Slashdot Mirror
NBC Believes They Own Political Discourse
PoliSciASU writes "MSNBC has established draconian rules regarding the use of the Presidential Primary Debates on the internet. Some examples: '5. No excerpts may be aired after 8:30 pm on Saturday, May 26th. Excerpts may not be archived. Any further use of excerpts is by express permission of MSNBC only. 6. All debate excerpts must be taped directly from MSNBC's cablecast or obtained directly from MSNBC and may not be obtained from other sources, such as satellite or other forms of transmission. No portions of the live event not aired by MSNBC may be used.' Kevin Bondelli talks about why this is 'shameful and wrong'. Voters are missing out on the ability to actually have an engaged conversation about the candidates and their debate performances because of NBC's greed." Alexander Wolfe at InformationWeek and Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine share similar sentiments, and discuss the matter in different ways.
Remember kids, A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>Fair Use!
No first posts may be posted after 8:30 pm on Saturday, April 28th. Excerpts may not be archived. Any further use of excerpts is by express permission of Slashdotmember n3wsbyt3 only.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Well, they've paid for it so it is not too unreasonable. Besides, I thought big business allready owned US politics.
So wont watch. Up yours MSNBC. They can go stuff it where the sun don't shine. Then I will look for it on YouTube!!!! LOLZ!!!!
I once lived in a country with a very muzzled press, but everybody knew this and was suitably skeptical.
In the USA people live under the illusion of a free and open press which means that they believe the news media. How easily they are fooled!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Adaptation of existing contractual usage rights...
Not here to defend NBC or MSNBC; however, if you look at the industry standard wording for usage of their content is exactly this.
This applies to CNN using content from the debate to any Radio show across america. The exception here is that this debate was not on free air waves, so they are using industry standard usage right sharing policies.
Yes they need to update with the times of Internet and people sharing media, but out of ALL the major news outlets NBC and MSNBC have been some of the most liberal about usage on places from Youtube to grandma's website.
Even Olbermann himself said in the segment prior to the debate that the internet would create the winners and losers of the debate if anything major happened, as it would be shared and up on sites like YouTube before the night was out. So do you really think MSNBC doesn't get it?
Ya, the wording isn't ideal, but if this was a 'major' issue with MSNBC, they would have had places like YouTube yank Olbermann and other shows a long time ago, and they just haven't.
I know we like to get excited about things like this here, but I see smoke not fire.
Who cares? Politics is for the Elderly, white middle-aged middle-class, and twelve other people. And then half of them vote. Although, perhaps we shouldn't blame the media...
Are the voters are missing out on the ability to demand that the candidates not accept this? You have almost a month to be heard, and felt if you watch where you spend your money.
What?
I used to think these televised debates were a good idea until I watched the debates between Gore and Bush. For anyone watching the first debate it was blatently obvious that Bush was totally and utterly out of his depth and could not possibly be considered a credible candidate. Gore was devoid of charisma but was at least informed and coherent. Yet by the time the third debate came round the much of media had managed to portray Bush's lack of awareness and knowledge as a good thing(tm) because he was 'trying' and that Gore was a pompous arrogant know it all because he happened to be properly informed with facts and figures and could substantiate his responses. Utterly astonishing. It seems the debates themselves are irrelevant now and its the media circus that follows them that matters.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Who is going to do the dirty work? There is still an audience. One video camera will render this nonsense moot. Personally, I would prefer the complete video that a private citizen would most likely post opposed to the "talking points" the media would feed us.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
It's not as if they just walked in, set up cameras, and said "we'll be running these debates -- everyone else out NOW!!"
If they have this extreme level of control that basically means they *paid* for it, somehow, and outbid everyone else.
Or did they just ask all the candidates nicely?
Personally, I think this should be illegal. The output of our political process should be public domain immediately. Tax payers are paying the salaries already of most of these candidates, and funding the rest of the election process. If MSNBC wants to pay the costs of running the debates -- hey, sure, let them put their logo on the podiums or whatever, but the content of the debates themselves should not be permitted to be sold.
Pre-election debates are one of the single best ways for the public to actually get a sense of who they'll be voting for... they aren't perfect, but we at least get some back and forth, and some of the more difficult questions get raised.
I don't know much about how the debates are set up currently, but this just isn't working.
It should not qualify for copyright protection. It is not an "entertainment performance". It is not a play, it is not a television show, it is not a pundit special. What candidates say is newsworthy and anyone should be able to record their own footage or for logistical reasons MSNBC may record it on their own but they should not be able to claim copyright over the footage of a newsworthy event or else other news organizations and journalists of all stripes including bloggers should be free to record their own versions , whether openly or secretly. This is not an entertainment performance, it is not a professional sporting event, this is a political debate and the public owns it.
How does a recording of a debate by our presidential candidates in which there is no other content other than the debate itself and the MSNBC is simply acting as the host and moderator qualify as a creative work that is eligible for copyright?
In addition, is not the debate itself newsworthy and therefore not an entertainment event that could be restricted as to who may record it or later show it.
Who is this "dubya" you say is president of NBC?
Is he related to FUD-ya?
You mixed a couple of things up. They're enforcing their copyright on their production of the debate. They don't say YOU are restricted from something YOU make with your resources. The rub has to do with recording the broadcast from their sources.
It's interesting they're trying to claim nobody can record from digital sources. In my case, I only have DirecTV with local stations. What about digital cable? How many people really use OTA analog?
There's actually a very, very simple solution to this: C-SPAN
They have some kind of reuse rules similar to creative commons and host lots of video on their site.
Somehow they also believe that a system where one of two groups has controlled the government for the last 150 years is an open multi-party system.
It's ironic this incenses people so... these are debates between candidates already vetted by those in control. The powers that be don't care which one gets elected... they own them all!
I was under the impression that any government work was paid for by tax dollars and was therefore covered under public domain laws. Surely the taping of an event does not, by some magical feat, erase the fact that it is a government production, and ergo the public may use any footage of it as they please?
The when, where, and how of primary and presidential debates are decided by committees. Those committees can negotiate the conditions of the debates and the ownership of the audio/video material.
I suspect that the conditions for the democratic primaries are decided by some committee in the DNC. So, the people to complain to in this case are in the DNC. If the next debates are held and released under the same restrictions, then you have your answer: the DNC either doesn't care or prefers it this way. Same for the RNC.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the DNC and RNC prefer the debate videos to be tightly controlled. The idea of hundreds of debate clips showing up on YouTube and being analyzed and discussed almost certainly scare the political control freaks in those organizations, and this way, they think they have at least some means by which they could stamp out unflattering uses of that video content.
Oh, f*cking great!
Apple and EMI finally agree to remove DRM from music, and then MSNBC slips it into the political process! I bet they degrade any discourse during the debate that isn't flagged to agree with their editorial policy while allowing "Their Guy's" sound bites to remain unprotected and at full quality.
Well, at least the music is entertaining.
Now you can spin whatever story without fearing that someone might rewind and play again to see in the next election that you bullshitted them. Nobody can prove it anymore, nobody can hold it against you that you are afraid of nukular weapons or that you invented the internet. It simply won't exist anymore. Except, of course, in stories and pages picking at you, but it's easy to discount them as slander and propaganda.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Right, they're only limiting your use of their recordings of the debates, but I'm willing to bet that MSNBC camera crews are the only ones allowed at these debates. So how is that not the same thing? Other than legally, of course. Slimy lawyers.
I have to agree with the other posters. Their commentary, analysis, and anything else they really produced should be protected by their copyrights, but video of what the politicians say/do should be either public domain or under one of the Creative Commons Licenses. Either that, or they should not be allowed to restrict anybody with a camera from showing up. This really should be a part of the campaign laws.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
How easily they are fooled!
Shhh! Don't tell them that. They get really mad. (You had to be there). Basically it boils down to people not liking to be told they were robbed. It makes them feel dumb. So then they get all defensive and stuff and...well, you know.
Anyway let's hope enough people raise their voices sufficiently to be heard by these folks. There's still time.
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luth er_King%2C_Jr.%2C_Inc._v._CBS%2C_Inc.
True. Read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2063979,00.h tml
My web domain.
MSNBC is a partnership between Microsoft and NBC, yet all the comments are slagging NBC and no one says a word about M$. I find this astounding behaviour for /.
What was once true, is no longer so
Perhaps someone should buy the domain www.2007presidentialdebate.com and host the debate in its entirety. Wait for the pulldown notices to come in, and then start a brouhaha to get more public attention about this issue.
In the industry, this is called an "embargo", and it is absolutely typical. MSNBC owns their broadcast of the debate (under copyright law, they're the "creator" of the "creative work"), and these embargoes establish the degree to which they're willing to share their footage with other media outlets, for the sole reason that they depend on others sharing their work with MSNBC under similar terms. That it is a political news event is irrelevant -- similar terms would be used for coverage of breaking news, sports events, etc.
If anything, it's notable that MSNBC is willing to allow use by websites at all. A few years ago, there would be no such terms discussed, or there'd be a simple "no posting online".
If the terms were "take all you want and do what you want with it", the prevailing thinking is that anyone could broadcast or post the event in its entirety, without paying a dime, which would be a severe disincentive to MSNBC's production of it in the first place, which in turn would mean that all the MSNBC staffers and freelancers would be out of a job.
Full disclosure: I worked for CNN for 3.5 years.
America is not a 2 party system... and yet it is...
It's all a show folks. Buy into it if you want, but nothing is going to change.
If I had mod points...
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
I think the best way to get even^w around this would have someone do a cartoon version of the debates using a transcription and make all the candidates look incredibly stupid.(i.e, like the Saturday night live cartoon short "fun with real audio") If this clip would get popular enough I bet the candidates would start wanting the actual footage to have been shown especially if it was noted in the cartoon version.
The media has become much more corrupt since the Bush administration began illegally buying influence. See the links provided at #2 here: The Bush administration found support for war through manipulation.
I've often heard the "it doesn't matter which major party I vote for, they're the same" line. Baloney and Fiddlesticks! Just a weak rationalization from those too lazy to exercise their responsibilities as citizens I say.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry? Personally I won't give Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporate media illuminati club that much fnord credit.
"They" care who gets elected as it touches their bottom line in a real way when, say, the governement tells you that you have to, in one case, clean up your residential toxic waste dump, or in the other case it looks the other way by (the illegal) non-enforcement of laws already on the books.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
I have one name and two numbers for you -
Obama '08
If you think this will be the same country when we elect the first African-American President, then I guess nothing will shake your beliefs.
Read his book - "The Audacity of Hope."
He is different. Give him a chance.
Peace.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
A presidential debate is not a pro sporting event
On the other hand, only in America could professional wrestling reach the heights of popularity it (supposedly) has. Yes, I'm already aware of the critical mass moron factor.
The wonderful thing is that many people now realize this. 6 years ago you would have been lumped in with the tin-foil hat conspiracy nut crowd
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
I'm rooting for Pelosi '07, personally.
'Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry?'
YES. especially if it was president kerry.
what major differences do you think there would've been?
Web Design
Pfft. It's Saturday morning here in THE REAL WORLD! Oh, crap. Sorry, went into Southern-American mode there for a moment..
MSNBC's debate video use restrictions are bad business -- for MSNBC.
In their shoes I'd be encouraging everyone and anyone to use that video all over the damn place, either full-length or as a series of excerpts.
Of course, I'd also put an "MSNBC" logo as a watermark on every frame -- in either the lower-left or upper-right corner so it wouldn't get covered up by the "YouTube" (or whatever video hosting service) logo that would cover it if it was placed in the lower-right corner.
This would be major FREE ADVERTISING FOR MSNBC!!!
Imagine millions of people who have been ignoring MSNBC suddenly finding out -- through those watermarks -- that MSNBC carries substantive, public service programming.
"Can you say, 'more viewers,' boys and girls?"
Sadly, this is only an exercise in imagination. In real life, NBC management and lawyers are too stupid to take advantage of this major FREE marketing opportunity.
And people wonder why old-line media companies are losing their audience and their influence...
- Robin
Stifling the free distribution of information, depriving the public of debate...anything to avoid debating on Fox News.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Those in Control" is basically an old-boy network in each party, which is influenced (in each case) by legal (and sometimes illegal) bribery. The members of this network also have some (limited, almost by definition) independent will of their own.
Also, I think they wouldn't like it if Mike Gravel got in, and he was on the stage... probably just allowed up there because he's a maverick they figure can never win, though. (Which he knows, of course.)
MSNBC has established draconian rules regarding the use of their coverage of the Presidential Primary Debates on the internet.
There you go.
Now if theirs is the only coverage that exists, then I humbly suggest that that is the real issue here. Important, planned events should be recorded by multiple independent parties; allowing anything else is just plain wrong.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
However, would you agree with the following sentence?
Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered,- the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!
If you're not voting third party, you're wasting your vote.
If you don't vote what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
The people elect the government they deserve.
Two options is only one more than they had in the Soviet Union.
Every November the same party wins: the Politician Party.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
It amazes me that for all the talk of reform and eliminating corruption in government, no one ever addresses the fundamental issue: lack of choices, which is caused directly by our (plurality) voting method. Give non-Dem/Rep voices a fair and equal chance to discuss and promote the merits of their platform instead of dismissing them outright. This means changing the voting system to something that doesn't predetermine the "leading two". Anything other than this is a charade. A previous poster had it right - "they" don't care who wins, because it's still one of "them". The real danger (in "their" minds) is if an outsider were to get in and shake things up. Yes, the past 6 years have really demonstrated the truth in "not a dime's worth of difference". Who'd've thought that a member of the "party of Reagan" would preside over the largest budget increase in history? Both parties want bigger government, so they can curtail your rights - whether they grab them from the left or the right makes no difference in the end.
Constitutionally Correct
It seems like every debate about effectively everything on Slashdot eventually becomes 'religion=the suxor'. Now, I'm a lapsed Catholic, so I suppose I'm not the best person to be defending religion, but it still seems odd that religion-bashing has become a more common tactic than Hitler-comparing.
Thats because the media controls it, decides what we do and dont see/hear.. yep, they own it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It really doesn't matter if you vote Republican or Democrat. It's like voting for one communist party or another. The only vote that matters are the votes that aren't for either a Republican or Democrat.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Notice that they are trying to claim the right to prohibit *any* use of material from the unencrypted satellite feeds they transmit this over. There is no essential difference between that and if they had said you can use clips from MSNBC but not from an NBC affiliate station and that's definately a new claim.
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
A Slight Modification
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1895 declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of decision, however California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly under certain special situations. This subject is explored more fully in the book, JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine , pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad
And you wonder why political weblogs on both the Left and Right have exploded in popularity. Everybody has a major mistrust of the old-time mass media because at Internet speeds, information can spread around the world in a matter of minutes. Look at how weblogs exposed CBS News' sham attempt to show President Bush didn't do his duty at the Texas Air National Guard in no time flat.
The answer to this is not attempting to modify MSNBC's behavior from being yet another corporation that only thinks of profits, which is of course probably true, but rather simply to make it clear that you will not vote for anyone who would willingly allow the American political discourse to be "owned" by anyone. Require that your candidates will only receive your votes if they do not participate in an event in which the "message" is controlled. Make the candidates complicity in rigged events an issue. Another approach is to test the boundaries of exactly what it is MSNBC paid for to permit them to claim that "other sources" (presumably video) at the event can be used. Did they pay the University for exclusive use of the hall? Did the administrator actually have the rights to grant exclusive access on state property, etc? Let MSNBC tarnish its public image (if that is possible) by going after you in court. Investigate and expose the complicity; enlighten your fellow citizens.
Better yet start a grass roots video campaign to cover the candidates independent of corporate media that can appear on YouTube or other such alternative media (as I recall someone had a Makaka moment over this kind of coverage) and put control back into the hands of the American people (although don't jump to the conclusion they would be wise enough to know what to do with it eg. "Mistakes were made!" [picture Bush voters with heads bowed in shame here]). It might just displace "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" for public attention. You could even restrict rights by corporations to the material without payment for use that could be used to support the effort.
The general topic is worthy of discussion. Just how far are candidates willing to go to prostrate themselves before the media overlords? Just how far will the overall media circus atmosphere evolve toward full media ownership as Ruppert Murdoch proposed.
Don't you think that we need more anti-christian (and religion in general) backlash? I sure do. Religion is a big reason we have Bush. The hypocracy of american Christians is mindblowing.
Well, the most obvious one that comes to mind is that if Gore had won, a) we wouldn't be in Iraq and b) we'd still have standing in the international community.
Off the top of my head, a few examples of major things that would've been different if Bush hadn't become U.S. President:
- We wouldn't be in Iraq (probably still in Afghanistan though). The troops would have had a CinC that had actually seen combat in Vietnam (and would supposedly eager to avoid making the same mistakes).
- The federal budget would've been a helluva lot more balanced (especially if the Congress had remained in Republican hands).
- The U.S. government wouldn't be regarded with contempt by most of the rest of the world, including many of our "allies".
- There probably wouldn't have been such a big emphasis on torture & "extraordinary rendition" as part of our response to 9/11 (see #3 for partial results of that).
- The Supreme Court wouldn't have had a couple more big-business apologist, social-moral-enforcing, excuses for jurists.
- The various federal agencies wouldn't have been populated with a bunch of incompetent neocon political tools.
I'm sure even YOU could think of a couple others if you're willing to put some thought into it rather than a stupid knee-jerk "they're all the same!" response.Kerry could have just stayed in the White House & picked his nose for his entire term, and the country would've been better off than it is now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember that the debates are ran by a joint R and D controlled group that excludes third party candidates. There is no real debate. The Libertarian and Green presidential candidates were arrested while trying to attend the 2004 debates: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=40843
He's just as corrupt as the rest of 'em, he just puts a better face on it than most these days.
- rez23.article
Obama has been a quiet part of the corrupt democrat political machine in Chicago for over a decade. Need convincing? Take a look at his long term relationship with Tony Rezko:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS
When asked about it, I'm sure he'll claim ignorance of the crimes that were going on in his district, being committed by some of his staunchest supporters.
There is a a debate videos page from the Commission for Presidential Debates, but all it does is offer links to the C-SPAN store and a list following:
Back in 2004, I contacted the Commission for Presidential Debates and suggested that they make the debates available via BitTorrent, but they didn't understand the technology and were reluctant to download software that they trust to even figure out what I was trying to suggest to them. Of course, even if they did understand it, and actually buy into the idea of hosting the torrents from their site, they probably wouldn't have been able to follow through because of restrictions like the one that this article is about.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
Politics in the US goes all the way from M to N. It's that far apart, and right in the middle.
Whether you think it matters *is* a matter of perspective.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Oh come on. Obama doesn't stand a chance. My vote is for Hilary today, but that may change depending on how Edwards progresses.
The video maybe should be freely shareable, but legally, NBC holds the copyright to their video. Nobody holds the copyright to the debate itself.
It is not the same thing, in that a transcript or recording made without involving NBC's works would not be subject to NBC copyright. (Small solace, I know)
I believe that given the choice between two candidates who supported the IRAQ war and the PATRIOT act (ie bush and kerry), "it doesn't matter which major party I vote for". Sure the Bush administration is worse than a Kerry administration, but they were substantially different enough for me, and I am not too lazy to excercise my right to vote. People don't seem to notice that the anti-evil candidate is also an evil candidate. I have voted for Nader since 2000. Btw Nader got 5.5 million votes in 2000 and he *still* has not been allowed into a debate. The issues which he's talking about demilitarization, health care, free education, etc are not even allowed to be mentioned in the official debates, because there is an alternative.
We did not hear Bush and Kerry debate over how to get out of Iraq. They were talking about how to wage war. We will never be safe by waging war. Safety only comes from making friends, and the warmongers Bush AND KERRY have assured that we have a long road ahead of us to turning the survivors of our insane military agenda into friends.
MSNBC doesn't get it and they are desperate.
The reason they do not care their content is out there is because they are desperately trying to gain viewiers; they have some of the worst ratings in network news and have been falling for a long time.
I won't be able to watch eight meglomaniacs, who all took their own private jets to the debate, preach to me that I have to live in an unpowered hut and hide there all day to save the planet while they prance about the country in gas guzzling tax tractors.
Our system is such that all politicians are batshit insane. They're just alpha control freaks. They get a psychological buzz from knowing they had an effect on parts of your life they have no Constitutional (or moral) right to do so. They are the ultimate version of the homeowner's association president.
Who needs Hillary's banshee wail? Who needs Obama's arc of the moral universe, which, I think, is a constellation visible from the Southern Hemisphere? Kerry? AGAIN? Haven't you people had enough of that giant douche? Or was he the turd sandwich? I forget. Might as well get Supreme Scientist Gore in there again so the new Futurama episodes can fellate him some more.
News reporters are pretty faces quoting so-called experts:
"Hey, kids. Let's go to the think tank and tease the pundits!"
Or staging poorly planned stunts:
Michelle Kosinski paddled a canoe in ankle deep water.
Geraldo Rivera drew tactical maps in the sand.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
parent has a 3 digit uid, mod him up!
The election is a year-and-a-half away. Everyone just shut up about it until the summer of '08 and do something more worthwhile with your time. You'll still have more than enough time to beat every conceivable topic to death, I promise, you just won't be boring people to death by drawing it out for a year too long.
16% of our GDP is spent on healthcare (should be 11%, like the UK or Canada)
31% of healthcare budget is spent on administrative costs (as opposed to 16% in Canada. Could be waaaay lower with use of technology and insurance reform - the second REQUIRES governent intervention)
84% of US citizens are covered by health insurance (should be 100%, again, like in the UK, Canada, Australia - just about every first world nation)
I've lived in Australia, Canada and the US - and have experienced first-hand all of their healthcare systems. Australia was - hands down - the best. I got the care I needed and paid nothing. Emergency room visit? US$45!! US emergency room visit for same problem? US$450. All of that went to insurance. PRIVATE insurance, mind you.
Besides empty rhetoric, what experience do you have? What stats do you have to back up that it could be worse? What good and practical reasons would you have for denying 16% of fellow US citizens basic healthcare? If the Canadian system sucks because it is "socialized" then why do they spend less on healthcare and yet insure a higher percentage of their people? If we could lower the administrative costs through insurance reform and a national databank of healthcare information, we could insure the remaining 16% with no other changes whatsoever. That doesn't even scratch the surface of reducing fraud (The state of Tennesee loses 54M a year in drug fraud (BCBSTN) - a simple webpage where nurses could share information cut that in half in a single year). Guess who had to push BlueCross to do it? That's right... the government. Because BlueCross was making money off of the fraud! All they had to do was charge higher premiums to everyone to cover the cost, and write it off. Fuck your broken system.
Don't fault this diatribe for being about one single sentence in your argument... the fact that you spout such nonsense without knowing the facts throws all of your conclusions in a suspicious light.
Whore Yourself... @ http://whorapedia.com/
Why aren't debates presented on C-SPAN? Shouldn't this be part of what it's FOR?
+++ATH0
Hype and speculation!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
From a Constitutional perspective, this is good and bad. Constitutional analysis generally hinges on text, history, policy and precedent. Article 1 section 8 clause 8 (IP clause) would definitely support NBC's position. Further, the First Amendment would arguably dictate that NBC cannot be compelled to "speak" through the disclosure of its "expressive" production. The history also supports NBC, news organizations have nearly always charged for their political coverage, so the framers arguably had this in mind.
However, the values or policy behind the First Amendment run up against those of the IP Clause in this instance.
There are two competing policies at issue here.
1. The goal of a fully informed voting public.
2. The goal of incentivising the production and distribution of political information.
The "marketplace of ideas" and "good government" theories are recurrent in First Amendment jurisprudence. Requiring dissemination would add information to the marketplace of ideas and provide for good government through a well informed electorate. Two other policy factors are relevant, political speech is the most protected form under the First Amendment and monopolies on political information should be highly scrutinized. The policy side seems to be weighted in favor of unrestricted distribution.
The precedent would tend to view the copyright act as a facially neutral generally applicable law with only incidental effects and therefore, regardless of the political nature, valid. For example, in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. a Republican campaign worker provided documents relating to criminal charges against a Democratic candidate. Cohen did so under a contract for confidentiality. When the Tribune found out the Democrat's charge was merely for participation in a political protest, the paper published the fact that Cohen provided the information. Cohen sued and won. The Supreme Court upheld the award over a First Amendment challenge because the theory of Minnesota law Cohen won on was generally applicable. The point is, the information at issue was very relevant to the political process but could be regulated regardless. (note that Cohen is a press clause case as opposed to a free speech case). The same is true of copyright law, it is only an incidental regulation and is generally applicable because it does not target political speech.
Ultimately, if the NBC video showed up on YouTube, an argument could be made that it should not be protected by copyright. The argument would boil down to the policy of promoting political news coverage versus the need for disemination of that coverage. Applying copyright law here is both good and bad (don't forget Slashdotters the GPL is a copyright).
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
Well at least MSNBC has his picture amongst ten other Rs. This may be as close as we get to a 3rd-party. Might actually watch this one.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry?
No one who is "fashionably cynical" about the major parties has an answer for this when I ask them, and for good reason.
+++ATH0
I wish more people would agitate for IRV for national elections, but I think even if a majority of the country knew what it was it would be next to impossible to get Congress to vote for it.
+++ATH0
Point 4 is one of the nicest trolls I've seen in a long time. Good work.
I understand the law about it, I just don't think our election laws should allow the candidates to have their debates at closed venues. Unless I'm completely wrong and other organizations are going to be allowed to film it. Candidates' debates and speeches should be public domain, just as the speeches of our elected leaders is. I do understand that the video taken by CNN may still be copyrighted, but dozens of legitimate press organizations are allowed to cover, film, and photograph the events. Granted people have to get a white house press pass, etc., but there is legal recourse for being denied that access. The same rules should apply for election campaigns. Since they obviously don't, this is something we should look at changing. That's all I'm trying to say.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
if you don't like it why don't you sponsor your own debate? there's nothing "draconian" about it. it's ok for media producers to have some control over their product. stop acting like this is wrong. i'm sure if you were making some coin over your own media production you'd find it wise to protect that source of income, especially when there is a high overhead involved in it. i just love the slashfucks who think they're above making a buck when they're living in their mother's basement.
the fact that we have someone who has the fact that their a poli-sci major as part of their nick shows how far off base slashdot has gone over the last few years. this same bitch who's crying about a company making a profit and calling it draconian is probably going to college on my dime. get a house and job and tell me how much making a profit sucks.
The debate analyzers knew a lot of people vote for a candidate's platform, not the candidate.
Here we have a broadcaster willing to broadcast the debate to the entire universe for FREE: YouTube. I blame the political parties for giving exclusive license to a twentieth century media outlet. But that's not the worst of their evils -- that would be excluding candidates who want to uphold the Constitution, such as Ron Paul.
I beg to differ, dude.
Obama is now even with Hillary at 32%, according to a recent poll I saw. I'd be supporting Hillary in a minute if it wasn't for Senator Obama. It's going to be an interesting primary season.
We'll see who shakes out.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Kerry? AGAIN? Haven't you people had enough of that giant douche?
Kerry dropped out. Over his 'joke' (ok, expression of reality)
hey AC - political affiliation? Hmmm... let me guess - not a Democrat. Thought so.
After RTA, it looks like a lot of hot air, and goes back to the time when the Senator was a junior lawyer. When you are starting out as a lawyer, you don't pick and choose what you work on - you just do it or they find another lawyer to replace you.
Looks like a shill story to me.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Agreed - let's do that!
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Maybe oters should hold candidates accountable for agreeing to these sorts of rules.
here's the debate http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18296908/
I suggest you be the one to start the revolution. Edit the video, remove the rainbow peacock and make a torrent. Your efforts will be heralded by the our future citizens, your name firmly affixed in the pages of history.
Rawr!
Terrorists know they can't actually destroy their more powerful enemies; they intend to provoke a reaction which will garner sympathy for their cause. Invading and occupying unrelated countries like Iraq plays right into their hands. The federal budget would be no more balanced than it is today So you don't think the war (increased spending) and the tax cuts (decreased revenue) have anything to do with the huge deficit? we'd have let [go] pretty much everybody who commits any kind of crime. The only people who'd get jailed are corporate execs who defrauded people as well any white person convicted of crime against any non-white person. Oh, sorry, you're clearly trolling. My mistake taking you seriously. The various federal agencies would have been populated with a bunch of incompetent bleeding-heart political tools. Remove the words "bleeding-heart", and that's exactly what we have now. Heckuva job there.
1. We would be fighting on US soil, terrorist suicide bombers become the norm here too. ....who couldn't even get a blowjob while on the job.
2. Priceless - you think spending depends on who is in office, holy Christ batman.
3. The reason SOME of the rest of the world is pissed is that THEY are not getting everything THEY demand from the USA. We are allowed to seek our interest.
4. Lots more westerners heads cut off, libs ok with that, dont condemn terrorists.
5. Your guy just voted to restrict abortion.
6.
I can't confidently say what Gore would have done after 9/11; I'm not even sure that Gore could, frankly. I can say that you seem to be displaying a "black and white" mentality very common with right wingers nowadays. You're either with us or against us. You either support the President or you're spitting on the troops like some kind of treasonous bastard. The false dichotomy I see in this point is "the president is either willing to start wars at the drop of a hat, or he's a cowardly eunuch who doesn't understand the basic principle of "don't give in to terrorism."
But, provisionally, let's say your black and white view of the situation is right. Let's say that Gore is a fucking pussy, and that he wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11. I think that's very unlikely, but for the sake of argument I'll run with it. (For the record I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan even though its later execution was botched, largely because of resource diversion due to Iraq as far as I can tell). What would have happened on a global scale after such a non-reaction? Would it have been a disaster of subsequent attacks as you say? I don't think so, and my reasons for saying so are based on my current understanding of how terrorism works. If I've made any mistakes in my analysis, please point them out so I can improve my understanding of the current geopolitical situation.
I think that Islamist terrorists are comprised of two basic groups. There's a very small group of fanatics who are fundamentally evil, and want to kill as many innocent people as possible in order to further whatever their agenda might be. This includes things like (1) Establishing a global Islamic state, (2) Destroying Israel, (3) Removing US bases from the Middle East, (4) Getting revenge for actions the US has taken like overthrowing the Shah of Iran, imposing trade sanctions on Iraq and supporting Israel for decades. I've probably missed a few, but that's okay because new reasons crop up every day because of US actions in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay and the CIA's secret prisons in Europe, etc.
Now, this very small group of people may be crazy and evil, but they're not (as a rule) stupid. They know that they can't win a real war because modern warfare requires large armies and high technology (neither of which they have), so their only option is to use desperate tactics like suicide bombers. But they can't suicide bomb places themselves (because otherwise the movement would end very quickly), so they have to recruit dupes to do that for them. I think that the vast majority of suicide bombers and "Al Qaeda fighters" we hear about so often fall into this second category. They're impressionable young men who may not be fundamentally evil or psychotic, but they're morons who have grown up in a world steeped in hatred, and probably nurse anger towards the US and our allies because, say, a US bomb fell on their house and killed their family. Or any number of different tragedies, really, not all of them related to the US.
What this means, as far as I can see, is that terrorism depends crucially on the discontent of the populace in the country where they're operating and recruiting. If society sees them as saviors against a Great Satan, then their only real resource- idiotic, violent, gullible young males filled with bitter hatred- is plentiful. People want to shelter them, to further their efforts as "freedom fighters". If society sees them as a bunch of bloodthirsty killers of women and ch
I'm not the OP, but I feel compelled to tell you that that was rude, vitriolic, and uncalled for. And it you want to be a pedantic asshole, it's spelled "English."
they have some of the worst ratings in network news and have been falling for a long time.
Every since they divorced MS, their ratings have been climbing significantly. Several time slots beating the downward movement of Fox.
Forgive my asking but where exactly does it say MSNBC are the only ones allowed to record this?
Rather than assuming they are, how about we go with the assumption they're not? At that point:
If you want to record your own damn footage, go ahead.
MSNBC are being helpful and sharing the footage they paid for a camera crew to go to, they paid for the equipment to record, they paid to make available. All they're saying is, "If you want to use the footage that we went to all of this expense for, please credit us and don't broadcast it against the slot we intend to use to make that money back and hopefully, in an entirely American way, make a profit from too."
Is it really wrong to ask for credit for something you put money in to the creation of?
Is it really wrong to say, "Hey, you're welcome to share - just not at the one time we're hoping to leverage our investment."?
Is it really wrong to say, "Please take the original stream rather than post compression or rebroadcast in a way that might interfere with those rebroadcasters' policies."?
If you get over the assumption that they have some kind of monopoly - and it appears to just be an assumption - the company giving away their work with minimal practical restrictions, whilst letting you still record your own version if you don't like them, is hardly the most heinous crime known to man.
Of course it's always more fun to assume the worst. But then you know what they say about "assume"
No, Bush's extravagant spending on Iraq vastly outweighs anything that a democratic President might have done. The federal deficit wouldn't be nearly what it is now if Gore had become President.
As for socialized medicine, even if a Gore administration had gone the whole route, which is not clear, the consequences would not be what you describe. The Canadian medical system has its faults, but overall it is vastly better medical system than the United States has. The US not only fails to provide adequate medical care to millions of citizens, it spends more than necessary because, without access to regular medical care, when the poor do get medical care, they tend to get it in emergency rooms, which are much more expensive to run than ordinary clinics, and they are much sicker and therefore more expensive to treat.
Your claim that people won't find it worthwhile to become physicians is ludicrous. Canadian physicians may not make as much as those in the US, but they still make salaries that pay off their educational expenses. Moreover, although some people do go into medicine for the money, social status, and lifestyle, many people go into medicine out of a desire to help other people and/or interest in the subject. There are more than enough of the latter to provide a sufficient supply of physicians. Reducing physician pay will only have the effect of discouraging those who are in it for the money, and medicine will get along just fine without them. The simple fact is, there are plenty of physicians in Canada, including specialists.
There is a simple solution to excessive restriction by broadcasters of the presidential debates and such: change copyright law. Remember, copyright is not some sort of natural right - it is a privilege granted by legislation under a constitutional provision that explicitly gives as its purpose the public benefit. If broadcasters, political parties, and the like use copyright in a way that is against the public interest, let's take away the privilege.
What I suggest is that copyright law be amended to exempt certain categories of political speech. Perhaps the exemption should be broader, but for present purposes, let's say that copyright will not apply to any speech or writing (e.g. position paper) by a candidate for public office made during his or her campaign. The broadcasters and publishers will still cover these events - they will lose only residual royalties, which are hardly necessary to support their business.
If i had to chose it would be Obama... actually Dennis Kucinich is probably the only creditable one among them.
:)
I absolutely can not vote for Hillary. She is a political whore in ever sense of the phrase. Her arrogance is more important than her duty. She is a spineless weasel. Hillary Clinton is the female version of Joseph Lieberman. Like Lieberman, Hillary will do and say anything to remain in power. She also stands for nothing. She is the exact reason i hate politics. And it has nothing to do with "liberal" talk radio bullshit. I am a liberal progressive person... although more in a libertarian sense. But i am not a party follower of any party. Fuck political parties... All of them.
We're looking for Jesus, not the fucking New York Giants. In other words, I'm looking for a man or woman to do the job, for the people... i dont give a shit about the team. We need serious help.. and i do not beleive in Jesus
We're in trouble. Politics is a game and not a service to man. It is a corrupt system that caters to the ultra rich, that benefits no working man or women... or their children in todays society. We're all victoms and we have no power at all. VOTING is not a fucking power. It is a bullshit system and we all know it.
Obama... i dont think he'll do a dam thing. Being BLACK does not make him untouchable. He is a Black, so what. Many Black politicians are shitty people, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are just two that come to mind, but i'll gladly toss in Clarance Thomas, Charlie Rangal and Alan Keys as well.
BLACK means nothing. The fact that we look at Obama as a "BLACK" candidate.. is racist. He is a man and a politician which means he has access to powerful people willing to give him power and riches for favors...
He is just as curruptable... and i dont think he gives a shit about people anymore than the next.
If he is our best bet... so be it. I'll push the button, pull the lever... But really Dennis Kucinich is the real deal, as is Ralph Nader... both of which will never have a chance in this political system of ours because they are people who WILL make changes... and CHANGE that benefits the people... will never EVER be implemented when we have corporations and lobbiests in complete control of our two party system... which is not a 2 party system in theory... but in reality is kept a 2 party system by the powers that be....
There is no difference. I'm with George Carlin on this one. Let the fucking country burn... I'll watch and laugh because there are great people out there that could make this country for the better of man.... ALL MAN... but we're powerless and just too fucking dumb to know whats good for us. Nothing will change your morals and ethics like a big fat check in your hand.
Why don't you ask me if I'm a Jew next, APK?
+++ATH0
I missed the debate and want to watch it. My first stop was C-SPAN and was surprised that it was not archived there. After finding out it was NBC, I went to MSNBC website. But when I
try to 'view the video' I just get a screen that looks like some Flash based Windows Media Player and it does nothing. Buttons dont work or anything.
I tried it on a Windows box under Firefox and it didnt work either. Looks like some type of IE-only crap or some type of gymnastics are needed.
Thanks MSNBC. How about turn it over to some other people who can cater to a wider audience?
The Bush Administration has been one of the best examples (in a bad way) against the arguments of people like you who insist that all politicans "are the same" and it doesn't matter who gets to be in charge.
Under the electoral college I could have voted FOR Bush both times and the reuslt would have been the same. I'm not just talking about presidential elections where there is an entirely different set of factors that nullify your vote.
Let's put it this way... we've had the Democratic Party for about 200 years. The Republicans for about 150 years.
The result of that was George W. Bush.
Twice.
I'm glad I'm not going to be around to see where this puts us in another 150 years.
I'm not sure the country itself will be either...
I have to say that I agree with you that in the case of Bush and Gore there surely would have been some pretty big differences, some of which I think you nailed. These aren't the only important issues that an executive can impact, however. Most of your points are hypothetical reactions to events that couldn't have been foretold before the election, but what about the things we knew Bush/Gore would have to deal with? I'm sure they both would have supported the drug war, been pro big business, for tighter media control, tough on crime, etc. (all of which Gore displayed his support for during his vice-presidency, such as with NAFTA and Plan Columbia - despite his supposed care for the environment). Real social/economic issues, the staying issues that have been problems for decades if not centuries, is where there is little difference between the candidates. They may hike or lower taxes, but no president will ever introduce sweeping changes to change to class structures that fracture the US; furthermore no president will ever throw off the shackles of their corporate masters to truly do right for our country - their interests will always be above ours, as any politician would tell you.
Question: Did NBC pay the producers (political parties) and performers (candidates) for the rights to this content? Like they would have to do for an episode of "24" or an NFL game? I don't thinks so. If the candidates, or their sponsors signed a contract that effectively turns their 'product' over to the network, then they aren't the sort of people I'd want to run this country. They have reduced themselves to being no better than paid actors. But in this case, they aren't even getting paid. They are dumber than actors.
Have gnu, will travel.
George Bush accurately represents the American people. That's why it doesn't really matter who gets elected.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
1. After 9/11, Gore would have made some big talk in front of the U.N. about terrorist groups. But the U.N. would have done exactly what it did do: nothing. The terrorists would have seen us as unwilling to defend ourselves and would have made subsequent attacks on us.
So, you've got a direct connection to those terrorists? Are you one yourself?
2. The federal budget would be no more balanced than it is today
Under Clinton, by the end of his terms the budget deficit was almost paid off. Now under Bush Jr the USA has the biggest deficit it has ever had.
here would also likely be a socialized health care system, which would be modeled after Canada's. This would pretty much destroy any specialists in the U.S. as they would be paid a pittance and they'd move elsewhere.
Where would they go? Almost everyone has socialized medicine, including the US now.
4. There probably wouldn't be as many jails, period,
GOOD!!! As it is now the US has one of the highest people in prison per capita. And many of them are there for nonviolent drug offenses. Get rid of prohibition laws and prisons could emptied while still keeping people safe. As it is now violent criminals are let out early to make room for convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. Unfortunately neither Democrats now Republicans would do anything about this.
The only people who'd get jailed are corporate execs
WRONG!!! Many are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.
5. The Supreme Court would have a couple of special interest group apologist
HAHA! Like it's not now. This Court has even allowed states' rights to be trampled by the feds, without any basis in the USA Constitution.
6. The various federal agencies would have been populated with a bunch of incompetent bleeding-heart political tools. And there would be many more of them.
Another HAHA! Federal agencies now are populated incommpetent neo conservative hacks. Not only that but they also silence the scientists in the agencies. And if you're a US attorney and don't go after enough Democrats you're fired.
"They are the same" to the extent that they all do stupid things. It's only the extent of the damage and the exact methods employed that differ. It's a frying pan or the oven kind of comparison; neither are very appealing.
Agreed again!!! That's why I for the candidate not the party. I've voted for candidates that were Democrat, Green, Independents, Reform, and Republican. And yes, there is a difference between "independent" and Independent", independents are not affiliiated with a party whereas there is an Independent party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wow, that was impressive. Oh before I type more, I COMPLETELY agree.
We are not fighting some nation that is hell bent on destroying us, but rather unified ideas of hate from a multitude of angles. Now we can go out and eliminate every hateful body out there, but that requires massive resources and every hateful fire we stamp out only fuels much more. Eventually one of us will die out and end the fight with massive sacrifices to the other side. I think this is what we are currently doing and it is nothing but a prideful action that will in the long run hurt us more than doing nothing from the beginning.
I am not saying we should do nothing (far from it), but we really should look to other avenues to resolve this as the current one is horrible. We need to look at removing the hatred and forming alliances where both parties are dependent on each other for mutual benefits.
I agree with Afgan, but Iraq was clearly a mistake. Just look at the world, as you stated, we went from a nation that was lent the sorrowful feelings of nearly EVERY nation out there for 9/11, but today, most nations see us as the school yard bully who picks on anyone he feels like or worse an enemy that should either be avoided or confronted.
Clearly we did something wrong, and we should work on correcting that, because if we don't, our kids or grandkids will be fighting their own Al Qaedas.
The problem with your idea is you're working under the assumption that the presidents do what they choose, as opposed to the reality that presidents do what they are told by unelected power brokers and and power managers that the parties keep in place 100% of the time. You really think GW Bush, with his demonstrated ability to just barely put two words together correctly about half the time, is the intelligence manipulating things like the justifications offered to the public to go into Iraq? You think he can even understand the bills that can cross his desk? Don't be absurd. Mr. "I'm the decider" nuk-u-lar mental-mangler isn't running anything. He's being run. Cheny is another matter - he's intelligent enough, but he's still a puppet. Whoever the party decides to put in there (and they do decide - your choices are limited to those the parties choose for you to choose from, and even in the end, the electoral college will choose the winner, not your vote) that person is well aware that they'll be following the cues given to them like a well planned script. This isn't a democracy; it is a mutated republic with an ultra-powerful upper class whose primary concern is the welfare of the corporate citizens. It is so far from reacting to citizen input that it is almost incomprehensible. Which in turn is why you don't understand it.
Right now, there is exactly one presidential candidate that stands out as really backing a lot of the ideas we, as citizens, hold dear. That is Texan Ron Paul, and the one thing you can just about count on as a certainty is that he will not be made president. But should the unthinkable happen, the other thing you can count on is that he will have caved in and accepted oversight. He'll do what he is told.
Here is an outline of the simplest multi-party general deception these politicians use: Politician A, in power, does something citizens won't like. Politician B, after the fact, claims something along the lines of "I wouldn't have done that!", Politician B, for whatever reason, gets into power. He is now A, and the loop begins again. Also - should B make campaign promises, they won't be kept. Clinton didn't help the gays. Bush didn't keep taxes down. No one has protected our liberties. No politician will make any difference at all. The system is flat out "busted." As a citizen, your rights are gone. In fact, of the Bill of rights, only amendment 3 remains untrampled. The only reason for that, though, is because they don't need it - the military is fully capable of handling its own lodging.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm not saying that the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake, because I think it was fully warranted due to the Taliban's refusal to turn over Bin Laden.
I've pretty much agreed with you until I got to this. Something had to be done to the Taliban because they are Taliban not because they refused to hand over bin Laden, which they did not do. In fact the Taliban asked to see any evidence bin Laden had anything to do with 911, which is the correct thing to do. The thing is is Bush actually supported the Taliban at one tyme, he gave them more than $40,000,000 of US taxpayer money. By the logic above, either hand over a suspect without seeing any evidence or being invaded then Venezuela should be able to invade the USA, because the USA is shielding suspected Cuban terrorists Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carilles who are accused blowing up Cubana Flight 455.
FalconShould there be a Law?
For a second I thought you were comparing politics to Minnesota. It was quite confused. "Politicians like ketchup too much too?" "They go fishing?"
I think this is also because its easier to find something you agree with. The internet greatly facilitates groupthink. You have 100% choice of what POV you want to hear online, which is something we're never had before. You can see it happening on cable news too, to a smaller extent since you have 3 or 4 real choices, and not the hundred thousand or so you have online. How many lefties watch Fox, and how many cons watch CNN or MSNBC? How many registered Republicans are getting their political news from Dailykos?
You typical blog is a news story ripped from a primary news gatherer, then layered with political commentary.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Who'd've thought that a member of the "party of Reagan" would preside over the largest budget increase in history?
Actually Reagan presided over a big budget increase and blooming deficit. It was only at the end of Clinton's terms that the deficit was almost eliminated.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As far as the Taliban not turning over Bin Laden, I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, it does seem reasonable to ask for evidence, but given the disreputable source I'd say it wasn't a careful, honest attention to legal detail as much as it was an attempt to stall us to allow Bin Laden to flee the country. Not to mention that even they must have realized that openly and brazenly defending Bin Laden would have only quickened their deaths because it would have turned the entire civilized world against them.
That's a very interesting point. I don't know much about these men, and am under considerable time constraints with the end of semester approaching, so I'm afraid I won't be able to research it and give you a well thought out answer.There's only 2 parties in the US and both of them already have their flock of sheep that will vote for them.
Just because only two political parties get most of the press in the US does not mean there aren't others. There are a bunch of other parties. At one tyme I was depotized to register people to vote. We were given a list of parties a person could register for and there were 57 parties on the list. I myself have voted for candidates from 5 political parties as well as independent candidates.
FalconShould there be a Law?
My advice; Ignore their rules. They obviously violate fair use, a dead monkey could prove it in court, and they can't make you sign away your rights before getting the content because this is going out on broadcast TV.
I think this is just a brilliant marketing strategy: NBC claims "lol u cant broadcast unless under these terms" people cry foul, rip on NBC for its idiocy, and as a result more people watch the NBC broadcast of the debates and NBC, at the last minute, retracts its draconian fair use terms, and gains a large extra viewership. In Summary: 1. Set draconian re-broadcast terms 2. People get upset & complain 3. (More) People watch the broadcast 4. Retract those terms right after the broadcast 4. ???? 5. PROFIT!
About 25% give or take of eligible voters voted for either candidate. That works out to about 50M people.
That's not even 20% of the "American people".
I wonder what the 80% think?
My point was to (apparently poorly) illustrate out the silliness of the AC parent's complaint that 'his vote didnt matter because someone else won the state.' You can make the same argument for any election if your candidate doesn't win, but that is not a valid reason not to vote.
K. What I tell many who say they don't vote is that if they don't vote then they have no reason to complain. Simply if they aren't voting then they should have no expectation of change other than reductions in their freedom or other things they don't like. Also more than likely if they don't vote then they never contact their elected officials, for which again they shoudn't expect anything. I first voted in 1980 and with two exeptions I've voted in every presidential election. The first was in 1996 when I was living in a rehab house after a bad accident, and though I don't recall who it was I had planned on voting for the candidate from the Libertarian Party. The second was in 2004, I had moved before the election but didn't change my registration before election day. Then I fully supported Michael Badnarik.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Our lack of an "open multi-party system" in the U.S. is due to the horrid Plurality voting system that we (and most other countries) use for national elections. IRV single-winner -- which is foolishly used in a few (foreign) national elections and a few lower-level elections here and abroad -- is not much better. It encourages speculative, dishonest, strategic voting. Its only dubious distinction (compared to plurality voting) is that it allows voters to provide more (potentially dishonest) information about their preferences.
Range Voting is a very nice alternative. Condorcet is another possibility; while not quite as good as Range Voting, it is vastly superior to Plurality and IRV, and it can use the same ballots as IRV. Its main drawbacks are its complexity, and its few flaws that stand out when compared to the arguably ideal Range Voting system.
No, I wouldn't.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
1) The title IS written, and should therefore be in written English. Nobody would have complained if the statement were made aloud. 2) The author of the title established that NBC is singular by using the verb "believes." He could say "NBC believe they are ..." or he could say "NBC believes it is." In either case, the usage could be defended. He cannot, however, use a combination of the two which switches NBC from a singular entity to a plural one in a matter of one word. "They believe" or "it believes." In other words, the original commenter was quite correct. The author of that article needs to go back to ... oh, I think about sixth grade.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry? Personally I won't give Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporate media illuminati club that much fnord credit.
No, but I believe a long-term pattern of voting for the lesser of two evils got us here.
It isn't that who is president doesn't make a difference in the short-run... of course it does. It's just that over time we have successfully gotten gotten worse and worse and worse on average.
Culminating with George W. Bush.
Twice.
Need I say more?
HONESTLY, who really gives a shit if #74642 is male/female liar/saint? If #74642 wants to be both, why not let them have their fun? You'll be happier if you just get on with your life and worry about more important things than flamewars on slashdot.
You and Kerry can go fuck your mothers, shit stain. Another spinless piece of pig shit, you are.
Does this mean they are a "for profit" entity and only report (and control the dissemination of)that which will earn them a buck? Say it ain't so! I thought the news was profit-neutral! (NOT!)
Your problem is a lack of knowledge of international political systems. I would suggest a few areas for study.
Proportional Representation (Used in at least one legislative house by the majority of democracies.): It increases voter choice and removes many of those wasted votes that fail to elect the voters choice of representative - to the legislature. Also eliminates the gerrymandering that effectively dis-enfranchises many voters.
Reduce the power of the Supreme Court or make it more responsive to the voters representatives. This would bring the power of our voters elected representatives to a level comparable with most other nations.
Majority election of our Senate. Our current system reduces the power of the majority of the voters.
Personally, for reasons that haven't mentioned, I would classify our U.S, "democracy" as closer to Iran's form of government than Sweden's or Brazil's.
Great Quote from 1927
"Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
SOURCE: American Parties and Elections,
by Edward Sait, Published 1927 (Page 174)
You've been very useful Jarrett!
(and why bother ask you what you stated? You evaded that question you now want others to ask you, constantly along with what you have accomplished in computer sciences in publication in this field in print! You never gave us here a simple yes, or no, from yourself in regard to any of those questions, when you were asked it. Why should anyone ask you a question you have evaded to no end here?)
However, now you have been truly useful & instrumental in helping determine some things for an ongoing matter regarding internet stalking and harassment arstechnicans are directing apk's way since 2001-2002 to today, presently.
"I think it's HILARIOUS to harass YOU online. Just you. Only you." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Friday March 30, @12:21AM (#18539431)
Stalking apk, as you have here at slashdot and also at techpowerup.com:
JTD = Jarrett DeAngelis = starkruzr.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/search.php?s=6b0dd96 98b1626d665c836c568235767&searchid=588020
This all makes sense now and provides yet more continued proof you and your arstechnica friends are stalking apk online. Bad move. Still, do take a look at this before you keep it up:
What Is Cyberstalking?
The term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property.
Since you are student at Notre Dame, in South Bend Indiana, this applies:
Indiana
IC 35-45-2-2
Sec. 2. (a) A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication.
Since you are from Staten Island N.Y. originally, this applies:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05376 [state.ny.us]
BILL NUMBER: A5376 TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the penal law, in
relation to cyberstalking on a computer network in the first degree
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : Creates the crime of cyberstalking
making it a class E felony.
Your friend Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little were already caught in email harassment and libel (as well as being kicked from their hosting providers for their websites for death threats saying "APK MUST DIE" etc.) AND FALSELY IMPERSONATING APK ON THEIR WEBSITES (both arstechnica and Jeremy Reimer's OSY forums) and that much per the windowsitpro magazine thread here evidences that easily:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=193#feedbackAnchor
Between the techpowerup connection to yourself and your posts here about apk (when he never posted anything about yourself here no less even once prior to you ever doing so about he first, and not even after afaik) and the arstechnica forums members harassing him at windowsitpro.com, 2cpu.com, ntcompatible.com, majorgeeks.com, 3dfiles.com, and more since 2001 or thereabouts, especially now that you are definitely connected with Jeremy Reimer per your own words here at slashdot, and Jay Little via arstechnica as well (which you are and admitted to it here on slashdot) you are part of this all now.
Additionally, your personal honesty and ethics are in question here (not your motivations though at this point) and you will not help your friends on that account either since you stated you were a woman, and when caught, a man.
"YOU were the one who originally suggested I might be female, I just went alo
Sec. 2. (a) A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication
6 98b1626d665c836c568235767&searchid=588020
I've stopped commenting back to you repeatedly and you've kept it up over and over.
Good thing for you I don't intend to press charges, Tinkerbell.
JTD = Jarrett DeAngelis = starkruzr.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/search.php?s=6b0dd9
That link doesn't work. Yet another failure from the magnificent APK. And what the hell is Spoke.com?
Neither of my two Slashdot comments count as "cyberstalking." Why don't you marshal your army of interweb lawyers (much like you did with Jeremy) and then get back to me?
(Just so you know -- you'd have to STOP COMMUNICATION, and I would have to initiate it again, sending you threatening/harassing messages, repeatedly, over and over and over, in order for it to count. But, you know. Ask your lawyers, none of whom, I am certain, will be JEWS -- does the word send shivers down your spine, APK? -- and then let me know.)
Poor Alex. Caught in the grip of his paranoid delusions. It's okay, sweetie. Just take a deep breath.
+++ATH0
>And I'm no english major, either.
Thanks for pointing that out to us. Had it been otherwise, I would have advised that you consider another.
>living in the wretched shadow of the Nathan Bedford Forrest memorial
I take it that you're homeless?
He speaks truth.
Bill Maher had a good rant on this a few weeks ago. (I saw it on salon.com, if you don't have HBO.) Basically the characterization of opponents as "New York|East Coast|West Coast|Jewish|whatever elites" as out of touch with the "common man" has morphed into a general celebration of ignorance and incompetence and vilification of education and skill. N.B., I'm not saying the "non-elites" are ignorant or incompetent! Far from it! But the "I don't know that either, and I don't care!" routine went too far.
We've now reached the obscene nadir where people who have been proved wrong on every. single. thing. they said about Iraq are the considered (by everyone inside the beltway) to be the only ones with the gravitis to get us out of the cluster**** they got us into, while the people who have been proven right are flyweights who don't understand how things work in the real world.
Others have said that the origin may rest with the lazy reporters being manipulated by people exploiting their desire to present a "balanced" view, instead of critically analyzing the information and presenting it to the readers/viewers. Now most seem to think it's what they're supposed to do, so they have to find "balance" instead of admitting the obvious fact that Bush was way out of his league and shouldn't be president of the local school board, much less the US.
(P.S., the network that 'presents the fact and lets you decide'? A few months ago the results of an interesting survey hit the blogs. IIRC, 84% of registered Republicans voted for Bush in 2004. (Among those who voted, etc.) Among Fox viewers, that statistic hit 89%! It was the only group more likely to vote for Bush than registered Republicans! Earlier surveys showed Fox-only viewers were still far more uninformed about basic facts, e.g., whether there was any connection between ObL and Saddam Hussein or whether WMD were found in Iraq, than any other group. This was -after- Bush admitted these facts! Ignore what the critics say -- how 'balanced' could that network be with these results?)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I believe Condorcet to be superior to IRV in almost every way. The only advantage IRV has over it is that it is "easy" to count. Well, the current plurality system is "easy" too...I don't think that is necessarily the best criterion to judge a voting system on.
The biggest problem of the current system is that it can elect a person with only a minority claim to support. In theory, he could be the person that the majority absolutely despise. Is that who we want in office, the most despicable? Any preferential system will help evaluate this better--right now it's impossible to know if third parties really "steal" from the two "front runners" or not.
However, the biggest problem that IRV has is that contenders for the "true concensus position" can be eliminated in an early round. Say Leftie has 45% and Rightie has 44%, and Centron has the remaining 11%. IRV would eliminate Centron right off...but it is pretty clear that supporters of both Leftie and Rightie would likely prefer that Centron would win instead of the "other guy". If there were a head-to-head race with Centron vs either of the others, Centron would win! On this basis, Centron ought to win as he is the "most agreeable" candidate to a true majority of voters. It's a seeming paradox that someone can be the favorite candidate of a minority yet the most agreeable to the largest majority, but it may be so!
This is where Condorcet shows its superiority. You count all preferences simultaneously, not sequentially. When IRV eliminates a person in a round, it is effectively throwing away part of your vote! How can it be accurate when your full vote isn't counted?
Constitutionally Correct
I want to congratutate you on your concise and to the point manner of speachisms. It is people like you practicing your love of grammar throughout this great nation that make our nation holier-than-thou. Never one to mix metaphors and drive, I want to further confabulate you on your most excellent selection of words and imagery, for like you, I have always believed that expletives and profanity are the last batallion of inarticulated mother-fuckers.
Oh, really? Techpowerup.com and "JTD" ring a bell? How about your two attacks on apk here, and you started them (all of this is below, and the links work)!
That was three years ago, you silly ass.
You look like a nerdy 98 lb. weakling to be blunt and honest about it from your pictures.
Irony.
On how the registry itself, works, and it is NOT 'static/unchanging' once loaded into RAM
Static doesn't mean unchanging in this context, APK. I had a feeling you wouldn't know that, though. Do you know what a log file system is? It only grows, it doesn't shrink. This is similar to the way the registry data structure works. Additional memory is allocated for changes to it, but the data structure doesn't change -- pointers are added to new data until the changes are written back to disk, and then all of the changes are added together into the registry file.
If I stopped replying to you (again, for a fifth time), would you stop replying to my comments? I doubt it. Because you just can't help yourself. Most people would call this level of obsession a crush, but sorry, pal -- I'm taken.
Would it surprise you that apk is part jew himself, quite possibly?
Hahahahahahahaha, NOT AT ALL! Wow. That's beautiful.
L'chaim, Alex.
+++ATH0
whatever.
Your question was not if we should rewrite the constitution to produce a more representative and responsive government. It was about the power of the individual voter to influence the government. And in that regard you only have to look as far as Florida and Ohio to see how powerful a handful of individual voters can be, even in the existing system. The gerrymandering and mayhem in those elections is a side issue- another x thousand votes either way would have made a big difference and obviated the need for the SCOTUS to get involved. (IMO, that they appointed the winning candidate directly along party lines was the saddest and most dire part of that mess)
In addition I don't have the experience to positively stand behind a comparitive statement covering all democratic or near-democratic systems in the world today. I'm as well informed as the next, but it's not my field and to make a categorical statement like you were asking would be impossible to defend.
I too would suggest a few areas for study to help you on your crusade (yay single transferable voting systems). Namely Part II ch. 2 and 4 of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It's gold.
over and out.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
So did you vote in the 2000 election? How about the 2004 election?
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
If either of those assclowns had won, we'd all be sticking our asses in the air five times a day, bowing toward Mecca.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Place the blame where it belongs - fix the voting system. One ought to be able to vote for ones ideals without turning the result to the exact opposite. A proper voting system would do that. The problem is (as has been noted in this thread already) that the incumbent Duopoly has no intention to reform a system that benefits them. Just don't blame people for voting honestly - that's just ridiculous.
Constitutionally Correct
Ok, I was concerned (one might say, panicked) about this perceived attack on my ability to hear the bull crap that comes from either our Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Turns out C-SPAN has it, it's just NBC's footage that's restricted, I think.
Phew. (for small favors)
And if you really want to blame someone for the class disparity in America, blame the Chicago School economists that support "supply side" economics (aka "trickle down" economics or Reganomics) which has wrecked nations all over the world. Right now, there is exactly one presidential candidate that stands out as really backing a lot of the ideas we, as citizens, hold dear. That is Texan Ron Paul Ron Paul is exactly who we don't need. You seem to be concerned about income inequality in America, but Ron Paul promotes Gilded Age-economic polices (aka "supply side") which is basically redistributing income form the poor to the rich. All taxes except progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes screw poor people. Ron Paul wants to eliminate those taxes and shift the tax burden entirely to poor people. He also approves of debtor's prisons for the poor people screwed by his policies. Basically, he's pro-slavery and wants slaves. Like most Republicans. That's the main reason he's so anti-immigrant (more specifically, anti-Latin immigrant). Illegal Latin immigrants are uneducated, work in unsafe conditions, receive no government services, are heavily taxed, and are paid a pittance. Ron Paul wants to make ALL Americans (except him and and buddies) like this. Or it might be simple racism. His candidacy has been endorsed by numerous white power groups. He has ties to the White Citizen's Council. And he IS a Republican, so it's not like voting for him will break the two party system. Looking at his record, he seems to be to be a typical conservative Republican, with a bit of a libertarian and racist bent.
He does support civil liberties (he's for drug decriminalization for example), but he seems to be pretty selective on what civil liberties he's willing to support.
He is an improvement over the guy who replaced him though: Tom Delay, the most corrupt politician in modern history. Clinton didn't help the gays. Clinton DID help gays in any number of ways. Hate crime legislation, AIDS spending and awareness, and most importantly government money for education (sex education, help for teenagers, etc.) Ron Paul actually wants homosexuality to be illegal. Oh, and he's pro-life so he hates women too.
Ron Paul hates gays, women, non-whites, and poor people. He's a great candidate if you're in the Klansman that wants to live on the street.