Slashdot Mirror
WTO Again Sides With Antigua Over Online Gambling
TechDirt writes "For some time we've been following the ongoing conflict between the US and the island nation of Antigua surrounding internet gambling. Even before the passage of the most recent anti-gambling law, Antigua had gone to the WTO to complain that the US government's actions against online gambling were de facto protectionist measures, and thus violated international trade law. The WTO ended up siding with Antigua, although, quite predictably, the US did nothing to resolve the issue -- in fact, things have only gotten worse. Now the WTO is speaking out again, slamming the US government for its failure to abide by the decision against it. Once again, it seems likely that the US will ignore the decision, although that would give Antigua the right to retaliate. One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software and set up some site like allofmp3.com. Of course, the US put pressure on Russia to crack down on that site, as part of the country's admittance into the WTO, but since Antigua is already part of the organization, the US would have no such leverage. Now, the WTO has spoken out again."
Nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
George, what are you doing? I was only joking!
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
All I can say is the US has become one truly pathetic country.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
It was an april fools joke. When those stories disapear so will the slashdottit box.
How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
(Some may argue that regular gambling is legal in parts of the US, but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an major increase in gambling.)
Move along, nothing (new) to see here. The US is just doing the usual "everybody but us need to adhere to the rules" routine.
Antigua's certainly a nicer place to put your servers than North Korea.
That was an April Fool's joke, I thought... Slashdot takes 4/1 fairly far every year ;)
Yeah, maybe I'm pretty nerdy,but when the Slashdotit ratings were coming up as Avagadro's number and Faraday's constant (not to mention Jenny 867-5309), it was pretty clearly a joke.
Isn't this the same United States that "champions" the rule of law? There are so many examples of the US refusing to follow the law but expects other nations to do just that. I wonder what the ordinary American has to say about this.
The US ignores international pressure to stop being a dick. And people wonder why the world is turning against America. You can't be the loud-mouth, violent, drunk guy on your block, with engine parts all over your lawn, shooting guns at people who pass by, without expecting those people to not give you the time of day.
I doubt you'll find many Slashdotters hanging out with your average WTO protester. Sure, they both may be pasty, unwashed, and/or unshaved, but the similarity ends there. I'd bet most Slashdotters understand basic economics and understand there's generally nothing wrong with the WTO. Depending on how protectionist or stupid your leaders may be, your mileage may vary.
The crux of the issue here, is that unlike in the EU where local moral and religious laws get some protection from EU decisions, the WTO frowns on morality-based protectionism. As well they should. What business is it of our government to dictate what someone can do with their money? Gambling restrictions in this country are sold as religion-based. A good portion of Christians think that gambling is immoral. The other portion thinks that gambling is a waste of money and disproportionatly affects the poor. I suspect the real reason is because the state likes having a monopoly on gaming (state lotteries) and doesn't want the free market driving their payout percentages.
Then again, I'm not your "average" Slashdotter. Even though I AM an economist, the internet is full of people who read Atlas Shrugged and think they have a degree from Wharton or something. So I may be wrong about your "average Slashdot user."
... talk about protectionist measures ...
Yep, and I'm checking the job listings now... The ski season sucked this year and I'm up for a change, I could take a few years of living down that way. How hard could it be running a bunch of co-located server farms, postal mail drop boxes, and accountant offices?
People take this shit way too seriously.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
first off, the usa is not doing anything that every other country in the world does: act like a hypocrite. complain about another country doing xyz, while at the same time doing xyz as well
however, anyone who thinks the usa is special does need a comeuppance: the usa is just as hypocritical as china or russia or india or the majority of every other country in the world. at the same time, that observation is a double edged sword: the usa is no better, and NO WORSE, than these countries. seriously, find a crime the usa does, and tell me the majority of other countries in the world aren't guilty of the same thing
so the anti-americanism needs to be tweaked: the usa is not special and good, so if you thought it was, you need a spanking. at the same time, all the rabid anti-usa types need to check themselves if they think the usa deserves special prosecution for crimes every country is guilty of. all that needs to change is that the rabid patriotic americans need to wake up and admit they are wrong... the rabid anti-americans are STILL wrong, and always have been wrong
the only people with any valid opinion of the usa are those who do not especially love the usa, nor especially hate it. the usa does evil, the usa does good. much like every other country in the world. this balanced attitude is the only valid opinion. any other opinion is partisan propaganda, brain dead and unfair, whether anti-usa, or pro-usa
the usa is not special. not especially good, and not especially evil, either. listen up, braindead partisans
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software ...
... and set up some site like allofmp3.com.
That would be a stupid way to retaliate. Spend money on bandwidth and get nothing in return.
Oooh, that kind of 'free' music. The kind you have to pay money for. In that case, please retaliate away, Antigua and/or Barbados!
The US slapped a tariff on our (Canadian) Softwood lumber exports into your country. Claiming that our Industry is heavily subsided by the government.
These fines have added up to 2 billion dollars. We had gone repeatedly to the WTO about the issue, and they said that we were in the right, and that the US must gives our money back. This has been going over 10 years.
The US knows that it is in the wrong. However they simply won't pay the fine.
So forget about anyone else getting any rulings through the WTO.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
FAQs are evil.
State lotteries and horse racing which can be bet on via the internet is what destroyed our case. The WTO allows for "morality" based restrictions -- but they must be applied uniformly. Since we already allow for online gambling, restricting foriegn interests from participating is the problem.
That was exactly my point. Anyone can see that we don't have some far-reaching problem with gambling in this country. In fact Las Vegas is probably the biggest tourist destination in this country (been there twice, it certainly seems like it to me). If we REALLY had a problem with gambling, you couldn't gamble anywhere, and the state wouldn't have a monopoly on it in most areas. This is not just protectionism, but protection of a state monopoly. No kidding the WTO frowns on it.
Protectionism is the act of protecting your industries. The WTO frowns on all protectionism. But the EU is more lax in allowing protectionism, especially if you prove a decent religious basis. If something is just plain immoral or sacreligious in your country, neither the WTO or EU have any real problem with you banning it.
Again, this is about protectionism.
You may be right. It's that mindset that prevents me from posting in Apple threads. Despite being a user and consumer of Apple products for 25 years now, if I so much as SUGGEST that Apple isn't going to overtake Microsoft in the next two years, or point out that it may be foolish to think so barring any data, I get modded troll and flamed to oblivion on how I'm wrong. You'd think that after about 30 years of "winning" users over, we'd have won by now...
i don't need nationalism to make my arguments
here's my argument: the idea is for all nations to get rid of nukes
therefore, pressure should be put on the usa to get rid of its nukes, AND all other nations should stop developing nukes
but if other nations, such as iran, should develop nukes, then we are moving backwards in nuclear antiproliferation, AND we are giving the usa a reason to keep its nukes
in such a way, it is possible to say that iran should NOT have nukes AND not be pro-american when you say that
get me?
the point is to base your arguments on ideas, not tribes. when you argue bindly anti-usa, or blindly pro-usa, you are in a trap, and you are a nationalist, and you fail
the only valid intellectually and moral arguments on any subject matter in this world is one that has no nationalistic flaovr. nothing pro-usa. nothing anti-usa. as soon as you make an argument on any problem in this world that supports or rejects a situation based on love or hatred of the usa, or any other country, for that matter, you lose, you fail, you're stuck in blind tribal nationalism
being anti-usa (or hatred for any other country for that matter) is a form of nationalism: nationalism is about thinking about problems in tribal terms, whether pro or anti. whether pro or anti, it does not matter, you're mind is trapped in an archaic way of thinking
IDEAS
not
TRIBES
the only intellectually and morally defensible position on any problem in this world is in terms of principles and universal principles of human nature and reality. NOT nationalism, whether pro, or anti
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
In the United States, gambling is regulated by the states. Some states (Nevada) have gambling everywhere. Some states have it at select locations. Some states prohibit it. Allowing Internet gambling essentially puts a casino in every household and overrides the ability of states to regulate gambling. Within the US, foreign treaties do not take precedence over the Constitution.
[Insert pithy quote here]
those who think the usa is special and goo din some way need to be taken down a few nothces. yes, it is a real problem that there are those in the usa who still think sunlight shines form their assholes
no, the usa does both evil in good in this world. that dispels all of the anti-americna bullshit, AND it dispels all of the pro-americna bullshit
anyone with some sort of special love for the usa is flat out stupid and blind. anyone with some sort of hatred for the usa is equally stupid and blind
those who see the usa neutrally, as doing both good and evil at the same time, are the only people with the ability to frame their opinions and attitudes in an intellectually and morally defensible framework
anyone blinded by tribal animosities or allegiances (the pro- or anti-usa partisan crowd) are utterly useless and wrong, and need to wake up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It never amazes me how much people can flame without even reading the article, which in this case is impossible since slashdot posted a broken link in the story. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.
- jonathan.
now compare it to things china does
or russia
why does the things the usa does stand out as especially egregious? i see the same level of stink and hypocrisy and arrogance and evil in all 3 countries. so why aren't you hating russia or china?
if, however, you have "fallen out of love" with the usa, well ok then. just be balanced when you assess the crimes of the usa against the crimes of other countries. i think you'll find the usa does wrong to the same degree as the majority of other countries. therefore, it is not to be loved. but it is also not to be hated, or, not hated anymore than you would hate any other countries
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Instead of trying to crush Antigua's efforts to maintain and expand their economy I think they should be lauded for their ingenuity. This country is not crying out for a hand out, they are relieving gamblers of their funds. Anyone who has spent any time around the gambling public of any nation will agree they will bet on cockroach races if nothing else is available.
P.S. "Sparky the Wonder Roach" is a good bet in the 12th race.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
and much to fear from arab tribalism
and much to fear form chinese imperialism
and much to fear from russian colonialism
and much to fear from european patriotism
and much to fear form indian chauvanism
etc.
all of these things. not just the americans. not just the arabs
our only saving grace in this world is you and me, seriously: those who see our problems as human problems, not japanese/ pakistani/ indonesian/ brazilian/ etc. problems
that's the challenge of this 21st century: the defeat of nationalistic hubris/ tribal pride, the emergence of universally accepted standards of HUMAN brotherhood
you and i know are shared humanity is more important than the country on our passports. unfortunately, too many in this world think their national/ racial/ tribal allegience is more important than their simple shared human allegiance
the challenge of the 21st century is the defeat of such people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What good is the organization and agreement when the biggest proponent of it fails to obey it?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
As an American, this attitude alone is disturbing as I see basic fundamental laws and constitutional rights being thrown out the window on the premise that some nebulous "international law" overrides what my elected representatives have been worked on to create legislation.
So when you talk about the rule of law, whose law is it that you are talking about? And why should I give a token bit of respect to an organization like the WTO to whom I have never elected any representatives, and seems to do far more harm than good in this world? Yet they are openly telling me that laws that were constitutionally passed and signed into law are invalid and must be thrown out, with no reasonable chance to be able to convince others that this law ought to be in place shy of going to war?
I know this is an issue of sovereignty, and something that in theory that the USA agreed upon when it joined the WTO, but in this case on this particular law, the WTO is attempting to supersceed US law where I don't necessarily agree with the government forms of those other nations participating with the WTO and overriding the laws of my country.
As far as other "rogue" states flipping off the WTO, so what? Trade barriers and other legalese are not going to stop a country like North Korea from detonating a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, and when my neighbors are dead and lying in the street, the WTO countries are also not going to join in trying to fight back against such an atrocity.... just as few of the WTO nations gave any thought or care about what happened in New York City on 9/11.
If the ultimate goal of the WTO is to create a super-federalism on the order of the EU or U.S. Federal government but on a larger scale, it fails miserably. At least with the U.S. Federal system, when a disaster like Hurricane Katrina occurs or something like the 9/11 attacks, I can count on people from Alaska, Florida, Montana, and Texas also coming in and joining together to help both clean up the mess, and in the case of war fighting a common enemy. You won't have a New Mexican legislature saying "sorry, we're going to sit this war out, because we don't agree with it."
Neither the UN nor the WTO inspire me to defend their actions, nor do I even feel I have any sort of voice into how decisions are made for either body. Coming from a democratic society, I feel this is a minimum prerequisite before the laws of where I live deserve to be overridden and tossed aside "for the common good".
One of the important aspects here is that by ignoring international organizations the US undermine their authority. It has been the same story with the United Nations. USA have long criticized them for their weakness and inefficiency and rightfully so. But guess what: USA (along with other Western countries, of course) have played a major part in leading to this state by bypassing and disrespecting the UN whenever it suited them.
I won't be surprised to see Washington complaining about WTO weakness in a couple of years. It's like the chicken and egg problem. We ignore them, because they lack the authority to get anything done. They lack of authority, because people ignore them. Only this time we can clearly tell which came first.
I would rather open up gambling and free the hospitals from having to treat all comers whether or not they can pay for care. If we free people from the consequences of their actions, then you short circuit the feedback loop.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The core problem to all this is that the United States and most other world governments have yet to realize that the internet is not something existing within their bounds, and not something which can be regulated in the same way the phone networks are. Yes, the United States created the internet as we know it today. No, they do not have legal jurisdiction over things which happen on it outside the US. If someone calls a person in Mexico from inside the US and says "GO around the corner and kill Pedro for me" that doesn't make the crime one which would be persecuted of tried under the US law. (iirc)
On this particular matter we're seeing what happens when some very potent lobbying groups (i.e. the Indian and Vegas casinos) decide they don't like what they see as undue competition. They have a very profitable existence carved out because the more socially conservative in our country want to partition off where people can go for their "vices".
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
And this is a big deal on Slashdot because ?
(Sound of crickets chirping)
Fizz
because you're dealing with something unique: humaniity. humanity creates its own reality. part of creating your own reality is force of belief. for humanity, unlike say the science of natural history or the physics of star formation, which is governed by rote facts, for humanity, simply believing something is so, makes it so. homo sapiens does not adapt to its environment. homo sapiens adapts its environment to him. this is very powerful, and very important. we are not helpless insects being battered about by the wind. we are powerful. never forget that
say, for example, an islamofascist (i said islamofascist, not muslim. a muslim is a peace loving person. an islamofascist, a minor subset of muslims, wages war on humanity... in fact, mostly wages war on other muslims). such a person, an islamofascist, believes that what is written in the koran is sharia law, and is accepted unquestioned, and should be followed blindly. and if you do not abide by these laws, i have ever right to kill you. they believe this, and enofrce it. this is the reality they create
this is called the power of faith. given enough people, and enough effort, and enough time, this belief system perpetuates and extends itself, such that it becomes reality. faith and belief is all about creating and perpetuating human reality
now, you might find the methods and beliefs of al qaeda distressing. so do i. one antidote to al qaeda might be called american neocon aggression. is this a suitable antidote to al qaeda to you? not to me, it feels like you are trading one set of vile beliefs for another impalatable set of beliefs
so how about the set of beliefs i outlined above as an alternative instead? what doe sit require for them to become universal? for us to FIGHT for them. as sure as the american neocons and al qaeda are fighting for their beliefs, against their heightened effort is required on our part heightened effort as well, not cynicism, or accpetance, or reticence, or dismissal, or denial. what is now a far away problem in kandahar becomes a problem in downtown manhattan tomorrow. that's the lesson of 9/11. al qaeda cannot exist at peace in this world. powers of universal human justice must be fought for, against al qaeda, now, or later. there is no such thing as not fighting it. you will fight it today when it is small and far away, or you will fight it tomorrow when it is bigger and at your doorstep. to not relaize this is to not realize the power of faith
if enough of us believe in universal humanity, and i think a majority of both muslims and westerners do, then we can persecute both the american neocons AND al qaeda at the same time. but if we don't have a valid alternative set of beliefs we are willing to fight for, as earnestly as the american neocons or al qaeda is fighting for their beliefs, then guess what? their belief systems are peepetuated, and our belief system dies
so: to hell with the cynicism and accpetance implicit in your observation above
i believe what i said, and i fight for it. and i think plenty of other westerners and moderate muslims do to. you disagree the backbone is there? fine. but if you agree with the principles i stated above, then you put them forth in your words and your actions and YOU supply the backbone. it is your responsiblity on this planet to fight for what you believe in. you, and every other person on this planet. only such a reality is one that can survive injustice in this world. that's not realit yyou say? then fFIGHT fo it! why? for the very simple powerful force called belief that i outlined above in the first paragrpah in this post, and for no other reason
to NOT believe in your principles and to NOT fight for them is to accept injustice in this world. and i'm sorry, i'm not willing to do that. so you are dealing with a true believer here. and a true believer recruits disbelievers and the jaded and the cynical to his cause, not the other way around
my belief trumps cynicism. so doe syours. so does al qaeda. so do the american neocons. let
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
First, online gambling was not made illegal by the UIGEA. It specifically outlines what is being made illegal, and that is the funding of online gambling through banking institutions. This is effectively a ban, but no one will be prosecuted for playing .01/.02 PLO at Pstars. UIGEA is really only a problem for banks and funding providers, like Neteller and Firepay.
Second, the UIGEA allows for online gambling. Specifically, it allows states where gambling is legal to establish online gaming sites as long as the player pools are totally within that state. So UIGEA doesn't outlaw online gambling at all, just online gambling between states.
Where, oh where to begin....
/end rant
//looking for alternate country of choice
First off, the only reason 'Online Gambling' is now fully outlawed is because it got tacked onto some bill that was for sure to get passed, no questions/inspections asked. Now, THIS action by our elected officials does NOT represent the whole of the American people. The ONLY ones who wanted these actions restricted were:
1) US casinos
2) Christian fundamentalists (who view ALL vices as the work of satan himself)
3) certain 'think of the children' bodies
If my gov. had ANY sense at all, and weren't paid for in full by corporate interests(see US Casinos in this case), and 'RIDERS' weren't allowed onto passing legislation, they would have legalized it, and put an end to the question. This would have done several things:
1) kept money in country
2) allow for quicker account/credit verification & restriction (for those with gambling problems) by tying direct into the financial network
3) create another form of taxable revenue for the Treasury
Now, onto current news....... When I hear of how my Gov. is acting towards International bodies, be it UN, WTO, etc.... and in this particular case, on a subject that has strictly CORPORATE lobbying all over it, it disgusts me to no end. Make no mistake. The US of old is no longer. The will of the people has been bought and purchased by big money. Yes this has always been the case, but never the likes of what we are seeing now. International policy is being DIRECTLY influenced by Corporate interests and lobbying. The US can no longer tout itself as the moral authority on matters of commerce. Economic morality has been cast aside, same as the paper ballot. Who needs accountability when money buys policy?
The WTO needs to call the US out fast and furious on this, and not let up till it falls in line. International commerce is give/take. Plain and simple. If the US can't 'ante' up in this particular hand, they should fold it and sit out. Bluffing on International games can, and often does, lead to war. Something which we are already too involved with....
Here is the flaw in the WTOs ruling. The law in the U.S. states that U.S. operated bank card systems cannot collect or trade in offshore gambling or any gambling on protected by U.S. or local laws. You can gamble in Antigua all you want. your bank card company just cannot handle your funds if they trade in the U.S.
This is a law on U.S. banking, not internation gambling. All you idiot can grumble now, but the WTO has no authority on U.S. banking regulation.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
This is a FEDERAL anti-gambling law.
While you can argue that the law itself is unconstitutional (which IMO it is), you can't argue 10th amendment here.
IMO this law should never have been passed in the first place. Like you said, it's a state matter. Of course they're lumping this all under the "internet gambling is inter-state commerce" category, but this is bullshit. The commerce is not inter-state, it's inter-national.
According to the constitution, IMO the fed only has the authority to ban internet gambling *between states*. regulating international gabling would require a federal law - which is be definition bound by federal treaties.
however, the existence of morons who blindly love country xyz does not excuse or justify the existence of morons who blindly hate country xyz
the only intellectually and morally valid position is to feel nothing for country xyz, and feel pity on both the blind fools who love country xyz, and the blind fools who hate country xyz
think ideas
not tribes
escape archaic nationalism in the formation of your opinions
(where nationalism is blindly loving OR HATING any given country: both are the same trap on your mental efforts)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So you can't make a proper plural, or spell international, but we're the idiots?
You're right, the law is actually banning the money transfer, not the gambling itself. But if you look at the phrase "de facto" in the article & the summary, and understand what that means in this context...
It's okay, I'll wait for you to go look it up...
Oh, so in this context, it means a law against a specific thing that is effectively making something else illegal as well? Oh, wait, and that would be a protectionist measure, contrary to the free-trade agreements the US & Antigua have?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
And yet being proud of your country, defend it to death and other similar shit are part of what they teach you as a kid... of course all of that is bullshit if you get to see what defines a country.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
What are you, a Bahai?
and i'll add that what you described was inevitable. after the collapse of the soviet union, the usa was left standing relative unscathed. it had no comeuppance. and so it's arrogance and hubris overwhelmed its faculties of simple humility before others
but, of course, as you also said, that comeuppance is now coming. the world is rapidly falling out of love with the usa. and so be it. i don't think the world needs to love the usa. at the same time, i don't think it needs to hate it either. so the usa has fallen off the pedestal, it stands now as equal rather than superior (as it was in it's own mind). so it's an improvement in the world. the world does not need a rome, it does not need a center of power. it needs a conversation amongst equals. for the usa to stand in reckoning then is a necessity for the realization of this superior world of equals. but that means falling out of love with the usa, not falling into hate of the usa
it all gets back to my original point: this is all explainable by human psychology. there is nothing magically "american" about this story. it's a simple story of human hubris, looking at yourself in the mirror and falling in love with yourself, and thinking your ass smells like roses... and getting your karma payback for such arrogant self-regard
so be it, tale as old as time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is just... goofy. You admit to not understanding the purpose of something, and then spout off about it being contrary to the concept of a nation?
Seriously, this is the internet - you can find at least basic information on almost anything with a minimum of effort. The whole point of the WTO is to have a negotiating forum for international trade, and a place to bring disputes when one nation isn't living up to its agreements. Don't see how you get monolithic-one-world-government from that.
No, actually... what the WTO is saying is that if you have a free-trade agreement, you can't try to end-run around it without it not really being free trade anymore.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Suck it, authorotarian!
Blar.
i don't have a single problem with what you said. even though europe and it's ridiculous farm subsidies, at the expense of african development, comes to mind
however, my larger point is simply that the usa commits crimes, china commits crimes, russia commits crimes, etc. they all do. in different arenas, of course, but all of the same general stink. so special prosecution of the usa, in GENERAL, is wrong. but, if you want to go and specially prosecute the usa for wto crimes, with the admission that china and russia need some special prosecution in other arenas, then go ahead, with my blessing
but if you are going to prosecute the usa as some special demon, the eye sauron, the root of all evil, the only one who does evil in the world, and fall silent on china and russia, then no, i'm not going to support you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When the US protests the WTO's rulings on environmental issues (clean air, dolphin netting), nobody here will come to the US's defense.
Because the US is invariably on the wrong side of these issues.
But when the WTO says the US is being naughty about the nasty business of gambling, everybody comes out to post.
Again, because the US is on the wrong side.
I am not going to say the US is perfect by any stretch, but the bias on this site is practically a living thing.
At least we're consistent I guess.
. But organized gambling is nothing more than a way to fleece money from mathematically-challenged poor people
I doubt you're going to see much sympathy for the mathematically challenged here.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The United States aren't really united, and that's why these issues are causing such difficulty. 50 states, and 50 different sets of laws and mandates. Some allow gambling, prostitution and consensual sodomy, others outlaw anything they can spell. Maybe the country should be dissolved and the individual states be granted independence so they can choose to adhere to the WTO or not, based on their compartmentalized ideals.
The US government has made its bed by forbidding gambling activities in all but a few states. Well guess what, people want to gamble so they will go wherever gambling is allowed. When that place is the internet, it's all too easy to do. The government can't "compete" with the internet, because it's everywhere. Either legalize gambling everywhere and compete on an equal platform, or ban it everywhere and let Antigua fill their coffers with American money, but the US can't win if it won't compete.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
i'm a radical humanist
for me, the UN charter is as important as the bible or the quran is to a religious fundamentalist
my religion is the love of humanity, the good, the bad, and the ugly. i have great faith in my fellow man
mankind is god to me, my god is my fellow man
my creed is the strivings and yearnings of civilization, it's goals and ideals for itself
what man has wrought on this earth, in glory, and in shame, is my concern. what he makes of his future is my obsession
my greatest enemy are cynics and nihilists, those who have lost faith in mankind. those who see what man has wrought and only seen the misery, and none of the progress
join me. love humanity for what it is, and what it can be if more believe in humanity's history and it's future
let us defeat blind nationalists, religious fascists (including the empty radical atheists, by the way), and cynical nihilists
these three classes of belief (or lack thereof, in the case of cynics and nihilists) are our stumbling blocks as humanity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you write a ten page paper, and in 95% of that paper you criticize the usa, and then at the end you say "oh, btw, other countries do bad things too" you are not a moral or intellectual person
the very essence of morality and justice is being fair and balanced
the very essence of logic and reason is considering all your bases
so you must be balanced and fair in your world view, and that means being... actually balanced and fair in your world view. i don't know how to make it any simpler than that
so you are wrong. you need to criticize all crimes by all countries in the proportionaly of the crimes they commit, or you are just a partisan political hack
if you spend all of your time micro analyzing the crimes of only one player on the world stage, exactly what value do you think you have in the search for justice?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that's fair
but by doing that, you stray into cynicism and nihilism. you have lost your simple faith in mankind, and so i have whole other new set of problems with you not related to nationalism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i have no problem with your list of crimes of the us in its trade disputes. i am certain the usa does these bullying tactics, and should get a comeuppance for them
btw: are you european? i always wondered why euros fear gm food so much. yes, monsanto's dirty tricks are vile, but are you reacting to monsanto? or gm food in general?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the US really has deteriorated into a lawless kingdom.
The US has repeatedly (and blatently) broken their trade agreements with Canada and others.
The government down there doesn't even obey their own domestic laws or constitution and the justice department had been reduced to a lap-dog (neutered).
Nobody expects the americans to honour deals they sign anymore.
(fool me 3 times... well, er, we won't be fooled again)
"Despite whatever misguided beliefs you may have, America has always been highly respected and loved by people all over the world."
Not true. First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA, and secondly, the respect and love has never been universal 'all over the world'. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time where the USA wasn't hated or disrespected by at least *some* part of the world.
And even in the best of times, I'm not sure one could say any population of a foreign country really 'loved' americans. Of course, that would depend on your interpretation of 'love'; if you mean by that a general 'goodwill' or 'liking' it would be more correct then something like 'adoring'.
"This was illustrated by the response immediately after 9/11. Remember "We All Today are USA"? Remember people in every city on the planet marching, crying, holding vigils and saying they love America and that the attacks broke their hearts?"
No, I don't remember that. First of all, I doubt it was in 'every city on the planet' - that reeks hyperbole, actually. Secondly, in some cities, they were marching and crying allright, but rather of joy that the USA got hit. This s particular the case in a lot of cities in the Middle East, where the USA has been seen as an imperialistic agressor since the last decade.
There was a lot of sympathy in Europe and other countries, however. But that sympathy shouldn't be construed as 'love for america and amercans', but rather sympathy for the thousands of victims of such a brutal act, regardless of their country of origin.
"For a moment in time, we held the sympathy of a world that looked to us. And then we blew it."
True.
"Some people hate America, including some Americans."
Well, more correct would be to say that *a lot* of people hate americans. And even more *dislike* America, or at least its current government (and by extension sometimes half of its population). You find the former more with middle-east countries, but the latter is currently wide spread, even among traditional allies like the europeans.
"They love Americans and they loved the America that gave them hope. That stood for ideals, cared about peace and freedom and being both an example to and a beacon for other free civilizations world-wide.[snip]"
I think you're being way off here, in an over-optimistic, self-indulgent way. I would rather say that some parts of the world, especially Europe, was considerable more sympathetic towards the USA (the 'love' and 'hope' thing is largely hyperbole, sorry) after WW2. In fact, Europeans had a reasonable amount of sympathy for the USA under the Clinton-administration; I can't remember the same anti-amercanism-feelings back then (at least not to the huge degree it has today), and it's not like it's THAT long ago.
"Just because they criticize the country doesn't mean they hate it."
Well, large parts of middle-east populations do actually hate the country. Western countries are more moderate, but there too (at least nowadays) large parts hate the bush-government, and to an extension, part of the populace too (since half voted for bush, after all). Though I think 'despise' would be a better term than 'hate' where European feelings are concerned.
"try considering that just maybe we lost the sympathy, affection and respect of the entire world on our own watch and of our own accord"
True.
"Let's do a little less flag-waving[]"
Good idea. But note that your own post isn't completely void of such (slightly veiled) flag-waving.
I think, all by all, you did try to give an honest post about your own people/country, without trying to blame everyone else but the USA. In that respect, you are to be applauded, and way more sincere than a lot of other USA-posters around here.
That said, you still have some of that weird, self-flattering, narcistic worldview about the world and the place of the USA in it. I think that's largely due
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
so they will develop nukes simply because the usa says it shouldn't have them. so yes, the 300 pound gorilla breathign down their necks is an issue
all i know, it's depressing, because basically what's going on here is the same logic that drives fights between 5th grade children is driving iran to develop nukes. but we're not in a 5th grade classroom, and this isn't about who gets to use the pencil sharpener
it's about nuclear proliferation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, just as there is nothing wrong with being proud of your ethnic and racial heritage.
I live in Canada. To my knowledge we can legally gamble online. However, I still know plenty of people who do such and are - in fact - going to Vegas this year. These people also regularly buy lottery tickets.
I don't know why the gambling companies would be concerned, as my experience indicates that the ease of entry into online gambling just increases overall interest in the activity. Somebody who plays online is no less likely to step into a casino or buy a lottery ticket, and - in fact - a low-level gambling who gets started online might become more willing to try real slots/casinos/etc.
How about on Canadian banking, or at least online payment services. How about arresting the execs of said Canadian company.
I'd say that it's more than just regulation of US banking. Which is beside the point, because even if it was a restriction from say, disallowing any payment to an online ham-merchant from a US bank, it's still an issue of international trade if the government is using it to block German ham merchants.
however, anyone who thinks the usa is special does need a comeuppance: the usa is just as hypocritical as china or russia or india or the majority of every other country in the world. at the same time, that observation is a double edged sword: the usa is no better, and NO WORSE, than these countries. seriously, find a crime the usa does, and tell me the majority of other countries in the world aren't guilty of the same thing
Okay, so the USA is no better and no worse than any other country, they commit crimes that every other country commits as well.
But the USA is better enough that they can take unilateral action to remove governments and bring Democracy to people who never asked for it. So much better, that their intent can be assumed to be just and good, no matter the actual actions taken and their practical effects.
If the contradiction isn't obvious, let me spell it out: The problem is not being better or worse yet at the same time acting as though one is so much better that they can claim moral authority. This is not balanced, this is un-balanced, as in mentally disturbed. Don't deny it, either, as intent has always been your justification for doing what would, for anyone else, be a terrible affront to human dignity. Whereas Russia doing the same thing would get no such pass for "intent". But we're no better or worse, right? Wrong, you have a clear spot of superiority for the U.S., and worst of all this superiority is not in any way connected to actual actions.
Most people who disagree with the USAs actions do not hate the USA. They in fact have a balanced opinion of the USA. They take issue with the actions, not some ephemeral good/bad quality. The U.S. is acting with an assumed moral authority that it simply doesn't have, as a result it's efforts are failing and having the opposite effect of what we supposedly "intend", and that is the problem they are addressing. You see them hating you simply because you don't connect people's opinions with cause/effect.
Imagine Jesus, standing in front of the adultress, telling the gathered crowd "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". Then some dude picks up a rock and chucks it at her, striking her temple and knocking her dead.
The look Jesus and everyone else would have given that guy is the look we're getting from the rest of the world.
The enemies of Democracy are
Yes, we can all see the irony, but few of us are surprised at the continuing hypocrisy of the USA.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
liek any technology: potential for great good and great evil. but that doesn't sop you from using it. with al qaeda fueled by petrodollars, depending upon nuclear power looks pretty attractive. and if someone can make corn grow in the desert, saving people from starvation in say ethiopia, i really don't see how or why anyone could or should have a problem with that
ignoring or suppressing a technological innoation isn't an option. gm food is here to stay and has plenty of good uses, as well as the evil possibilities you imagine. i say, get used to it
i also think it needs a hacker culture. an anticorporate culture that open sources gm food such that poor indians or africans get their orange rice, the rice with vitamin a, for example, without all of monsanto's corporate bullshit evil
but of course, a hacker culture leads to evil uses for gm too: war on people's crops, for example. there's a downside to everything, but the problem isn't gm food, the problem is human nature
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Student exchange programs, cross-border sports leagues, free exchange of cultural art works (movies/tv/books/radio etc).
I would personally like to see a massive (publicly funded) student exchange program. 10% of our students should be studying in foreign countries at any given time, and vice-versa. We need to make certain that our children know that humans are humans everywhere you go. Hatred and ignorance of "foreigners" and nationalist pride should end with our generation.
You're not being deliberatly daft, are you?
What does your examples have anything to do with the used reasoning?
If your country/companies DID allow drinking, porn, drugs, etc. inside your own country, but forbade it when other countries/companies would offer the same services or goods, THEN the WTO would rightfully give a reprimande. This has nothing to do with morals on itself, but with a consistent implementation of the rules of free trade.
In any case, because I suspect you're just trolling: the USA signed up with the WTO and agreed to abide by it's rules and decisions; so fucking abide by it already! If you didn't like to have to abide by WTO rules, you shouldn't have entered it!
"One could argue that making possession of marijuana illegal is also arbitrary since cigarettes and alcohol are also legal."
One most certainly could, indeed. And rightfully so.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
A lot of time we're only on the "wrong side" because those who think the US is always on the wrong side don't know the whole story. Kyoto? An ineffective treaty essentially designed to milk money from the industrialized countries (for example, China is "developing" and Russia gets baselined in the ultra-polluting communist era). I'm sorry we didn't want to sign on to your socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Land mine ban treaty? You practically called us the Devil for not signing that one. It's to save civilians after a conflict, yet the only land mines the US currently uses are in the Korean DMZ, off-limits and meticulously mapped, so the need for the ban falls outside our use of them (we do abide by an earlier treaty restricting their use).
Aside from that, the WTO is usually a bunch of complaints flying back and forth over subsidies and dumping restrictions. We point to Airbus' subsidies, and they point to Boeing's defense contracts as subsidies (although Boeing's profit margin from defense contracts is tiny compared to their civilian sales, and they forget that EADS does defense work too).
But one I think we're on the right side of is case DS160/R, where we actually expanded Fair Use of copyrighted works (like playing a radio in a small restaurant) and the Europeans are complaining about it.
Hmm, the WTO is siding with an island nation against the USA? Something is surely missing from this story, or i'm overlooking something. Or i'm dreaming, or have been transported to an alternate reality.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
"Throw the mob enough bones and they'll be happy; that's the democratic principle."
Well, actually, that's an ancient principle used by that other imperialistic power (who did a far better job at conquering, though); the Roman Empire. The principle is traditionaly known as 'panem et circensis', which litery means 'bread and play'. Thus, the governing elite of that time already knew quite well how to keep the populace at bay; give it food (grain) and entertainment (arena-fights). As long as the hoi palloi could be dulled by those two things, where their stomac was filled and they were kept busy with trivial amusement, they could manipalute the grey masses.
Sadly enough, after 2000 years, we aren't one iota better. While the bread has become 'charity' and the arena-fights 'media-entertainment', the basic principle has remained the same. Of course, this is not limited to USA-politicians, though they have such a high degree of perfection in using this principle to manipulate their citizens, that it has almost become an art on itself.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
it is ok to be proud of being some identity, as long as you recognize that your shared human commonalities are more important than whatever you are proud of
there are, you must admit, people who are proud of being american, or muslim, or whatever, at the expense of the rights of other people. in other words, pride can drive some guy in an italian heritage parade. fine, no problem. pride in special identity is also at the root of the sunni killing the shiite
so pride is kind of like alcohol: only good in low doses. as long as it is limited and contained. as soon as pride thinks to highly of itself, it imagines itself better than other people, simple because of allegiance to a certain tribe. you can overdose on pride, and wind up commiting crime
pride is the root of some good things, but also many bad things
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
prosecute the usa for various crimes, let's put aside the specialness of the usa or the lack therefo for the moment (even though the cold war crimes you enumerate are equalled by the ussr). let's just go with your agenda for the sake of rhetoric
in your mind, what is at the end of all of this prosecution of the usa?
in my mind, the point is to make the world a better place. say tomorrow, "poof", the usa disappeared off the face of the earth. what would change in sudan? in myanmar? in zimbabwe? i nyour mind, the usa going away means that suddenly all of the various problems would magically melt?
see, to me you've lost track of the whole point. to me it seems you wish to prosecute the usa, for the purpose of... prosecuting the usa. what's the point? what problem are you solving? do you have a point?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
light bulbs
I know California passed such a law, which the 10th Amendment allows, but I've never heard the US Congress passing any such law or Pres Bush signing it. Could you please point to me where I can see this law myself?
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's the funny thing about associations like the UN or WTO. They're largely meaningless, and have no real power. If a law or rule is unenforceable, then does it really have any substance? Antigua has no leverage against the US. Nor does the WTO, really. So it's unlikely this will go anywhere. Nor should it.
a guy on a street runs into you. you say "what's your problem!" and he pulls at a gun and he points it at your head and says "i don't a problem here, do you?" you cower in fear, say nothing more, and forget the whole situation
another guy on a street runs into you. you say "what's your problem!" and the guy goes "i'm so sorry, i didn't mean to run into you..." and you proceed to berate and scream at him for hours and sue him in court
that's you. that's your attitude as outlined above
in your world, a human conscience is defined not by the scope of the crime, but is defined by how well the criminal listens to your punishment, regardless of the crime
according to your attitude, a murderer who kills without shame and doesn't listen to your criticisms is ignored, but someone who jay walks and responds to your criticism with shame needs to be pilloried and harassed for years on end
in other words, prosecute those who admit some guilt, who respond to you, and ignore those who admit no guilt at all
that's basically your attitude
nice sense of morality you got there: prosecute whoever responds to my criticisms, ignore anyone who doesn't respond to my criticism, absolutely irregardless of the scale of the crime
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My opinion? Gambling occurs where the gambler sits. If it's in the US, the US has the right (responsibility? nanny state? Let's not go there, eh? That's not the point.) to control what that gambler does.
... No matter.
I don't care where the poker robot is; I don't care where the virtual roulette wheel spins. And I don't care where the node is that links gamblers around the world.
Where the gambler sits is where the gambling occurs. And therein is the jurisdiction.
The fact that gamblers (mostly) are damned fools, that internet gambling is HUGELY vulnerable to scams and fraud, that victims worldwide will have no recourse whatsoever
You gamble from my country, from my state, from my county, from my city: that's the jurisdiction. Taxes too, by the way. And if you get cheated, you can sue in YOUR court, not some flea-bitten island somewhere.
Screw the World Court.
the world is a better place if the usa is considered just another country, by americans AND nonamericans. we can arrive at that by stop thinking of the usa as special. we're well on our way doing that by reflecting upon the usa's recent bad behavior on the world stage. so that is happening already: the normalization of the usa in people's minds, american and nonamerican, away from love, and towards ambivalance (but not all the way to hate)
well, that means you have to stop thinking of the usa as special, as a nonamerican, just as much as the american administration needs to stop thinking they are special and acting arrogant
the usa is populated by human beings. there is nothing special about an american. they are the full equal of a costa rican. there is no higher standard. they are just as weak and just as strong as a costa rican. an american can succeed, with just as much hard effort, and fail, just as easily, as a costa rican. a costa rican has a standard of human behavior, an american has a standard of human behavior, both equally
you apparently need to remember that just as much as an american neocon does
stop thinking of the usa as special. it isn't
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it's not a problem that gets worse every day. it's a constant across all human history. you see something getting worse and worse and worse with human nature. this is historical myopia. but at least the issue with you is one of human nature, and not gm food, which is a tech that shows great promise (and peril too, obviously)
please don't block gm food, lest you squash, for example, plants that deliver vaccines. but go ahead and rail against corporations, with my blessing
attack the bad implementation of tech, not the tech itself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You do realize that most places allow you to produce a certain amount of beer/wine/whiskey/whatever tax free for your own consumption, right?
Yeap, a person can legally make up to 250 gallons of beer, wine, or whatever in the US. Years ago I used to brew and I'd get comments like I was breaking the law when I'd show someone a batch of beer fermenting and hand them a bottle from the batch I just bottled. I still have my equipment and want to get back into brewing, unfortunately I don't have much space now.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I can buy aspirin online, so I should be able to buy herion from offshore sites too, eh? No? Yes?
There's a big difference you are missing. Aspirin is legal, heroin is not. The difference for online gambling, some of which is legal, is where the servers are and where the actual event takes place.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"What the majority of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of the people can be a very dangerous thing."
While true, this is a non-argument. *Exactly* the same can be said of any system consisting of humans that rule other humans.
What a small, chosen elite of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of that oligarchy can be a very dangerous thing.
See?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
?How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
As it has been repeatedly stated it is legal to gamble online, not all types of gambling are illegal. See Gambling Law US.
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
If you had RTFA you would of read, I know this is /. but if people actually read the articles linked to they may learn something, where the admin had tried this tactic but the WTO ruled otherwise: The ruling said that the US had a right to ban online gambling, but sided with Antigua in noting the US was allowing online horse race betting. Horse race betting is gambling so the US does allow online gambling.
FalconShould there be a Law?
and the whole point: both europe and the usa are wrong, so one criticizing the other on this subject matter is pointless and hypocritical
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Online gambling IS NOT illegal in the US. It is perfectly legal to bet, and betting is gambling, on horse races online for instance.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And yet, ugly doesn't mean immoral, or illegal.
Lets look at a few other ugly businesses in the USA.
Lets start with government mandated one. Car insurance. Here is a little story. I've been driving for 15 years. I've paid insurance that entire time. Rougly $27,000. I have made exactly 0 claims. I have been in exactly 0 wreks. I have seen exactly 0 use for that money. But they keep collecting. In fact, if I refuse to pay, they impound my car too.
Now, another business in the US. Pay day loans. Tell me this isn't simple preditation. You've got a class of people that can't stretch their income from one check to the next, so they go to these "service" places and get a high interest, loan. And it's not so bad, at first. But then they miss a payment, or it's late. Now you are paying 30% or more interest, usually on a weekly basis.
Or credit cards, that work basicly the same way.
Or car loans where missing a payment or even being 24 hours late means your interest rate triples or more.
Don't use "ugly" as a standard for business. Business is ugly, the more money, the uglier it gets. Gambling is rather less than predatory, as your involvement in it is entirely your choice. Many of these other businesses compell your involvment thru various ways.
this is about introducing something into a society that has made it illegal
Let me correct that for you:
Falconthis about introducing something into a society that has mde it legal for some and illegal for others
Should there be a Law?
While, seen as a general statement, anyone with common sense will not deny that the USA is not *intrinsical* acting diferently then most other countries, I feel you are a bit to easy going in glaring over the differences of *degree* and *level* at which the USA tries to impose it's will, military, economical and otherwise, on others.
Certainly, other countries do the same, but the degree in which the USA does it, currently dwarfs all other western countries. One has to acknowledge that, while almost all countries have, during one time in their history, had imperialistic tendencies, tho ONLY one who is CURRENTLY pursuing it with so much vigot, is the USA. It's a bit too easy to my taste, to just glare over the things they do, with as excuse that 'oh, well, other countries have done it too, nothing new to see here'.
The current anti-americanism (depending on how you define it) is well deserved, because of two reasons: they are the ones who are most aggressive in their international dealings with other countries *while at the same time* claiming the loudest how other people/countries should behave, while doing the opposite themselves (e.g. they're currently the biggest hypocrites on the block). One would have to look at the last empirialistic empire, the U.K. in the 19th century when they 'rules the waves' to find such a stupifying behaviour with total disregard of other people and countries, and the willingness to solely act as ruler or 'policeman' of the world. I don't see any current european country trying to be the boss of the planet, or acting as if the world is their playground - certainly not with the vigor and zeal that the US shows these last decenia.
Thus, while you may argue: other countries do it or have done it too - which is true - it denies that the level or degree in which you do something matters much. I refute that. It would be akin to saying: "well, all kids are rough" and thus acting as if all rough things kids do are nothing special, when one has one kid giving a kick now and then, and another kid who constantly stomps every other kid around untill they bleed or have broken bones.
Yes, both kids hurt other kids...but I would claim the latter kid is a far greater problem.
The same goes for countries and their behaviour. If you look at the last two decades; who refused to sign the kyoto protocol because they didn't give a damn about our environment (compared to the sweet bucks they got from corporations)? Who was against the creation of an international court? Who was the main instigator and participant of the Iraqi war? Which country is most aggressively condemning countries which seek nuclear power, while they themselves have tons of nukes?
Was it any of those myriads of other countries you claim do the same?
There is no denying that, at least for the last decades, while some countries do some of the same things some of the time, the USA does all of those things all of the time.
There is a difference in degree and level at which countries are flaunting international agreements, being hypocritical in world-affairs, having imperialistic tendencies, trying to coerce other governments in doing their bidding, ivading other countries, etc. The criticism should reflect that degree, and therefor, I don't find it unwaranted per se if the USA gets more criticism for their behaviour than other countries; they currently act the worst too, on the international stage.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Also note that the DEA is an executive branch agency, and is fully permitted under the constitution under the executive branch's enumerated powers.
As for the NEA, I'm not sure about Constitutional authority.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
so as soon as you go across the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the rock of gibraltar, or the ural mountains, human beings cease to exist. it's just a bunch of savages, inferior. north and west of these locations, we have reason, accountability, and morality. but if something like hundreds of thousands are wiped out in africa in genocide, or democracy demonstrators are gunned down in china, or autocratic rule along the lines of organized crime replaces democracy in russia, well i have nothing to say about these things
...at least until it's too late and at my front door, right? you don't live in an ivory tower friend. what happens south of the rio grande and the mediterranean and east of the urals matters to your health and well-being. if this sounds obvious to you, then you need to rephrase the comment you made that i am responding to, because what you wrote above directly contradicts that observation
why?
not my responsibility
that's the essence of your words above
you're the perfect racist nationalist, in your own words: westerners? worry about them! anyone else? fuck 'em, i have nothing to say on the subject, i could care less what happens
listen to me clearly, if you wish to salvage any semblance of a human conscience you once had or pretend to have:
either you apply your morality universally, across the globe, evenly, or you have no sense of morality at all
morality does not fall heavier in washington dc than it does in moscow or beijing. if, in your mind and words and actions it does, then you have no human conscience
you have a western concience
and your western conscience is "i'll take care of my own, and i don't give a shit if the rest of the world goes to hell"
the comment i'm responding to is stupid bordering on irresponsible evil. try to salvage your human conscience, you sheltered western fool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seriously.... if you ask most Americans who havn't really studied the issue, they think of Canada as this crazy state to the north (or a bunch of wacked out states with strange names like Manitoba and Quebec) who has pictures of the Queen of England everywhere and funny looking money. And when Canadians come to the USA to live, they blend into American society so successfully that saying they are from Canada is like saying they are from Virginia or Massachusetts.
Post 9/11 is changing this somewhat (or substantially), but whole communities have been built across the international boundary and have hardly even given the thought that there were national borders at all. Certainly my experience of crossing the U.S./Canadian boundary was mainly coming across a park ranger with a funny looking red coat (being a member of the RCMP) instead of the drab green coats of their American counterparts. The border station was also something out of a Dudly Do-Right cartoon as a log cabin with a wood-burning stove that you had to deliberately go out of your way to get to if you wanted to "legally" cross the border.
Canadians take the relationship with the USA much more seriously and understand the issues to a much better degree... which is why Canada cares about this one issue of imported lumber (or imported beef) much more than Americans would for products going the other way. That and Canada just doesn't seem like a major military or even cultural threat to the USA, except perhaps that most good TV shows are now made there, but that is besides the point.
What is better? Bunch of politicians saying, "We cant allow $this_thing to go on in our civilized society" and proscribing activities? Or people see the consequences of gambling away their nest eggs and forced to beg on the streets and making despo plea for help from the near and dear? If you give the politicians an inch, they take a mile.
Nothing will teach the society gambling is a tax on mathematically challenged till blood suckers come in and suck a few dry openly, publicly and for all to see.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Wrong side? The US passed pro-dolphin laws regarding the netting of tuna. Mexico did not have such laws, and thus their tuna was cheaper. America restricted the importation of mexican tuna as a result. Then mexico applies to the WTO, and we're back to killing dophins again for the sake of business.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
How can you restrict gambling and yet have a stock market?
It was rhetorical ignorance. If you can't see how orgs like the WTO put us on the path to world government, then you just aren't looking. As for your last point, well... we really don't have a free trade agreement from the WTO anymore than we have a "don't fight wars" agreement from the UN. Both organizations are pretty much in the same category--a bunch of elitists who think they can fix problems, creating other problems in the process.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The idea that an allofmp3 clone may result from this sounds kind of attractive. I hope the US remains blind and arrogant in this so we can all bask in Antigua's retaliatory measures. Bugger gambling.
Also note that the DEA is an executive branch agency, and is fully permitted under the constitution under the executive branch's enumerated powers.
Can you please point to me where the USA Constitution gives the president the authority to create the DEA? I don't recall this permission so going through the COnstitution the only authority I see being given to the president is:
Article II. - The Executive Branch
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No matter how many tyme I read and search it I see nowhere where the DEA is authorized or where the president is given the authority to create it.
Beyond that, I don't see what the DEA has to do with a national law banning incandescent light bulbs. Did they suddenly become drugs?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Right there.
As for the light bulbs, they are one of the three items mentioned in the OP; the other two were the NEA and the DEA.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
I still don't see any authority for the DEA. If youy want to say that gives the president the right to create the DEA then you must also agree it also gives the power to create the Gestapo. Oops, strike that, that's rather redundent.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It is telling that even foreign governments see that the US government is so in bed with the record labels and movie studios that the best way to get back at said government is to go after the record labels and movie studios. Antigua gets a +1 insightful mod from me.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The democrats recently stated this was one of their working goals. I guess it is modeled after Australia's efforts and not California's. I also understand that California's law was struck down by a court for some reason.
The democrats recently stated this was one of their working goals. I guess it is modeled after Australia's efforts and not California's. I also understand that California's law was struck down by a court for some reason.
Oh gosh, I hope the Dems don't try to do something like this. Instead of banning incandescent lights what they should do, if anything, is to encourage conservation. Say stop subsidizing power companies and allow the market to set prices.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Or are you honestly having difficulties in the US with things like:
- Finding clean drinking water
- Finding food to eat
- Ongoing Civil Wars
- Your local warlord
- Political corruption (and, no, I'm not talking about accusations about preferential treatment for government contracts, I'm talking about, "Pay me a bribe, or I will kidnap and rape your daughter")
- Pervasive infections in humans of diseases considered to have been controlled long ago (TB, cholera, etc.)
- etc.?
If not, let's cool off on making statements like "The US has become aP.S. Take care not to trip over the ant trail of people sneaking into the US for a better life.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You must be blind, or willfully ignorant. Congress authorized the DEA by law.
That's a crock. Talk to someone who was alive in Germany during WWII. You belittle how bad things really were then.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I propose a solution:
Problem solved...the Aussies can teach the Pacific Islanders to play real football and we'll all live happily ever after.
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
That's a crock. Talk to someone who was alive in Germany during WWII. You belittle how bad things really were then.
I did meet someone who was alive in Germany during WWII. Or at least she was in one of the camps. The numbers branded in her arm were still quite legible. Though she survived not all of her family did.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.