Slashdot Mirror
Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA?
dave981 writes "Over at ZDNet, Declan McCullagh asks, 'Would John Kerry defang the DMCA?' Kerry's response: 'open to examining' whether to change current law 'to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes.' It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is."
Are people seriously going to vote for the better candidate on copyrights and making backup copies of software? There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president. I know /. is full of nerds, but speaking as a nerd I don't vote like a nerd.
if he does defang the DCMA, maybe he can work on the patriot act as well.
For those who forgot their high school civics our live outside the USA...
The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed
Therefore, even if Kerry wins the presidential race, he still will have no direct impact on laws. He'll only be able to sign a DMCA repeal or softening amendment if Congress sends him one to consider.
As always happens in the even-numbered years, all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for re-election. Right now, it's a "Republican steamroller" because Republicans control both houses and and the White house. However, the Republicans hold on to a very thin margin to make their majority in both cases, so this could completely flip or end up in a mixed state after the elections. The Congress has much more say over the laws than the President gets.
That's not too bad, though. It means neither side has gotten to him yet. We have an opportunity to make a case.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
It doesn't matter who wins the presidency. Nothing will happen. At first I was going to say that the president only signs laws. It's up to congress to change the law. But in the end, this is now the Corporate States of America. And no one in Washingon will ever get off the gravy train.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
I voted for Kodos
I didn't realize the president could simply wipe existing laws out of existance.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Would it really matter. It is already a law, and as president he has no control over it. However he would have power to veto it if changes came down the pipe to alter or kill it off.
Why do we as americans put so much into the presidential elections, when infact our congress critters have the power to draft and approve new laws, while the president is in the position to say yes or no to them?
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
I'd rather have individual people survive than the Republic any day. Besides, the Republic has basically been dead since the Corporations were allowed to enter politics in 1885.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Neither politician has the moxie to say in public that he agrees with gay marriage...
That's because neither of the candidates support it. Bush doesn't support it and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Kerry doesn't support it but is against any such legislation.
Strangely enough, both candidates are nearly mirroring their stances on the issue of IP theft:
Said Bush: "I strongly support efforts to protect intellectual property and will continue to work with Congress to ensure all intellectual property is properly protected...We must vigorously enforce intellectual-property protections and prosecute the violators, not the technology." He noted that his administration launched an initiative to enforce such laws and has worked closely with China to support penalties associated with violating American intellectual-property rights.
Kerry, meanwhile, has a slightly different stance. "I do not condone the illegal sharing of copyrighted material," Kerry said, though he is "open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes."
Poor Jim Lehrer of PBS, who moderated the first presidential debate, was left scratching his head about what actually differentiated the two men who would be president.
I just pointed out a major difference... Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.
Using John Kerry's Senate voting history to say that he supported or opposed any given thing is like trying to upconvert a low-bitrate signal... you end up guessing to make data you don't really have.
For example, there never was a true vote "on the war". Congress has not ever even voted on an official decloration of war during recent years. What was actually voted on was permission to use the armed forces if things couldn't be resolved any other way. Kerry claims that Bush forgot about that if-clause and went to war too quickly.
This is a problem anybody who tries to advance from the legislative branch into the executive branch always faces. Legislators are always asked to vote on hundreds of things on the record, while the President and governors only have to consider the final versions that have cleared their legislature. It may seem like a flip-flop to vote yes "on" version A, but "no" on version B of the same bill, but versions A and B by definition cannot be the same thing. What such a voting record indicates is not that the person was opposed to the main concept of the whole bill and then changed their mind. It instead indcates that there was some flaw in version A that was fixed by the time version B came around so they could now support the bill.
Well, he's a Senator now. Since the Senate's one of two houses of Congress, and Congress makes the laws, it might be good to ask what Kerry's done -- if anything -- in Congress to change or even "examine" the DMCA.
Amazing the right wing bull that gets injected into this... and yet we forget that CONGRESS PASSES THE LAWS.
Hello. Talk to your congressman. Preznits blow up countries. They don't pass laws.
"Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year."
Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."
Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Bush on the price of oil: "We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC."
Kerry on the price of oil: "We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC."
Really, the list goes on, including some of what they say about Iraq. The differences between the two are mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety.
Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to survive even if he wins.
--- Mercutio was right.
First of all, I agree with the guy who said that there are bigger issues this time around than geek issues.
But having said that, I don't understand why the parties stand where they do on this stuff. Hollywood people are huge Kerry supporters, so you'd expect him to be falling all over himself to do whtaever he could to help them out.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't know -- it's always been a small thing that's puzzled me.
No, if he wanted to he could RIGHT NOW introduce a bill in the Senate to do it.
He has not. What does that tell you?
1) "Open to examining whether to change" does not imply "will advocate change".
2) "Changing" the DMCA doesn't necessarily mean "changing it in the way that geeks would like".
3) "Examining whether to change" can lead to the conclusion "no, it needs no changing" just as easily as its opposite.
4) "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes" could be the first paragraph of the INDUCE act. After all, the INDUCE act was spun as going after P2Pers, not those who were "lawfully making backups for archival purposes".
5) Finally, "lawfully obtains or [lawfully] receives transmission" -- leaves a lot of wiggle room. What if "Lawfully" means "in accordance with every term of the EULA under which it was sold?"
Conclusion: Kerry's got no intention of asking Congress to weaken the DMCA; he's pandering for every vote he can get in the home stretch of a tightly-contested Presidential race.
That's not a partisan slur -- both parties are bought and paid for by Hollywood, and you can bet your eighth bit that no matter who wins in November, any "changes" to the DMCA in the next four years will be to Hollywood's benefit, not yours.
> Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."
> Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion. To this day there is zero chance Congress would vote to legalize abortion but Democrats depend on unelected Judges to do their dirty work for them. Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench.
As for oil, what else CAN we do. Kick their ass and take their gas? I know that is the popular myth among the Deanics for both Gulf Wars but it just ain't so. The Free Flow of Oil at Market Prices is what the Republicans fought for, and that is what we have. The uncertainty in the Middle East, political instability in Migeria and China's newfound appitite for oil has put a premium on oil prices.
> mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety
Excellent B5 episode, but the analogy doesn't fit.
Democrat delenda est
Kerry, on the other hand, might still feel beholden to some of the big-name stars that have been stumping for him.
If copyright law and the DMCA are your single issue, I'm not at all sure that you want to vote Kerry.
See what I've been reading.
Why is it that every post on Slashdot these days that mentions Bush or Kerry winds up with partisan nonsense? This article is about the DCMA and how Kerry has indicated that he would be open to re-eximining it. However, half the posts are about Iraq and the possibilty of the American Union crumbling if one or the other is elected.
I for one, feel that Kerry indicating that the DCMA may be opened for examination is a positive point. This discussion may raise the issue to the fore such that it becomes a issue for debate (or relentless repition of partisan talking points as the American media is wont to do). Lets hope that the tech folks out there continue to voice their concern over the stupid DCMA and that Senators and possibly presidents are open to understanding just how sweeping that law is. The may lead to change and rewriting of the law.
Let's hope so at least.
Kerry was a senator when the DMCA was passed. How did he vote?
Both of the candidates will say whatever they have to to win, so it's better to look at their actions rather than their words. There has been one case so far where Senator Kerry had to decide about security vs. freedom, and he came out on the right side: when offered by the secret service, he refused temporary flight restrictions around his campaign stops, so that private aviation is not disrupted or shut down the way it is when the president or vice-president visit a town.
Since he's not likely to win any votes that way (I mean, how many of you really care?), the choice suggests a real personal preference for freedom over security. Perhaps that preference will carry through to the DMCA, though that may depend more on the cabinet than the president.
Oh please. Look, you have to get your head out of the sand ostrich-man. Saddam was a mass murderer. Look at how many graves they have uncovered. That right there is enough for me to condone what we did. That kind of stuff is just not something the 21st century should put up with.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Bush might be an idiot on a lot of issues, but on that one issue he 'gets it' and more importantly has the right ideas about how to win.
Really? Like start a war with a nation that doesn't have radical Islamics running the nation, so it can be replaced by a group of radical Islamics?
Right, but he voted for it before voting against it.
Kerry is impressionable, and agrees with anyone for 10 minutes after they have made their point. It's clear from his "positions" that he is devoid of core principles.
I'm not saying he's a bad guy. Being able to hear both sides of an argument is important for someone whose job consists of spouting off at the mouth for hours on end (ie senator).
I'd rather someone who can make a decision, even an unpopular one, than someone who will say whatever you want to hear.
this sig has been rated E for Everyone.
In other words, the President may not be able to *make* the changes himself, but he is able to SET THE DEBATE and this is a power in and of itself.
:)
That and the whole commander in chief thing, appointing judges and other government officials, running foreign relations, etc makes it such that the President has the capability of really shaping and molding the federal government from top to bottom. Of course there is this whole bureaucratic thing that they have to get around.
Wikipedia does a good job covering these and other subtleties of the President's power. A must read for every American voter and/or the curious or concerned foreign citizen
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
Here's the financial implications of the DMCA as far as the candidates are concerned.
Contributions by Industry from TV/Movies/Music:
Republicans: $2,782,125
Democrats: $3,431,236
So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats.
If Bush is re-elected and the time comes to put new Justices on the Supreme Court what is he going to do? He's going to put judges on their that are sympathetic to his (not his party's) own personal goal of bringing religious morality back into this country.
I'm sorry but they are both worthless assholes. Bush has a political+relgious agenda while Kerry doesn't have much of anything.
Personally I believe that seperation of church and state is important. He calls them morals and I call it religion. Symantics... DO NOT SHOVE YOUR RELGIOUS VALUES DOWN MY FUCKING THROAT.
I think that few state legislatures at this point would pass a law fully outlawing abortion either. I think the most common opinion in suburbia (which is rather middle of the road on abortion) is that abortion is generally a bad thing. We should have less of it. Outlawing it entirely is going to far. Waiting periods, parental consent, no "partial-birth" abortions and forced distribution of standard pamphlets describing the risks of the procedure as well greatness of adoption are encourgaded.
In other words, they want to see the practice reduced and limited not abolished.
Of course probably 50% of the public is a die hard on either side.
I was unaware that anyone had forced you into a gay marriage. Good thing, or they might have forced you to have an abortion too, if you were in a traditional marriage.
I don't particularly like gay marriage or abortion either. But I think that there are far worse things in the world, and in these particulars, I'm not going to force my beliefs on others, and I ask them not to force theirs on me. Gay marriage is, in particular, a victimless 'crime,' and perhaps it is more a statement of property rights. In that light, perhaps Vermont's Civil Unions were a good idea, because marriage *is* a religious institution, and the state shouldn't be messing there. (Current ammendment proposals tend to outlaw Civil Union rights, too.) As for abortion, it leaves me queasy, the later the queasier, but there are *worse* things. If the "religious" forces expressed half the love for babies that they do for foetuses, maybe I'd feel differently about this.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The Supreme Court didn't "legalize abortion", it ruled that the states can't criminalize it. And the federal government has made no laws to criminalize it. The Republican Party these days attracts lots of people who aren't down with Constitutional Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". They think that "the government grants you rights", not that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". For all the Republican talk about deference to the "Creator", they insist on a government middleman to unalienate them from their rights.
Drop the "activist judges" and "legislate from the bench" buzzwords. Bush represents the "starve the beast" neocons who are discrediting (literally and figuratively) the US government, so corporations will resume the feudal predation on the people formerly pursued by hereditary dynasties (like the Bush family). Why you apologize for them is your own business, but don't expect the rest of us committed to freedom to buy it.
--
make install -not war
It is precisely this "them and us" mentality that causes problems. There is no battle for world supremacy going on. What is going on is that there are some radical Islamics out there (but not as many as most people would have us believe) who hate the West, and particularly the USA. In recent times the USA has not endeared itself to the Muslim parts of the world, but this will only be solved by diplomacy and constructive actions, not war and war-like "them and us" sentiments.
That kind of stuff is just not something the 21st century should put up with.
... no, sorry, they're on the protection list.
I agree. So, when are you going to North Korea? Hm? Perhaps some Christmas cleaning in Cuba? How about the dictatorship in Saudi Arab...
Congress' intent when creating the DMCA was two-fold:
They envisioned making it easier for legitimate, white-hat-wearing businesses to stop the violation of their copyrights. What they actually provided, of course, was "takedown", a sledgehammer a lawyer can use to swat a fly.
The "copyright managment information" Congress was most concerned about were things like holograms on jewel cases, but the wording of the law also include the text of copyright notices in programs, EULA wrappers, and so on.
Courts are becoming increasing sophisticated in how they interpret the DMCA in cases where it's invoked. I think as more and more people, including judges, get their information online instead of from the mainscam media, attitudes will change about what is "fair use" allowed by the DMCA and what falls under (what you'd think is the capital crime of) "piracy".
There is real tension that cuts across the lines between the Left and Right. On the left you have Hollywood wanting protection ("for the artists"), while civil libertarians want anarchy. On the right there is the limited government crowd, but also the capitalists. Probably it would be overstating it to say the tension within the two sides is greater than that between them, but I can't decide.
At any rate, I don't think either Bush or Kerry would do anything about it, but the courts probably will settle on good rules to curb the abuses of the takedown mess.
sigs, as if you care.
When you think about it, "something in place" is not a good excuse for voting for something that is patently in violation of their Oaths of Office (i.e. They swore to uphold the Constitution- voting on something that is concretely in violation of the same is NOT upholding it!). If it was flawed, they should have fixed the damn thing or tabled it permanantly.
I do not accept his rationale on this issue.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Isn't amazing that you can state these 'facts' without any resources and get modded up, and lucky you, you get to slide your opinion in there without anyone noticing!
If you want to know where they stand, go their websites, don't assume the parent is correct.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
It's pretty clear that your mind is made up, so don't think I'm trying to change your vote. However, I would encourage you to read up on the some of the misinformation shoved down our throats by both parties. FactCheck.org is an excellent resource--it was recommended by Cheney in the VP debate.
A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
Kerry might be the lesser of two evils but make no mistake he is just as in bed with the media corporations as anyone else. Hes just covering his ass on that response - he can't say "i'll abolish it" and he doesnt want to loose voters by saying he won't. Unless something is done about the dire state of bribery in America theres no hope of anything but token gestures and theres little hope of showing European governments they can't get away with this either.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
What authority does he have to do that?
It's not like he's going to send troops into Russia without Putin's permission. Russia needs help securing it's nuclear weapons, and it's in the best interests of both Russia and the United States to cooperate in this regard. Remember, the Russians are quite frightened about terrorism too, given the recent events with Chechnya. It's a cooperative venture that's long overdue, and very important.
He talks about how we don't have our allies for the war, when in reality, we do have allies, althoguh we are missing some nations
He's right. We don't have *our* allies. We have some allies, but they're not *our* allies. Our allies are the NATO countries, not semi-dictatorships like Pakistan. Our "alliance" is stupid from a military standpoint alone. Why spend billions of dollars to ally yourselves with countries that cannot field the manpower of a single US state? At *best*, it's a strategic mistake, and at worst it's a misleading PR stunt.
I know I wouldnt be all to happy to help Kerry if I was a US ally and he kept saying I did not exist.
You probably wouldn't be happy to be an ally, like the Prime Minister of Poland, who now thinks Bush mislead us into the war.
Kerry talks about creating laws as president, although in reality this is his job as a senator
Kerry nevers talks about creating laws. I don't know where you got that idea. He *does* talk about pushing through legislation, which is perfectly within his powers as president. The President has a lot of influence to encourage (or discourage) certain legislation in Congress. He also talks a lot about allocation of government spending, which is also in his power, given that the OMB (part of the Whitehouse) drafts the budget.
and he STICKS with the decision that he makes.
Sticking with bad decisions is a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength. The information about Iraq has changed drastically since we went in. Bush thought Iraq had WMD, they didn't. Bush thought they were cooperating with terrorists, they weren't. Iraq, as far as two-bit dictatorships go, was less of an immediate danger to us than any of a number of countries. The only excuse Bush has left is that "we freed the people of Iraq." Well, guess what? That's not our job! The only reason Bush still says he wouldn't have done anything different is because he isn't man enough to admit he was wrong.
"While you may not agree with Bush's decision, but you must agree that he has the ability to make a decision"
Yes, I agree that Bush has the ability to make decisions. Of course, so does everyone else. That's nothing special. It takes a real man to know when to change his mind. To quote Santayana: "a fanatic is one who, having lost sight of his aim, redoubles his effort". The world is complicated --- you get no credit for trying hard!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
That goes double for the lefties amongst you who are going to vote for Nader. Kerry isn't going to turn your country into the leftie paradise you dream of, sure. But at least the bloke isn't a messianic, militaristic moron who sends thousands of soldiers off to die to settle a family vendetta...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Do you ever get the feeling that our country has been through this kind of thing before?
Civil rights was rammed down America's throat, too. It wasn't the executive or legislative branch paving the way--it was the judicial branch. Without those "activist judges" going against the mainstream American values of the day, there's a very real chance that you'd see a "whites only" sign hanging in the window of your local Starbucks. Which was right--the judgement of the activist courts, or the will of the American mainstream?
This kind of thing is exactly why we have a judicial branch. Fundamental human rights aren't open to debate on the grounds of "what the majority is comfortable with". The founders were keenly aware of the "tyrrany of the majority", and they went to great lengths to keep the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. One of these safeguards is the judicial branch of the federal government.
Over the years, the American mainstream has maintained that blacks are worth 3/5 of a human being, that women are property, that the Irish are a race of sub-humans, that it is perfectly appropriate to sell and purchase human beings, that marrying an individual of the wrong race was a capital offense, and that Indians either needed to move out of our way or be killed. Today, the American mainstream believes that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry those they love--or even enter into civil unions, for that matter. Occasionally, the Legislature or the Executive will take it upon themselves to right these wrongs. In most cases, though, it's the Judicial branch that steps in and upholds the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Be thankful that our highest court is not subject to the whim and fancy of American mainstream thought.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
" Saddam was a mass murderer. Look at how many graves they have uncovered. That right there is enough for me to condone what we did. That kind of stuff is just not something the 21st century should put up with."
Where were you when those graves were being dug up? Where was bush? Where was runsfeld, perle, cheney and the rest of the war mongers? When amnesty international was publishing it's list of atrocities in Iraq did you join them, did you give them money? Or did you mock them for being liberal faggots.
I am touched by your newfound love of the iraqi people, I really am. If only with people like you cared about the iraqis before 9/11. Like maybe in the 1980s when Saddam was gassing the kurds or when saddam was putting doen the Shia. Maybe even when the UN sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of people. Too bad back then you didn't give a fuck about the iraqis back then. Back then they were just another set of ragheads.
Now that you love the iraqis so much maybe you can learn to love other people was well. People in Uganda, sudan, haiti, iran, north korea, china, russia, chechnia, and palestine all need your love. Please love these people as much as you love the iraqis. They too need help from brutal dictators, widespread disease, famine, starvation and genocide.
I suppose one could argue that these people probably deserved freedom before the iraqis even but I am not going to nitpick. I don't want to diminish your newfound love of the opressed peoples of the world. I want to celepbrate it with you.
You are right, these kinds of things are just not something the 21st century should put up with. Only if we had a president that was comitted to ending opression everywhere in the world.
evil is as evil does
Funny to say, Hussein was oppressing the country's religious right: The type of Islamic Fundamentalists that are more interested in killing Americans.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
This is a matter of opinion. People with a Pro-Life position aren't necessarily concerned with what women do with their bodies. They are concerned about what they do to the body of the person they are carrying.
It's an easy issue to spin to fit your own beliefs.
You know before you commit billions of dollars and thousands of lives you think you would get your reasons for going to war down pat.
Did Bush say we are going to invade Iraq due to human rights violations? We invaded for the wrong reasons and then started looking around for excuses. Why did we not act when the pictures of Kurdish mothers with children in their arms laying dead in the streets were first ciculated?
Toward the end of Gulf War 1 Bush senior came out and vocally encouraged an Iraqi uprising stating that the US would support them - which they did and we did not. This event is one of the reasons for some of those mass graves we are now investigating.
In recent times the USA has not endeared itself to the Muslim parts of the world, but this will only be solved by diplomacy and constructive actions, not war and war-like "them and us" sentiments.
I see this a lot, and I can only guess that you've never actually spent some time reading what bin Laden and the rest of them have to say.
Let's go down the short list of things that bin Laden doesn't care about:
bin Laden has made it perfectly clear that he hates America because it is overtly "godless" and evil. He's saying this from a Muslim point of view. Imagine if you knew America only through the movies and other trash that we export, you might feel differently, too.
On top of that, he has a gripe that the soldiers of this "godless" nation are hanging out in his holy land, Saudi Arabia, along with a bunch of other foreigners working in the oil industry. He doesn't think that non-Muslims should be there.
There is no amount of "dialog" that will change that. On the other hand, capturing and killing their commanders has had a positive influence.
On a side note: I honestly can't believe people are still dumb enough to advance these arguments about how we need diplomacy. Seriously. Ask the Spanish. They capitulated after the 3/11 attacks, and yet last week they arrested a terrorist cell that was planning on blowing up their supreme court. You're not dealing with rational people.
I agree that the US has done some really dumb stuff, and it would help our position immensely on the "Arab street" if we were to deal fairly in the Israel/Palestine situation. I also have a problem with the fact that democracy is only to be forced on the victims of our enemies, but doesn't seem to be a priority for the people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.
Regardless, this isn't pushing al Qaeda.
Do you have ESP?
Oh goody. I seem to remember we had a nice puppet^H^H^H^H^H^H ally in that area before. Things turned out really well in Iran, didn't they?
And you're assuming Iraq ever does stabilise, of course.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
is not that he's flip flopping, but that if you're sufficiently nuanced in your argument, the American people tune you out. Have you actually read his speech in the Senate on the Iraq war vote? Or on the funding? His position was very clear then, and it has not changed. He said very clearly that he was voting to give the President war powers only if inspections broke down and only with the help of our allies. Now, perhaps he should not have voted for it at all, but that is not the issue here. He did not "flip flop" or change positions; today he says the same thing about Iraq. It's just a little more nuanced than "for" or "against," so you have to actually use your brain a little to figure out his position. A lot of us (Americans) don't like to have to do that.
for the fact that none of the things that the Bush campain has characterized as flip-flops were anything of the sort. Concider Iraq. Prior to the first Iraqi war Kerry opposed because we had not exhausted all diplomatic measures. Before the second Iraqi war he gave the president authority to use force provided that he first exhaust all diplomatic measures. And now after the war, he is still saying that we should not have gone to war until we had exhausted all diplomatic measures. The only reason that he "voted for the second war", and against the first, is that what they were actually voting (not the war directly) was very different. In fact several republicans have flat out said that that piece of legislation was intentionally crafted in a way that regardless of how someone opposing the war voted, it could be used against them in the next election.
You just have to listen to Kerrys speeches over the last 30 years and see that he has had the exact same position on war ever since he returned from Vietnam - that war is sometimes necisarry but we should never again send out troops to battle until we are certain that there is no other option.
This whole flip-flop garbage is nothing more than a FUD campain started by Karl Rove - one in a long line of FUD campains which he is a master of. There are a lot of legitimate reason to dislike Kerry as a candidate and I respect those who cannot vote for him because of fundemental disagreements on the role of government. But I find it deeply distubing how many of my otherwise intellegent friends are basing their entire opinion of Kerry on the Bush campains' FUD.
Then again, it doesn't help that the people running Kerry's campain are incompetant. They won't let him explain his full position, because of his history of getting into long drawn out discussions that bore the public, and create more words that can be twisted and taken out of context, so they try to boil it down to sound bites. Well that might work for someone like Bush whose opinions are mostly ideological in nature, but for someone like Kerry it makes it sound like he is avoiding the question.
And it isn't hard to craft a simple explaination either, for example: "When you the people of the United States vote an official into office you give him the power necisarry to do his job. If he abuses that power, and does not live up to the promises he made, you are rightly angry. It is not a flip-flop to be state the fact that your trust was abused.
I voted to give the President the power to use force in Iraq if all other options were exhausted. I did this because this president, any president, would need that power to effectively negotiate at the UN. But this president abused that power and rushed into war. My opinion on this war has never changed, but my trust in this Comander in Chief has."
In this (DCMA) situation, he is not flip flopping but rather refusing to take a position, which both candidates do when they do not concider the subject to be important, but are afraid of alienating voters.
Exactly.
I'm so glad there are people out there that are willing to protect you by killing the life you were too ignorant to keep from creating and now to irresponsible to bear.
After all, it's more of a matter of convenience to you than killing innocent people.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
It's no longer on the current official website for John Kerry, but one of the issues he had a stance for was about copyright, in which he stated that he would vigorously defend America's copyright system against piracy. Taken directly from his website back in Feburary --
* Copyright-Based Industries Are Critical to Economic Growth: Products of the mind from America's scientists, engineers, computer programmers have little value without intellectual property protections. Copyright based industries alone now account for nearly 6% of all jobs in America and 7.75 % of GDP. These industries are in jeopardy because of the Bush Administration's failure to enforce international treaties to protect America's creative community from piracy.
* Stop Intellectual Piracy: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative estimates that losses theft of U.S. intellectual property in 51 foreign countries total $9.7 billion. In China alone we lose $1.8 billion to piracy. Yet even where we have strong agreements, piracy remains a major problem due to a failure to fully implement the TRIPS agreement and an unwillingness or inability to crack down on the problem. A Kerry Administration will take theft of the jobs of America's creative workforce a trade and foreign policy priority.
If you'd like to see the website yourself, it's right here:
John Kerry for President (Feburary '04)
Sure it doesn't say anything about copyright/piracy in the US, but you can guage his opinion on copyright from those statements. I don't think his stance on copyright has changed, and he would most likely support the DMCA, if not strengthen it further.
On a side note: I honestly can't believe people are still dumb enough to advance these arguments about how we need diplomacy. Seriously. Ask the Spanish. They capitulated after the 3/11 attacks, and yet last week they arrested a terrorist cell that was planning on blowing up their supreme court. You're not dealing with rational people.
Mother of all flip-flops! How is this possible? On the one hand, they capitulated, and on the other hand, they busted up a terror cell. If that can happen, I can almost believe that as President, Kerry would actually go after terrorists too!
Kerry has never said we should attempt to negotiate or reach a diplomatic accord with Al-Qaeda. What he has said is that we should negotiate and use diplomacy with the rest of the civilized world to coordinate the most effective response to Al-Qaeda.
You might call it the the difference between going it alone and rounding up a posse. I don't know about you, but given any fight, I'd rather have backup.
And for the record, Spain did not "capitulate" after the 3/11 attacks. They still held their democratic elections. And the ruling nationalist party lost. One of the reasons was their crappy handling of the Madrid bombing, which they (with no evidence) first tried to blame on ETA, and then tried to suppress information that it was indeed foreign terrorists.
Of course the Nationalists were very unpopular for getting Spain involved in Iraq in the first place, something like 90% of Spain was opposed to going to war. So they may well have been on their way out regardless of what happened on 3/11.
So here's the deal: bin Laden is not someone you can negotiate with. Granted. But the House of Saud, Musharraf, Mubaraq, and even Khatami, those are people you can, to a greater or lesser degree, negotiate with.
And even if you can't use diplomacy in the Middle East, it will surely work in Europe, Asia, parts of South America, you know the whole goddam world except for a few crazy dogmatic motherfuckers. And that's why diplomacy is important. It's how people (who aren't ruled by dogma) iron out their differences and come up with a mutually agreeable plan.
Ugh, it sometimes seems like the election process is the kind of choice we get when we choose vanilla or French vanilla. Is one much better than the other?
I am an American. As such I've been told many times, many ways, that I live in the greatest and most free country in the world. I'm not really buying it any more than I buy the belief that Ford is indeed superior to Chevrolet. But when I see the choices, I mean the bona fide choices, that we are given to vote for for President, I don't buy the arguments. Are these two really the best people in the country to hold the office?
The whole process is not much more than a sales pitch for white bread. When it comes down to the taste test, what is better Wonder or Tastee? I can't tell much of a difference. But it is what it is and we are stuck with it.
We are rich and powerfull nation. We can exert out influenence on almost anyone anywhere. Face it, if we don't like someone our president can sic our military on them and we are all but assured of victory. Isn't that really what happened in Iraq?
In the past four years, we have seen our freedoms eroded with things like the DCMA and the Patriot Act. If Bush is elected we are in for more of the same. If Kerry is elected, do we really expect to see much change? I don't, not really. Perhaps, but just perhaps, he is the lesser of two evils.
Is that any way to vote? To pick the lesser of two evils? Is this what makes America great? I sure as hell don't think so. There has to be a better way. The system we have may have made a hell of a lot of sense two hundred years ago when representation meant an arduous journey of hundreds of miles. But today, with the technology we have, every person who cares could actually be self-representing.
Change comes slowly to established machines like American politics. I recognise and understand that. Hell, I'd even say that is a good thing - that it changes slowly. But there comes a time where a catalyist exists and changes can be sudden. Like the end of communisim in the USSR and the taking down of the Berlin wall. Then change can come suddenly.
An idea occured to me that maybe we just don't see this kind of event coming. Maybe the electronic voting machines are the key to the ignition of change? I'm really just rambling now, but what I am saying is that we need REAL CHANGE not just a slight step from center but a full on change of course! We have the means - but do we have the courage or do we need some sort of catayist to kick us out of idle and into gear?
I'm not preaching revolution here. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that our form of government is out dated and in need of serious change and that to me, the time seems right for something to happen.
Will we be the generation to do it? Frankly, I hope so. But we have to come up with better choices than we have on the ballot this year.
This has never made any sense to me, it's like people want to be mystified and are unwilling to accept the truth at simple face value.
Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist. The only way he kept power was through the threat of retalitation. That he had used these chemical weapons back in the Iran-Iraq war timeframe is evidence of that.
So if people thought that he didn't have these weapons any more... Saddam wouldn't be in a particularly safe position.
And that included not just Iraqi dissidents, but also the threat of invasion by Iran.
So Saddam tried to play a little game, where he walked to knife edge pretending to comply, but at the same time keeping just a hint of skepticism going, to keep his enemies uncertain about attacking him.
This is not my theory, it comes from David Kay and the others involved in the weapons inspection.
I've not heard Bush admit to any mistake. What he usually does is find someone, usually in the military, which he can blame the failure upon.
Kerry has said he'd make the same vote. Which is consistent, as you note, for he was voting to authorize threat of force to get the UN inspectors back in.
Where he differs from Bush, is he wouldn't have invaded if the inspections were working, as appeared to be the case back in March of 2003.