Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship
jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Why should any politician step down because they are gay? It's ridiculous.
cat
Censorship and speech issues aside, should we really be encouraging gay witch-hunts like this?
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Propoganda.
Seriously is this what Slashdot has come down to? Get your ideological news up so long as you can spin it into a technology issue?
"I just got an instant message from some [POLITICALLY DESPISED GROUP#27]. In case you didn't know [POLITICALLY DESPISED GROUP#27] believes in [IDEA#3] and [CONCEPT#14] and lately they've [GOSSIP#4], [MUDSLINGING#99]... shouldn't we all hate [POLITICALLY DESPISED GROUP#27] when they send spam?"
Zonk: That's a good point, whaddy'all think?!
Censorship sucks. I seem to remember when a certain commentator's television show got cancelled for what he said on the air about the 9/11 highjackers. Seems he made a politically incorrect statement and the network felt compelled to cancel his show. Yes, this is censorship. Even if the government does not do it.
This all seemed unlikely to me, and reading the original letter:
1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation
2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use)
You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.
One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.
The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:
Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content.
C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
A and B go to court.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Towards whom am I suppose to direct my geek anger here, YouTube, the DMCA or the Republicans? I'm looking forward to being indignant, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.
You mean the press might not be giving us the honest scoop? I cant believe it.
And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Self-censorship can be a good thing when it involves slander.
That outing gay repulicans is good because they are all evil.
Outing anyone else though is a hate crime and the democrates will see to it that you will go to jail if you do so.
Even if Ken Mehlman is gay, and even he's being a hypocrite, I don't see what business Bill Maher has attempting to out Mehlman or anyone else. Any individual should have the right to some basic privacy concerning his/her private life, regardless of whatever position they hold. IMHO CNN and YouTube did exactly the right thing - enabling gross violations of privacy can't be considered OK.
First it was the Commies, then Pinko Commies, now it's Pinko Fairies. The Americans have it rough, what with all the unstableness of their gubment being infiltrated by the subversives. I'm proud to be an Iraqi from Bahgdad - we don't got no pinko fairies here - all the subversives here are straight, as Alah intended.
You might not have noticed, but he's the head of a political party that just lost a huge election. It's natural that he'd be resigning because of the defeat. The absurd notion that he's resigning because of this random (and wholly unsubstantiated) comment on CNN is totally stupid. You're jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily warranted.
David
I really don't see this as much of a big deal. Bill Maher was talking out of his ass. The Media company made the edit without anyone truly complaining. This is typical of big media. Oh yeah....just TRY pullingit off of YouTube.....it will continue to show again and again like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwWZFG6k8QM
Gorkman
Bill Maher certainly isn't encouraging gay with hunts. He was speaking of what he perceives as hypocrisy, a party run by gays that actively campaigns against gay rights which he himself seems to support. The actual point and validity of the main post is a bit fuzzy even...
>
>On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Slashdotter tackhead unbellyfeel oldspeak rewrite newspeak:
Slashdotter jamie unbellyfeel Amsoc. refs unhappenings. Render unperson.
Oldthinker Maher CNN reporting ungood refs sexcrimes Mehlman rewrite fullwise antefiling. Oldthinker youtube refs unhappenings malquote maher. DMCA quickwise vidmove memhole. Plusgood duckspeakers Wapo rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDgMrN0DHE
Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.
Here's the clip. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.
Here's the image that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research.
Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.
It's not like CNN is run by some right wing conspiracy. I think you have to be pretty far out on the political fringe to get all excited about CNN's minor editorial decision.
If random Person A goes on a live show and makes a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED accusation that Person B is gay, it would be completely unethical and irresponsible for CNN to leave it in a subsequent broadcast of the show. I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision. It's not censorship. It's a responsible editorial decision regarding an completely unsubstantiated charge. The guy may or may not be gay. I haven't a clue (and don't care), but you don't broadcast something like that without having some reasonable basis for believing it's TRUE.
David
The struggle between news writers/reporters and their management chain and the tendency of the management to cover their backsides and not publish anything unfavorable to {advertisers, the legal department, the higher-ups} has been ongoing ever since the invention of the newspaper. Indeed, in some form, it probably dates back even farther. This is nothing new, happens every day, and should be criticized when it occurs (particularly internally within the organization), but it's not particularly newsworthy.
The best way to handle this sort of thing is to decide what is more important---the bits from the story or your job. If you decide that the higher-ups are censoring something that needs to be heard, you tell your news director "the story airs as-is or I quit" (ideally after you have been there for a while). Sadly, most journalists don't have the stomach for that these days, but when this occurs you have to stand up for yourself or the upper management will walk all over you. Of course, this also points to a weak and ineffectual news director who doesn't have the guts to protect his/her reporters from the upper management.
However, that's probably not what happened in the case of CNN. What probably happened here is that they condensed the interview for time and cut out bits that they considered less important. This, too, happens every day. Unless the reporter was pressured to remove those pieces (and there's no reason to believe that this is the case), there's really not a story here at all. It's just the normal, day-to-day operation of a TV news outfit.
The Washington Post story, however, is very disturbing. If the reports of them changing their story are true, and if, in fact, Bush said the things claimed in the original version of the story, their editorial staff should be held accountable for their actions in turning a factually accurate story into a factually inaccurate story and deliberately removing highly relevant factual content from their story.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The point of Maher doing this is to expose the blatant hipocrisy that is going on. The current Republican leadership has been hostile towards gay and lesbian people and their rights. They pander to an audience of religious fundamentalists on a platform that alienates a minority group while being part of that group themselves. If they kept their own internal struggles and self-loathing private then I'd say they have a right to privacy. However, as it stands their public actions and policies have the potential to make life miserable for a group of people so their hipocrisy deserves to be brought under public scrutiny. Just because the minority group happens to be gays doesn't make this ok, there would be an uproar if you had a black man advocating segregation or making interracial marriages illegal, for example.
Kind of has that feel, doesn't it?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Removing details about someone's personal life, revealed by a third party, is not censorship, it's good taste. CNN is a news network, and the fact that a station made an editorial decision to remove rumors from its newscast is not censorship.
...this is really a censorship issue. CNN has also edited the written transcripts to reflect the new censored version as if Maher never mentioned Mehlman at all.
Looking at the the history of RNC chairmen, the RNC gets a new chairman every one or two election cycles.
Ken Mehlman says he was stepping down at the end of the election cycle, regardless of the outcome.
If you want to speculate, the "thumpin" the Republicans took increased the likelihood the RNC would switch leadership.
Not that it is particularly important, Ken Mehlman has denied being gay. Just because Bill Maher says something, doesn't make it is true. (Bill Maher says a lot of wacko things on a lot of topics. That's how he gets ratings.)
..it was a feint, part of his strategery!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The entire post except for ONE line was about media self-censoring on the Mehlman thing. And that one line was about WP self-censorship (albeit on another subject). I really have no idea how the post can be construed as being party-specific, unless you consider any post about censorship to be left-wing. Heck, even the linked article about the WP censorship was about the censorship itself rather than the lie involved, regardless of what the other content was on the site. The only ideology I see here from /. is that censorship is bad. And I don't think most of the people reading this site have a problem with that particular point of view.
...of one party claiming ownership of a lifestyle ? So they create a
witch hunt of the same people they claim to represent ?
We know where Bill Maher comes from.
The worst offense a politician can incur is to be a hypocrit. If you're going to blast others for their lifestyles and actively work to pass laws to limit their lifestyles, all the while participating in the exact same lifestyles yourself... then you are:
A. A hypocrit
B. A masochist
and... it *IS* different for Democrats, because Democrats are NOT the ones trying to demonize the gay lifestyle.
ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Poignant question from Larry: "Why would someone who is gay take public anti-gay positions? Why would you do that?"
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
It depends on what your definition of "should" is. No really...
From a political standpoint, a gay person who (while following party lines) advocates banning same sex marriages, is too easily attackable. It creates a political risk to the party.
From an ethical stand point, should someone be required to or feel obliged to stand down from any post because of their sexual orientation? No (imo at least), and this seems to be what you're getting at.
However, if one is a high-visibility figure in a political party who's sexual orientation is likely to cause resentment/concern/feelings of ickiness among the party's voter base ("Eww, two men kissing!! Won't somebody think of the children?!?!"), the good thing for the party is for the person to step down. It doesn't make it the right thing to do, in the ethical sense, but it makes it the right thing to do for the good of the party.
To me it nets out as a sad commentary on the policies and position of the GOP regarding gay people.
If Ken Mehlman resigns from the RNC Chair, it's not because he may or may not take it in the ass, it's because he was the chair when the whole party took it in the ass on election day.
it has come to the attention of the rnc that you airing a rumor that is not to the rnc's liking
you have 10 minutes to remove the story, or your site will experience a mysterious 503 error
your choice
truly yours,
the all-seeing elephant
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When I first started scanning the stories at Digg, people would cram all kinds of political stories in there, and they would shoot straight to the top. People would whine about it, then be called "fuck-tards" for complaining about it, invited to leave, etc. Finally, Digg introduced more categories, which you can ignore if you wish. Maybe /. is headed there too?
At least this one has something to do with YouTube. But you could tell from the story summary that we would be talking about gay Republicans.
Dark Reflection
These days, censoring news is like censoring commercials.
Don't tell me you can still clearly distinguish between news and commercials.
News doesn't earn money, commercials do.
Mentioning youtube makes the contents of the DNC daily fax a technology story?
That's like saying, "He didn't sponsor Let's-KILL-all-blacks legislation; he just sponsored non-lynching Jim Crow laws." You truly do fail it, homophobe.
This doesn't have anything to do with "censorship". The guy was talking out his ass again and made a statement that could get him dragged into court. I'm surprised it actually aired on Larry King. You can bet your last nickel, though, the it got edited out based on legal advice. I can see it now:
Google Exec: Hey Bill, do you have any reason to think that's true? You know we'll go to the mat for you if you have good information, but you know how lawyers are.
Maher: My cab driver's sister's boyfriend said some Republican guy who's name starts with "M" is gay.
Google Exec: Oooookay.
Gay Republican != Pinko Fairy, the pinko part is all wrong.
I believe you mean Nazi Fairy, jeez...
It's not THAT at all.
The COMMENT was essentially "all gay Republicans are hypocrites"
There are PLENTY of Catholics who are Democrats which supports Abortion (a no-no when you're a Catholic).
Does that make all Catholic Democrats hypocrites unable to deal with their own self-hatred and loathing?
But of course, that's not a bigoted statement on Slashdot... that's the TRUTH!
If they subscribe to Catholic doctrine, yet vote for a pro-choice Democrat, then they are indeed hypocrits.
However.... simply being a Democrat and Catholic is not hypocritical, since there are many example of pro-life democrats (Bob Casey, new Pennsylvania Senator, for one).
A Catholic that voted for Casey is not a hypocrit...
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
It'll be interesting to see if a challenge is mounted to the VA gay-marriage ban, on U.S. Constitutional grounds; it seems as though it might violate the Equal Protection clause, at least as long as heterosexual people get certain tax benefits and exemptions as a result of being married.
Frankly, I would like to see them just eliminate all the "pro-family" marriage subsidies as a result of this. Let the homophobes keep marriage, just make it a totally religious, nonsecular distinction. Get rid of it from tax law, probate and inheritance law, and other aspects where it usually comes across. If people want those things, they can lobby their congresspeople for tax breaks for everyone, not just married people; write a will and medical-power-of-attorney to sort out the inheritance and medical decision-making issues, and have the "benefits" of marriage with whomever they want.
It's ridiculous that we still have the State sanctioning marriage and childbearing, as if we really need to be encouraging people to pump out more babies. If we need more workers, we can just import them from Mexico or India. Given the state of our educational system, they'll probably be more qualified anyway.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Why is one editor (Jamie) getting another editor (Zonk) to submit their summary, indirectly?
It seems like an odd approach.
My best guess is that it has to do with the static opening phrase, "[User] writes".
This is not my sig.
What adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms does not concern me. What does concern me is the impact that Government has on my life. Period.
Government should not be there to censor my information. Government should not be spying on me without warrants that give them the authority to do so. Without warrants it is less likely that there will be over site and without that there WILL BE ABUSE.
Now that the Democrats have taken both the Congress and the Senate they DAMN WELL BETTER FIX THIS BROKEN OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT!
May I make a few suggestions?
1.Give me back my habeas corpus rights.
2.Stop the fucking torcher of fellow human beings! Changing the definition doesn't make it okay!
3.When some action is so egregious and offensive to the public that you feel you must classify it as top secret don't FUCKING DO IT!!
4.Stop telling me that the economy is so great just because you and your rich friends own stocks that are doing well! I can't afford to buy stocks, I live paycheck to paycheck and out of control heal care, gas prices, and hidden costs resulting from the tax breaks to the rich make this economy very bad for me!
5.Investigate and impeach Bush. He has no respect for our civil rights and has violated the law. He has done more damage to the American way of life than any terrorist group. This is not about revenge. This is about accountability and sending a message that if you fuck with our rights you WILL BE PUNISHED!
6.Get the hell out of Iraq. We never should have gone there. There never were WMDs. We went there as part of an evil agenda. I'm sorry that leaving will lead to massive bloodshed in Iraq but the bloodshed will be due to their own hatred of one another and we could stay the course forever and that hatred will never change. Quite frankly there is nothing in Iraq worth even one American life.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
You know, it could be that that part about Ken Mehlman being gay might have been cut out for several reasons.
;) Sometimes the first thing to happen after an election is that scapegoats are found and the window dressing changed.
1) It wasn't true, and the producers of Larry King (or CNN) didn't want to promote such a rumor (more likely).
2) CNN didn't want to contribute to a forced outing of a gay person (less likely).
Mehlman's party just lost the House and the Senate. Remember all those stories about the Diebold machines being able to be hacked and fixing the election for Republicans? Maybe Melhman forgot the master password
Seriously, the two events (the "outing" and Melhman leaving) I believe are coincidental. The Republicans losing the Senate became "official" just yesterday. They lost the House two days before. Don't you think that would be a more likely reason to lose the head of your political party than, say, a cable talk show host (Maher) questioning your sexuality the night before? What a wonderful weapon Maher has discovered! Next, he'll claim Cheney is gay, and Cheney will be removed overnight too. All hail the power of gay-outing!
If Maher has the sympathy towards gay people that he claims to, he shouldn't be forcibly outing people just to make a political point. But sometimes when it comes to politics, patience and tolerance are discarded, and revenge and power are the highest values. Some people are just not the caring people that they beleive themselves to be.
What strikes me the hardest about this whole thing is the idea that to Maher, being gay means by definition you can't be a good Republican. Take it from me (an atheist), there is room in the Republican party for more than just white Christian fundamentalists. Just ask Michael Steele, the Republican that ran for a senate seat in Maryland, and just barely lost. He's black and Republican, so he has had his party identification mislabelled on CNN (D vs. R), and he's had Oreos thrown at him (Oreos are black on the outside, white on the inside). The Republican party was so impressed with his campaign that he has been brought up as a possible replacement to Mehlman as the leady of the party. If "George Bush doesn't care about black people", you'd think he'd prevent his party from being run by one. But it turns out that he's already has a black woman as Secretary of State that he himself appointed. And remember, while Bush pushed for the gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, he would have allowed states to retain "civil unions". The gay marriage idea is so popular that thirty-nine states now have such amendments to their Constitutions banning the practice. Bush isn't nearly as opposed to gay people as you might think, and neither are a good deal of Republicans.
Yes, there are some in the Republican party that do not like gay people. In our two-party system, there are only two main options for people with points of view to go. Some white Christian fundamentalists go with the Republican party, and some vote Democrat. I beleive that the Republican party welcomes their support, while some Democrats only go to church during campaign season. I don't agree with the fundamentalists, however, and some of them do not like gay people. Disagreeing with the fundamentalists doesn't make me a bad Republican. And being a Republican doesn't make me a bad person, despite what some "open minded" people would have you beleive.
The Attorney General should be looking into this!
Oh wait, they're busy fighting terror^h^h^h^h^h pornography
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
The Washington post comment (linked from the topic summary) says that the president lied about Rumsfeld bieng replaced:
"It is now conclusively clear that President Bush lied last week, several days before the election, when he vowed definitively to reporters that Donald Rumsfeld would remain as Defense Secretary for the next two years. At the time he made that statement, he was deep into the process of replacing Rumsfeld, if not already finished, and the President knew that the statement he made about Rumsfeld was false at the time he made it. That is the definition of "lying.""
I do not agree with that definition of lying. It is also required that the person asking for the information has the right ot ask the question. For example, if you ask me how often I have sex and I answer that every day and it turns out that the correct answer is 5 times a week, than that is not a lie, simply you had no right to get the information. It may be argued that I should have just declined to answer, however often that reveals crucial information on its own, so deception is needed to protect my privacy.
The president and some other government officials should be allowed to not tell the truth on certain state matters, when telling the truth would actually cause harm to the majority. As an example consider a journalist asking about the exact time of the response attack to Pearl Harbor. This information would not have been wise to disclose. (Again, telling an untruth may be needed if the question is: "Is the attack tomorrow?")
As another example consider a question to Ben Bernanke about the next fed interest rate action. He is not obliged to tell the truth because it could cause economic harm (the action is timed for a purpose after all and prior knowledge may alter the effects).
Now in this case I think it is the Presidents right to select who he works with, so anyone expecting a truthful answer was mistaken. They should have the same expectation about the truthfulness of the answer if they say asked Bush about his REAL opinion on how the war in Iraq goes or whether he thinks the Republicans will lose the midterm elections. (The opinions are his and he can keep them secret.)
Along these lines I think that Clinton has not lied about having sex with that woman. I do not consider the people asking him that question had the right for that information.
"I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision"
Well, Larry King isn't a journalism show, it's not a news show, it's a talk show. And charges made by "famous people" in this setting are worth re-airing.
Now, any decent interviewer would have said "Bill, that's your word he's gay, and we don't know that he is. In fact, that's probably not true". Hell, even HOWARD STERN would have said that and not censored the broadcast after the facts. But Larry King is such an awful interviewer. If Larry King had Hitler on his show, he wouldn't bring up the Jews for fear of offending him.
They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.
.. say make public speeches against abortion, have laws passed against abortion, and then it turns out they are having abortions themselves or supporting abortion actively in secret.
They are only a hypocrit if they
However, hypocrisy just doesn't have the sting it did 20 years ago. People have no shame any more.
Except maybe republicans *once* they are caught.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Then you need to get out more.
In large sections of the country, although Republicans may be more socially conservative than Democrats, they're certainly not anywhere near the level of the rabid, religiously-motivated, hateful far-right (really authoritarian) bloc that seems to be most Democrats' stereotype of conservatives.
Given the bipolar political system, if you want a political party that supports lower taxation and doesn't believe in providing "bad luck insurance" by punishing people who plan ahead (say, by saving up money or property to give to their children rather than spending it) to pay for others' mistakes, you don't have a lot of choices.
The Republican party over the past few years has been almost completely hijacked by religious-right, and by ultra-hawks who have run up the deficit in order to fund the war. However, this doesn't mean that the Democrats are any more attractive than they have always been; basically offering only marginally more fiscal control, in order to fund welfare and other social programs. It's only because of the depths to which the Republican party has fallen, and sold out its core values, that the Democrats look fiscally responsible.
I would say that many Republicans that I have met in New England (and if you look at 'Yankee Republicans' in general) are not really that socially conservative on an absolute scale, and are torn between disliking the quasi-socialist fiscal policies of the Democrats (particularly New England Democrats), and the authoritarian social policies of Midwest and Southern Republicans. I suspect if you looked at stances on the issues, many Northeast Republicans (say, Olympia Snowe) would actually be very fiscally conservative Democrats, if they were in another part of the country, and vice versa.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The "State" shouldn't recognize ANY form of relationship (if 2, 3, 5, 20 adults want to live together in love go for it). The State SHOULD recognize anyone who wants to rear a child/children as a family and grant them tax credits accordingly. (Be it through childbearing, artificial insemination or adoption) (Because the state always needs people...)
Actually the Republican party is run by )(%#*#)%(%#(* and he doesn't mind one bit if people find out.
Have you read my journal today?
C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
A and B go to court.
What has our world come to that letters of the alphabet can now sue each other?!?!!!
Are 1,2,and 3 still friends?
What's the real reason CNN dropped this?
A) They are worried about the privacy of a hypocrite Chairman of the RNC
B) They are worried about getting future interviews from RNC candidates
Remember when John Kerry brought up a mention of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter? That kind of backfired.
FOX News link -- too lazy to do better. IMHO the hypocracy of the Republicans is one problem, but the farce of "family values" when your dad is actively legislating against your life is even more astonishing.
Of course, they definitely kept Mary Cheney out of the public eye. In fact, the Cheneys overall seem to be kept in a locked box somewhere and only unleashed when it's time to sling some serious shite.
"ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him."
His admiting he has struggled with it does not make it inate.
You can battle alcholism all of your life and that is not an inate trait. You can also say that alcoholism is wrong without being a hypocrite. Hypocracy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.
(And, no I'm _not_ drawing an anaolgy from alcholism to the other issue here, so don't flame me)
I'm simply stating that you are conflating the term hypocrite.
You have to distinguish between that and the double-standard and attribution error.
I see you have been here a long time, but in order to win the argument, you can't resort to leet speek, or say things like "you fail it" or "pwn3d"
The original stories were burned. There was no original version. The current version is and always has been the original version. The original version will always be the current version. So says the Ministry of Truth
Well I don't have any knowledge of pipping, so let's bring the discussion back to piping and plumbers instead.
If the plumber installs the quality of piping expected by the customer, then it is no fault of the plumber when it breaks down, so he is acting honestly.
In contrast, if the customer wants quality piping and the plumber installs shoddy piping in the hope that it will bring in new business sooner, then yes, the plumber is acting like a lawyer.
The key point here is that lawyers effectively ALWAYS "install shoddy plumbing", because regardless of what they do, their advice and contribution ALWAYS results in more litigation.
So the OP is perfectly right in naming lawyers as total scum.
Two comments:
Plenty of print publications and some of the more responsible TV and radio news outlets (e.g. NPR) give retractions, corrections, or apologies when they say something incorrect or inappropriate. That's a good thing. I can even see editing something before re-airing or reprinting it to correct the problem, but then you must tell people that this is now a different piece, and you should say why. Simply changing a piece and pretending it's the same while throwing you mistakes down the memory hole is completely unethical.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Anybody who enters the political arena believing their private life will remain private will very quickly learn how wrong they are. It's a necessary part of the game.
Politicians, and the Republicans in particular, just love to chip at and strip away our privacy laws and basic liberties for their own purposes and benefit...why should their own occasional loss of privacy be unacceptable to us?
Closeted skeletons are outed very quickly. If you have anything to hide, or something you'd prefer remain private, stay the fuck away from public office, especially if you're building a surveillance apparatus aimed at the people you're feeding off.
When you have the chief spokesperson of a party making gay people the boogieman for political gain, and that spokesperson is gay, then yes, it's a story -- because he (and his party) made being homosexuality a political issue.
That's an interesting (albeit debatable) definition of lying. I won't disagree with it, but I will disagree with one of your other statements :
That may be true for some of the President's advisors, but it certainly isn't true for the Secretary of Defense. As a member of the cabinet, the Senate has the responsibility to "advise and consent" on his appointment. So it's quite clear that the President doesn't have the absolute right to work with whomever he wants in this case, and that there is legislative oversight.
Seeing as there is legislative oversight, and seeing as the statement was made right before a legislative election, it is clearly an issue for the voters to be appropriately concerned about.
So, even given your definition of lying, he lied.The YouTube is definitely a case of censorship. The Washington Post MAY have simply been editing the article for length. The blog regarding the WP contains a lot of insinuations, but but it does not carry any substantial evidence to support the insinuations or conclusions.
Again, the blogger insists that the blog subject is about the WP comitting censorship, not abut the President's evasiveness. IMO, the public has a right to know, but the administration has an agenda and a strategy, and we are not automatically entitled to know what that is. We, as the public, are not entitled in all cases, to pass on decisions that we have delegated to out elected representatives. The solution is to find a way to elect people who make good decisons in a trustworthy environment. Neither of those conditions exists at this time.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Even though we tried voting him out. And it wasn't b/c he's playing for his own team.
But didn't US citizens have the right to know that Rumsfeld was getting canned? Hardly sounds like a threat to US security to me. It's like asking a politician "if you're elected will you pass x law?" "no" and then he/she gets elected in and passes x law and says "well you didn't have the right to know whether I would pass it or not."
Aside from that you make a fascinating argument. Can't say how much of it I agree with. It's giving me something to chew on though. I don't know where I would draw the line but I'm sure it would be before the Rumsfeld case.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
If people used these correctly, this specific case wouldn't be an issue. The process is something along the lines of this:
Copyright holder (CNN) sends a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP (YouTube). They are obliged to take down the video, inform the subscriber (whoever posted the video), send details of the subscriber to to copyright holder. The subscriber can then assert that the material doesn't infringe copyright, and the ISP can put it up again, safe in the knowledge that the subscriber has accepted full responsibility. The ISP is then out of the picture since its isolated from complaints.
The ISP is perfectly entitled to ignore the takedown if they're certain that no copyright infringement is involved, but then they're liable for damages as well. And fair use is still a valid defence whoever decides to defend the suit.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/mehlman.ste ppingdown/index.html
consider it immoral to require people to translate that much newspeak on a Friday afternoon! Maybe I'm getting old and slow, but was that supposed to mean something? Or was being unintelligible the whole point?
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Could it be that CNN edited it out because Maher claimed Mehlman was gay with no proof, and they didn't want to hear from lawyers from Mehlman? They wouldn't let one of their reporters speculate like that and it seems to me that it would be irresponsible to let a self-righteous fool like Maher use their airtime to spread rumors like that.
If they subscribe to Catholic doctrine, yet vote for a pro-choice Democrat, then they are indeed hypocrites.
Or if they subscribe to Catholic doctrine, yet vote for a pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-helping-the-poor, etc Republican, that would also make them a hypocrite.
Best to not vote at all then? Or is abortion the only issue that should matter to a Catholic?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
That being gay is a sin and they are all evil.
Unless they're a Republican, and then they can have all the pages they want.
Both sides are hypocritical, but if the Republicans are going to stand around calling the Democrats Godless heathens, at least it's not a surprise when the Democrats act that way.
ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it.
This is going a bit off-topic, but this comment of your reminded me of an analogy for homosexuality as a choice (versus homosexuality as some determinate character trait) which I thought of a few days ago, which I think is quite apt at clarifying this (non)-conundrum.
I am bisexual (actually pansexual, but whatever). As a man, this means that I like to have sex with men (amongst other sexes as well). An entirely unrelated preference of mine, but the other half of this analogy, is that I like to eat blue cheese (amongst, of course, other foods as well).
Neither of these are central, defining aspects of my social identity or my personality - they are just things that I enjoy doing. Many people find both of them gross and wouldn't want to do them themselves. That's fine - I'm not interested in making people do either of them, though I may try to persuade some people that they might enjoy trying them. Plenty of people would find just being near me while I do either them to be gross. My girlfriend certainly hates to be around while I'm eating blue cheese (it's the smell mostly), and people in general tend not to be around other people having sex, period. This is slightly less OK, but not too bad unless they intend to *force* me not to do such things around them (as is already the case with sex of any sort), but I'm a considerate person so I don't really mind refraining from these things that I enjoy while I'm in the company of others who find them disgusting. So long as I can do either in the privacy of my own home it's not a big problem.
But on to the question at hand - are these preferences of mine choices or somehow determined? Certainly to engage in the act - having sex with a man, or eating blue cheese - is entirely voluntary. I desire to do both these things, but reason can weight those desires against other factors to come to a choice as to whether or not to do them, and in what way and what circumstances if I do choose to do them. But do I have a choice whether or not to desire those things in the first place? It seems fairly certain that I do not. I see a piece of blue cheese in the store and I think "ooh, yum, I want to eat that." I see a cute guy in the store and I think the same thing. These thoughts are purely involuntary, and thus must be determinate parts of my personality, things beyond my rational control - though as already said, I have control over whether or not I act on them (although since neither of them is in any way harmful, I should never be compelled to exercise that control in one way or another).
Whether or not those involuntary desires were determined more by genetics or upbringing is another question - in my case I can think of several events in my early life that introduced me to the possibility of homosexual acts, but then, I was still disposed to be attracted to such acts when I was exposed to them. Likewise, I can remember the first time I ever saw blue cheese, so you could blame the person who introduced that to me for my liking of it; but still, I was disposed to like it when I first tried it. I could have tried a piece, found it disgusting, and never wanted to eat it again.
In short: to desire to engage in homosexual acts is not a choice, any more than to have any other desire is a choice. To actually engage in homosexual acts is a choice, as much as it is ever a choice whether or not to act on your desires. But as there is nothing intrinsically harmful about having sex with someone of the same sex as you, there is no reason ever to compel a person to exercise their will in one way or another on this issue, no matter how much other people may find it disgusting. And no reason at all to discriminate against someone for their choice to engage in such acts, or their desire to engage in such acts, any more than there is reason to discriminate against people who like a certain food that you find gross.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
My sentiments exactly. It's also quite interesting that nowadays out of all the western countries only in the US are gays politicized to such an extend. Usually gays are tolerated and treated by most politicians (and the people) in the same way other minorities are. I wonder who else would actually come up with gay topics and 'issues' if not (closet) gay people themselves who are confronted day-in and day-out with (their) 'gayness'? Goethe once said: "We are frightened by our own sins, when we see them in others." I think those Republicans mentioned (who obviously see 'being gay' as a sin) are perfect examples.
In any case, picking on minorities is a cheap shot for politicians (since they're only pissing off a fraction to gain political influence with the bulk of the population) and dwelling on such topics is always a sign that they want to deflect attention from real issues at hand. Furthermore, scapegoating minorities can lead to really bad things and should not be encouraged but fought and exposed wherever it happens.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I saw this interview, and the segment in question went something like:
Bill Maher: There are a lot of gay republicans in Washington running things.
Larry King: Would you give some examples?
Bill Maher: There are a bunch of them.
Larry King: Like who?
Bill Maher: Umm, well everyone knows Ken Mehlman is gay.
Larry King: I've never heard that.
Bill Maher: Well we must not talk to the same people.
And then they drop the subject and move on to different topics. I wouldn't even be surprised if Bill Maher himself asked them to cut it cause it made him look stupid and he knew he was talking out of his ass because he was being pressured to come up with a name and he didn't really have one.
Every day they suppress the story that George is a boy idiot.
I believe you should re-read the parent post without being defensive. He explicitly stated that the exit polls showed that most Republicans didn't vote because of money issues but, like you said, because the Republican party said that they believed in certain moral issues. Issues that they, through their actions, didn't embody.
He went on to say that IF a republican voted for money reasons they were either rich (because this group of Republicans has mostly helped the rich) OR they were stupid.
This was not a slam against Republicans who really believe in their base values.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
There are plenty of Catholics that are pro-contraception, and/or pro-choice, and with many other views that go against official church teachings. That doesn't make them hypocrites. In just about any major religion you can name, there are plenty of members who have different views on some of the teachings.
But if you are for something they don't like, and let them know it, at worst a certain priest at a certain church might refuse you communion. Even that is unlikely, but that's pretty much the limit.
The Catholic church doesn't pass laws that affect your ability to run fundamental parts of your daily life as you see fit. The Republicans can, and are trying to do just that. It's an entirely different class of thing.
With that said, I've got to agree with the grandparent, that if you are gay and a Republican, you probably are a bit of a self-loathing hypocrite. Else, why join? The Republicans haven't been for fiscal responsibility for a quarter of a century. The only thing they stand for these days is for the ultra-rich and the religious right.
Have you seen Brokeback Mountain?
My wife made me go see it with her (in exchange for letting me blow a lot of money on a new CPU and more RAM!). It was absolutely one of the best movies I have ever seen. I know that sounds totally weird coming from a straight married geek, but there it is. I didn't want to like it, I didn't expect to like it, but I did - I loved it. If you're still making Brokeback jokes my guess is you probably did not see the movie, if you're not comfortable renting it or letting other people know you have seen it I understand, but add it to your netflix queue or DL it off piratebay. It's seriously one of the best movies made in years and might just change your perspective on the gays, it changed mine.
he should have said 'no comment' in the same way that clinton should have said 'yeah, she likes cigars, go away'
i cant help but wonder... if bush had answered the question truthfully and said rummy was going to leave, would it have helped the republicans maintain the house/senate? if swing voters new he was going to actually do something to adapt in iraq...
if you are anyone well known, you just cant lie and get away with it these days.
always mosh clockwise
He is definitely critical of all people who are not rich and still vote for the Republicans on money issues rather than moral issues. I never said that he didn't.
You keep saying "But I'm stupid" as if what was said was a direct attack on you but you yourself said:
"I tend to vote republican not because of what money I get out of it, but because the ideals that they 'say' they hold are similar to mine."
So, he wasn't talking about you or other people who voted for Republicans for the reasons that you did.
He was defiantly talking about _all_ people who were not rich but still voted for Republicans because they thought that Republicans would benefit them financially. And he pointed out a couple of Republican Presidents who ran up the national debt.
If you don't agree with his position, rather than taking it personally, why not post some examples of Republicans directly helping the middle class and the poor?
No one here has said that people who vote for a party because of moral beliefs are stupid.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
the video was slander and the slander part was removed via the slander laws. It is a fallacy to say that all Republicans are gay, the odds are against that sort of thing as homosexuals do not even make up 5% of the population. It is just the sort of slander smear tactics you expect from emo liberals that control the news, media, entertainment, blogs, scoop sites, forums, Slashdot, Fark.com, and other CMS sites.
I posted about it here on Slashdot and I had my reply privileges taken away and my account on The Daily Kos was disabled so I could not do anything. I am only posting the truth about liberals, and notice their hypocrisies when they censor me and ban my accounts from being able to do anything. I'll most likely get my posting and replying privileges taken away for posting this, but at least the truth will be out there in Google for all to see.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
In the past, we didn't know if a male/female union would be fertile, but we were damn sure male/male ones wouldn't be.
It was a big issue in medieval Europe; for instance, in pre-revolutionary France, if your mother-in-law accused you of being impotent you might have to lay your wife on the courtroom floor in front of a fast-breathing jury of robed, supposedly celibate, possibly gay priests. No lie - read Pierre Darmon's "Damning the Innocent" for a popular account of such trials.
The laws governing marriage are principally about inheritance and legal liability, and secondarily about protecting children. This is not what the current crop of pseudo-christian hate-mongering freaks claim, but in Western cultures it's the truth.
Since we already have gay adoptive parents (and that's pretty well proven to be a good thing for society) and lesbians at least will soon be able to have children with no men involved, the laws are clearly out of touch with reality.
Why should people who choose not to have children get the same breaks as people who are raising the next generation of citizens? They damn well don't deserve it, what with their whining about having to pay school taxes and such.
It was a direct translation of the original article from Oldspeak to Newspeak, and listed the directives issued by Minitrue that drove the events in the original article.
> > Slashdotter tackhead unbellyfeel oldspeak rewrite newspeak:
I, a loyal Party worker, didn't like the fact that the original article was written in Oldspeak, so I rewrote it in Newspeak. Translating back, we get:
> > Slashdotter jamie unbellyfeel Amsoc. refs unhappenings. Render unperson.
Jamie, the poster of the article, doesn't like American Socialism ("Jamie unbellyfeel Amsoc"). I conclude this because he posted an article discussing things that didn't happen ("refs unhappenings"). He should be disappeared. ("Render unperson").
> > Oldthinker Maher CNN reporting ungood refs sexcrimes Mehlman rewrite fullwise antefiling.
Bill Maher, an Oldthinker, was reporting, via CNN, about Mehlman being a homosexual - the Party does not approve of this disclosure. (The reporting was ungood because it referred to the sexcrimes of Mehlman. The sexcrimes, by definition, are ungood. Reporting of something ungood is also, by definition, ungood.) Therefore, CNN must remove Maher's comments ("rewrite fullwise", perhaps merely "rewrite" would have sufficed) and overwrite its archives with the altered video, backdating the changes so that nobody knows the ungood words were spoken. ("antefiling").
> > Oldthinker youtube refs unhappenings malquote maher.
Further corrective action is necessary because Youtube, another Oldthinking website, has a copy of the clip that still refers ("refs") to the Maher/Mehlman comment which (now that CNN's censored its broadcast) never happened ("unhappenings").
Because the event never happened, Youtube is also guilty of misquoting Maher. ("malquote maher").
> > DMCA quickwise vidmove memhole.
The situation an be resolved by using the DMCA takedown provision to force Youtube to immediately ("quickwise") drop all copies of the video into the memory hole ("vidmove memhole").
> > Plusgood duckspeakers Wapo rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
The Party approves of the Washington Post ("plusgood duckspeakers Wapo") track record of rewriting stories ("rewrite fullwise"), submitting/uploading the changed stories to their web site ("upsub") with proper backdating ("antefiling").
No corrective action is required against the Washington Post, just a nod of approval in passing, as I translated the last sentence of the article.
The scariest thing about Newspeak is how easy it is to keep writing it after you've started. Of course, there's no word in Newspeak for "scary", in the sense that I just used it -- but that's not a bug, it's a feature. It's more than a feature, it's a design goal.
(Plusgood duckspeak doublepluseasy antelearn Newspeak.)
Sorry Bill or Larry or who ever in the media companies where threatened and told to abuse this law. You just made the case.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Then you are mistaken.
You might not think that it was morally wrong in this case, or you might prefer the more morally ambiguous term, "evade," but definitions are the realm of general agreement, not individual agreement.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Part of the problem with this whole debate is one of definitions. What is "middle class"? What is "well off"? What is "rich"? Using these terms may make your rhetoric sound good, but frankly, I don't know what you're talking about when you don't provide a point of reference, e.g. tax brackets.
Things being relative, I could double, maybe triple my income and I would certainly be better off but still consider myself middle class. I wouldn't consider myself "well off" or "rich" but somebody else might. Things depend on where you live also; if I lived in LA or San Francisco I might actually need to make 2-3 times my current income just to have the same standard of living I have where I currently live.
So Democrats may talk about being for the middle class, but when Charles Rangel says something to the effect that he would keep none of the tax cuts enacted during Bush's term, what is he really talking about? He's talking about raising taxes (from where they are now) across the board, on everyone. The addition of the 10% tax bracket, lowering the tax brackets, and the increase in child tax credit affects everyone, particularly families.
Like it or not, that is the reality, and it is easy to back up with numbers. We develop payroll software, so I have tax tables going back to 1998. For kicks, I checked to see what I would have had withheld in 1998, had I been earning then what I am earning now.
1998: $5928 annual withheld
2006: $4446 annual withheld (without the child tax credit, i.e. just the tax bracket changes)
2006: $1482 annual withheld (with child tax credit)
In 1998, I would have been in the 28% tax bracket. In 2006, I am still in the 15% tax bracket (just barely) and because rates have been reduced, the next step up is 25% not 28%.
People who assert that the tax cuts were "for" the rich, or that the rich and corporations are getting "all" of the benefits of the tax cuts, really need to go back and do the math, all the way up and down the tax brackets, then they need to specify who they are really talking about when they are talking about changing tax rates.
Otherwise it's just a bunch of noise.
Why, yes. Yes it was.
First of all killing an innocent child is clearly the far greater evil compared to killing a guilty man. The death penalty is just and not immoral under certain circumstances. The problem is that it is not merciful which is why the Church has prohibited it.
Less government welfare is not necessarily against Church teaching as long as it is balanced with greater personal giving and the state is helping to encourage people to be charitable and helping various charity's which the Republicans do. Republicans just have a different view has how to best help the poor. Democrats think the state should do it the Republicans think it is the individuals responsibility.
They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.
They may not be hypocrites but they are not really catholics either. They are protestants because they have put their own individual beliefs above the infallible teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church. If you are a catholic you have to accept the dogma of the Church if you do not you are not a true Catholic.
What you are talking about is still a lie, you're simply pondering whether or not the lie is justifiable. A lie doesn't magically become truth because the question is uncomfortable.
To whoever modded this as a troll
You a) obviously haven't read the article
b) are a humourless prick who doesn't recognise sarcasm.
So please suck my balls, you nob. And yes, I know this will be modded down, and I'm glad someone is going to waste their mod points on it.
Yours fuckyou'ily
Doctor Dick Boner-Johnson
Does even the head of the RNC hate their platform that much?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
We're still talking about Republican conspiracies. Remind me who won the election Tuesday? What happened, did Cheney forget his Deibold password?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Asshole.
The only reason being called a homosexual id "damaging" is because bigoted trash like you make it so. I'm gay, perfectly happy with myself, and am not "damaged" at all. So why don't you and the rest of your little fundie buddies go fuck off where the sun don't shine.
Censorship and speech issues aside,
Well, at least you dismissed the topic of this article before ranting on in an off topic manner like the rest of the board.
should we really be encouraging gay witch-hunts like this?
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Welcome to America, you must be new here. Allow me to recap the last 200 years for ya. A bunch of white guys: committed genocide on the natives, burned women at the stake because of religious beliefs, enslaved/supressed/denegrated black people, tried to outlaw science in school because of religious beliefs, locked up all the japs in internment camps, went back after the black folks with firehoses/clubs/slurs, shot a few uppity students, firebombed a neighborhood in philly, tried to outlaw science in school because of religious beliefs (again), and surveilled/imprisioned/tortured various arabs. And so far... they've gotten away with every bit of it.
Yet forcing a gay man to change jobs is a horrendous injustice. Cry me a river.
Well guess what, the topic is about a different injustice. Congress is using some vague statement in Article 1, Section 8 to trump your first amendment rights. Does *anyone* give a shit? Hey, China is bad, because they censor the internet! God damn it, sometimes I think you people are so fucking stupid you don't deserve freedom.
First of all killing an innocent child is clearly the far greater evil compared to killing a guilty man. The death penalty is just and not immoral under certain circumstances. The problem is that it is not merciful which is why the Church has prohibited it.
The church teaches that we're all sinners, and worthy of death- even unborn children. So really, there's no difference according to church doctrine between killing a guilty man or killing a child.
The point remains that church doctrine is quite clearly against abortion and the death penalty, so it's equally hypocritical for a pro-death penalty catholic vs a pro-choice catholic.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
OK, so you saved $1500/year. Well under 5% of your income. That's nothing, in both absolute and relative terms, compared to the impact on a rich family of the abolishment of the estate tax and the other massive cuts at the high end. I maintain that "all the benefits" is an accurate assessment using your numbers.
How is this news? Since when does anyone take seriously anything Bill Mahr says? He's right up there with hacks like Franken and Michael Moore when it comes to political and social relevance.
Hard to imagine anyone considering military service a right. Personally, I'd consider it a responsibility, in the event of actual invasion by a foreign power, but I'll wager that very few consider defending big oil a right.
Perhaps this points up a need for an OSS system that will constantly download media as it is posted by leading news media, and maintain it, checking for changes to it. the Internet Archive isn't enough. If OSS lots of people could run it so conspiracies would be out of the question, and rival papers could scan each other. Also would be proof against takedowns from DMCA or other things that have no force in your jurisdiction, etc. Anybody?
Congratulations! you just devised an entire new economic system, that completely ignores class struggle, based on race and religion! Parent FTW!
----
worstsummaryever
Am I the only one who read the summary 4 times and still had no idea what information it was attempting to convey?
Other choices that would also be made more attractive include moving all or parts of the company to other countries.
america yawns and asks, "what's for dinner?"
Then there are no true Catholics. Save perhaps those living in the Vatican. Do you have any idea how few people there are who A) identify themselves as Catholic and B) think the pope is always right? I've never met a single one, and I do know my share of Catholics. Plus, I suspect most Protestants would disagree with your definition of Protestantism.
I think you're a few hundred years out of date my friend. Papal infallibility hasn't been widely believed for a long long time.
Calling a public figure gay in America would almost likely not be libel because of the protections afforded by the first amendment and the Supreme Court's past precedents. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a public figure would have to prove that the comment was false and that it was made with actual malice. Here there might be problems with proving it false (note, truth isn't a defense anymore - the plaintiff has to prove it). Also, it is extremely difficult to prove actual malice.
First of all killing an innocent child is clearly the far greater evil compared to killing a guilty man.
Huh? Killing any person is evil. There is no hierarchy.
I think you are forgetting the fact that "resources" are property of someone, thus they don't have to be shared. All rights are derived from property by God (or nature).
In other words, if a bunch of people live in a desert and they all buy their water from a single supplier and that supplier decided not to sell anymore the people would have a few options:
1) Pack up and move closer to another source
2) One or more individuals would start their own firm to provide water - there would be a demand and due to scarcity a profit would be possible
3) If there was a pre-existing contract with the original supplier, sue them for breach but in the mean time see #2
So again I think you are forgetting that in the free market people own property (resources are NOT communal), AND, people are also free to start their own firms.
Libertas in infinitum
First, I know how the tax brackets work. I generated those numbers by entering payroll checks using both the 1998 tax tables the 2006 tax tables. They are not calculated as flat percentages of my income.
Second, I think you may have looked at the wrong table when estimating my income. It may boggle the mind, but some Slashdot posters are actually married. For 1998, the 28% tax bracket starts at $46,750 and goes up to $96,450. For 2006, the 15% tax bracket starts at $22,900 and goes up to $68,040. So if I'm (barely) in the 15% bracket right now my taxable income has an upper limit of $68k. My gross income is obviously higher.
I didn't say anything about Reps doing me a favor. I just pointed out, with actual real life numbers, that my federal income taxes are significantly lower now than they would be using the tax rates that were in effect eight years ago.
The real point I'm trying to make is it seems to me that we keep hearing the same rhetoric over and over from the side that is opposed to tax cuts. The problem I see with these types of arguments (Bush tax cuts go to the rich, therefore repeal them) is that they have no appeal to people who know what they have been paying in income taxes over the years and know that they are paying lower taxes now. Because people keep making these arguments, I have to wonder if they realize what the actual numbers are.
Actually I saved closer to $4500 a year. I separated out the taxes with and without the child tax credit to emphasize a point which maybe I should have explained a bit better. The bulk of reductions in taxes for families stem from two things: reductions in the tax rates themselves and the increase in the child tax credit. Which one of these changes contributes more of course depends on how many kids you have. Even if you don't have kids, there is a reduction in tax rates all the way up. If you do have kids and your income is below the point where the credit starts phasing out, then you may see a much bigger effect from the $1000 per kid credit. Above a certain point, the credit starts phasing out, so the "rich" don't get the benefit of this particular tax cut.
This is the problem in the rhetoric I see. The Democrats say "all the benefits" go to the rich, therefore they want to get rid of all of the tax cuts. If I see a benefit in the form of a lower tax bill, and a not insignificant benefit at that, does that mean I'm rich by the definition of the Democrats? Does that mean they want to increase the taxes I'm currently paying?
At the lower end of the income scale, Democrats were complaining when the tax cuts were being worked out in the Congress because the child tax credit was "denied" to low income families. The reason those low income families couldn't take the credit was because they were not paying income tax to begin with; so there's nothing to credit. Put these two positions together and I have to wonder if the Democrats want to repeal the tax cuts, making me pay more in income taxes, so that they can give money to people who make less than I do and aren't paying any taxes to begin with?
No, they're not. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; plenty enough good ones have been posted already, and you're being really stupid in saying this.
Government did this long ago when they gave a special legal status, along with certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to couples that are married. I hate to burst your bubble, but marriage is not just a religious concept, and since it has legal implications, you cannot discriminate based on gender because of it. It's only a matter of time before all of these state laws banning same-sex marriage get struck down as unConstitutional, and I, as someone who is as straight as straight gets, will be very happy when that day comes.
You seriously have that big a problem with the word "marriage" being applied to gay people and want the phrase "civil union" to be used instead? That's fine with me. Let's completely remove the concept of people being married from the government and adopt civil unions for everyone. Whether it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman, you don't get "married," you get civilly united. (If you want to have a fancy church ceremony and call it a marriage for religious significance, go for it. I don't care.) People who are civilly united are for all legal purposes equivalent to what they are considered "married" today. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, this should be a federal law that would completely abolish marriage as a legal relationship in all states, and allow any two consenting adults who want to have a civil union, period.
How can you condone the death penalty? Innocent people have been jailed, and innocent people have been killed. It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. Being pro-choice and pro-death penalty is more hypocritical than a catholic voting for a pro-choice democrat. I am a catholic - went to catholic school for pre-k all the way up to middle school. And I support a woman's right to choose, as do many of my catholic friends. Now just because we are pro-choice doesn't mean that we would encourage people to get an abortion. However we recognize that just because our faith is against abortions, it doesn't mean it should be imposed upon EVERYONE. I see no problem with valuing your religion but not trying to force your beliefs on others. I think this is more in line with the true spirit of democracy. My religion and my beliefs are my own. I'll keep them out of your life if you keep yours out of mine.
How can you condone the death penalty? Innocent people have been jailed, and innocent people have been killed. It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies. Being pro-choice and pro-death penalty is more hypocritical than a catholic voting for a pro-choice democrat.
I did not say I was pro death penalty. I am not in fact. I said it is the lesser evil if it is justly applied. If it is unjustly applied then they are equally evil because both the unborn child and the innocent you speak of have a right to life.
The Church historically has not been against the death penalty when justly applied and even today can be used in extreme situations. On the other hand abortion is always a grave sin and anyone who has an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Church which is the highest punishment the Church can give. So I would say the Catholic voting for the pro choice politician is the greater hypocrite. I have included some excerpts below from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which clearly show my points.
And I support a woman's right to choose, as do many of my catholic friends. Now just because we are pro-choice doesn't mean that we would encourage people to get an abortion. However we recognize that just because our faith is against abortions, it doesn't mean it should be imposed upon EVERYONE. I see no problem with valuing your religion but not trying to force your beliefs on others. I think this is more in line with the true spirit of democracy.
As for you argument of keeping my "religion" out of politics then I can could say the same thing about your belief that the death penalty is wrong. Why should a women have the choice to slay her unborn child but the state not have the same choice to slay their citizens? Is it not the same choice? Does not the state have the greater right to decide if the will of the people is to kill criminals or innocents for that matter if they are unwanted by the majority? Are you not imposing your ideals on the majority?
I for one think we have a duty to help others to be better people and to be good both in our personal lives and in our political lives. I think the state and the voters have a duty to enforce justice and to protect the rights of the weak as well as the strong. That includes the the unborn, the elderly, the poor, the unwanted, and the guilty they all deserve to be treated as human beings, to be loved, to live, and to be protected by the state. A democracy is not just about the majority's will it is not mob rule. The people are not always right if they where then their never would have been segregation, slavery, or any of the other many sins of the American people and the state. Abortion is just another of a long lines of evils this nation has condoned and encouraged and I hope that we will over come this evil as we have the ones of the past. That will not happen until we change the hearts and minds of the majority which we as Catholics must try to do.
Death Penalty
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.
http://
Funny. Well, my head still feels ungood after reading the oldspeak fullwise rewrite. You've apparently got double plus unbusy time on your hands to anteknow how to do that!
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.