a child." And personal selfishness is *no* grounds for (what I consider) murder.

The problem is, the only person who *should* have the choice of whether the child lives or dies, is the child. And you have to let him/her live in order for him/her to make that decision on their own. Most people do indeed want to live. Our species wouldn't live very long if we didn't...

Michael = Democrat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrat = disloyal imbeciles? Could be.

Is it possible that there is a qualitative difference between the USA imposing its values of NO TERRORISTS PLEASE! on a nation such as, oh, Afghanistan, and the World Trade Organization imposing its will on the USA in such a trivial matter as online gambling?

Is it not also possible that the US government seeks to protect its citizens from what is probably a scam and crooked as all hell?

Get a fucking grip on yourself. Dickweed.

my pussy hurts

[ircbuddy]

no really, my pussy hurts 3

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[ashayh]

I've said in my post that sometimes, not aborting is personal selfishness as well.
Do you want to feel morally good about yourself by not aborting a baby and sending another life to a lifetime of punishment ?
No, this argument is just a facade for "I'm too selfish to put myself out for a child."No, this argument is just a facade for "I'm too selfish to put myself out for a child." Exactly.
Does such a selfish person sound like a great parent to you ? If someone is too selfish or dosent have the balls to be a parent why force her/him to become a parent ? Why give let them have a chance to screw up their childs life as well ?
Supposing the US decides to totally ban abortion there would be many unwilling parents.(a MILLION more children). If that happens, would you or anyone garuntee that those children get the love, food, clothing shelter they will need ? Hell, we are not able to garuntee that to children of so many happily willing parents.(for example I remember reading that something like half the homeless are under 20 yrs.)
Then why add to the toll ?
Something else: Did you know abortions are very common in India/China? I have relatives who have had abortions. If you meet them, I dont think they will look like murderers, or inhuman savages to you. And they were not happy when they decided to have an abortion. They had to do it to make sure that any children they did have got the best that they could provide.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

More like 150 million with two opinions and 150 million without one.

Re:Moron.

[nickco3]

You are missing the point of Pot/Kettle comment. The US imposes its views on other nations via trade agreements all the time. For just two very quick examples off the top of my head: Helms-Burton slaps sanctions on other countries for trading with Cuba; Congress requires the President to annually certify a list of 27 countries are pulling their weight with regard to The War on Drugs. This is a consistent component of US foreign policy that you can see some new variant of pretty much all the time.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[siddhartha03]

Murder and abortion are different things as each has a clear cut meaning. You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence". The commonly understood definition of murder, unless you're using it out of context, in which case you're just not very bright, requires a connection to the legality of the killing being done. Abortion is legal. The commonly understood definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful. Therefore, abortion is not murder, so no, that's not what the poster meant. Please try not putting words in other people's mouths just because you don't have a basis for your argument.

There is no such thing as a lawful reason to kill anybody other than abortion, that is their argument. There is no reason abortion should be an exception and there are good arguments why it is a bad exception.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[ameoba]

It could easily be argued that, even when gambling is legalised, some sort of regulation is required. If most games of "fooBall" are played with the house havine a 2:1 advantage and the populace understands that there are specific odds on the game, anyone hiding the fact that they're offering 4:1 odds and still calling the game "fooBall" should be regulated in the same way that agricultural & drug companies are regulateed, if for no reason other than that somebody must enforce some norm on the marketplace & punish those who try to mislead their customers.

Making gambling illegal, OTOH, is an entirely different argument but, if it is allowed, the government is obligated to regulate it as much as they do any other trade or business transaction.

Which has always amazed me too...

[Kjella]

...here in Norway, a country of less than 5 million people, we have 7(!) parties represented in our parliament (SV, AP, KrF, V, SP, H, FrP, Kystpartiet).

The US system reminds me most of all about a tug-of-war between two giants. Whereever the center is on a very much so one-dimensional line, that's the current politics. Any scrawny wimp that tries to tag on (a third party) is contributing nothing and more likely disturbing the giant.

Here's a brief run-down of the seven parties in our parliament. Try grouping them into two parties like the US. It simply can't be done. Try some diversity. It might actually make politics a debate, different parties agreeing on different issues, rather than a duel.

SV: "Money for everyone, stop punishing crimes, stop the military, let's just all be friends" - Maybe I'm a little biased, but the most naive party. Against EU.
AP: The old "Worker's Party". Worker's rights, social benefits etc. Still got a broad appeal among the "common men". Pro EU.
KrF: Religious party. Anti-porn, anti-gays but mostly playing the good samaritan "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You" and so on. Actually our PM in a 4-party coalition.
V: Something of a mix-n-match. Most people that disagree with the two big parties (Ap and H) I think. Also in the coalition.
SP: Agricultural and district interests. Trying very hard to counteract centralization and the countryside withering. Also in the coalition. Against EU.
H: The party of the business interests, and those that make pretty good money off it. Seeks lower taxes. Biggest party of the coalition. Pro EU.
FrP: Lower taxes, higher pushiments for crimes, lower immigration, did I say lower taxes? Also a major party for those dissatisfied with the rest. Shunned by a lot of the other parties. Pro EU.
Kystpartiet: Microparty from the coast line, representing their interests. Particularly fishing politics, but also some district politics.

Kjella

That sounds stupid

[TheLink]

"BUT, we have a much better shot at removing an evil government than most. We have guns, most civilians in the world don't"

That's funny, coz in very many countries with evil governments, it's normal for civilians to have guns or easy access to guns. Go look at Africa some time. Or some Indochine country. Or the Middle-east.

And yet the evil government is not removed, coz it controls the military - who have bigger guns and more ammo than the civilians, and whose job is to to use them. Whereas civilians usually have better things to do with their life.

Many Iraqis did try to get rid of Saddam, but they failed and they and their families got killed.

Too many _stupid_ US folk think that being able to own a gun makes them safer from their government. That's right _stupid_. Can't take the truth when you see it? Tough.

Face it if US Americans don't trust their government they better make pots of money and _change_ it either by standing for election or sponsoring the people you want. Lobbying.

Disney, RIAA, MPAA got what they wanted not by using guns.

Heck the NRA gets the Gov they want not by using guns either. Guess what the NRA actually wants? A good gov? Doh.

Dumb "Americans" thinking of their guns whilst letting people get away with electronic "voting" aka ballot stuffing. What other country has elections where there can be more votes than voters? Or negative votes. Even a banana republic dictator isn't stupid enough to do that. Saddam got 95+% of the votes, he sure didn't get 102%.

The US spends billions picking the gov in Iraq, but they use Diebold and friends to pick the US gov.

These are warning signs (decent folk are still around to check and bring up the problems). Do something before it is too late. Try using your guns and martial law will be declared, good luck fixing it then.

If the world's most powerful nation becomes a banana republic the rest of us are screwed.

How to ensure the games are fair.

[Pallando-zi]

Methods of verification for online casinos do exist.

In the simplest form, each gambler (at, say, a roulette wheel) uses an open source client that does the following 7 stage process:

1. generate a random number
2. produce a one way hash from that number
3. everyone sends their hash to the server
4. everyone sends their bet to the server
5. the server sends all hashes back to everyone
6. everyone reveals their number
7. the server adds the numbers and takes the modulo to get the result then pays off the winners

(There are various things you can add to stop some obscure things the casino could do, but that's the basic idea.)

What this would mean is, if a casino using this system tried to lie, you could prove it.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Jexx Dragon]

Well, I think the WTO is often wrong, at least here they are (somewhat) right. The US government shouldnt take these rights away. However, the problem here is, I think, that the WTO is not focusing on the importent things. Yes, gambling online is something a person should be allowed to do, if they wish, however I think the US should face trade sanctions unless it removes some of the stupid trade sanctions they have put into place (not allowing certian countries to sell thins to the US) as well as removeing the various sanctions placed upon the citizens of the country (not being allowed to go to cuba, for example.) Alowing abortions and online gambling are things for which there is no question, allow it, people have the right to choose what they want to do, and since these things affect no one but the people chosing to gamble, or get an abortion, (maybe their famlies in the case of gambling,) who really cares?

other issues too

[khallow]

Human society has a huge problem with the accuracy of information. We are routinely bombarded with information of dubious quality. Even traditionally reliable sources of information can prove false. How do you guarantee that the information is accurate?

The answer is that as long as I have nothing at stake if I'm wrong, then there's no incentive for me to attempt to be accuracy or even honest. Here's where betting comes in. For example, if I bet $50 that Bush will be reelected, then you have an idea of how much to weigh my claim. Further, with stock markets and other betting markets, we already have ways to collectively release information in a format that has high credibility. So a ban on Internet gambling reduces my abiltiy to make credible statements and reduces the forums on which I can make those statements.

Let's continue with the example. Suppose you live in a liberal state like California and dreadfully fear the possible reelection of G. W. Bush to the point that you're considering fleeing the country, if he is reelected. In the good old days before internet gambling, you were in trouble. No way to insure yourself against disaster. Now, there are overseas markets that trade in whether or not Bush wins. In fact, you can even do it by state. Maybe bet a few hundred that Bush carries California at 1:5 odds (a sure sign of coming doom) and you should have enough for that airline ticket and some food and lodging.

Ie, internet gambling can allow me to insure/hedge against various nontraditional events. Again another worthwhile activity sabotaged for the morality of the state.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[AxelBoldt]

In other words: you want it to be illegal. For purely moral reasons.

Deserving.

[I am Jack's username]

> The U.S. politicians (I hate it when they are equated with the U.S. itself - there is a big difference)

Who keeps putting those politicians in office? Who deserves the blame for the actions of the two parties that gets elected over and over?

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
- Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36

He's kidding, right?

[Ogman]

"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue." WTF??? No country dictates more policy and imposes more values on other countries than the U.S.? This is hypocracy at it's most outrageous!

Saturday Morning Idiots

[Inda]

I've had a punt today. I've had many bets today. I do most Saturday mornings. I stand to lose 2.00 GBP ($3.64) in total. Sure I know the odds. I could possibly make 200.00 GBP today but I'll probably end up with nothing.

Football and horses today. Bets ranging from 20p to 50p. First goal scorers. Doubles, triples and forcasts. All good fun.

I place bets with a national bookies. They are trusted. I trust them. I can even go into their betting shop and collect winnings. They offer online casino games too but that's not my cup of tea. I still trust them not to fix the digital wheels and dice. They wouldn't stay in business long if they cheated their customers. Besides, the bookies always win - even 'the stupid', non-tech people know that.

During the week I'll probably lose some more money on the dogs in the evenings. 2.00 GBP for a few hours entertainment is good value in my eyes.

I don't always lose. :)

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Atzanteol]

See, the major problem I have with your argument is that it's based on an unknown - That the child will lead an aweful life. Using this argument abortion almost becomes euthanasia. It's a mercy killing. But there is now way to *know* that the child will have an aweful life. Some people may 'freak out' a bit at the prospect of having a child when they don't expect to, and yet be fantastic parents! I personally know somebody who had a child when she was 15. She's 30 now. She married the man, and her son is growing up very nicely. I'm sure many things went through her mind at first (still in High School? Can I do this?) though...

Also, who defines 'bad enough conditions' to kill the fetus? Would you want other people determining whether your life is 'worth living'?

Well, your way off base

[Flambergius]

The US has a long history using it's combined power of trade, diplomacy and intelligence/espionage to further it's goals and the goals of it's private corporation.

(Disclaimer: links below are from various Google searches and are there to give context. They do not necessarily express my views, or even agree with me.)

Echeleon was used in corporate espionage to benefit private US corporation, to the detriment of corporations from US allies.

The US complained to the WTO about the EU policy of banning genetically modified foods. The issue is not yet fully resolved, but looks like the EU must eventually let GM-foods in. US companies are very strong in GM-foods and gene technology in general.

The US (and the EU, Japan and others) oppose a developing nation's right the apply protectionistic economic policies. That's, IMHO, what's really behind the Cancun failure and the Singapore issues (PDF). It's also two-faced, disgusting and imperialistic as about anything in the world today.

The US is using strongarm tactics in exporting it's brand of copyright laws.

The US has by no means limited it's interference to humans rights or other laudable goals. To suggest so it at best naive, but maybe "willfully ignorant to the point of being harmful to the world around" would be closer.

--Flam

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

More like about 5000 people with one (corporate) opinion and 300 million without any say in the matter.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[lawpoop]

I have not confused anything. Morals are rules, laws. A law (in the legal, not scientific, sense) is a rule for a judgement of an action, whether it is good or bad. If it is bad, we punish the perpetrator, if it is good, then we let that person go.

You hold freedom as a value, and base your moral (meaning rule or law) judgements based on whether freedom has been violated. An action is bad if it has, good if it has not.

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would say that regardless of what came before them. When the American Fathers founded their society, they set up their own moral code (freedom = good), just like every other group on earth has.

It's only very recently that anyone has tried to seperate ethics and virtue from law codes. I argue that they are basically the same thing.

Jesus didn't try to reform Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Reforming the law is pointless. You end up with people who refrain from sin only because they're afraid of punishment. According to the Gospels, there's no spiritual benefit to that whatsoever. Jesus dealt with people one at a time, and left the decisions up to them.

The lawmakers you speak of should try reading the New Testament a little more. Start with the Gospels, then move on to the various things Paul had to say about grace.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[smallfries]

I'm not religious and I don't see that more drinking is a good thing. It may be an individual choice to drink, but if 100% of people chose to drink heavily we would have massive social disruption. As it is every idiot who blows their nest egg due to a drinking habit is another idiot that you and I get to finance the retirement of via Social Security and Medicare (aka welfare for old folks).

As well as drinking you could try this with drug-taking, or how about breeding even? Your argument is clearly flawed as you're arguing that people should have their freedoms restricted so that you don't have to face the possibility that you'll have support the common good that you speak of.

If we follow your line of argument to its logical conclusion then maybe we should just start telling people what they can do to make it easier for them and assume everything else ist verboten?

Right

[sonamchauhan]

Correct - alcohol and tobacco are both deemed "less harmful" than "harder drugs" by the Govt.

Some alcoholic beverages are beneficial in small doses. This is obviously not true with tobacco, but laws have changed as knowledge grows - there was a time when doctors thought well of tobacco. Yes, it's also obvious that some governments can have a "tobacco tax" habit - that shouldn't stop them trying to do the right thing. For eg: laws in recent years aimed to curb passive smoking.

Just like tobacco now is legal, opium was legal once too... but unregulated use has tremedous effects on society: witness the period just before the Opium wars:

By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.


It is undoubted that drugs like opium, cannabis etc. have medicinal properties (when used correctly). It is also RIGHT that the governments "regulate" these hard drugs. NOTE: most governments do not BAN hard drugs, they REGULATE them to ensure that only those that NEED them get them. For eg: tons of opium are legally shipped to countries like the US and Japan each year.

Some people that call out for legalizing hard drugs seem like drug-addled British opium traders from the 19th century. Talk like "Oh, think of the poor suffering cancer patients", often pushed around as a good reason for legalizing marijuana, is nonsense. Such patients already have access to far more effective opium derivates. If you want to improve laws that benefit the sick (eg. make pain-reliving drugs more freely available to patients suffering pain) why don't you do so? - instead of trying to ruin society?

The laws against hard drugs in the US (including pot) are fair laws - obey them!

government intervention.

[gd2shoe]

The fundamental theories of the US are religious ones. The idea that all men are created with equal worth and have certain inalienable rights has no bearing whatsoever in the scientific world. For all observed intents and purposes, evil dictatorship is not significantly different than democracy. It's once you define what your trying to achieve that major differences appear. From the framework we normally call "Freedom" it's a matter of making moral decisions that fit reasonably within everyone's religious values, and leaving alone those decisions that need not be made for the good of society.

Where we get into trouble is where we cannot agree on which framework to use. For instance, let's look at abortion from the most fundamental level. It has been well established in our values that children, once born, have certain inalienable rights (as citizens, though immature). The big question is whether or not unborn children have these rights yet, or not. Scientifically speaking, to the best of our knowledge, no one has these rights. Yet our culture and freedom have been enriched by them. Any decision reached would be out of religious nature, whether Judeo/Christian/Muslim, Eastern, Atheist, or other. The measure of a good moral decision is in the consideration it gives to people with different values.

Gambling has similar issues, though they're not quite as pronounced.

It is a separation of church and state, not values and state. Otherwise we would have been in trouble long ago.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Darth]

Nit-picky post there. Nicely avoids the subject though.

i dont think it avoided the subject. The subject, in the case of this thread, is the technical appropriateness of using the term murder for abortions. The personal opinions of the people discussing it is pretty much irrelevant to the definition of murder in the eyes of the law.

as far as being nit-picky goes. my post is nit-picky because it's a restatement of the original exception that started this tangent (which was pretty nit-picky to begin with).
realistically, the whole issue is about technical use of language. Outside of environments where precision of language is necessary, it is a nit-picky argument.

your referred post does not contradict what i said. I said that under the current legal definition of murder, abortion is clearly not one. I also specifically said that the legal view of what is murder and the status of a fetus as a person can be expanded to make abortion murder. I also agreed with you that there were some efforts underway that could give a fetus personhood and make abortion murder in the eyes of the law.
i am certainly not saying the definition of murder can never be expanded.

It just looked to me like his argument wasnt being very clear and maybe a rephrasing of where he was coming from might help. he is right about the technical usage of the term, even if he is taking your statement more literally than you intended. I wasnt trying to attack you; i was just trying to clarify what he was taking issue with and what the issue was based on. (i was also trying to do so in a more civil way than the original poster had).

I also didn't mean to say that you were inconsistent in your beliefs with respect to capital punishment. I just wanted to point out where the "killing a human being" statement was a little too broad and didnt accurately reflect what you intended to say. I wasnt trying to draw you into a debate about capital punishment.

I make the assumption that a fetus is 'innocent' by default, thus not deserving of death, yet still a living human being.

and under those criteria it would be murder. The sticking point that started this whole thing is just that the law doesnt currently consider a fetus a living human being.

It really boils down to this: the original exception that was taken to your statement was that your statement was phrased in a way that stated "abortion is murder" as a fact as opposed to a belief. If you had said "abortion should be murder", i dont think he would have had a problem, and most people would probably have read your statemtent to mean that. However, this is probably a pet peeve of his and he took exception to it.

Technically, he's right. And that's all he's arguing about is the technical use of the term.

NB Spelling may be off, but it's late...
looked good to me.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[the_mad_poster]

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Try paying some fucking attention. I don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK what he thinks about abortion, it's NOT murder, and he said it WAS.

Now, if you idiots don't mind, I have better things to do with my time than try to beat it into your thick skulls that I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else thinks about abortion, and my post had NOTHING to do with it other than to point out to that flaming moron that it's NOT murder and the original poster DIDN'T mean it, so stop putting words in his fucking mouth.

Pull your heads out of your fucking asses once in awhile - the lack of oxygen is rapidly killing off brain cells.

Fucking morons.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[GigsVT]

Yes, I agree with you on the whole in this thread.

As I posted higher up, it's a tautology the other poster is pushing.

Anything that's legal isn't murder, anything that isn't murder can't be made illegal as murder.

This is obviously a non-argument. That he's now reverting to personal attacks just confirms he's only trying to sound like someone making reasonable arguments, but in reality is just trying to stir shit up (i.e. troll).

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[GigsVT]

I think it's obvious (to most people) when someone says something like "meat is murder", they are expressing an opinion, not a literal fact. You remind me of Data on Star Trek.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[General Wesc]

Okay, you're right. I still disagree with your 'appeal to emotion' assessment, but calling him out on his use of the word murder is correct. Sorry for my stupidity.

US is threatening Europe with GM foods via the WTO

[lkcl]

US, canada and argentinia are threatening Europe with Biological Weapons masquerading as food - genetically modified food.

US canada and argentinia plan to take europe, which has a moratorium against allowing BW^H^HGM in, to the world trade organisation, claiming that it's against trade and profit.

i believe that because GM foods are biological weapons, the United Nations must pass a resolution stating same.

then this will allow other nations to classify the US citizens responsible for GM foods as terrorists, to bomb US food supplies, napalm all the fields (the only way of making sure that the pollen doesn't spread), kill the president and any corporations and scientists responsible for these horrific biological weapons.

all in the name of pre-emptive self-preservation, of course.

if the US can do it, then so can anyone else.

p.s. you stupid idiots: don't mess with international and natural law. what goes around comes around.

Yeah, right

[hummassa]

(1) the parent post is brought to you by the USian govment propaganda machine. indirectly, by way of one of its drones.
(2) t's'ok, the DEA guys have to support themselves, too.
(3) no laws against any drug is fair. USian laws and their emulations (BR laws, even) aren't fair. they treat people who take drugs also on pair with people who trade drugs.
(4) alcohol has worse social effects than marijuana. tobacco has worse health effects than marijuana. marijuana is not a hard drug (and will not make you madder than booze) regardless of what Uncle Sam told you.
(5) obey all laws... make your congressmen change the unfair ones.

Re:US is threatening Europe with GM foods via the

[Anonymous Coward]

People died from GM foods? Wow? URL please.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cheezit]

Your clever substitution of "drinking" for "gambling" makes your version of my statements...uhhh...exactly as valid as the original was.

My point was not that the "common good" should trump everything else; just as you say, we would be living in a PC police state. What I was getting at (and deleted from my original so as not to blather too much) was that public policy is always a balancing act between individual good and common good.

(Some) libertarians and Ayn Rand-types make it easy; they just deny half the equation (common good), which makes all critical thinking unnecessary. Hardcore fundamentalists and communists have it easy by denying the other half (individual rights).

The rest of us have to look at each issue as it comes and sometimes accept that trying to limit the spread of something (drinking, gambling, voting for Nader) is better than either denying or encouraging it.

Exceptional indeed

[trezor]

A slight warning: To any properly (patrioticly) configured mind this is flamebait. So is the parent posters anyway, so who cares.

The US is a exceptional country. It is indeed so exceptional that people file lawsuits, because they werent told that:

• Eating fat food makes you fat
• Coffee is hot

And ofcourse for any other reason they may find. Like culture. We are all will-less victims of culture.

• My son got killed because you made a movie, which some mentally-disturbed person watched
• Again, mental, murder. New item: music
• Suicide? Blame the music! Can't be society, at least.

Ok. I could go on, but I'm feeling lazy. And yes, these lawsuits does not at all fully represent your country, we know.

But in a country where lawsuits like this even can be legaly filed (and not rejected as barratry, as they should), must at least consist of some exceptionally stupid people.

There. You got your exceptionlism. Be satisfied.

I've once been told, trying to understand this madness, that one reason for these amazingly stupid (and brave and creative, nevertheless. Takes guts and fantasy to come up with shitlike this), is that you don't have a public health system.

That is. If you gets hurt, you will either

1. Make sure you're still able to speak, inform personell of your insurance, get treatment.
2. Being able to speak, inform of none-existant insurance, get treatment. Debt for life thrown in as a bonus.
3. Being able to speak, inform of none-existant insurance, get no treatment. Death or permanent injuries may ensue.

Yes. This was very much flamish, but jeez guys. Have some modesty. You are by far the youngest country in the western world. Now show some respect for your elders, who might actually have some history on running a country properly.

BTW: Imposing armageddon on the entire world, because of one small attack, could be considered immature.

Kinda like scriptkiddies on irc with their nuking-tools, but actually dangerous.

Re:Exceptional indeed

[sadomikeyism]

Typical arrogance of furriners, dagnabit. Barratry, otherwise known as an act by an uppity serf who insists on wasting the kings time and money in court, is typically little known here specifically because access to the courts is a recognised right here (oh, yeah, and we aren't serfs, unlike the rest of y'all). Nor are we "the youngest country in the world", as you'd like to claim. Since you seem to be counting our age by the age of our government system, it can pretty reasonably be said that, as one of the oldest democratic governments in the world (the rest of y'all didn't get democratic til much later), that we are one of the oldest countries in the world. The lack of health care is disinformation. We have plenty of health care for those who cannot afford it. We also have plenty of health care for those who can more than afford it. The only shortage of health care are for those on the margin, who are productive citizens, but are being priced out of the market by the increased demand created by the fact that the rationed health care systems of other countries forces their citizens in need of life-saving care to come to the US and pay cash. When your own country's vaunted socialized health care system actually has waiting lists for terminal patients that is actually shorter than their life expectancy, then you can bitch about care here in the US. As for our nuclear capability, I have only one thing to say: when the rest of y'all value our lives as much as you do those of your own families, we won't need our nukes. Til then, we'll be keeping the rockets fuelled... thanks anyways.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[smallfries]

No, the substitution of drinking does not make the argument as valid as the original. Prohibition has been tried and it failed, that's why I thought that I'd use that argument. I agree with you that that it is a balancing act between the common good and individual rights, but I don't think that what you are vouching for is a balance; its just restriction.

I agree with the poster that you were replying to that there is nothing inherently about drinking or gambling, people see them as such because of their religious backgrounds. As a society the restrictions that we make should be on the things that we all agree are wrong. When somebody drinks to excess, or takes drugs to excess and then has behaviour that is outside the bounds of what society deems acceptable - then they should be punished for that. Trying to solve it by restricting everybodies ability to drink, or take drugs is counterproductive because everyone can see that it is only to stop a small minority and assumes that they fall within the majority.

Gambling is the same sort of behaviour. There is nothing inherently wrong with gambling, the only problem is that a small minority of people cannot gamble sensibly, restricting the rights of the majority to try and target that minority will not work, and furthermore is an unfair restriction on most people.

Exactly.

[The Queen]

The ills you describe revolve around a LACK of sex education. You can't expect to have psuedo-smut on TV and kids not go play doctor. But some uptight parents can't bear the thought of their kids being told how to use a condom by their gym teacher, so instead of safe sex you have teen pregnancies. They can join the ROTC and learn how to clean a gun, but they aren't allowed to learn what the word "cunnilingus" means. It is very unbalanced, that was my point.

Re:Exactly.

[AceM2]

True about the uptight parents not being able to bear the thought of their kids being told how to use a condom. However, that really has nothing to do with the way sex is portrayed in the movies and television. I remember a few years ago someone was half jokingly talking about how porn production companies were starting to make their actors use protection to advocate safe sex. Anyway, the thing is... You rarely even see that in the most sexually explicit movies out there, let alone the "pseudo smut." Anyway... You're saying our life is unbalanced and advocates violence, but seriously... I'll bet you that 99% of the parents out there who don't want their kids to learn about safe sex don't want them to be shooting people either. I don't know... I really have never met someone that would let their kids watch, say... Pulp Fiction or something, but then say oh my god, I'm not going to let you watch Basic Instinct! Hell, for that matter most parents don't *care* if their kids watch porn or have playboy... It's generally not something you have out in public in our culture, but it's still generally "accepted" provided the child is >12 or something.. In the end, most parents (uptight especially) don't want their kids exposed to either sexually explicit material OR extreme violence. There is a good reason for that too. Even when you take all the "necessary precautions" there is still a HIGH possibility of getting an STD and [though slightly less of one] you can still get pregnant. This is not something to be taken lightly... Even if you disregard the health risks, some parents want their kids to... stay kids... And in an age where kids are doing less other grown up things (full time job.. marriage.. etc) until later in life.. Why not try to let them concentrate on what really matters? I mean, I'm not going to go tell my kid sex must be avoided at all costs... but.. I don't want him/her obsessed with sex and such like I've seen in many of my friends... They usually end up pregnant or dying before they even realize there is more to life. There are A LOT of measures we need to take to better educate the younger people in our world, but you cannot simply say that because you think violence is more acceptable in our society that X and Y happen more often, or that because children don't know what cunnilingus means (actually, I learned this word in the 1st grade and I lived in a pretty sheltered/rural area at the time..) that more kids will get pregnant.

I still really think the idea that kids are uneducated about sex is overrated though, to tell you the truth... Most kids these days know more about sex at age 10 than I did at 16.. It actually amazes me..

I blame it on TV and the hormones in our food (just kidding)

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[cheezit]

The story this is all attached to is about the WTO potentially forcing a relaxation of the current "containment" approach we have to gambling in this country.

We have a similar "containment" approach to alcohol (liquor licenses, age limits) and adult content (zoning laws, age limits, etc.). I don't think any of those are inherently evil, but they all can have obviously negative social effects. So let's keep containing them.

I never said anything about abolishing gambling---that was exactly the point of my post! There is a middle ground here, no reason to overlook it.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[UTD24601]

Thats a great point you bring up. Not only are more pro-lifers prone to oppose childcare for single mothers (on the basis that it encourages single-motherhood) but they are also opposed to nutritional suplements for mothers (statistically speaking). This may seem outrageuos, considering that adequate nutrition can almost complety prevent fetal alchohol syndrom (by %80), but, not surprisingly, most pro-lifers also vote Republican, and one of the GOP's priciple platforms is to role back social programs and big government spending.

freedom?

[qtothemax]

Isn't the U.S. officially opposed to religious fundamentalists curtailing freedoms in other countries? Yet in this country gambiling is immoral so we cant do it in most places. Stupid.

My hope in humanity yet again dimished

[jotaeleemeese]

"Lust is bad not because it's abusive to the body. The body is something that can be healed with modern technology. Lust is bed because it wears away the ability for people do decide not to be lustful."

I am spechless....

Re:My hope in humanity yet again dimished

[TyrranzzX]

When the human condition is solved, it will not be the war of the worlds that will be faught, but the war of the mind and soul that will be waged; for freedom from oppression, for liberation from conditioning, for the right of control. The inner struggle for unity and power over oneself will intensify, and those who lose this struggle will be the ones who find death at the end of their road. The one's who win it will become as god; omnipotent, omnipresent, and above all, omniscient. -TyrranzzX

Moralist patronizing bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

I have gambled, many times.

Guess what, I spent 20 or 30 bucks a night and had a great deal of fun. Like going to the theatre, the movies or any other kind of entertainment.

Just because you think you could not handle it does not mean all the rest of the world is so completely hopeless to handle adulthood responsibly.

Your medieval views in gambling are frankly laughable.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, the only person who *should* have the choice of whether the child lives or dies, is the child. And you have to let him/her live in order for him/her to make that decision on their own.

Huh?

Should the fetus in my wife's uterus right now also get to decide his/her name?

Maybe what clothes he/she should wear?

Perhaps even whether he/she should be baptised in the faith and at the church my wife and I currently follow/attend?

Parents are the people who make choices for their children.

Not children.

My 17 month old daughter would happily choose to try and get down the stairs without my help. She probably also would injure herself badly. But hey, it's the child's choice, right?

Or maybe parents only get to choose the small, insignificant things. Not the big ones.

The decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy is the sole reposibility of the parents.

They're the ones who will have to live with the decision for the rest of their lives, one way or t'other.

Regards

trm

Republican ripoff artists

[Doc Ruby]

Today it was reported that one of Washington's best-connected Republican lobbyists received $10M in kickbacks extracted from Indian tribes with casinos. He and his boss, former spokesman for the reptilian House (Republican) Majority Leader Tom DeLay (under felony investigation in Texas for campaign finance scams), have been forced out of their catbird seats, and will have to live off the fat of the land until this blows over.

Re:You missed one

[Thomas Shaddack]

Iran. Viet Nam. Central America. Strongarming other countries to follow US-friendly economical policies is unimportant in comparison. Enough said.

Wrong

[sonamchauhan]

> (1) the parent post is brought to you by the USian govment
> propaganda machine. indirectly, by way of one of its drones.
Well, make sure you watch out for those black helicopters too.

> (2) t's'ok, the DEA guys have to support themselves, too.
Tsk tsk... let the truth help you out here... I am neither American nor European.

> (3) no laws against any drug is fair.
Laws exist for our protection. Why do you need me to repeat this historyto you...?: ... the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

I think if you went back two centuries, and you'd happily function as a British opium trader -- intent on his own self-interest, uncaring of the misery he is causing thousands of people. Go back two centuries more, and you'd be happily be selling limitless quantities of liquor to Red Indian tribes -- with similar effect.

Could you be a little more caring of other people?

> USian laws and their emulations
> (BR laws, even) aren't fair. they treat people who take drugs also on
> pair with people who trade drugs.

Google was valuable in neutralizing your reality distortion field:
Federal drug trafficking convictions may result in denial of federal benefits for up to 5 years for a first conviction, ...
Federal drug convictions for possession may result in denial of federal benefits for up to 1 year for a first conviction ...

> (4) alcohol has worse social effects than marijuana.
> tobacco has worse health effects than marijuana.
You're sounding more coherent now, but still wrong about marijuana v/s alcohol. (More on that below.) Note, wine etc is good in moderation. Pot is Not. The answer to abuse - whether alcohol or drugs - is enforcement of laws that protect the addicts, including "inebriate orders" (a.k.a forced detox)

Looks like this needs repeating... NOTE: most governments do not BAN hard drugs, they REGULATE them to ensure that only those that NEED them get them. For eg: tons of opium [ieo.org] are legally shipped to countries like the US and Japan each year.

> marijuana is not a hard drug (and will not make you madder than booze)
> regardless of what Uncle Sam told you.
Sorry - inadvertent misclassification of marijuana as a "hard" drug (not that the distinction is great)...

4.1. I have some personal testimony on the damaging effect of pot: My friend is a pothead. He has very obvious signs of damage from his decades-old pot habit (shakes, general dimness - sad to see in an otherwise very bright person, working in computers). When I point this out to him, he doesn't see it (or rather doesn't want to admit it), and covers it up with... "ah, you can't get addicted to it.. I've got it under my control,... blah blah blah...". Well, he just got back from vacationing for some weeks with his brother, and said something that surprised me. He said: "I never thought I would ever tell you this... you *can* get addicted to pot". Apparently, his brother - who is another pothead - is addicted to pot (he cannot function without it) and is in a much worse state than he is.

4.2. Marijuana is instead often a gateway drug
Researchers looked at over 300 pairs of same sex twins, both identical and non-identical, in which one twin started using cannabis before hi

Re:You missed one

[rossz]

In general, another person states everything so much better than I do:

We stopped pretending we would ratify Kyoto. We only spent $15 billion on AIDS in Africa. We did not take dictation from Paris. If we had done these things, it would minimize the world's anger.

Is the world angry at Russia, which spends nothing on AIDS and rebuffed Kyoto? Is the world angry at China, which got a pass on Kyoto and spends nothing on AIDS for other countries?

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of women's rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?

I, for one, am sick of the double standard.

Re:You missed one

[Thomas Shaddack]

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?

Yes, and pretty loudly. The only problem here is that America's actions and the protests against them are "louder" in comparison, making the other issues "less-visible".

Maybe Africa would be better helped if the local manufacturers would be able to make cheaper knock-offs of the AIDS meds without being threatened through WIPO? Maybe Iran wouldn't degenerate into theocracy if the CIA won't instigate the preceding changes there? Why the american bombs don't rain on Zimbabwe? Isn't deposing one dictator while leaving other ones (including but not limited to Mugabe, Kuchma, and Putin) virtually unnoticed a form of double standard as well?

Why the media always inform about the dictators only in the few months before the actions - why the news about oppression in Afghanistan started hitting mainstream press/broadcast only before the bombing campaign? Why the same happened with Iraq? Why the media don't care until there's a "humanitarian bombing" about to happen? You can be well-informed about the problems of the other parts of the world, if you follow more than only the corporate media; and because most people don't do so, the rest of the problems (including the protests/gripes/measures) go unnoticed by the Masses. Get the US-led media conglomerates more interested in other-than-immediate problems, and people start notice more than just the US actions.

Re:You missed one - error correction

[Thomas Shaddack]

s/Kuchma/Lukashenko

Sorry, I am not that good in international politics.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[Lord Kano]

Blue Laws, gambling restrictions, anti-abortion, etc, are all issues stemming from *religious* beliefs whether those in office say they are or not.

Religion and morals are not the same thing. There are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Athiests and Agnostics who share similar moral beliefs. Their religions, however important they may be to them, are separate from their morality.

Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy. These are NOT issues that should be regulated by the State, Federal, or local governments.

A government's responsibility is to enforce the collective will of the people and protect society. Even if it means that sometimes a society must be protected from itself. Personally I think that many of these laws are stupid, but if they reflect the collective will of the people, the government isn't wrong to impose them.

LK

Bush & the Taliban, continued

[frankie]

Oh, forgot to mention this before: Bush Jr negotiated with the Taliban to build an oil pipeline for Unocal. 9-11 made further negotiations unnecessary, since both the US-appointed president (Karzai) and the US special envoy (Khalilzad) are Unocal employees. Two birds with one stone, isn't life grand?

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[DigiShaman]

I'm just glad we crushed the Taliban once and for all. As for bushes ties to oil, I'm glad he has such ties. Oil is our primary source of energy. With out oil, our economy will totally collapse (along with the rest of the world as they have major economic ties to the USA). Truth be known, oil is the single most viable source of concentrated energy known to man. But if your anti-oil, then you will have your wish soon enough. I say this because there is about 12 years left of oil at current rate of consumption. Ever wonder why the pentagon is topping of our oil reserves? Clue: national security. Yes...wars are fought over natural resources. Always has...always will. Don't you just love human nature? Just remember, we are all animals when it comes to self preservation.

So what advice do I have for you? Live the good life while you can. The party is about to be over. I hope you don't mind living without AC or heat in the winter. Mankind has done this before...we will just have to adapt to these harsh living conditions again. Oh well...it was fun while it lasted.

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[frankie]

bushes ties to oil, I'm glad he has such ties

Fair enough. I was merely responding to your previous assertion:

The moment any administration tries to negotiate with evil men, is the moment they are marked by me as a traitor

According your marking, every US president for the past 30+ years (including the current one) is a traitor.

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[DigiShaman]

The Bush administration made these nogotiations with the Taliban at least four months prior to the 9/11 event. At which point, they were seen as an ally in the war against fighting opium. But it wasn't until after 9/11 that our goverment branded the Taliban as an enemy to the US. So unless bush deals with the devel after 9/11, he did not commit any offical acts of treason. That said however, it was incredibly naive of this administration to even think you can deal with such islamic fundamentalists that want nothing more then to rule the world and crush zionism.

This example should serve as a valuablelesson to all. That is, never dance with the devil in the pale moonlight. For he will eventually turn his back on you.

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[frankie]

Huh? You seem to be saying: if they're Bush's allies then they're good guys, but when Bush declares them to be enemies then they're evil.

We knew that Osama was with them the whole time. We knew they were oppressive islamists the whole time. Either the Taliban was evil or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways. If Clinton was a traitor by your book, Bush Jr is the same.

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, I'm going to keep harping on this point until you concede it.

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[DigiShaman]

Osama was with Al Queda. Before 9/11, our government considered Al Queda and the Taliban to be two seperate groups. Though, it has been known for quite some time that the Taliban gave Al Queda refuge in Afghanistan.

So no, that did not make Bush Jr a trator. It just made him a morron (no crime in that). Then again, had Clinton not turned down Osama offered up by the Saudis (on the premise of legality and not as a POW) ...we may not have had the 9/11 event.

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[frankie]

So no, that did not make Bush Jr a trator. It just made him a morron

So... you're saying that if you make deals with evil people because you don't realize they're evil at the time, then it's not so bad? Wow, that's some mighty fine word-weaseling. Always impresses me how Bush apologists often torture the meaning of words in ways that would make Clinton blush. And speaking of Clinton, how exactly is he a traitor but not Bush? At the time in 1994, North Korea seemed at least as non-evil as Afghanistan did in 2000ish.

Meanwhile, you're ignoring the other evil people Bush deals with even now: Musharraf, Karimov, Akayev, etc. Every evil done by Clinton has been matched or topped by Bush.

Got more weasel words? Bring 'em on!

Re:Bush & the Taliban, continued

[DigiShaman]

Your insulting my intelligence. This discussion is over. Why? Because you don't listin to logic (liberals such as yourself never do). I said what I had to say. If you don't like my answers, then say so. Your comment of "Got more weasel words? Bring 'em on!" is what pushed me over the edge in trying to have a civilized discussion with you. But, I do have my breaking point. Congrats, I reach it with you.

No sir, your just a fucking morron. If other slashdotters wish to comment, then I will talk to them.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[siddhartha03]

I see, so it's only considered killing someone if they've left the uterus? I can tell you have no respect for life.

Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks!

[mrdlinux]

[OT (and I know you are trolling) but]:

No, you completely misinterpreted my statement. I said that people who do exist now should have priority on decisions regarding their own personal life over people who do not exist now but might at some future time. Old folks quite clearly fit into the former category.

Otherwise, why not ban pregnant women (or even women of child bearing age) from spending money, eating certain foods, crossing streets, taking risks etc... simply because it might endanger a future child!