Slashdot Mirror
Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech
MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."
Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.
The Good Life
You vote for a third party. Really, people, it's not that hard.
Republicans, Democrats... All the same.
I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood
In a system without runoff voting, yes it most certainly is. How do you expect people to rally around a worthy third candidate (out of the hundreds out there) when there is such a compelling motivation to vote "NOTKerry" or "NOTBush"? Maybe when they truly are identical someone else can challenege them, but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.
GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.
And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.
Uh huh.
You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.
Fucking whiner.
For a long time I've believed that a third party vote is a waste because of our lousy voting system. But I'm beginning to change my mind. If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.
I think I may vote my concience this time. I'm begining to think that voting reform is a more worthy long term goal then replacing Bush the tool with Kerry the tool.
Cheers.
right from the horses mouth. Big difference between saying "Bush had nonsense answers on MTP when defending his position in Iraq" and _showing_ Bush attempt to defend his position.
It is becoming more and more clear that the focus on tightening up intellectual property law to make it more like a form of "real" property is not just affecting geeks and pirates anymore. As the entertainment industry and members of congress continue to pound it into our heads that "taking any expression from anybody from any reason is bad" we are going to realize extraordinarily negative consequences to our democracy. Will we be able to show the "State of the Union" address after the original airing? I most certainly can't get into Congress to tape it, so it seems that the networks can lock down political information very tightly. Sure, there are transcripts, but political messages aren't just about what's said, it's about how it's said and who the message is said to, and what the reaction to that message is. The use of copyright as a tool to stifle opposing viewpoints or criticism in politics is a very powerful - and extremely dangerous - political weapon, and it is one that could kill democracy as we know it. If we aren't even free to draw up words and images of the leaders who we elect, who we pay out of our tax dollars, and who we let govern us, then the ideals which this country was founded on are dead (if they aren't already). Just because NBC or ABC or CNN shot the film of a leader doesn't mean the public shouldn't have certain rights to choose who can or can't use it or how it can be used. These networks use public airwaves, receive public services wherever they shoot (i.e. the extra police protection around the press corps at the Democratic Convention in Boston) and take the time of our elected leaders. Surely the public deserves a little fair use.
What's weird is their claim.
They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.
If I was john kerry I too would keep comparing my record during the war to GW too. They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard so he would not.
evil is as evil does
If you don't like Kerry or Bush, you might want to check out the Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik. I can almost guarantee you'll agree more with him than either Kerry or Bush even if you do consider yourself a democrat or republican.
Ah, so you watched that episode of "The Daily Show" as well?
Yeah, none of the veterans served on the same boat as Kerry. The doctor they have talking about his first Purple Heart apparently didn't treat him at all for the wound, so that doctor commenting on whether it was a minor wound or not is irrelevant.
Where are the "I went to Harvard with GWB ads", I ask you?
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I was hoping that the person who posted this would deign to provide us with some solid information or maybe just a link. As it is, the post just makes this unsupported claim that Bush and Kerry are using copyright to censor and then asserts without proof that they are no different than each other. Could someone please explain to me how something this thin got posted here.
Seriously, though. Demopublicans, Republicrats, same same. Both parties are feeding at the corporate trough. I'm hopeful that under Kerry we'll have Evil Lite rather than Double Evil with Cheese and Curly Fries.
I like Nader and his take on things - I've been a fan for a long time. But I don't think he has a shot - he's not going to be on the ballot in many states, some of them key states like California.
It would be nice if one day we can have a third party candidate who (a) had a hope in hell, (b) wasn't a nutball, and (c) had the stones to be a progressive rather than a "me too" corporate slave.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
"pro hanoi" is quite a charge. Do you honestly think questioning the US's actions in Vietnam automatically means "pro hanoi"? If so, there are very very few voting Americans who would agree with you.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
That is the stupidest title I have ever read. If you think this is 'only in America', you need to open your eyes and take a look around. When it comes to free speech, the US is pretty damned liberal. I can still fly a confederate flag and wear a white hood if that tickles my fancy, but in free thinking places like Germany you can be arrested for doing a stiff armed salute or displaying a Nazi symbol - and it isn't like Germany is the most toltalitarian of places in the world.
Catchy phrase, but pure bullshit karma whoring.
Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.
Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.
How long were you there, my friend?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
When corporations can absolutely control what you can archive, reuse, or replay - that will be the day that free speech is reduced to what an individual can mimeograph and hand distribute. And there are already laws that chill that speech, such as vandalism, loitering, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, and thousands more. Don't worry, one applies to you. Right now.
So violate copyright every chance you get. Copyright has been abused to the point where it is useless, unjust, and no longer represents the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Civil Disobedience, kids - 1 in 6 Americans can't be wrong...or can they?
I'm trying not to troll of flamebait here, but this really isn't a good reason to vote for somebody. You're comparing an existing record vs. a nonexistant record. The two cases can't be compared without baseless assumptions. That aside, I don't think anyone with half a brain should be voting for Bush. But, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We learned that with Stalin, Pakistan, Saddam Hussein (issue aside please), Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, etc. You should think about choices that are still there. Think of it this way: there are a few choices out there and you've only eliminated one; you should weigh the remaining choices or eliminate them in roughly the same fashion. Hey, from this comment I can see you're at least a somewhat intelligent person. It'd be a shame if you lost your intelligence in the voting booth.
main(0)
That's why I'm voting for Kerry. His party is much less effective at passing legislation restricting citizens rights than is the Republican Party. And with the Republican control of Congress, the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive branches will defang them more than ever. Moreover, the more precarious position of the Democratic Party makes it more responsive to activism from the people. Through individual donations to the DNC and anti-Bush "527" corporations, especially over the Internet, the people are much more important to the DNC than they are to the RNC, which protects their corporate "donors" more effectively, at the expense of the people.
--
make install -not war
As in no more electoral college? That would be possibly the worst election process this country could have.
It sounds good at face value, but it would result in NYC, Chicago, and LA determining the outcome of the election. Add up the population of just those 3 cities. Now add up the population of 10 states west of the Mississippi.
Where do you think the candidates would spend their time and money? Who do you think they'll pander to?
Since all those in the photo were the commanders of other swift boats, it would appear logical to conclude that none of them served on the same boat as Kerry. I suppose reading the caption of a picture has escpaed your capabilities?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Threats and bullying only work when you give in to them. If you're not willing to fight and sacrifice for your rights then guess what, you don't have them. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that means doing things that are uncomfortable in the short run to ensure your freedom in the long run. Giving in to the abuse of power only makes that power more likely to be abused in the future. To stand fast and say "NO!" is a victory in and of itself regardless of the personal cost.
I don't know about you, but threats from law firms don't scare me. If they think my freedom and my rights are less important to me than my bank balance then they are sadly mistaken.
The fact that the law can be used to harass is a two way street. At the end of the day it all comes down to who is going to blink first. Who is willing to go the farthest, dig the deepest, and get the meanest. I don't know about other people here, but I'm one of the most vicious, spiteful, ruthless and stubborn people I know. I'm a nice guy when others are nice, but when it becomes clear that someone is trying to fuck with me my demeanor changes rather dramatically. When someone is clearly my enemy, I have no conscience, no scruples, and I'm willing to go as far as is necessary to make my enemy wish they were never born. This aspect of my personality is sometimes frightening even to me.
If I were someone these shysters were threatening, I do believe I'd tell them to put their money where their mouth is. Make them spend the time and money to pursue me. If they did...well lets just say that they'll wish they hadn't. That is the kind of vigilance that is necessary to secure and defend one's rights against abuse at the hands of others who have more money and power than you do. Make it as painful for them as possible at every turn. Make them PAY for it in ways that they just aren't willing to. Exact the maximum discomfort from them at every turn.
Lee
P.S. The scientologists can KISS MY ASS TOO!
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hmm... I think /. should stay away from politics, moderators' personal political beliefs get in the way. Its just such a touchy topic around here...
Speaking as a gay, this is pretty much a no-brainer.
Bush: actively opposes gay marriage. Engages in mindless hate-speech against gays and nonsense rhretoric in an attack on my position in society. Attempts to pervert the Constitution of the nation in order to enshrine his personal bigotry in it.
Kerry: Will not actively work to create national marriage parity, but instead will allow states to decide as they have already begun to do. Will make at least some effort to avoid supporting obvious anti-gay bigotry as in Bush's above-mentioned constitutional amendment.
Wow, this is a really tough choice!
Sure I'd love to vote for someone who believes fervently in equality, but for a given office there is often no likely candidate who closely aligns with one's views. You make the best choice you can.
-josh
By your reasoning, anyone who is against a US invasion of Cuba must be pro-Castro. Honestly, this whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" logic is just idiotic -- the real world is much more complicated than that. There were plenty of valid reasons to pull out of Vietnam that had nothing to do with "supporting Hanoi".
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Let me start this with I work for lobbyists out here in Colorado. I've been working in politics for a while now and it's safe to say the President doesn't hold nearly as much power as everyone seems to think. The biggest movers and shakers reside within the federal senate, congress, and your state legislative representatives (if the senate holds a contrary majority to the President nothing will get done, etc.). Remember he can't do much unless the congress and senate approve it (you voted them into place too). So, in your effort to vote out bush, or keep him there, remember there are other elections on your ballot that you all should be watching!!
Agreed. Mod the parent up some more. Cryptnotic's comments reak of Bushisms. You don't have to be pro-communist to be in favor of the US pulling out of Vietnam. That's one place we never should have gotten involved in to begin with. To say that anyone in favor of pulling out of Vietnam and letting it be is in favor of Communism is absurd. That's like Bush saying that anyone not supporting him invading Iraq is unpatriotic and in support of terrorism. Kerry may not be perfect but he's not a fan of communism. Bush sure as hell isn't perfect and he may very well be in favor of communism if his little family is at the top of the food chain. Unfortunately we'll probably never know Bush's true thoughts on that topic because quite frankly Junior can't possibly form logical sentences that spins^H^H^H^Hums up his family's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal thoughts on the matter.
true, Germany for one learned from its past mistakes and is redeeming itself to this very day. sorry, but nice as free speech may be, as much as an elemental part of a free society it may be, banning nazi behaviour somehow seems to, i dunno, make sense...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"John Kerry is anti-offshoring"
Corrections he says he is anti-offshoring at the moment because he considers it to be a good way to win votes. Its anybody's guess if he would be anti-offshoring if he got elected or would really do anything about it other add a couple of new incomprehensible changes to the tax code that may or may not discourage it.
If you recall Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and for the Patriot Act. During the primary when Dean was killing him on these two planks he magically became a crusader against the war and the Patriot Act. As soon as he locked up the Democratic nomination he rapidly backpedaled on both issues to court indepentent voters who aren't as hard over on these two planks. Haven't heard him say anything on the Patriot act lately and his position on Iraq is nothing but muddled. He seems to be both for and against it.
I don't have any use for the Bush machine but they are hitting the nail on the head calling him a flip flopper. The quandry for independent voters, do you vote for the incumbent who is obviously bad and dangerous, or a challeneger who might turn out OK or could just as easily turn out worse, you simply can't predict what position he will have five minutes after you elect him.
@de_machina
Slashdot, I appreciate your latest attempts at telling me how to think.
I mean, before, the articles only contained strong hints that I should be a libertarian liberal. But now, I'm flat out told what to think. This is a wonderful change, as I was not bright enough to understand those old school strong hints on my own.
Most refreshingly though, is that I should now hate both presidential candidates because their similar positions on 2 issues do not reflect Slashdot's approved positions. I mean, wow! Can Kerry and Bush honestly be that stupid? I mean, Slashdot's editors have figured it all out by themselves...why can't two of this nations most powerful leaders figure it out?
Anyways, I'm off to see Farhenheit 9/11, because apparently there is much truth in that movie that tech nerds like me should see.
He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.
Ah yes. The old "treason" card. Very classy. I wonder where his watch was made?
Maybe if the various candidates didn't compete so hard to see who can wrap themselves in the flag the tightest it would let a little blood continue to flow to their brains.
KFG
That this sort of system is an absolute necessity for any nation that has embraced the concept of progress. There's only ONE way to stay the same, but there's an infinite number of ways we can change. If 25% of the American people are apathetic enough to think things need to stay the same, they can still manage to beat out the other 75% of the country if no one else agrees on a solution.
And we shouldn't HAVE to agree; we shouldn't have to unanimously agree on the solution in order to agree that there should BE a solution. But in a single-elimination voting system such as ours, we have no choice. We rally around the candidate closest to our view, lest we give the election to the man who is not even in the same zipcode as our beliefs.
Saying that we should vote for Nader (or whoever) anyway just so he can get federal funding for his next attempt is absolutely ludicrous. Conventional voting is fundementally flawed, fundementally biased AGAINST PROGRESS and unless people start to realize this and write their congressmen en mass, things will never change. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will lay down their collective power without a long, hard fight.
"Oh, and the reason we have to go with Israel is because they don't strap bombs on kids and have them walk into pizza parlors full of other kids and blow themselves up."
Not sure I follow your point. They don't need to strap bombs on kids, instead they can just drop them from an F-16 or shoot a missile from an Apache. Remember the 500 pound Israel dropped on a crowded apartment building in Gaza, as a ham handed way to assassinate one guy. It ended up killing, inevitably, all the innocent women and children in the building. A number of loyal Israel pilots sacrificed their careers, and lives, to protest that incident, along with targeting of cars with missiles on crowded streets because it shows Israel is no better or different in the indiscriminate killing department.
The world needs to realize that both sides in that conflict have issues. As long as the world divides up in two camps and chooses to pretend one side is always a saint and the other is the devil, and vice versa, its going to insure perpetual blood shed and a breeding ground for extremism on all sides.
This is a key reason why the U.S. can't win the "War on Terror" on its current path, because it can't fathom it has to fix the root causes of the animosity of the Arab world towards the U.S. and Isreal. Doing that would deprive the extremists of much of the support they are now getting from more moderate Arabs.
@de_machina
when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal
Show me that.
He claimed he had been told of atrocities. Do you deny that any such were committed by US troops? Hello? Mai Lai?
He claimed that that war was debasing the character of the country and costing the lives of its sons. Do you disagree?
So if he didn't say that, he didn't slander you. So what's your beef?
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
I want my plumber to know how a toilet works before he comes over.
Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice. . .
.yet. You still have the power to choose, and the responsibility for that choice still resides with you. You can't pass it off to "the party."
No, we do not. A Hobbesian choice is one in which no choice is actually offered. You can have any color Ford you want, so long as it's black.
I've lived through an actual "democratic" election in a third world country. You were told who the candidate was, and you voted for him.
Oddly enough he won with an overwhelming "mandate from the people."
It wasn't pretty. Mostly because there was never so much as a hint of civil unrest during the process. No bloodshed. No arrests. No fear among the populace. Nothing. Complete civil order reigned as they lined up to vote en masse for the same man. Completely democratic autocracy.
Our system may well be flawed, but it isn't anything like that. .
Choose.
If you don't like the candidate either of the "two" parties present to you, choose more wisely.
But choose.
Or they really will end up telling you who to choose someday. And you'll do it. And be happy about it.
Because choosing your leader will be somebody else's problem.
KFG
So by your reasoning we should have just launched nuclear missiles at the soviet union and been done with it. I mean obviously peaceful coexistance is impossible. Seriously if we couldn't have peaceful coexistance with them you wouldn't be alive today so I suggest you shut the fuck up.
Hey, that's how you control the people. Seed fear and uncertainty and make sure to divide the people into good and evil groups.
This is a time tested strategy. Honestly, if everyone would read a little bit of history they'd see the pattern. Some leaders are altruistic yet succumb to the whispers(and $$) of the lobbyists. Others, like our fearless leader Bush, have an agenda and will do what ever is necessary to make it happen. Then there are a small minority of leaders with integrity. Sadly, they don't stand much chance usually.
Actually, although I don't like Kerry that much more than Bush, I think he is the lesser of two evils. A government which has trouble passing bills because there's no clear majority is also less likely to infringe on the constitution. Bush has too much power and is willing to wield it to further his administration's own goals. He believe's he's more a benevolent king than a public servant.
Are you refering to Sheik Yassin of Hammas?
l
Bear in mind that pro-palestinian news sources give Hammas members and bodyguards of terrorists the deceptive label of 'civilians.'
From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2527.shtm
( a pro-intifada site)
In addition to Sheikh Yassin, 7 Palestinian civilians, including 3 of Sheikh Yassin's bodyguards, were killed and 17 others injured, including two of Sheikh Yassin's sons.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
By saying they served with Kerry, they meant that they served close to Kerry, but not on the same boat. I served on a tank. This is similar to what the swift boat guys did in the sense that we all had our own tanks and did our own thing. However, when we were deployed, or bunked down or received orders, or marched, or trained, or did anything at all that was not on the tank, we all did it together. While I did not serve on SGT Carpenter's tank in '91, I know that he would not make a good president. I know that he was coward, liar and backstabber. But because I was not ON HIS TANK, does that mean I don't know him? Also, not everyone on Kerry's boat supports him. There are a total of at least 60 Swift boat Vets that are against Kerry. There about 9 that are for him. You studied in school, right?
And, um, no. Vietnam Vets Against Kerry is not brought to you by the Republican Party. Just like Fahrenheit-911 was not brought to you by the Democratic party. (However, the Vietnam Vet guy is giving all him procedes from his book to charity... You can't say the same for McMoore)
Oh, and I thought Clinton held the copyright for cokeheads that avoided service in Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now. No one cared when Clinton was running against Dole. I can see how Dole got his Purple Heart!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It isn't.
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that ptohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.
Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones own views, or else you have no freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of it; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.
This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid speech they don't agree with and which may offend some group.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush.
I'm certainly not accusing you of being such a troll, but I just want other readers to be aware that such right-wing efforts are going on.
Anyway, as for me, I think the stakes of this election are way too high. Think of all the REALLY controversial stuff Bush didn't do because he needed to maintain his swing voters. He'll have no such obligation to them if he's re-elected.
I really don't think Kerry is that evil. At least not much more than most other candidates, including Nader. I voted Nader in 2000 (my state was solidly democratic), so I totally know where you're coming from. But IMHO the stakes are WAY too big this time around.
This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist, so hopefully he can unite the majorly partisan congress. Remember that the big-time conservatives would hate Nader nearly as much was we hate Bush, and this would cause even more partisan splitting. Gingrich really fucked the country up by effectively making war against the 'other' team, and now the whole politics is way too fractured. I'm hoping Kerry can pull the more moderate republicans to him, bringing some sanity back to the Capitol.
Also, it seems like the election will be close again. This time I want my popular vote to be counted for Kerry. When they said Gore got more popular votes last time than Bush, my vote wasn't counted. If Gore would have lost the popular vote by 1 vote, I would have been sad that I didn't vote for him. So yeah, I want the results to include me for Kerry.
Anyway, I don't see Kerry doing anything particularly damaging, especially anything that Bush wouldn't have done already. And my biggest priority is to make sure Bush doesn't drive this country off a cliff any more than it's already been pushed, so I must do all I can to get Bush out. If that's voting for Kerry, then that's fine with me.
But anyway, I really don't think Kerry is all that bad. I don't know of any candidates that are perfect, and ALSO not too radical that they'd be able to effectively form a coalition with the other Congress members.
make world, not war
The problem with the electoral college is winner of state gets ALL the votes for the state, not the proportion that they won.
It's worth noting that if Rossevelt hadn't died, we might have seen a peaceful end to French colonialism. The US war in Vietnam wasn't about our freedom or anyone's freedom in particular, it was about preserving the status quo. Rather than seeking to learn from the mistakes of the Korean conflict, the leadership at the time made the unbelievable and calculated move to attempt to repeat its mistakes.
The tragedy for the US, particularly those who served over there, was tremendous. They paid dearly in blood for the hubris of callous cowards like Bush and Cheney. What men like Max Cleland, John McCain suffered is bound inexorably to adjectives like "unspeakable" "horrific" "unimaginable," but they would likely count themselves amoung the lucky. And the price that the Vietnamese paid for their ignorance of American politics was nothing short of awesome (the bad kind).
That John Kerry saw his youthful idealism for what it was, and used an obscure by the book regulation to try and correct what he saw as the problem at its source (poor leadership an ocean away) is a mark of what might well be the early onset of his wisdom. It's a far cry from how Cheney avoided his draft board, of how Bush Jr. used his father's influence to insure another man took his place.
I suppose we shouldn't be so supprised that it's the cowards in positions of power who stand between the dead and the country that dearly wished to make amends with the inequities of past and present by honoring them. Or maybe they're terrified that people will remember honor, duty, sacrifice, and dignity when they see it, and find them lacking.
The problem with this view is that it presumes that politics is all about making the right choices for *you*. In fact, that's not it at all -- the point of politics is about making the right choices for the *country*. Here's an example:
(okay, got my asbestos suit on)
I'm a Kerry supporter, but I tend to think he doesn't go far enough in his views. For instance, he's not in favor of gay marriage, although he is in favor of civil unions. (Bush, for the record, is in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning *both*, so the original submitter of this story has it wrong). I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and so I'd really like Kerry a lot more if he fully supported the right of gays to get married.
Why, then, aren't I supporting someone who *would* fully support that right? Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people. *My* personal views are never, ever going to be perfectly represented by the person running the country unless *I* run for president. Since that will never happen, I have to choose the person who I think best approximates my views and has the best chance of effecting positive change. I have no problem with that, because the question is not, and never has been, which candidate is best for *me*. The question is which candidate is best for the *country*.
Okay, bub, I don't care what Bush knew or didn't know about the torture of the Iraqi prisoners. When a president asks his people to find some legal loophole to justify using torture on the prisoners he's already declared "enemy combatants" and stripped of rights held dear by Americans, I don't think it matters.
Because when people join the ruling class, they don't become happy go lucky champions of freedom, they become greedy little bastards like Bush, Cheney, and hell Kerry too.
That upward mobility is largly an illusion. It took a while, but the rulers have finnally figured out how to keep people down (and preserve their God like standards of living). The trick is to have a small middle class, and the occasional new entry in the ruling class. The poor of the world end up spending all their energy trying to move up, and the middle class are wasted just trying to stay middle class.
The large amount of upward moblity seen in America/Europe around 1950 was largely due to the population crash following WWII. Now that the baby boomers have fucked thier way back to a surplus of laborers (and the cold war's ended) Globalism can kick in full steam with all it's truely nasty implicatons. Capital flows to where ever labor's cheapest, and just the mere threat of closing factories will keep unions from ever exisiting. That's the real scary thing actually. When unions form, the bosses just leave. No workers protests, no beatings, no sensational stories about worker abuse. Just a bunch of starving people nobody cares about.
I guess the point I'm driving at (albeit poorly) is Capitalism is perfecting itself. It's approaching a perpetual system of hard working fools and the Capitalist Kings they work for. The only thing I see stopping the trend is another population crash. Which is all well and good, unless you happen to be a member of the crashing populace.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the real world is much more complicated than that
Not if you're George W. Bush.
paintball
I also believe he wouldn't form his cabinet from diehard conservatives, that he would work better with the UN, etc.
Bush also wants to privatize more services, including medicare, which I strongly disagree with. Bush has also blurred lines between state and religion, which I don't think Kerry has any intention of doing. Bush is adamantly pro-life, Kerry is pro-choice.
Those are some key things off the top of my head about differences between Bush and Kerry. I guess Kerry doesn't have much specifics for fixing the economy, fixing Iraq, fixing health care. But some of Bush's moves (major tax cuts, privitization, alienating UN) which failed one could be pretty sure Kerry wouldn't have initiated on his own anyway.
make world, not war
if fair is fair does kerry get to destroy his records and get away with drug abuse too?
Clinton had to appologise to his wife.
Bush will have to appologise to the nation (and the world).
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If I never see two guys making out, sweet. I'll have done at least one thing right.
But, it would seem to me marriage is a legal contract between a small group of people (polygamy), the society in which they reside, and each other. They stand before their society and seek to be recognized as group that will uniquely act in the interests of each other and share in all things. For this, they're granted certain short-hand privilages with respect to each other and their combined property. They're bound to and empowered by each other to make decisions that only a person's most trusted allies, and confidants could possibly make in the most dire, intimate, important and final moments of a person's life. It's not inherently religious, though a power higher than that of a society is often appealed to during the creation, recognition, and declaration of such a bond.
And that should one, on religious grounds, object to two dudes or two chicks making such a profound agreement, one must necessarily object to any element of the state presiding over such an agreement in any capacity. And should spend their time campaigning to judges from marrying people, or allowing the state to presume to authorize such wholly divine blessings, to say nothing of the sacrilege that is common-law marriage, and divorce. How can the laws of man rip apart what the magic sky man has seen fit in his wisdom to join?
Just the fact that Bush thinks that good, patriotic, tax paying, americans, who aren't incorprated in the cayman islands, should be denied to take on and delegate such responsabilities to expediently appease people who just haven't thought it through, well it says a lot about him. He doesn't like freedom. He doesn't think people should be able to live their lives in peace without government telling them how to do it. In reality, he doesn't like families or communities. He likes bullshit, and thinks people are easily distracted by fear and shiny objects. I think that if for one week journalists did their job, Americans would prove him gravely mistaken.
If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it
Ken Livinstone, the current Major of London, can be a bit of a prat sometimes, but other times he has a point. When did voting (by all the people in the country), alone, last change something?
In the UK the 'opinions', and I use the term in the looses sense of the meaning, between the two main parties are almost identical. It's becoming like the US (or how the US is portried in the UK), of "(s)he with the most money" or "(s)he who is most photogenic" will be elected
It could be worse, much worse, but the present system of politics dominated by large corporations, almost buying their way (or their cronies way) into power cannot be good, in the long run, for the average Joe on the street
Jaj
Rather than picking something that is more than 100 years old and settled, try for something now. Go in front of the white house and wave a picket in favor of Al Qaeda. Put on the picket things like
etc. etc.etc.
Get a tv crew to come down, and then watch what happens.
Also, ask any national news person how free things really are these days. Other than fox news, you might be surprised what these journalists would say.
Freedom is not the ability to bitch about a long ago war. Freedom is the ability to critize the current and even recent government. Think about Bush allowing Reagan and Poppa Bush to hide all sorts of things. The Freedom of Information act was put in place for a reason. Now Bush preverts it and allows them (and himself) to hide past actions. BTW, I do note that Kerry has not said that he would remove that presidential order. I find that sad.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You're trying the "slippery slope" argument, but we can discuss all of cannibalism, necrophilia, incest, paedophilia, beastiality as seperate issues:
Let's start with incest, paedophila, and beastiality, because they all come down to the same principal: informed consent. In our society it is generally believed that sex should be consensual (rape is illegal) as otherwise we would be infringing on anothers rights. The problem is, to be able to consent, the other party has to understand what it is they are consenting to. That's more than just understanding the physical process involved, but (in our society anyway) understanding the emotional issues attached to such things. This is why paedophila is considered criminal - it is harmful to the children, because the children (even if they do "consent") don't really understand the full implications of what they would be consenting to. My understanding is that beastiality falls into the same category. It is interesting that we extend this protection to animals where otherwise we would not, but that's how it is. The other issue with beastiality is a "cleanliness" issue. Mostly this the same sort of "cleanliness" that directs the finer points of a kosher diet, but there are some remaining issues (transferring diseases across species, which has been known to happen through beastiality and related pursuits can definitely be problematic). Still going with holdover taboos we come to incest - a large part of our reaction to incest is based on an old taboo which centers around the issues of inbreeding. All very reasonable and sensible. The issues with incest do extend beyond this though - we're essentially back to the informed consent: most incestuous relationships involve exploiting the familial relationship into something more, and at least one party is usually not in a position to give informed consent.
I believe that leaves us with cannibalism and necrophilia. With these certainly no obvious harm is being done (presuming it is post-mortem cannabilism, and the person isn't being killed to e eaten) to the immediate parties, however, our society generally holds that a person (and their immediate kin) has rights over their remains - refer to organ donation, leaving your body to science, what have you: there are plenty of laws that consider damage done post death to still be harm to the individual. Based on that, necrophilia is out, as a dead person cannot give consent. Likewise cannibalism. That, of course, leaves the possibility that a person could will their remains to be used for such purposes. Why they would choose to do that I do not know, but that is their choice. In that case, personally, I don't think I would stand in the way of such thigns. Cannibalism, on some level, makes sense (read Stranger in a Strange Land).
And then homosexuality - well, that's sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have full knowledge and understanding of what they are entering into. No harm to either party, so I don't see the problem there.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
You could join the communist party in the USSR. You could even work your way up its ranks and may one day be leader if the old one dies. It makes no difference though, it's still the communist party.
I have a couple of pretty severe issues with the the Libertarian platform, which I finally got around to reading last night.
First, they oppose "victimless crimes". This means some changes that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Plutonium is a controlled substance in the United States, and an elimination of consentual crimes would make it uncontrolled. I want possession of plutonium to be controlled, frankly.
Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.
Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.
Fourth, their platform on American Indian Rights -- the return of Indian lands to Indians -- is simply ridiculous. It might sound nice, and there might have historically been some nasty games play ed to obtain land ownership, but you can hardly kick people off of land where they now live.
Fifth, I utterly disagree with their "zero regulation" model of business. Their claims that all monpolies arise from government intervention is, frankly, wrong. I can't see how they intend to deal with natural monpolies, unless they expect to simply ignore them. They do not deal with artificial mopolies, which I can't believe the government directly causes in all cases...unless they want to also repeal all forms of IP, which will be, well, overly extreme in my book and almost everyone's.
Sixth, their "no taxes" model makes no sense. It's just ridiculous. We've tried not having *federal* taxes, and that just didn't work. The mind boggles at the thought of local and state taxes being eliminated. How do they expect to have a functioning government? Even they must allow for the operation of certain skeletal structures, like a judicial system, or their own rules will not be enforced.
Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!
Eighth, they propose deregulating the postal service. This would probably mean an end to mail that can reach anywhere in the United States, even if it reduced costs to the other people.
Ninth, I think that their policy on secession is stupid. Sounds very idealistic, but why doesn't, say, GM Seattle secede from the United States, and avoid paying business taxes? Their workers can still *live* in the United States and enjoy the no income taxes that the Libertarian party promotes. I just don't see it working.
Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a
May we never see th
Have you been to DC recently? I was down in DC few weeks ago and there was a constant stream of protests, pickets, and booths doing exactly what you described - with picture. This stuff happens all the time down there. You could do any of the above and you will not get arrested. Certainly they will likely watch you like a hawk, but so long as you are not standing in the middle of the road obstructing traffic, or trying to use physical force on anyone, they will allow it. If you just want to sit there with a sign that says "Bush is a murdering fascist", no one will stop you.
A strong argument could be made that when it comes to freedom in IP, the US lags. In terms of actual individual speech, I can't possibly see how it could get much rosier. You can say anything you want. I think you would be damned hard pressed to find another nation that is so liberal in terms of what the laws protect for freedom individual of speech.
People need to get a grip and get things in perspective. I am not voting for Bush in the upcoming election and I all around think he is dumber then a pound of bricks. However, I don't let my dislike of his policies fabricate disillusions that I am living in a fascist police state or that he sits around all day figuring out ways to kill babies for shits and giggles. People don't disappear. No matter how nutty and vocal you are, no one is going send the corporate death squad run by Dick Chaney after you. Get a grip and realize how badly the media (and politicians in general) has you hyped up into a frothing mess to the point where you will believe anything so long as it sounds bad for Bush.
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and was utterly blown away at how many people in the audience ate up some of the most one sided and utterly racist propaganda I had ever seen in my entire life. If at any point you can't at least understand the other side's argument and rationally see why they would think that way, then I 99% of the time it is because you have turned fanatic and will eat up any bullshit that fits in line with your beliefs. Nothing is more destructive to the political process then when people become a frothing mess that isn't able to at least understand the others sides position. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you need to at least understand it first. The worst thing about this election year is that both side's bases are so riled up that they are utterly blind to anything that lands outside their current pre-programmed views.
The title for this /. forum is all hype. The lawyers are not saying that the maintainers of the website are not allowed to use ANY photographs of Kerry. They're just saying that this photographer --- who has every right to protect his copyrighted woks --- doesn't want them using HIS photographs. Are the people that run the website paying him for using his content? No? Then they should find a photograph that's in the public domain. This is not about free speech. They're not being told not to say what they want about Kerry, they're just being told to stop using this guy's content royalty-free. Why don't they take their own photos of Kerry?
...and I'm happy to support a candidate who'll prevent the state from *forcing* me to accept gay marriage.
And as far as domestic issues: How are two issues "most" issues?
There are 100 people in society
There are 2 brilliant people
There are 20 greedy people
There are 20 gullible people
There are 10 who are opposed
There are 48 apathetic people
5 greedy people ambush 2 brilliant people
5 greedy people convince 20 gullible people
20 gullible people make lots of noise
38 apathetic people restrain 8 who are opposed to restore calm
5 greedy people, 20 gullible people, 10 apathetic people, and 2 who are opposed vote
5 greedy people sit back, enjoy the show, and profit.
Using copyright to quell political speech is a tactic of the greedy people perpetuated by the apathetic people who simply want things to quiet down so we can go back to trying to pay bills and keep up with rising taxes.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
>>Well, do you hate them both equally? If not, you could (on probability) improve your position by voting for
>First, you're basing your vote off of hatred? And not real "you killed mah daddy" hatred, but Hate Week hatred? That's lame, right there.
>Second, where do you get off saying "improve" ? Don't you really mean "cause to deteriorate more slowly" ?
Try checking attributions. It was the original poster that said he hated both candidates. The point in reply is, if he doesn't dislike them equally, then there is something he can actually do to reduce the chance that the one he dislikes more will get elected. If there is one of them that he dislikes less, doesn't that make it less bad (for him) if the one he dislikes less gets in? And isn't a less bad outcome better than the worst, and isn't that relatively an improvement?
-wb-
Karma kill session begins now:
Why is it that if an article is slightly against Kerry it is modded down and articles referring to Bush as "chimp" and his advisors as "goebbels" are modded highly? I thought name calling was usually flamebait or at the least a troll. Regardless, the tone of this discussion and the soundbite level of understanding most posters have is dissappointing. If people would only try to understand government with the passion they approach picking out their favorite text editor or scripting language.
Bush's actions with respect to Iraq are troubling. Kerry's actions surrounding his service in Viet Nam and possibly his actual service is questionable. Even worse, some of the promises from both campaigns are totally unkeepable. If you think hate for the president is what has kept our allies on the sideline and that changing leaders will suddenly bring France and Germany and NATO into Iraq, you will be dissappointed. Nothing happens between nations without a price. If you believe that the economy is all better, believe me, when the fed raises interest rates and people can't unlock the equity in their homes so easily... we are in for trouble.
Regardless, it's nice to see people who feel such passion about firing the president. It's too bad that both Bush and Kerry do not represent what is best in America. In fact, both of them appear to be self-serving egomaniacs who are interested in wielding power for power's sake. That is a national tradgedy, and using DCMA to supress the opposition is exactly the kind of tactic I'd expect from both of them - and we can expect more of the same if either is elected.
-- $G
More's the pity: I voted for Bush. Actually I voted for the "group of far right fanatics" who I thought at the time were the right people to run the country. I knew GW was a figurehead, and didn't care.
But I didn't see 9/11 coming. That's what pushed everyone off the deep end and started it all. Unfortunately, Mr Bush didn't repond well to the preasure - but I never expected him to have to face that kind of preasure either. His cabinet is another matter though - they know better, and instead of helping to keep things on an even keel went nuts with every rabid thought they never dreamed they'd actually get the chance to indulge.
mbbac
The above post is a blatant Troll and Flamebait. He explains nothing, and takes every oppurtunity to bash Bush. exempli gratis:
"Bushism"
"Can't possibly form logical sentences..."
Bush never said people who oppose the Iraqi war are unpatriotic, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You also gave absolutely no support for your satement that John Kery isn't a fan of communism, but Bush would if it supported him.
Oh, that's right, you can't because your post is nothing but blatant FLAMEBAIT.
While it sported an interesting enough initial premise, this post was prederrailled by the off-topic (and innaccurate and misleading) "clever" postscript. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on gay marriage, which is exactly what the cited link states - the story in question supports the poster's assertion only from the most semantic and specious viewpoint. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on outsourcing, the cited link in fact notes the story of a supporter of outsourcing supporting Kerry on the basis of other issues. This isn't even close to a justification for the poster's assertion so at this point I have to assume they are just willfully stirring the swill for no decent reason. The second half of this posting is in fact a troll.
And yeah, I have an opinion, a strong opinion, on why it does in fact make a difference who you vote for and whether it makes more sense to vote for a third-party candidate or not. But I won't share it here because it isn't relevant to the actual topic. Jeez, if I want to have a pointless, terminally threadjacked smack-down conversation about the presidential race I'll go hang out on Fark.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Are you claiming there is more diversity in rural areas than urban areas? I'm saying that every single person should have an equally powerful vote. If you say otherwise, let me know how you determine who gets the more powerful votes and why.
Also, instant runoff is _all_about_ diversity of candidates. Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?
Oh, wait. You're just a troll.
Cheers.
If I'm a Nader voter (and I'm not, I prefer voting for someone who could legitimately be President rather than protesting the whole scene), I'd have voted Nader-then-Gore-then-Bush in 2000. My Nader vote wouldn't have split the vote -- and Bush in all likelihood wouldn't be in office. You can vote your conscience.
There's no inconsistency between instant runoff and the electoral college. In that way it'd be a less radical change than what Colorado is proposing right now (and one other state already does) -- splitting the electoral vote by percentage of the popular vote. That change seems simpler, but it does away with the sort of geographic weighting you're talking about, and does nothing to address the "wasted" votes.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
"Timothy" claimed that: "Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information embarassing or harmful to their campaigns." But follow the links, and you'll discover that neither leads to a story about what either candidate is doing.
The Wired story is about NBC refusing to give a movie maker permission to include a clip from a Bush interview on "Meet the Press." Whatever NBC's rationale is, they're not Bush, and from research on the media elite, we can assume that roughly 90+% of the network's decision makers will be voting for Kerry.
The same is true of the Kerry link to a Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry website. It tells of a New England filmmaker who's treatening to sue the group over their use of two photos that are very unflattering to Kerry. He is a friend of Kerry, but the action is still his own and not that of the Kerry campaign.
Slashdot should learn from the traditional news media, where fact checkers are often used to confirm stories. Before it posts a story, it should at least take a few seconds to see if the links say what the home-page poster claims. All too often they don't.
Until that happens, I'll continue to tell friends that Slashdot interesting for the reader comments, but that the site itself is run like a junior high newspaper--sloppy, irresponsible and childishly rebellious.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
i'm not sure the sex with little boys is a consent thing either. at cetain point in history when most of these rules were started the general idea was any sex not intending to reproduce wasn't right. This is because the towns and families needed workers for the farming and hunting as well as wariors for defending and attacking. It was my impresion that most if not all the rules/laws discouraging sex was in one way or another related to this.
It is interesting how times have changed and the fears of the olden days are no longer with us. Still we have been able to justify the usage of the laws/rules and have an inherent almost instinctive view on them. I guess morals are deeper then a belief in religion or someones sence of rational. In order for homosexual mariage to become accepted, there need to be a clear rational dividsing line seperating it form the other taboos we have instilled in society.